Umatilla and Willow Creek Basin Assessment for Shrub Steppe, Grasslands, and

Riparian Wildlife Habitats

EPA Regional Geographic InitiativeFinal Report

September 2000

James S. KaganOregon Natural Heritage Program

821 SE 14th Ave., Portland, OR 97214

Russ MorganOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

P.O. Box 360, Heppner, OR 97836

and

Kevin BlakelyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Route 1, Box 18, Mission Road, Pendleton, OR 97801

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Project goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Project area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Figure 1. Map of Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter 2. Project Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Part 1: Accumulate, develop or aggregate a number of data layers . . . . 3Part 2: Assess losses and potential biodiversity needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Part 3: Develop a Conservation Strategy for the lower Umatilla Basin . . 4Part 4: Test methods and begin restoration of key targets . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Analysis of Habitat Changes in the Umatilla Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Analysis of Ownership and Stewardship in the Umatilla Basin . . . . . . . . 7Land Ownership Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Using Threatened and Endangered Species to identify areas . . . . . . . . . 12Using Targeted Wildlife Species to identify conservation areas . . . . . . . 13Critical Threats and Stressors in the Umatilla Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Future Conditions Based on Conservation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 4. Lower Umatilla Basin Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . 18Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Primary Basin-Wide Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Basin Wide Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figures and Tables

Table 1. Areas lost in Umatilla Basin by habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 2. Acreage of Umatilla Basin habitats in protected areas . . . . . . . 9Table 3. Acreage of vegetation types by ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 4. Percentages of vegetation types by ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 1. Map of Umatilla Basin shrub-steppe project area . . . . . . . . . . . 2Figure 2. Land ownership and stewardship patterns in study area . . . . . 8Figure 3. Potential Conservation Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix A. Maps of Key ElementsExisting Vegetation; Historic Vegetation; Locations of Astragalus collinus var.laurentii; Habitat for: burrowing owl, ferruginus hawk, grasshopper sparrow,loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, sage sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, Washingtonground squirrel, white-tailed jackrabbit, Great-basin spadefoot, sagebrush lizard,short-horned lizard

1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

As part of its Umatilla Regional Geographic Initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency hasfunded a multi-year, multi-agency project to identify the important wildlife and biodiversity habitatsin the Umatilla Basin and assist in the protection and restoration of the most important of these.

Background

Risks to the ecological health of the Columbia Basin Watershed have been highlightedrecently by the serious declines in anadromous fish and significant forest health problems. The U.S.Forest Service and the BLM have undertaken a major assessment of the Columbia River Basin in anattempt to improve management on public lands in the Watershed. However, key lands both for theprotection of biological diversity and reduction of ecological risks are in private ownership. Largeand small corporate and individual private interests control the majority of land and water in thelower elevations of the Watershed, including the riparian vegetation along the major tributaries. While these lands may be key to solving many of the ecological problems in the Watershed, they arebeyond the scope of the USFS and BLM's mandate and authority.

The Columbia Basin Ecoregion, including the proposed project area, is known for its rollingterrain and sagebrush steppe and palouse grassland vegetation. This ecoregion has undergoneextensive changes over the last 150 years, with most (over 85 percent) of the former sagebrushsteppe, palouse grassland, and riparian communities being converted to dry land wheat, irrigatedagriculture, and sites dominated by exotic species. As a result, the streams and rivers of the Basin,which formerly supported one of the largest anadromous fisheries in the world, have beensignificantly impacted by dams – preventing fish passage and flooding aquatic habitats, and bywater withdrawals for agricultural purposes. Terrestrial ecosystems have undergone similarchanges, which have resulted in loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and reduction in the quality ofhabitats for a number of species. In addition, the continued introduction of new non-native speciesthreatens the remaining native vegetation in the Basin. Growing threats to natural systems in theColumbia River Watershed are indicative of, and will have impacts on the human communities inthe Watershed. Competition for surface and ground water, non-native species, and forest healthissues are increasing concerns for the future economic health of this region.

Project Goals

As a result of these concerns, the Regional Geographic Initiative of the Umatilla Basinfunded a cooperative effort between the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and theOregon Natural Heritage Program (ORNHP) to identify the most important areas for wildlife andbiodiversity in the Umatilla Basin. This report is an attempt to identify those areas, and to developstrategies to protect them.

2

Project Area

The Umatilla Basin Regional Geographic Initiative boundary has not been clearly defined,but has generally included the entire Umatilla and Willow Creek Basins. It also includes the Oregonportions of the Walla-Walla River Basin. Together, these basins include most of Umatilla andMorrow Counties, and therefore planning efforts are consistent with those of the Umatilla BasinWatershed Council (which has adopted the Willow Creek Watershed).

For the biodiversity and shrub steppe project outlined here, the study area has been changed to include the Umatilla, Morrow, Gilliam and Wheeler County portions of Columbia BasinEcoregion, as defined EPA and by the State of Oregon in both the Oregon Natural Heritage Plan andthe Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan. The ecoregional boundary is almost exactly the same as theline developed by both the Omernik (1986) and Bailey (McNab and Avers 1994) teams, basedlargely on the interface between forested habitats and bunchgrass – shrub steppe habitats. Itexcludes the upper watershed areas, because most of these lands are managed by the U.S. ForestService, which is working on strategies to protect habitat, wildlife and biodiversity. The focus ofthis project is the lower elevation, riparian, grassland, and shrub steppe habitats which in theUmatilla Basin are found almost entirely on private lands. A map showing the study area isincluded below as Figure 1.

Figure 1. Map of Umatilla Basin Shrub-Steppe project area

3

Chapter 2. Project Methods

To identify the important areas in which to focus biodiversity protection efforts, the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Natural Heritage Program cooperated to 1) maphabitat and wildlife distributions, 2) develop an assessment, 3) write a conservation plan, and 4) totest mechanisms for restoration and protection of critical wildlife habitat in the Umatilla and WillowCreek Basins. A summary of the work plan developed for this project is listed below. It has beenmodified based on what work was possible and which data turned out to be fairly useful in the basinassessment.

Part 1: Accumulate, develop or aggregate a number of data layers

To allow for an assessment of the study area in the Umatilla and Willow Creek Basins, theinitial work included the development of the following data layers:

a) existing vegetationb) historic vegetation c) potential natural vegetation/biophysical environmentsd) general GAP analysis species distributions for all wildlifee) minimum area assessments and wildlife habitat relationships for target wildlife speciesf) detailed wildlife species distributions for target wildlife speciesg) rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animal species distributionsh) fish species distributions (for target fish: bull trout, steelhead and redband)i) land management and ownership data layerj) exotic (noxious weed) species distributionsk) riparian habitat, stream and river information

Detailed maps of these covers, information on how they were developed, metadata, and thelocation of electronic copies are included in Appendix 1. This information was developed to allowfor the assessment of wildlife and their habitat in the study area. All the GIS coverages weredeveloped by and are available from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. The wildlifeinformation was primarily developed by ODFW staff from Umatilla and Morrow Counties. Thebaseline vegetation data and other information came from a number of sources including the GapAnalysis program and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Part 2: Assess losses and potential biodiversity needs

a) Detail losses to date (historic to present) for both species and their habitats in the basin. b) Examine how well existing public and protected lands protect target wildlife and biodiversity.c) Using the target wildlife species and threatened and endangered species, identify priorityhabitats needing protection or restoration, and assure priority sites meet the species’ needs.d) Describe critical threats and stressors (i.e. weeds and erosion) from a geographic, species andhabitat perspective.e) Assess future conditions for biodiversity based on three potential conservation alternatives.

