United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

October 2012 Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Prairie City Ranger District 

Malheur National Forest

Grant County, Oregon
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS

i

Document Structure 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Forest Service (FS) has prepared this Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 

agency regulations and all applicable federal and state laws. This document is organized into the 

following sections: 

 Abstract 

 Table of Content 

 Summary of the DEIS. An executive summary of the DEIS 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for the Action: This chapter includes background 

information on the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project and the proposal 

for achieving that purpose and need. This section describes how the Forest Service 

informed the public of the proposal and identified the significant issues that drive the 

analysis. 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the Proposed Action as well as alternative methods for achieving

the stated purpose and need. These alternatives were developed based on significant

issues raised by the public, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) and other agencies. 

 Chapter 3. Existing Condition and Environmental consequences: This chapter describes 

the physical, biological and human environments potentially affected by the Proposed 

Action and alternatives, and describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. 

 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

those who responded during the scoping period. 

 Chapter 5. This chapter includes a list of references and an index. 

 Appendices. This section includes supplemental analysis information and colored maps. 

Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record files. Permanent 

project planning record files are located at the Prairie City Ranger Distict Office, 327 Front 

Street, P.O. Box 337, Prairie City, OR 97869. For information regarding planning record 

files please contact Randy Gould, Prairie City District Ranger at (541) 820.3800. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). T file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS

ii

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Grant County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest

Responsible Official: Teresa Raaf, Forest Supervisor

Malheur National Forest Supervisors Office

431 Patterson Bridge Road, P.O. Box 909

John Day, OR 97845

For Information Contact: Randy Gould, Prairie City District Ranger

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

Prairie City Ranger District

327 Front Street, P.O. Box 337

Prairie City, Oregon 97845

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been completed for the Summit Logan 

Grazing Authorization Project. 

The DEIS can be viewed and downloaded from the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usdapop.php/?project=24301. In addition, an electronic copy on CD-ROM is available upon request, 

by contacting` Randy Gould using the contact information noted above.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this analysis document is to disclose the proposed actions and environmental 

effects of authorizing livestock grazing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project area. The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization (SLVGA) project area includes 

all of the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments. The project 

area is located south and west of Prairie City, Oregon and includes approximately 40,279 acres 

of National Forest System lands administered by the Prairie City Ranger District of the Malheur 

National Forest. Embedded within the project area is approximately 5,000 acres of private land. 

The Forest Service developed four alternatives: the No Action, the Proposed Action, and two 

additional action alternatives generated in response to public comment (scoping) and grazing 

permittee issues. 

Check the following website for Draft Enviromental Impact Statement documents: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=24301
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iii

Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................................23

Introduction ................................................................................................................................23

Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................23

Forest Plan..............................................................................................................................23

Management Area Standards..................................................................................................24

Listed Species Consultation ...................................................................................................25

Current Management..................................................................................................................26

Lake Creek Allotment ............................................................................................................26

Logan Valley Allotment.........................................................................................................26

McCoy Creek Allotment ........................................................................................................27

Summit Prairie Allotment.......................................................................................................28

Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................................................30

Rescission Act ........................................................................................................................30

Aquatic Habitiat......................................................................................................................31

Proposed Action .........................................................................................................................31

Allotment Management Plans....................................................................................................34

Scoping.......................................................................................................................................35

Issues..........................................................................................................................................36

Significant Issues....................................................................................................................37

Analysis Issues .......................................................................................................................38

Project Record Availability........................................................................................................38

Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................................39

Intorduction ................................................................................................................................39

Development of Alternatives .....................................................................................................39

Alternatives Considered but Elminated from Detailed Study....................................................39

Closure of Forest Roads .........................................................................................................39

Beaver Recovery Projects.......................................................................................................39

Corridor Fencing of Big Creek...............................................................................................40

Reduction of Permitted Grazing Numbers.............................................................................40

Current Management..............................................................................................................40

Scheduling Rest on All Stream Reaches that are Functioning at Risk...................................40
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

v

Alternatives Considered in Detail ..............................................................................................41

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)................................................................................41

Actions Common to Alternatives 2, 3, & 4 ............................................................................41

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................43

Lake Creek Allotment........................................................................................................44

Logan Valley Allotment ....................................................................................................45

McCoy Creek Allotment....................................................................................................47

Summit Prairie Allotment..................................................................................................48

Alternative 3 ...........................................................................................................................51

Lake Creek Allotment........................................................................................................52