4

For each alternative, develop an assessment of biodiversity losses (or what species will persistover time) based on the target species and priority habitats. At this time, the three conditionsare: 1) maximum (realistic) economic development, 2) no change from current uses anddevelopment patterns and 3) maximum feasible conservation.

Part 3: Develop a Conservation Strategy for the lower Umatilla Basin

a) Set biodiversity conservation targets for key protection areas.b) Look at contributions of all public lands and develop the best strategy for use of these lands.c) Look at acquisition and voluntary protection incentives for important private lands. See

what can be done on a voluntary basis, particularly on farmlands and rangelands.d) Develop a set of alternatives for stream and river restoration to assure corridors for fish and

wildlife, maximize native fish populations and create long-term viability for anadromousfish and the riparian habitats they need. This would include an effort to establish grazingregimes which limit impacts on riparian and upland plant communities. It might alsoinvolve outlining methods to restore riparian bottomlands without eliminating allbottomland irrigated pasture, including potential economic alternatives to bottomlandfarming.

Part 4: Test methods and begin restoration and protection of key habitats

a) Obtain landowner agreements including conservation easements, management agreements,registration or dedication agreements.

b) Protect and restore habitat through fencing, altering grazing patterns, controlling exoticspecies, and replanting of native species.

c) Develop local restoration effectiveness measures, based on before and after sampling ofareas restored with different techniques.

d) Restore corridors between the largest intact habitat remnant in the Columbia Basin (theBoardman Bombing Range) and the significant remnants surrounding this area.

This report outlines the first three parts of the work plan. It is basically an abbreviated ConservationStrategy developed for the study area. Part 4, the development of methods and the restoration of keyhabitats, is currently underway. In addition to the work outlined here, the U.S. Forest Service andother members of the Umatilla Regional Geographic Initiative continue to work in the forested areasof the basin outside (above and upstream of) our shrub-steppe (ecoregionally defined) study area. Eventually, we hope to integrate all information from the watersheds.

5

Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of Habitat Changes in the Umatilla Basin

Presettlement Vegetation The most notable difference between the landscape in the study area now and in the 1850s is

the conversion of the native prairie to farmland. The large, forested riparian areas along theUmatilla River have largely disappeared. However, the most interesting change is the current lackof water in many areas where the original General Land Office (GLO) surveyors reported abundantsprings and small creeks. These were recorded on a township basis, and the differences are striking,particularly in the central portions of the basin between Ione and Heppner. These areas now lacksprings entirely.

Habitat Loss Assessment Assessment of habitat loss was based on a comparison of original vegetation types seen by

the surveyors in the nineteenth century and the current vegetation as mapped in this project. Tocompare these covers, it was necessary to crosswalk the classifications. The presettlement coverincludes the following types:

GrasslandsBluebunch WheatgrassIdaho fescueNeedle-&-thread grasslandsPrickly pear grasslandsTufted hairgrass wet prairie

Shrublands Big Sagebrush steppe Bitterbrush steppe Rigid sage & bluegrass scablands

Woodlands and ForestsAspenJuniperRiparian forests & shrublands

Based on the analysis, two types have been entirely eliminated from the Umatilla Basin overthe last 150 years. Both are types only described by the early surveyors from the Walla-WallaValley in the basin: aspen forests and wet prairie (presumably tufted hairgrass and sedge)grasslands. The only similar wet prairie remnants found anywhere in eastern Oregon are rareoccurrences in the Grand Ronde valley. Clearly, these were an important part of the presettlementlandscape. Apparently in the valley floor by Hermiston, the wet prairies were mixed with aspenbottomland forests and wetlands. All of these bottomland forests and wetlands have been replacedby irrigated agriculture and rural residential development.

For the remainder of the comparisons, presettlement vegetation types were aggregated intosimilar types. All of the remaining sandy grasslands in the Umatilla Basin have been mapped asneedle-and-thread grasslands. These actually represent a mosaic of three native plant communities(Stipa comata-Poa secunda, Agropyron dasystachyum-Stipa comata, and Stipa comata-Agropyronspicatum) and the introduced cheatgrass-dominated grasslands. In the presettlement landscape,grasslands were described by surveyors as sandy grasslands and as prickly pear grasslands. Toevaluate losses, both sandy and prickly pear grasslands were combined to make another, similarsandy grassland category. Similarly, the various sagebrush types, both in the presettlement and

6

current landscape have also been combined to evaluate losses. Table 1, below, summarizes thelosses of each habitat, in square kilometers.

Table 1. Area lost in the Umatilla Basin, by habitat Cover Existing km2 Historic km2 Losses km2 % Habitat Lost Bitterbrush Shrub Steppe 176.2 393.1 216.9 55 % Quaking Aspen 0 3.1 3.1 100 % Big Sagebrush Steppe 174.6 1226.0 1051.4 86 % Bluebunch Wheatgrass 3730.4 6708.4 2978.0 44 % Bluegrass / Rigid Sage Scabland 501.9 1086.0 584.1 54 % Riparian 44.6 330.3 285.7 87 % Idaho Fescue 1324.7 1723.6 398.9 23 % Western Juniper 0 73.0 73.0 100 % Tufted Hairgrass Wet Prairie 0 11.7 11.7 100 % Sandy Grassland 346.5 721.3 374.8 52 %

There are three types that are not mapped on the existing vegetation map, and therefore show

losses of 100%: Juniper, Wet Prairie and Aspen. Both Wet Prairies and Aspen habitats were onlyrecorded in the Walla Walla valley bottom north of Milton-Freewater. The entire valley is nowfarmed, and the prairie and aspen wetlands that dominated this valley bottom are indeed gone. Juniper was mapped in the presettlement vegetation cover, but not in the existing cover, and isdiscussed below.

Western juniper and western juniper/sagebrush are two types included in the presettlementvegetation cover, but did not appear on the existing vegetation cover. Juniper has declined in theUmatilla Basin with important impacts for wildlife. However, the declines reported in the table areentirely a result of our inability to map current juniper habitat using satellite imagery. Juniper hasalways occurred sparsely in the western portions of the Umatilla Basin, and is still present in patchesin many of the areas in which it was first seen by European settlers. These sparse juniper standsprovide important nesting habitat for many of the raptors and other birds that feed in thesurrounding grasslands and shrublands. Irrigated agriculture has led to clearing half to two-thirds ofthese stands (Gregg Green, personal communication), although important stands remain on theBoardman Bombing Range, and in some of the canyons to the west. The decline of older junipers isreal, but is confused by the widespread increase of young junipers into grasslands and sagebrushhabitats in central Oregon (Driscoll 1964). Young junipers are expanding into the Columbia Basinregion in Sherman and Wasco Counties, but have not expanded their range in the study area. Protection of the remaining large, old junipers, especially in the northern end of the basin, must be apriority for wildlife.

The greatest percentage losses are in the Riparian communities. These BottomlandHardwood and willow communities show losses of 87 percent, and are clearly underestimated. Only the largest riparian bottomland areas were reported by the GLO surveyors and included in themap. Many thousands of acres dominated by willows with scattered alder and cottonwood were not

7

reported, and therefore the 87 percent loss indication has been significantly underestimated. Actuallosses are probably greater than 95 percent.

Big sagebrush steppe is the other type that shows large losses at just over 85 percent. Mostof this habitat also occurred in the northern end of the basin, on deeper, loess soils which are nowfarmed. The losses in this type match those of the most vulnerable wildlife species remaining in thebasin.

Major losses show up in the vegetation found in the sandy areas in the northern end of thebasin. These include the sandy grasslands (at 52 percent losses) and the bitterbrush shrub steppe (at55 percent). Both of these habitats have declined primarily as a result of irrigated agriculture orindustrial development. In addition, the remaining large blocks of these habitats are found at theUmatilla Army Depot or the Boeing Lease Lands, both areas with significant threats.

The declines in rigid sagebrush - bluegrass scablands are a result of two large areas whichwere described as barren by the 1850 surveyors being included in this class. These barrens whichwere probably dominated by Sandberg bluegrass and annual forbs, have been converted toagricultural or industrial lands. There have been no significant declines in rigid sagebrush andSandberg bluegrass scablands.

The widespread grassland types include the bluebunch wheatgrass and the Idaho fescueprairies, the most widespread types in the basin. These types tend to occur on the deep loess soilswhich characterize much of the Umatilla Basin and are the backbone dryland wheat agriculture. Bluebunch wheatgrass prairies have declined just over 44 percent. While these losses seem lowerthan expected, this was the most widespread vegetation type in the presettlement landscape. Thelosses represent over 735,000 acres of this type which have been converted to agriculture in thebasin. The Idaho fescue prairies are higher and occur on steeper slopes, and have only declinedabout 23 percent. All of the native grasslands which have not been farmed are currently threatenedby introduced, exotic plants.

Analysis of Ownership and Stewardship in the Umatilla Basin

A map showing the protected areas in the Umatilla Basin is included below as Figure 2.A full color version of this map showing details of the areas is included in Appendix 1. Theanalysis of protected areas are shown in the two tables below the map. The analysis was based onthe using the land ownership and stewardship cover developed for the Gap Analysis Program(GAP). It relies on a classification of individual tracts of 1-4, based on the management ongoing atthe site. Definitions of each of these categories are found on the next page. For the purposes of thisanalysis, categories 1 and 2 were considered protected, while categories 3 and 4 were not.

8

Figure 2. Land Ownership and Stewardship Patterns in the Umatilla Basin study area

The table below (Table 2) shows how many hectares of each of the vegetation types arefound in each of the four GAP protected area designations. These are defined as: 1 = protectedprimarily for biodiversity and wildlife (i.e. Research Natural Areas, Preserves), 2 = protected forspecific wildlife species or other values, but with some wildlife and biodiversity management (i.e.Wildlife Management Areas, State Parks), 3 = general, multi-purpose natural resource lands withconsideration of wildlife (public or Tribal lands), and 4 = lands managed without biodiversity orwildlife consideration (private lands).

These 1 through 4 categorizations are provided to assist in the analysis of how well habitatsand species have been conserved. The actual protection depends on many factors other than themanagement intent of the land owner or manager. The size of an area can be critical to themaintenance of natural ecosystem processes, such as fire. Some small BLM tracts or NatureConservancy reserves may not be large enough to provide any natural function. However, in thisstudy area, land conversion to agriculture has been by far the greatest threat, and even moderatelysized remnants have been important for maintaining some local wildlife populations.

9

Table 2. Amount of each Umatilla Basin habitat types (in hectares and by percentage) in eachof the GAP protected area designations.

Cover 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % Big Sage/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 20 0 50 0 3,723 32 7,733 67 Big Sage/Idaho Fescue 4 0 67 1 10 0 5,819 99 Big Sagebrush Steppe 24 0 119 1 3,737 21 13,556 78 Bitterbrush Shrub Steppe 1,026 6 3,484 20 3,496 20 9,583 54 Bluebunch Wheatgrass 319 0 1,399 0 25,007 7 345,910 93 Forest 36 0 60 1 168 2 7,523 97 Hawthorne-Snowberry/Fescue 0 0 0 0 20 0 5,837 100 Idaho Fescue 0 0 43 0 796 1 131,654 99 Needle-&-Thread Grassland 1,465 4 3,632 10 22,028 63 7,589 22 Rigid Sage/Sandberg Bluegrass 0 0 2,213 4 6,841 14 41,467 82 Riparian 1 0 63 2 13 0 3,300 98

Table 2 shows how few protected examples of natural habitats are found in the study area(regardless of which of the designations one calls protected). For the purposes of a standardanalysis, the GAP categories 1 and 2 are general combined and defined as a reserve network -although much of this reserve network is managed for values other than biodiversity. Category 3lands, or the public lands, are generally managed for multiple uses, with wildlife and habitatconservation balanced along with other community values. These lands are managed quitedifferently in different areas. In the study area, most Category 3 lands provide only moderateprotection for wildlife and their habitats.

Adding all 1 and 2 lands, only Bitterbursh Steppe and Needle-&-Thread have more than 5percent of their habitat included in the protected areas. This analysis is not meaningful for somevery minor types, such as Forest, that are not found within the conservation network, but are foundbasically on the margins of the study area. Other rare types, such as the Hawthorn-Snowberry-Roseshrublands, are found primarily on private lands along the edge of, but within, the Umatilla Basinstudy area, and therefore need to be a focus for conservation activities. Riparian habitats are verypoorly represented in protected areas, and given their significance, clearly need to be a priority.

While there has never been firm numerical goals for how much of given habitat type shouldbe protected, conservation biologists have developed minimum reserve sizes of about 10,000hectares (Keister et al. 1996). Others have used various figures ranging from 10-50 percent of thelandscape (Noss 1994, Scott et al. 1993). Some governments (Canada and Australia) have used 12-15 percent as goals. However, recent papers by the Wildlands Project have suggested that 25-50percent are more reasonable goals to protect wildlife.

10

Of the major shrub steppe types, Idaho Fescue prairies are the most poorly represented in thesystem of protected areas. These are very widespread on private lands on the southern end of thebasin. There are high quality remnants which include some of the lands with lower economic valuesin the basin, and therefore might provide opportunities to develop conservation strategies. However,these are also the least threatened habitats.

When the degree of threat to the habitats is considered, along with how well they areprotected elsewhere in the Columbia Basin of Washington, other steppe types may be more of apriority. In this regard, the bitterbrush and sagebrush steppe habitats are only 5 percent protected inthe basin, have declined significantly, and have limited areas in either Washington or Oregon inwhich they can be protected. The sandy types, primarily bitterbrush shrub steppe and needle-and-thread grasslands, are not protected adequately in Oregon or Washington, and should be a priorityfor conservation.