Logan Valley Allotment ....................................................................................................52

McCoy Creek Allotment....................................................................................................54

Summit Prairie Allotment..................................................................................................54

Alternative 4 ...........................................................................................................................57

Lake Creek Allotment........................................................................................................58

Logan Valley Allotment ....................................................................................................59

McCoy Creek Allotment....................................................................................................61

Summit Prairie Allotment..................................................................................................61

Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended .....................................63

Summary of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................66

Design Criteria and Resource Protection Measures...................................................................70

Monitoring..................................................................................................................................77

Summary of Effects in Relation to Issues..................................................................................82

Comparision of Alternatives...................................................................................................82

Implementation and Management Schedule ..............................................................................85

Chapter 3 .......................................................................................................................................91

Introduction ................................................................................................................................91

Specialist Reports and Project Record .......................................................................................91

Analyzing Effects.......................................................................................................................91

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................91

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ..........................................................................92

Forest Plan Consistancy .........................................................................................................92

Plans of Other Agencies.........................................................................................................92

Rangeland Vegetation ................................................................................................................92
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

vi

Introduction ............................................................................................................................92

Regulatory Framework...........................................................................................................92

Analysis Methods...................................................................................................................93

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................95

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................104

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................104

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................104

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................105

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................................105

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................105

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................111

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................................113

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................113

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................115

Alternative 3.....................................................................................................................116

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................116

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................119

Alternative 4.....................................................................................................................120

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................120

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................122

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................122

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................122

Invasive Species.......................................................................................................................122

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................122

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................123

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................123

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................123

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................124

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................124

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................124

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................124

Alternative 2, 3 and 4.......................................................................................................124

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................124

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................125
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

vii

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................126

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................126

Botany ......................................................................................................................................126

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................126

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................126

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................127

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................128

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................130

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................130

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................130

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................130

Alternative 2, 3 and 4.......................................................................................................131

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................131

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................133

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................134

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................134

Soils..........................................................................................................................................134

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................134

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................134

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................135

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................135

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................138

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................138

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................138

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................139

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................................139

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................139

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................140

Alternative 3.....................................................................................................................140

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................140

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................141

Alternative 4.....................................................................................................................141

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................141

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................141
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

viii

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................142

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................142

Hydrology and Aquatics...........................................................................................................142

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................142

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................142

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................149

Affect Environment..............................................................................................................156

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................175

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................175

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................175

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................175

Direct/Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives.................................................177

Cumulative Effects Common to Action Alternatives......................................................184

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................................188

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................188

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................199

Alternative 3.....................................................................................................................200

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................200

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................206

Alternative 4.....................................................................................................................207

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................207

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................212

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................213

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................214

Recreation.................................................................................................................................215

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................215

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................215

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................215

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................216

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................220

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................220

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................220

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................220

Alternative 2, 3, and 4......................................................................................................220
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

ix

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................220

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................224

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................224

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................224

Visual Quality ..........................................................................................................................224

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................224

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................224

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................225

Affted Environment..............................................................................................................225

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................227

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................227

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................227

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................227

Alternative 2, 3, and 4......................................................................................................227

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................227

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................228

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................228

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................228

Heritage ....................................................................................................................................228

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................228

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................229

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................230

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................230

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................232

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................232

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................232

Alternative 2, 3 and 4...........................................................................................................3

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................233

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................234

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................234

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments ........................................................................235

Social and Economics ..............................................................................................................235

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................235

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................235
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

x

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................236

Affect Environment..............................................................................................................236

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................239

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) .........................................................................239

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................239

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................241

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................................241

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................241

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................242

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................242

Alternative 4.....................................................................................................................243

Direct/Indirect Effects..............................................................................................243

 Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives ..............................................................244

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................244

Irreversible and Irretrievable ................................................................................................245

Wildlife.....................................................................................................................................245

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................245

Regulatory Framework.........................................................................................................245

Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................246

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................247

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................253

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species ................................................253

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)..................................................................253

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 ...............................................................................................254

Management Indicator Species (MIS) .............................................................................268

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)..................................................................268

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 ...............................................................................................269

Featured Species ..............................................................................................................275

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)..................................................................275

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 ...............................................................................................275

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds ..........................................................277

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)..................................................................277

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 ...............................................................................................278

Consistancy with Direction and Regulation.........................................................................280
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

xi

Irreversible and Irretrievable ................................................................................................281

Other Laws, Regulations and Policies......................................................................................281