Land Ownership Patterns

This second table (Table 3) shows the general land ownership pattern for most of the naturalvegetation types, excluding CRP (Conservation Reserve Program lands) and agriculture, in the studyarea, based on the ownership coverage that was developed for this project. Most of the lands in thestudy area are privately owned, but there are some surprises regarding which habitats can be foundon public lands.

Table 3. Acreage (hectares) of vegetation types by ownership in Umatilla Basin

Cover Type WSA BLM COE DOD NWR CTUIR Private ODFW PRD BLL OR TNC

Big Sagebrush Steppe 0 213 0 877 83 23 13,448 27 23 2,636 60 89

Bitterbrush Shrub Steppe 0 361 0 4,388 816 0 9,522 53 144 1,780 255 468

Bluebunch Wheatgrass 966 11,477 279 5,671 468 52 344,428 17 66 8,642 456 1,174

Forest 0 100 0 40 95 2 7,520 9 20 0 28 0

Hawthorne-Snowberry 0 20 0 0 0 0 5,837 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho Fescue 42 838 0 0 0 21 131,568 0 1 0 67 0

Needle-&-Thread Grassland 0 647 0 12,049 1,047 0 7,045 39 40 12,761 107 1,057

Rigid Sage/ Bluegrass 2,210 9,051 2 0 0 10 41,254 0 0 0 203 0

Riparian 0 13 0 0 64 24 3,277 0 0 0 0 0

Ownership types are: WSA = BLM Wilderness Study Area; BLM = Bureau of Land Management (includes WSA); COE = Corps of Engineers; DOD = Department of Defense (Boardman Naval Training Station); NWR = U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Refuges; CTUIR = Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; ODFW = OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife; PRD = Oregon Parks and Recreation Department; BLL = Boeing Lease Lands; OR = Division of State Lands; and TNC = The Nature Conservancy.

11

Given the amount of private lands found in the lower Umatilla Basin, it is surprising howwell certain types are represented on public lands. The needle-&-thread grasslands, rigid sagebrushsteppe, bluebunch wheatgrass prairie and big sagebrush occur on the very limited BLM, USFWS,and Defense remnants in the basin, even if they are not well protected on them. Private lands arecritical however for the protection of existing riparian habitat (as minimal as that is), as well asIdaho fescue steppe and hawthorn shrublands found at the southern and eastern edges of the Basin.

Table 4 below, shows the percentages of each of these habitat types by ownership. Thesepercentages better identify how significant some agencies ownerships are to the protection of somehabitat types. For example, the Department of Defense and the Umatilla National Wildlife Refugetogether have 30% of the bitterbrush shrub steppe in the Columbia Basin, with most of theremainder found on private lands. However, Table 2 (Protected Areas) shows that only a quarter ofthis is in a protected designation. Clearly, management of this type should be a priority on thesepublic lands.

Table 4. Percentages of habitat types by ownership in Umatilla Basin.

Cover Type WSA BLM COE DOD NWR CTUIR Private ODFW PRD OR BLL TNCBig Sage/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 0 2 0 8 0 0 66 0 0 1 23 1Big Sage/Idaho Fescue 0 0 0 0 1 0 98 0 0 0 0 0Big Sagebrush Steppe 0 1 0 5 0 0 77 0 0 0 15 1Bitterbrush Shrub Steppe 0 2 0 25 5 0 54 0 1 1 10 3Bluebunch Wheatgrass 0 3 0 2 0 0 92 0 0 0 2 0Forest 0 1 0 1 1 0 95 0 0 0 0 0Hawthorne-Snowberry/Fescue 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0Idaho Fescue 0 1 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0Needle-&-Thread Grassland 0 2 0 35 3 0 20 0 0 0 37 3Rigid Sage/Sandberg Bluegrass 4 18 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0Riparian 0 0 0 0 2 1 93 0 0 0 0 0

Ownership types are: WSA = Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area; BLM = Bureau of LandManagement; COE = Army Corps of Engineers; DOD = Department of Defense (Boardman Naval Training Station andUmatilla Army Depot); NWR = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - National Wildlife Refuges; CTUIR = ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; PRD = Oregon Parks andRecreation Department; OR = Division of State Lands; BLL = Boeing State Lease Lands; TNC = The NatureConservancy.

This information also assists in setting priorities for ongoing acquisition programs, such asthe Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) wildlife mitigation program. In addition to addressingwildlife losses by habitats, the fact that over 95 percent of remaining riparian habitat is found onprivate land would indicate this should be a priority for acquisition. The only major habitat typefrom the lower Umatilla Basin that is found almost exclusively on private lands are Idaho fescuegrasslands. These grasslands are more intact than some of the lower elevation shrub steppe andgrassland communities. They also are probably somewhat less threatened, since they occur on

12

shallower, loess soils which are not as suitable for farming. Opportunities might allow forsignificant conservation with very minimal economic impact in areas of this habitat type.

The other area to note is that significant acreage of big sagebrush steppe and bluebunchwheatgrass prairie habitats remain on BLM lands. None of these habitats are currently in aprotected designation, nor are they managed primarily for their important wildlife values or habitats. In addition, less than half of the Department of Defense’s large holding of needle-&-threadgrassland and bluebunch wheatgrass are in protected designations. Added designation here may bea straightforward way to better protect these habitats.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been widely used in the Umatilla Basin toaddress private lands. It has been demonstrated to provide important benefits to many wildlifespecies, particularly to some game species. However, since CRP reflects a land use designationrather than a land ownership designation, it is not treated as a land ownership type. Also, untilrecently, CRP has mostly relied on the use of non-native grasses and forbs, which are not asvaluable for non-game and sensitive species restoration efforts. CRP, and some of the newer,programs designed to provide long term protection to riparian habitats, have the potential to providefor significant wildlife and habitat restoration – especially with the use of native species in theseareas.

Using Threatened and Endangered Species to Identify Priority Conservation Areas

There are currently no federally or state listed, endangered species found in the study area. There is one listed species, the Bull Trout, which occurs in streams in the Umatilla Basin, along theedge of the study area, and a number of listed anadramous fish used the Columbia River on thenorthern edge of the area. However, there are a few plant and animal species which are importantenough that their long term viability must be addressed on an individual basis, either for legalreasons (such as potential federal or state Endangered Species Act listing), or because theiroccurrences in the basin are extremely significant. These species are discussed below.

Plants

Astragalus collinus var. laurentii - Lawrence’s milk vetchThis one of only a few species that are entirely restricted to the lower Umatilla Basin (the

project area), and is the only one which currently has no protected occurrences. Indeed, all knownsites are either on private lands, or on highway right-of-ways. Its native bunchgrass habitat has beendisturbed by development for dryland agriculture, and remaining sites are threatened by grazing andthe expansion of non-native noxious weeds.

There are fourteen known occurrences for this species, none which occupy more than 20acres. It is critical that at least 10 sites be protected, and that at least 40 acres be managed for thespecies habitat. All sites for this species which have been seen since 1984 have been mapped inFigure 7.

13

Mimulus jungermannioides - hepatic monkeyflowerThis is a rare, Oregon endemic species found along major tributaries of the Columbia River

in eastern Oregon. It is known from 19 occurrences globally. It is a candidate for listing under thestate Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a Species of Concern under the federal ESA. It is rareenough to warrant listing, but its habitat, moist vertical cliffs along major rivers, is generallyconsidered fairly secure. All occurrences are along the lower stretches of the Deschutes, John Day,and Umatilla Rivers, and the stretches of the Columbia River between them.

There is only one known occurrence in the Umatilla Basin, located in the Umatilla RiverCanyon northwest of Reich. Since this is the western edge of this species range, the occurrence is ofconservation concern. However, the site is currently not threatened.

Myosurus sessilis - sessile mousetailThis little annual plant is a candidate for listing under the state ESA and a Species of

Concern under the federal ESA. Its habitat is alkaline vernal pools, and it is known from only onearea in Oregon. The remaining occurrences are from the Sacramento Valley in California. TheOregon site consists of three large vernal pools, each with a large population of this 1 cm plant. They are within a few miles of each other, in Gilliam County, southwest of Arlington. Alloccurrences are adjacent to the regional land fill site, and are quite threatened. The species is likelyto be state listed in the immediate future. Due to its occurrence in vernal pools in Californiacontaining rarer and more threatened plants and fairy-shrimp, it is a low priority for federal listing. This species and its very unusual habitat is totally unprotected and of great conservation concern.

Animals

Bull Trout - Salvelinus confluentusThis recently listed species must be protected under federal law. Currently, it is known from

only two watersheds in the Umatilla Basin, the upper Umatilla River watershed (above ThornHollow Creek) and from the Walla-Walla River watershed above Milton-Freewater. However, itclearly had much more habitat in the basin, and restoration efforts may be able to greatly expand thishabitat.

Both of these populations of fish are threatened by land use and water quality/temperaturedegradation. The conservation strategy for these populations can also protect important riparianhabitat as well.

Washington Ground Squirrel - Spermophilus washingtoniThis small mammal animal is restricted to sagebrush and high quality bunchgrass habitats at

low elevations in the Umatilla Basin in Oregon, and the Columbia Basin in Washington. It is listedas an endangered species by the State of Washington, was recently listed as endangered (on January21, 2000) by ODFW. It is a Species of Concern for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with Federallisting under review. The lower Umatilla Basin is currently the only area in Oregon supportingviable populations of this species. It is not well protected elsewhere. The conservation strategy forthis species focuses on expanding the population protected at the Boardman Naval Training Facilityto include adjacent habitats at the south end of the Boeing Lease Lands as well as BLM and privatelands around Horn Butte. It also requires that at least two other viable populations remain in the

14

lower Umatilla Basin. These could include the Umatilla Army Depot, the Juniper Canyon area (ifadditional habitats could be protected), or the lower Walla Walla River drainage.

Using Targeted Wildlife Species to Identify Priority Conservation Areas

Twelve wildlife species were selected as targets in the study area. The were chosen from theODFW sensitive species list which occur in the study area. All are all species which are importantin the Oregon portion of the Columbia Basin. Species were selected from all habitats, and theobjective was to include species in all habitats and with varied life histories. They include sevenspecies of birds (burrowing owl, sage sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Swainsons hawk, ferruginoushawk, long-billed curlew, loggerhead shrike), two mammals (white-tailed jackrabbit, Washingtonground-squirrel), two reptiles (sagebrush lizard and short-horned lizard), and one amphibian (Great-basin spadefoot). One of these species, the Washington ground squirrel, was discussed in theThreatened and Endangered Species section, above.

To assess the status of these species, maps of their distributions were developed. Thedistributions show both primary habitat and secondary habitat for these taxa. These maps areincluded in Appendix 1. In addition to the species distribution maps, the areas providing primaryand secondary habitats for all twelve of these species were evaluated together. A map showing theareas which are of the greatest significance for all of these species (a species richness map of thesetwelve animals) in the Umatilla Basin has also been developed. It is included with the large maps inAppendix 1.

The results of this target wildlife species analysis show that the sagebrush steppe habitats areclearly the most critical and limiting within the lower Umatilla Basin. While this is partially a resultof selecting target species which rely on this habitat, they show that the wildlife of the basin will besignificantly less diverse if these formerly widespread habitats are not maintained. The targetwildlife species distribution maps also show that many of the remaining habitat areas are extremelysmall, and most are found on private lands. While significant federal resources are available toassist in wildlife protection in the basin, through the Bonneville Power Administration’s WildlifeMitigation Program, and the efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation to restore habitat, voluntaryprotection by private landowners may be critical.

In addition, the distribution of the target wildlife species outlines the importance of severalareas. The Juniper Canyon area, along with the adjacent habitat to the north, represents a potentialto protect one of the only moderately sized unfarmed area in the northeastern portion of the studyarea. There are a number of small remnant areas of habitats in the Walla-Walla River drainage,which are probably too small to provide long-term viable habitat for many wildlife species. However, there are enough small, isolated shrublands and grasslands in this area (north of Athena)that habitat restoration might create the potential for important wildlife habitat. These areas arediscussed further in the conservation strategy.

15

Critical Threats and Stressors in the Umatilla Basin

There are a number of very important threats to wildlife habitat and biodiversity in the lowerUmatilla Basin. These directly influence the selection of sites in which to attempt to conservewildlife, as well as methods in which conservation is attempted. They will also drive efforts torestore habitats which are essential for the maintenance of wildlife habitat.

Habitat Conversion

The most obvious threats are the historical actions which resulted in the conversion of mostof the lower basin to anthropogenic vegetation types. Conversion of native prairie, shrub steppe andriparian habitats to farmland was and still remains the greatest threat to biodiversity in the basin. Additional agricultural development at the Boeing Lease Lands or portions of the BoardmanBombing Range, or additional industrial development of native habitats at the Umatilla ArmyDepot, remain the greatest threats to wildlife and biodiversity in the lower basin. However, asdramatic and significant as these threats are, they are the simplest to address. Since most of theproposed agricultural and industrial development of native habitats proposed in the Umatilla Basinare to occur on public land, limiting or stopping these habitat conversions are a matter of publicpolicy. Decision making will clearly be difficult, since there are obvious conflicts between theinterests of developers and wildlife, but there are currently mechanisms in place to address theseconflicts. Some of the other threats discussed below are more insidious.

Exotic Plant Species

The spread of introduced, exotic (noxious weeds) are a major problem for wildlife,biodiversity, and native habitats throughout the new world. The spread of noxious plants is ofparticular significant in the arid habitats of eastern Oregon. In the study area, two introduced plantspecies, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and medusa head (Tanaetherum caput-medusae) are alreadyso widespread that control of these species is no longer either possible or attempted, except on alocal basis. These annual plants invade disturbed habitats, replacing native bunchgrasses, and onceestablished are very difficult to remove. There are no grassland or shrub steppe areas in the lowerUmatilla Basin where these plants are not already well established. In the central Research NaturalArea (RNA) of the Boardman Naval Training Facility, the grassland and shrub steppe only supportcheatgrass in areas with natural disturbance (such as gopher or ground squirrel colonies).