Chapter 4 .....................................................................................................................................284

Consultation and Coordination.................................................................................................284

List of Preparers.......................................................................................................................284

Interdisciplinary Team..........................................................................................................284

Contributors..............................................................................................................................284

Tribes....................................................................................................................................284

Federal, State and Local Agencies .......................................................................................285

Persons who Responded During the Scoping Process .........................................................285

Chapter 5 .....................................................................................................................................286

References Cited ......................................................................................................................286

General .................................................................................................................................286

Monitoring............................................................................................................................286

Rangeland Vegetation and Invasive Species........................................................................286

Botany...................................................................................................................................288

Soils......................................................................................................................................290

Hydrology and Aquatics.......................................................................................................291

Recreation ............................................................................................................................295

Visual Quality ......................................................................................................................295

Heritage ................................................................................................................................295

Social and Economics...........................................................................................................296

Wildlife.................................................................................................................................297

Index.........................................................................................................................................304

List of Appendices........................................................................................................................307

Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................307

Part 1: Existing and Desired Condition................................................................................307

Part 2: Management Objectives............................................................................................321

Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategies.............................................................................330

Appendix B (Maps)..................................................................................................................335

Vicinity Map.........................................................................................................................336

Alternative 1 .........................................................................................................................337

Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................................341

Alternative 3 .........................................................................................................................345
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

xii

Alternative 4 .........................................................................................................................349

Bull Trout Critical Habitat (within Project Area).................................................................349

Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches (within Project Area)...............................................349

Appendix C (Cumulative Activies Considered).......................................................................355

Appendix D (Definition of Terms)...........................................................................................361

Appendix E (Use Levels) .........................................................................................................375
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 1

SUMMARY OF THIS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT (DEIS)

Introduction 

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the 

potential effects of authorizing livestock grazing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization (SLVGA) Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The SLVGA project area 

includes all of the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments.

The project area is predominately within the Upper Malheur River watershed. Numerous streams 

flow within the watershed including Summit Creek, Big Creek, McCoy Creek and Lake Creek. 

A minor portion of the Summit Prairie Allotment (371 acres or less than 0.6% of the analysis 

area) occurs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed (Crane Creek subwatershed). 

There are no streams within these 371 acres. 

The project area is located south and west of Prairie City, Oregon and includes approximately 

40,279 acres of National Forest System lands administered by the Prairie City Ranger District of 

the Malheur National Forest. Embedded within the project area is approximately 5,000 acres of 

private land. Detailed maps are in DEIS Appendix B.

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purposes of the proposed action are two-fold: 

 Meet the requirements of the Rescission Act and provide for an appropriate level of 

domestic livestock grazing as set forth in the Malheur National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1990) and;

 Improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat.

Rescission Act 

There is a need to meet the Rescissions Act requirements to complete the NEPA analysis for the 

Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments. There is a need to 

meet the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan goals by providing a sustained 

production of palatable forage for grazing by livestock and dependent wildlife species while 

meeting the needs of other resources and uses at a level which is responsive to site-specific 

objectives (Forest Plan, page IV-2) as well as to contribute to the social and economic health of 

communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management (IV-3, # 42). 

Aquatic Habitat 

There is a need to improve aquatic habitat in Lake Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek to 

support all life stages of bull trout. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation and 

hardwoods to enhance stream shade, temperature, riparian vegetation composition and vigor and 

stream bank stability. Water temperature and streambank stability are important aquatic habitat 

features (riparian management objectives) identified in the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 2

There is a need to develop an upward trend in riparian areas currently assessed as Functioning at 

Risk (FAR) with a downward or slowed trend, while continuing to improve or maintain riparian 

areas with upward recovery trends or properly functioning conditions toward desired conditions

identified in Appendix A (part 1).

The Malheur Forest Plan as amended by INFISH directs that grazing practices be modified (e.g., 

accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of 

grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely 

to adversely affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in 

meeting Riparian Management Objectives (INFISH GM 1).

Proposed Action in Brief 

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

Portions of this currently vacant allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments. The remaining 5,069 acres would remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and 

Corral Basin units. 

Boundary Changes

Approximately 4,778 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the adjacent 

Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments. Areas containing Lake Creek, Big Creek and 

Corral Basin Creek would remain vacant (5,069 acres). 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (349 acres) would be removed from the Lake 

Creek allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate 

environmental analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on 5,069 acres of the allotment.

Improvements and Structures

The removal of the southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from the Lake Creek allotment 

would require the construction 2.5 miles of new fencing. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Grazing System

The Logan Valley allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Rest or deferment would be determined based on resource needs and would not 

be a systematic or scheduled rotation. 

Boundary Changes

Approximately 655 acres from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to 

the Logan Valley allotment. The change would allow additional rest for the Logan Valley 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 3

allotment, increasing the allotment acres to 4,359 (specific allotment and unit changes are 

included in Ch. 2).

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and South Big Creek would be 

combined into a single large unit known as Big Creek Riparian pasture.

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would be removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing season would remain as currently permitted, 

distributed over the larger landscape by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek 

allotments. 

The Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units that 

would be combined into a single riparian pasture would require livestock removal by August 15th

to protect bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Improvements and Structures

The North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit 

requiring removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Absorbing a portion of the McCoy Creek unit along with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence. The new 

unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit.

Combining the Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek 

units would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-6 in 

Chapter 2.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Grazing System

A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied throughout the allotment. This system 

provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to change 

the time of year when units would be used. 

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 980 acres would decrease to 660 acres. The Dry and Ridge 

units of the allotment would be combined into a single unit as currently managed and would be 

called the Ridge unit. The Lake Creek and North Fork units (of the McCoy Creek allotment) 

would be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment. 

The Starvation unit (53 acres) would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment. This may be 

added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis would be 

required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 4

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number, forage allocation and grazing season would not change in the 

McCoy Creek allotment. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint indicators are listed 

in Appendix E. 

Improvements and Structures

The Dry and Ridge units would be combined into a single unit (as currently managed) requiring 

removal of 1 mile of fence. The combined units would be called the Ridge unit and would 

provide better livestock distribution.

Adaptive Management

No additional adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

The Summit Prairie allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Rest periods and deferment would be determined based on resource needs and 

would not be a systematic or scheduled rotation. 

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 25,331 acres would increase to 29,832 acres. The Front 

Field unit (from the Logan Valley allotment) would be absorbed into the Little Logan unit and 

the Bosenberg unit (from the vacant Lake Creek allotment) would be added as a separate grazing

unit.

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number, forage allocations, and the grazing seasons would remain as 

present conditions, distributed over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake 

Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment. 

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed if the Front Field unit is absorbed from the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit (from the Lake Creek allotment) would require construction of 

approximately 7 miles of additional fence. The water gaps would be located where Forest 

Service road 1648 crosses Bosenberg Creek and an unnamed tributary of Big Creek. Three ponds 

would be developed in the uplands to provide alternative water away from perennial streams. A 

spring would be developed off a head water spring for Bosenberg Creek. The spring source 

would be fenced and water piped to a water trough located 300 feet from the spring. Water 

would also be piped from Bosenberg Creek to a trough located 100 approximately feet from the 

stream. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-12 in 

Chapter 2.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 5

Proposed Forst Plant Amendments 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose amendments to the Malheur Land and Resource Management 

Plan as amended by Amendment #29. Specifically, the numeric value for shade in 

hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan Amendment #29 would be modified for site 

specific stream reaches. 

The proposed percent shade values developed for hardwood/meadow complexes within the 

Summit Logan allotments are based on work by the Carex Working Group (2012) and the 

Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan 

completed by State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2010). Work carried out 

by the Carex Working Group involved estimating the expected (and perhaps maximum) level of 

streamside shade (height and density) that could be attained from willows, sedges, and other 

hardwoods under near-natural rates of recovery at two time scales: (a) five years, and (b) twenty 

years from all stream reaches on Summit Creek. To determine the historic range of variability of 

the various reaches of Summit Creek the Carex Working Group considered the habitat 

characteristics of each reach, the habitats occupied by mature willow thickets, alder thickets, and 

sedge meadows on the reference sites, and similar plant communities we have observed 

elsewhere in Grant and Harney Counties (Carex Working Group 2010, 2011a, and 2011b). 

The stream reaches where modifications are proposed to Amendment #29 Numeric Values are 

shown in Table S-1. Potential values for shade in the TMDL were derived using Ecoregion 

Based Effective Shade Curves if reference data was not available. These effective shade curves 

are general heat load allocations that are identified by region and channel width for various 

riparian plant communities. The given values represent the maximum possible effective shade if 

the potential height and density are present. The curves account for latitude, critical summertime 

period and stream aspect. The Carex Working Group only collected reference data for alder 

and/or willow riparian plant communities. As a result, the Native Floodplain Grasses effective 

shade curve was used from the TMDL. 