Most of the problem species are unpalatable, spiny, annual members of the Aster family.Those most rapidly increasing in the basin are two members of the knapweed genus (Centaurea). Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) has become extremely widespread in Morrow County. Overthe last three years, due primarily to decisions made by the county weed control board, this specieshas gone from being occasional to widespread. In Umatilla County, where the species is stillaggressively fought, it has a much more limited distribution. The other very nasty species recentlyintroduced and spreading in the Umatilla Basin is yellow star thistle (C. solistalis). When yellow

16

star was introduced into southwestern Oregon about 20 years ago, no widespread effort was made toeradicate it. As a result, it now dominates the understory in many habitats, replacing all nativeupland grasses and forbs, and eradication is no longer possible. Both of these taxa rapidly invadehabitats which have even a small amount of disturbance, and replace native (and other introduced)steppe plants. However, in spite of having gained small footholds in many areas in the UmatillaBasin, the control and eradication of both plants remains possible.

Other very serious exotic species in shrub steppe and grassland habitats include rushskeleton weed (Condrilla juncae), spikeweed (Hemizonia pungens, found mostly on alkalinehabitats), and perennial pepper-weed (Lepidium latifolium). Control of these exotic species iscritical to the maintenance of native shrub steppe and grassland habitats, as well as the maintenanceof productive livestock rangelands.

Exotic plants are also a problem in riparian and wetland habitats. The most obvious of theseis purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), which is beginning to expand in wetlands along theColumbia River. Also, Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) is a major problem in wet meadowsand riparian areas to which it has escaped from residential plantings. While most rivers have lost allof their riparian tree and shrub cover, the few remaining areas with trees and shrubs have non-nativeforbs and grasses dominating the understory.

Agricultural Practices

Current agricultural practices are causing problems both for air quality, water quality, andoverall livability. However, a few practices have major impacts on wildlife. The most significant ofthese relate to the aquatic species, primarily the salmonoids which formerly were widespread in thebasin. The combination of irrigation and riparian vegetation removal in combination with fishpassage difficulties along the Columbia, resulted in native anadromous fish populations dropping toa fraction of their historic levels. A native steelhead run is present as a result of a successfulreintroduction in the 1980s. In spite of extensive work by the Bureau of Reclamation, flows in Julyand August remain too low maintain other anadramous fish populations. The use of pesticides,herbicides, and the practice of farming to the edge of the major streams, and the de-watering ofstreams through irrigation, have combined to seriously damage native fish populations. In addition,stream sedimentation, caused by soil erosion from fallow fields adjacent to streams and fromriparian cover removal, has eliminated much spawning habitat.

For upland species, the aerial spraying of some herbicides has impacted adjacent wildlifehabitat. While not in use much now, formerly the use of 2-4-D has resulted in native grasslandswhich totally lack any forbs. The spraying of Roundup to control annual ryegrass in fallow fieldshas also impacted native shrub steppe and grassland remnants nearby.

Finally, cattle have greatly impacted both riparian and upland remnants in the basin. Thenative bunchgrasses and forbs are not adapted to constant grazing by large ungulates, as opposed tothe Eurasian and African annual and perennial rhizomatous grasses which evolved with cows, goats

17

and domestic sheep. Unless cattle and sheep are frequently moved, and the water or salt whichcauses them to aggregate are frequently moved, the native habitats can be quite badly damaged.

Clearly, sustainable agricultural and grazing practices provide important benefits to wildlife,to water and air quality, to fish, and to general habitat diversity. Other work on the UmatillaRegional Geographic Initiative should help address these problems.

Future Conditions Based on Conservation Alternatives

Current technology allows us to assess future conditions for biodiversity based on potentialconservation/development alternatives. EPA staff at the Corvallis Office have developed modelsusing existing wildlife habitats, the vegetation maps, and future projections, to determine howdevelopment will impact wildlife and habitats. However, for these models to work, a map showingfuture alternative conditions must be developed. For this analysis, we developed only one futurescenario, which is the development or build out future. In this future, all of the lands considered fordevelopment, were developed. The Umatilla Army Depot becomes an industrial park, and thesuitable habitats in the Boeing Lease Lands and the Boardman Naval Training Facility aredeveloped for irrigated agriculture. In addition, flat, deep soiled native grasslands at suitableelevations have been converted to dryland agriculture. Urban areas have all been expanded slightly,to show about 20 percent growth.

Looking at a likely future development patters showed that the shrub steppe and grasslandhabitats in the lower elevations of the study area, and the riparian habitats in the upper parts of thestudy area were those which most at risk in the future. Fescue grassland habitats, while being themost poorly protected, were not as threatened as some of the types currently found in some of theconservation lands. This analysis was used to prioritize and then select areas for the conservationstrategy.

18

Chapter 4. Lower Umatilla Basin Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

This conservation strategy for the lower Umatilla Basin focuses in two areas. The first is theselection of key areas in which conservation activities should be focused, and the identification ofstrategies to conserve the habitats and wildlife they support. The second addresses the reduction ofthe primary threats which impact the entire landscape. These are discussed below.

Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation Areas

Based on the Assessment of Wildlife and Habitat, a number of sites have been identified whichsupport the critical elements of diversity in the basin. There are nine, which combined, includemost of the remaining wildlife habitats and endangered species occurrences. Some of these arelarge, intact habitats which currently are able to support viable populations of target wildlife species. Others are small remnants or partially degraded areas mixed with remnant habitats, which requiresome restoration activities to allow for long term viability. Brief discussions of the sites and theirvalues are included. Figure 3, below, roughly identifies their locations. A critical component of anylong-term conservation strategy would be the development of a more detailed site design andconservation plan for each site. However, conservation activities, including habitat restoration,acquisition, or removal of existing threats should occur as soon as possible in these areas.

Figure 3. Potential Conservation Sites

19

1) Horn Butte - Willow Creek This area represents the best remaining, intact bluebunch wheatgrass grassland habitat. It

also includes sagebrush habitats in the Willow Creek canyon, as well as some Juniper Canyongrasslands. To the west, the area includes the only habitat in Oregon for a very rare and endangeredplant, the sessile mouse-tail (Mysorus sessilis). The plant is found in an unusual habitat, alkalinevernal pools.

In addition to the important wildlife habitats present in this area, it proximity to theBoardman Naval Training Facility provides important opportunities to maintain populations ofsome of the rare mammals from the Umatilla Basin, including the Washington Ground Squirrel andthe Pronghorn Antelope.

To assure that this area continues to provide habitat for wildlife and threatened andendangered species, some protection of private lands is critical. These are currently not veryproductive lands, and acquisition may be an option. If irrigation water was available, they might bethreatened by agricultural development. If acquisition does not occur, conservation easements toassure key lands are not developed become critical. In addition to limiting development, control ofinvasive exotic plants is critical at this site, since both yellow star thistle and knapweed havefootholds here.

2) Boardman Naval Training Facility - Boeing Lease LandsThe Boardman facility and portions of the Boeing Lease lands contain the best remaining

examples of sandy bunchgrass habitats and open sand dune habitats in the entire Columbia Basin. Italso has the best quality remnants of sagebrush - bluebunch wheatgrass palouse bunchgrass steppe,as well as the only high quality remnant of bitterbrush - bunchgrass steppe habitat in Oregon. Itincludes most of the habitat in Oregon for the Washington Ground Squirrel and some endemicplants. It includes the largest protected area in the lower Umatilla Basin (the Boardman ResearchNatural Area), although the current configuration does not adequately protect wildlife or wildlifehabitat. Only about a quarter of the critical habitats are included within the currently designatedareas.