Table S-1: Proposed Modifications to the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan

Stream/R

each

Amendment #29 Numeric Value to be Modified Proposed Modification 

Forest Plan and Reference Source

Source Amendment #29 Element Location Specific Value 

Summit 

Creek

Reach 1 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex 

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded 

Shade 65% or greater 

(TMDL 2010) 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with 

hardwoods (CWG 2012) or 

≥25% in areas with native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010)

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 4 

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with 

hardwoods (CWG 2012) or 

≥25% in areas with native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010)

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 5 

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 60% 

(CWG 2012) 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 6

Stream/R

each

Amendment #29 Numeric Value to be Modified Proposed Modification 

Forest Plan and Reference Source

Source Amendment #29 Element Location Specific Value 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 6 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010) 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 7 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 80% 

for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% 

for mixed shrub areas 

(Carex Working Group

2012), or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 80% 

for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% 

for mixed shrub areas 

(CWG 2012), or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses 

(TMDL 2010).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 60% in 

hardwood areas (CWG 

2012) or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 20 10).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increased hardwood shade 

component: shade ≥ 60% 

(Carex Working Group

2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 3

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Lake 

Creek 

(no PFC

assessment) 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses

(TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

(no PFC

assessment, 

south side 

of FS rd 16 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 7

Stream/R

each

Amendment #29 Numeric Value to be Modified Proposed Modification 

Forest Plan and Reference Source

Source Amendment #29 Element Location Specific Value 

for 0.15 

miles)

(TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 3

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012).

Bosenberg 

Creek 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub (CWG 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Public Involement 

Public comments were previously requested in October, 2008 for this project. Since that time, 

the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project has transitioned from an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On February 1, 2012, a scoping 

letter providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 230 

entities, including agencies, groups, individuals and other parties that had requested information 

on general forest or specific range projects. Four comments letters were received: Oregon 

Natural Desert Association in conjunction with Oregon Wild, Grant County Conservationists, 

Blue Mountain Biodiversity and an anonymous commenter. Original letters, emails and other 

scoping comments are contained in the project files. Additionally, on February 8, 2012, a Notice 

of Intent was published in the Federal Register. 

Interaction with the Summit Logan allotment grazing permittees has been ongoing since the fall 

of 2007 and has included several field trips and meetings. Field trips to the project area were 

facilitated by the National Riparian Service Team and attended by representatives from U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the permittees. 

Tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis is ongoing with the Burns Paiute 

Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs Reservation. This government-to-government consultation is being conducted 

under the terms of specific agreements with individual tribes and includes regular contact and 

meetings as appropriate. Scoping letters were mailed to the tribal governments. In the spring 

and fall of 2008 the District Ranger, Rangeland Management Specialist and various 

Interdisciplinary Team members met with the Burns Paiute Tribe to discuss their proposals for 

the Logan Valley area. Several partnership projects are ongoing in the project area involving the 

Burns Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley allotment permittees. The Burns Paiute Tribe is 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 8

involved in constructing several riparian pasture and exclosure fences on Big Creek and Lake 

Creek to assist in grazing management and aquatic habitat recovery.

Issues

Scoping identified the following issues. The issues were separated into three groups for the 

purpose of this analysis: 

 Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action; however, the effects cannot be reduced by normal Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) or Project Design Criteria (PDCs). Alternatives were developed to 

address these issues. 

 Analysis issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action; however, the effects could be reduced with normal BMPs and PDCs. An 

alternative was usually not developed to address these analysis issues. However, these 

analysis issues will be tracked in the relevant resource area effects analyses in Chapter 3 

and in the Comparison of Alternatives in Chapter 2. Several of the issues for this project 

fall into this category.

 Issues eliminated from detailed study are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the 

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level 

decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The CEQ NEPA regulations require identification and 

elimination from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been 

covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3). These are listed in project file with 

the rational for eliminating them from detailed study in this analysis.

The significant issues and the analysis issues were carried through the analysis in order to fully 

develop and allow further comparison of the proposed action and alternatives. The 

environmental consequences of the proposal are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. Issues are 

discussed in detail in DEIS Chapter 1. The significant issues are noted below: 

 Bull Trout Critical Habitat – Grazing may degrade critical habitat for threatened bull 

trout. There may be direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of livestock use of streams 

and riparian areas that could negatively affect spawning and reproductive success. 