Aside from the important habitats at the Boardman Naval Training Facility, the Boeing leasesite is important for two primary reasons. First, a small but very high quality bitterbrush remnantnear the center of the site is the best example of this habitat in the world. Second, the site provides aconnection between large blocks of habitat at the Naval Training Facility, and the large nativehabitat at Willow Creek and Horn Butte. Most critical in to this connection are the remnantsagebrush and bunchgrass habitats along the south end of the Boeing Lease Lands. In addition, thebitterbrush, needle-and-thread, and cheatgrass areas along the north end of the area may provide animportant connection to the remnant habitats managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and theHighway Department along the Columbia River.

Threats to this site include further development for agriculture, the spread of noxious weeds,and the conversion of native bunchgrass or shrub steppe habitat to cheatgrass habitats byovergrazing and inappropriate fires.

20

3) Umatilla River CorridorThe Umatilla River corridor includes the mainstem of the Umatilla River from the edge of

the lower Umatilla Basin to the Pendleton city limits, as well as Wildhorse Creek, Birch Creek andother tributaries. This area is critical for both fish and wildlife in the basin because it contains theonly significant riparian remnants as well as the majority of the remaining bull trout habitat in thestudy area.

Currently, the existing habitat is badly fragmented, providing only a fraction of the fish andwildlife habitat which could be provided. It is almost entirely in private and tribal ownership. Acquisition and restoration will be critical to connect the riparian remnants into large blocks ofhabitat, and to assure the bull trout habitats are protected and connected. This site is also critical inassuring the availability of clean water to the city of Pendleton.

Because this land is both expensive and productive, it will be the most difficult to protect. Threats include development for rural residential housing and agriculture, erosion, exotic species,livestock overuse, and water diversions.

4) Juniper CanyonThis is the smallest area, but represents the only remaining un-farmed area in the north-

central portion of the Umatilla Basin. It also contains unusual western Juniper and shrub habitats. If sufficient areas could be protected, it might be possible to connect this area with the UmatillaWildlife Refuge and the Army Corps lands described below. However, even isolated, they providea refuge for important shrub steppe, juniper and grassland habitats which can no longer be foundelsewhere in the basin. It includes Oregon’s only populations of the rosy balsamroot (Balsamorhizarosea), restricted to Columbia Basin lithosolic hill and ridgetops.

Currently, the area is threatened by overgrazing, exotic species, and potentially ruralresidential development. Over the long term, development for agriculture or other uses is apotential threat. Current uses may not be damaging the wildlife habitats, although restorationappears necessary in some areas. Protection of the core area or some of the adjacent remnant landsmay be difficult.

5) Umatilla Wildlife Refuge and adjacent Army Corps landsThese include the large, linear strip along the south side of the Columbia River, along with

some islands which have been acquired as the Umatilla Wildlife Refuge. Managed primarily forgoose and waterfowl habitat, the lands include some important bitterbrush and sagebrush stepperemnants. This area, along with Boardman, provides important habitat to a number of target wildlifespecies, including the long-billed curlew and the burrowing owl. The riparian habitat is notsignificant in this area, but potential for restoring wetlands and riparian shrublands exists. The siteincludes some habitat acquired with BPA mitigation funds for wildlife mitigation (Conforth Ranch). Lands managed by ODFW as part of the Irrigon Wildlife Management Area (WMA) might beintegrated into the remainder of this site. The site includes the fairly small, Hat Point State Park. Italso contains the large, but very narrow area along the south bank of the Columbia River which isowned and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Currently, public or protected lands comprise a patchy, fairly linear strip, making up onlyabout 20 percent of the native habitat remaining in this area. While these often occur adjacent tosome of the most heavily developed lands in the basin, it is possible to do a much better job of

21

connecting some protected areas into a more functional landscape without significantly impactingeconomic development. However, most of the lands are privately owned. Aside from residential,industrial or agricultural development, exotic species (including Russian olive) are importantthreats.

6) Upper Butter Creek Drainage This is the largest, highest quality and least threatened of all of the areas. It is also the area

which is the most difficult to protect, since it is entirely in private ownership. It includes the areabetween the two forks of Butter Creek, and contains the largest native bunchgrass remnant in theColumbia Basin. The Idaho fescue and the bluebunch wheatgrass grasslands include deep-soiledpalouse habitats, canyon grasslands, rocky scablands, and montane grasslands. While riparianhabitats have been heavily altered by agricultural development, canals and erosion, restoration ofthese streams is much simpler than similar restoration projects along the mainstem Umatilla, due tothe more limited number of private landowners, and the lower economic values. The area alsoprovides all the world’s habitat for a rare, threatened endemic plant species, Lawrence’s milk-vetch(Astragalus collinus ssp. laurentii), restricted to deep-soiled, native bunchgrass slopes in Umatillaand Morrow Counties.

This area is currently threatened by the introduction of a number of exotic, noxious weeds. Restoration of the riparian habitats would greatly increase the value of the wonderful bunchgrassslopes for some species of wildlife, particularly the Columbia sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchusphasianellus columbianus).

7) Umatilla Army DepotThis area includes the largest remnants of Columbia Basin bitterbrush habitat, and some

high quality needle-and-thread sandy grasslands. Much of the area is a matrix of ground-covered,semi-buried bunkers created to store unexploded ordinance and toxic chemicals. The bunkers andthe areas scraped to create them are still dominated by exotic species. The non-disturbed habitatsappear to support numerous species of birds and small mammals which require these very rarehabitat types. Recent surveys may assist in outlining those areas at which are extremely important.

The site is threatened by exotic species expansion, and plans for industrial development.

8) Squaw Creek Wildlife Mitigation AreaThis site has the best examples in the lower basin of hawthorn-snowberry shrublands and

mixed Ponderosa pine woodlands. Dominated primarily by shrubby members of the rose family,black hawthorn and serviceberry, these shrublands provided important winter food for the manyupland game birds which were formerly abundant in the basin. The most important of these birds isthe Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, which has been extirpated from Oregon (although the last wildbirds were seen in Sherman and Morrow Counties). Recently, the species has been reintroducedinto Wallowa County. In order to reintroduce it to the Umatilla Basin, both the native bunchgrassprairie it needs for breeding and rearing its young, and the shrubby habitat it needs for winteringneed to be protected.

These shrublands still can be found along the margins of the Grande Ronde Valley in UnionCounty, and in southeastern Washington. They are threatened by agricultural development andoccasionally by alterations in the natural fire regime.

22

There are two major areas which still support significant stands of this type. The largest isfound along the Washington border, at the extreme northeast end of the lower Umatilla Basin. Thisarea also includes some important, low elevation Ponderosa pine habitats. However, it is quiteisolated from the other protected habitats in the basin. The other area which still has excellentexamples is the western edge of the lower basin just north of the mainstem Umatilla River. Thereare excellent examples of this type there, although overall they are smaller than those at theWashington border. They also could be more easily integrated into a strategy to protect the UmatillaRiver habitats for bull trout and riparian habitats.

9) North and South Fork Walla-Walla RiverThe entire watershed of the Walla-Walla River in the lower Umatilla Basin is of interest for

a number of reasons. The site has the second largest aggregation of riparian habitats in the basin,and has an upper watershed which is largely intact (unique for streams in the basin). The lowerportions includes habitats which are not protected elsewhere, primarily big sagebrush/Idaho fescuegrasslands which are common in the northern Columbia Basin of Washington, but almosteliminated in Oregon. There many small shrub steppe remnants which can be found in the areabetween Athena and the Washington State line which might, if protected, combine into an importantwildlife area. Finally, there are some large privately owned properties currently for sale here. Thesehave some of the largest hawthorn stands, some excellent low elevation Ponderosa pine stands, andhigh quality grasslands.

The site is important for geese, ducks and other wildlife, although it is generally surroundedby the heaviest development in the basin. It does provide a narrow corridor for wildlife along theriver, and becomes quite important if significant habitat can be protected at Juniper Canyon to theeast, and at Boardman - Boeing to the west.

Primary Basin-Wide Threats

Three major basin-wide threats were identified as posing significant problems to wildlife andbiodiversity. These are habitat conversion, exotic species and agricultural practices. The first ofthese is addressed in this Conservation Strategy by the development of the Key Wildlife andBiodiversity Conservation Areas. The second two factors, Exotic Species and AgriculturalPractices, need to be addressed from a basin-wide perspective in order to assure the long-termmaintenance of biodiversity (as well as the overall livability and productivity of the basin).

Exotic plant species are a major threat to native habitats as well as to the productivity of farmlandsand pastures. Differences in county policy between Morrow and Umatilla Counties have led to verydifferent conditions within the counties. Certain species, such as spotted knapweed, have becomevery widespread in Morrow County, while being effectively controlled across the county line to theeast. It is critical that species be addressed similarly throughout the basin, since it is not possible toexclude an exotic plant with a very large, adjacent seed source.

Overall, exotic plants need to be controlled not only on public roads and right-of-ways, but whereever concentrations are found. Key species should be the primary focus of control efforts. These

23

were discussed above: Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii formerly called C. maculosa),diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) yellow star thistle (Centaurea solistalis), rush skeleton weed(Condrilla juncae), spikeweed (Hemizonia pungens), perennial pepper-weed (Lepidium latifolium)and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). In addition, it is critical that newly introduced exoticweeds be controlled as soon as they are recognized. Controlling species is much cheaper and moreeffective if it is done before they become very widespread. Community education, and theexpansion of control efforts are essential for this to succeed.

Agricultural practices are much more problematic. Although the Umatilla Basin has some of themost efficient water use in the state, it is recognized there are some inefficiencies which can beimproved upon. Inefficient water use and poor farming or grazing practices can provide short termfinancial gain for individuals, yet cause significant expenses for the community. Many of theprojects of the Umatilla RGI are attempting to address these problems. Fortunately, there is awidespread understanding in the community that these are real problems, which impact not only thewildlife in the Basin, but peoples livelihood and the livability of the basin. However, there is not afirm understanding of how to solve these problems, or what is required to get people to changepractices and implement new solutions.

Soil erosion, air pollution, and groundwater degradation are very significant problems for the basin. However, the practice which most impact biodiversity is the removal of water from streams andrivers for irrigation. Water quality and quantity must be improved if native fish and wildlife are tobe restored and maintained. Developing a strategy for doing this throughout the basin is beyond thisreport. A focus on the areas with extant populations of bull trout and other species of interest, andon areas with remaining riparian habitat (the Umatilla River corridor), makes the most sense forbiodiversity.

Basin Wide Opportunities

While the focus of this conservation strategy is to work on key sites, there is a great potential forincreasing the viability of all wildlife and habitats in the Umatilla Basin by working throughout thebasin. The best opportunities lie in voluntary protection incentives for important private lands,especially working around the key sites. Also, any private landowner with stream or river frontagein the basin should be approached to see if they have conservation or restoration interest. However, general management of lands can also provide important benefits. ODFW has a number ofprograms, ranging from plantings and management to increase backyard birds, to conservationeasements along streams and rivers. Working to improve wildlife habitat on a voluntary basis,particularly on farmlands and rangelands, may provide substantial benefits at a very low cost..

Given the threats to fish and other aquatic fauna, and the current focus on stream and watershedhealth, it is important that a set of alternatives for stream and river restoration be developed for allstreams in the basin. This will assure corridors for fish and wildlife, maximize native fishpopulations and create long-term viability for anadromous fish and the riparian habitats they need. It should include an effort to establish grazing regimes which limit impacts on riparian and upland

24

plant communities. It might also involve outlining methods to restore riparian bottomlands withouteliminating all bottomland irrigated pasture, if possible including developing economic alternativesto bottomland farming. The first sites should be the Umatilla River and Walla Walla Rivercorridors, but all the major streams and rivers in the basin need attention.

Conclusions

A problem with this conservation strategy is that it requires significant follow through. There arenine areas which have been identified as being key to the long-term maintenance of fish and wildlifehabitats in the Umatilla Basin. For each of these sites, the public managers and private landownersmust work together to develop a conservation and long-term management strategy. Currently, fundsare available for on-the-ground conservation work in many areas. Site conservation plans for theseten sites will greatly increase the chance that federal and state funds will be available for these sites.

At this point, a number of organizations and agencies are working on various sites. The Defendersof Wildlife and other conservation organizations are working with ODFW, other state agencies andthe Bonneville Power Administration to develop a strategy for the protection of the key wildlifehabitats at the Horn Butte - Willow Creek site. The Nature Conservancy, ODFW, the Navy andothers are working on developing a detailed site conservation plan for the Boardman Naval TrainingFacility-Lindsay Grasslands Preserve-Boeing Lease Lands site. Similar work should occur at eachof the areas, and key partners and a agency or team leader to develop a conservation strategy for thesites must be identified.

Also, while the Umatilla Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) has provided a critical impetus fortesting new methods to improve the environment, for beginning the shrub-steppe and critical streamrestoration processes, it is not a long-term strategy for implementing change in the basin. Toachieve meaningful conservation, all local governments, state governments, tribes, and the generalpublic will need to become more active in all of these areas for this conservation strategy tosucceed. They need to invest in this strategy, and the other main strategies of the RGI.

The Oregon Natural Heritage Program and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife arecommitted to seeing the shrub steppe and grassland habitats of the Umatilla Basin protected. Wewill work with the private landowners, NGOs, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla IndianReservation, local governments, and other state and federal agencies to assist in the implementationor update of this strategy.

25

References

Driscoll, R.S. 1964. Vegetation - Soil Units in the central Oregon juniper zone. USDA ForestService, PNW Research Paper PNW-19. General Printing Office, Portland, OR. 61 p.

Kiester, A.R., J.M. Scott, B. Csuti, R.F. Noss, B. Butterfield, K. Sahr, and D. White. 1996. Conservation Prioritization using GAP data. Conservation Biology, Vol 10: 1332-1342.

McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States: SectionDescriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. 267 p.

Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and RestoringBiodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 416 pp.

Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Corvallis, OR.

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F.D’Erchia, T.C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographicapproach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 123. 41pp.