Livestock grazing may trample eggs, impact stream banks increasing sediment and 

widening stream channels, decrease shade-providing plants on the banks and increase 

water temperatures. Continued grazing on streams that are “functional at risk” may 

impact recovery of resource values including critical bull trout and beaver habitat. In 

areas that are functioning at risk, channels may not be interacting with the floodplain, 

substrate is often highly embedded and pool quality low, banks are incised with little 

vegetation, willows are under-represented in density and age classes, and water 

temperatures are high. 

 Economic Impacts to Permittees and Community – Changes in how allotments are 

managed can affect operational and implementation costs. Riparian exclosures and 

riparian pastures can exclude productive forage areas and impact livestock movement. 

The addition of fences can increase annual fence maintenance costs. Permittees, 

managers and employees of allotments reside in the local communities and contribute to 

the local economy.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 9

Table S-2: Significant Issues 

Significant Issue Significant Issue Indicator(s)

Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazing during spawning season by 

stream 

 Miles of critical bull trout habitat1

• Not grazed 

• Grazed annually

• Grazed with periods of rest

• Riparian pastures with rest

• Riparian exclosures not grazed 

 Rate of Recovery

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve PFC in 5 years 

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve PFC in 10 years 

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve desired vegetation 

conditions and channel characteristics in 10 years 

Economic Impacts to 

Permittees and the 

Local Community 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Animal Unit Months

 Costs of Improvements

 Acres Rested or Not Grazed 

 Acres Available for Grazing 

 Miles of Added Fence Maintenance 

Alternative Considered in Detail 

The Forest Service developed four alternatives: the No Action, the Proposed Action, and two 

other action alternatives generated in response to issues raised during scoping. The four 

alternatives considered in detail for this analysis are listed in the table below. Project alternatives 

are discussed in detail in DEIS Chapter 2. Project Design Criteria, Best Management Practices 

and Monitoring are also listed in detail in DEIS Chapter 2.

Table S-3: Summary of Alternatives 

Alternative Summary

No Action

Alternative 1

For this DEIS, the no action alternative is interpreted to be No Grazing. All Term Grazing Permits 

would be cancelled upon implementation of the decision and resolution of the appeal process. 

Permittees would be given two years written advance notice of cancellation of their permits as 

provided for under 36 CFR 222.4 (a)(1). Upon cancellation of the existing permit, there would be 

no livestock grazing under this alternative. 

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 2

This is the agency’s proposed action. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) was developed to establish a 

grazing system that provides opportunities for rest and deferment (flexibility in season of grazing) 

in the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments to recover important attributes of aquatic 

habitat including riparian vegetation and hardwoods, stream shade, and streambank stability. 

Portions of the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments, creating a larger landscape for grazing with no proposed increase in livestock 

numbers (AUMs). Adding additional acres to these allotments, combined with other grazing unit 

adjustments within the allotments provides the flexibility to periodically rest entire grazing units or 

defer the season of grazing to restore riparian area conditions, while maintaining enough acres to be 

grazed annually to support a viable grazing operation. 

 1 Miles of 303d listed streams are included in the critical bull trout habitat miles
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 10

Alternative Summary

Proposed allotment boundary and pasture adjustments in the McCoy Creek allotment establish a 

deferred rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would 

be used. Ongoing activities described in DEIS Chapter 1 (Current Management) would construct 

fences that exclude grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to recover hardwoods and 

stream shade.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to the public’s concern over bull trout critical habitat. All 

of the Lake Creek allotment would remain vacant in this alternative. The Lake Creek allotment 

contains all or portions of Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creek which 

are designated critical habitat for bull trout. Ongoing water developments in the Logan Valley 

allotment would provide opportunities to defer the season of grazing and a change to a deferred 

grazing system. Proposed allotment boundary and pasture adjustments in the McCoy Creek 

allotment establish a deferred rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of 

year when units would be used. Ongoing activities described in Chapter 1 (Current Management) 

would construct fences that exclude grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to recover 

hardwoods and stream shade. Riparian pastures and exclosures would be constructed on Summit 

Creek in the Little Logan and Sagehen pastures. Riparian pastures would be rested for several 

years to expedite recovery of riparian vegetation to enhance stream shade, riparian vegetation 

composition and vigor, and streambank stability. In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit 

Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable use levels for herbaceous forage and 

shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing condition of the specific 

riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the presence of critical 

bull trout habitat. See DEIS Appendix E for specific details. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed using public scoping comments and recommendations from Summit 

Prairie allotment grazing permittee. Part of the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added to the 

Logan Valley allotment. The portions of the Lake Creek allotment containing Lake Creek, Big 

Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creek (critical bull trout streams) would remain vacant. 

Adding acres from the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment establishes a larger 

grazing landscape providing the flexibility to rest and defer (flexibility in season of grazing) 

grazing to recover important attributes of aquatic habitat, while maintaining enough acres to be 

grazed annually to support a viable grazing operation. Proposed allotment boundary and pasture 

adjustments in the McCoy Creek allotment establish a deferred rotation grazing system allowing 

flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. Ongoing activities would construct 

fences that exclude grazing from most of Lake Creek within the allotment. Management changes 

are proposed in the Summit Prairie allotment to encourage recovery of riparian vegetation to 

enhance stream shade, riparian vegetation composition and vigor, and streambank stability. Daily 

riding by the permittee would be required when livestock are within the Sagehen and Little Logan 

units to move and distribute animals into the uplands away from Summit Creek. Small exclosures 

would be constructed and cages placed in the Sagehen and Little Logan units. A riparian pasture 

would be constructed from a portion of the Summit Rock and North Summit units containing 

portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and 

Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable use levels for herbaceous forage 

and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing condition of the specific 

riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the presence of critical 

bull trout habitat. See DEIS Appendix E for specific details. 

Table S-4: Summary of Alternative Actions: Lake Creek Allotment

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allotment Acres Not Applicable 5,069 10, 196 9,459

Grazing System No Grazing Vacant Vacant Vacant

Boundary 

Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 4,778 

acres of the Lake 

Creek allotment 

No boundary 

changes. Entire 

allotment would 

Approximately 388 

acres of the Lake 

Creek allotment 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 11

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

would be absorbed 

into the adjacent 

Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie 

allotments. An 

additional 349 would 

be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

This area may be 

added to the Dollar 

Basin allotment in the 

future. 

remain vacant. would be absorbed 

into the adjacent 

Logan Valley 

allotment. An 

additional 349 would

be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

This area may be 

added to the Dollar 

Basin allotment in the 

future. 

Livestock 

Numbers 0 0 0 0

Grazing Season No Grazing Season No Grazing Season No Grazing Season No Grazing Season

Improvements 

and Structures 0 0 0 0

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Forage 

Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, 

and Endpoint 

Indicators

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Special 

Requirements None None None None

Adaptive 

Management None None None None

Table S-5: Summary of Alternative Actions: Logan Valley Allotment

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allotment Acres Not Applicable 4,359 3,971 4,359 

Grazing System No Grazing Periods non-scheduled 

rest and deferment Deferred Rotation

Periods nonscheduled rest and 

deferment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 12

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Boundary 

Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 655 

acres from the Lake 

Creek and McCoy 

Creek allotments 

would be added to the 

Logan Valley 

allotment. The Big 

Creek portion of the 

East Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek, and 

South Big Creek 

would be combined 

into a single large unit 

known as Big Creek 

Riparian pasture.

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment.

Approximately 267 

acres of the McCoy 

Creek allotment would 

be absorbed into the 

Logan Valley 

allotment. The Big 

Creek portion of the 

East Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek, and 

South Big Creek 

would be combined 

into a single large unit 

known as Big Creek 

Riparian pasture.

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment. 

Approximately 655 

acres from the Lake 

Creek and McCoy 

Creek allotments 

would be added to 

the Logan Valley 

allotment. The Big 

Creek portion of the 

East Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek, 

and South Big Creek 

would be combined 

into a single large 

unit known as Big 

Creek Riparian 

pasture.

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment. 

Livestock 

Numbers 

(AUMs)

0 1,983 1,983 1,983 

Grazing Season No Grazing Season 06/10-10/15 06/10-10/15 06/10-10/15

Improvements 

and Structures 0

Approximately 2.8 

miles of additional 

fences would be 

constructed and 2.3 

miles removed.

Approximately 0.3 

miles of additional 

fences would be 

constructed and 1.5 

miles removed.

Approximately 2.8 

miles of additional 

fences would be 

constructed and 2.3 

miles removed. 

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable See DEIS Chapter 2, Table 2-4

See DEIS Chapter 2, 

Table 2-16

See DEIS Chapter 2, 

Table 2-26

Forage 

Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, 

and Endpoint 

Indicators

Not Applicable See DEIS Appendix E See DEIS Appendix E See DEIS Appendix 

E

Special 

Requirements None 

Livestock would be 

removed by August 

15th to protect bull 

trout spawning habitat 

in the Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture. 

Livestock would be 

removed by August 

15th to protect bull 

trout spawning habitat 

in the Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture. 

Livestock would be 

removed by August 

15th to protect bull 

trout spawning 

habitat in the Big 

Creek Riparian 

Pasture.

Adaptive 

Management None

Adaptive management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 

summarized in 

Adaptive management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 

summarized in 

Adaptive 

management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 13

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Chapter 2, Table 2-6. Chapter 2, Table 2-18. summarized in 

Chapter 2, Table 2-

28.

Table S-6: Summary of Alternative Actions: McCoy Creek Allotment

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allotment Acres Not Applicable 660 660 660 

Grazing System No Grazing Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation

Boundary 

Changes Not Applicable

The Lake Creek and 

North Fork units (267 

acres) of the McCoy 

Creek allotment 

would be removed 

from the McCoy 

Creek allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Logan Valley 

allotment.

The Starvation unit 

would be removed 

from the McCoy 

Creek allotment and 

possibly added to the 

Dollar Basin 

allotment in the 

future. A separate 

environmental 

analysis would be 

required.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Livestock 

Numbers 

(AUMs)

0 416 416 416

Grazing Season No Grazing Season 06/01-10/30 06/01-10/30 06/01-10/30

Improvements 

and Structures 0 Approximately 1 mile of fence removed Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Forage 

Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, 

and Endpoint 

Indicators

Not Applicable See DEIS Appendix 

E 

See DEIS Appendix 

E

See DEIS Appendix 

E

Special 

Requirements None None None None
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 14

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Adaptive 

Management None

None - Lake Creek 

fenced in riparian 

exclosures with no 

grazing.

None - Lake Creek 

fenced in riparian 

exclosures with no 

grazing.

None - Lake Creek 

fenced in riparian 

exclosures with no 

grazing.

Table S-7: Summary of Alternative Actions: Summit Creek Allotment

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allotment Acres Not Applicable 29,832 25,383 25,383 

Grazing System No Grazing

Periods nonscheduled rest and 

deferment

Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation

Boundary 

Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment.

The Bosenberg unit 

(4,449 acres) from the 

vacant Lake Creek 

allotment would be 

added to the Summit 

Prairie Allotment.

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment.

Riparian pastures and 

grazing exclosure 

would be constructed 

in the Sagehen, Little 

Logan and North 

Summit units 

allowing portions of 

Summit Creek to be 

rested. 

Approximately 52 

acres would be 

removed from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment and 

absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie 

allotment.

A riparian pasture 

would be constructed 

containing portions of 

Summit Creek and 

West Fork Summit 

Creek in portions of 

the Summit Rock and 

North Summit units.

Livestock 

Numbers 

(AUMs)

0 1,546 1,546 1.546

Grazing Season No Grazing Season 06/10-10/24 06/10-10/24 06/10-10/24

Improvements 

and Structures 0

Approximately 7.0 

miles of new fence 

would be constructed 

and 0.7 miles 

removed.

Approximately 12.2 

miles of additional 

fences would be 

constructed and 0.7 

miles removed.

Approximately 6.1 

miles of additional 

fences would be 

constructed and 0.7 

miles removed.

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable See DEIS Chapter 2, Table 2-10 

See DEIS Chapter 2, 

Table 2-20 

See DEIS Chapter 2, 

Table 2-30 

Forage 

Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, 

and Endpoint 

Indicators

Not Applicable See DEIS Appendix 

E 2

See DEIS Appendix 

E

 

See DEIS Appendix 

E

 2 Note: Move triggers and allowable use levels on herbaceous hydrophytic riparian species (riparian greenline), 

riparian woody shrubs, and bank alteration vary by grazing unit and alternative.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 15

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Special 

Requirements None 

To ensure adequate 

protection of all 

streams in the unit, 

riding in the 

Bosenberg unit would 

be required to 

maintain livestock 

concentrations in the 

uplands.

Part of the Bosenberg 

Unit was burned in 

early 1990 wildfires. 

To allow continued 

recovery of 

Bosenberg Creek, 

specific monitoring

criteria and stream 

bank alteration 

standards would be 

applied. See Chapter 

2 (Monitoring) and 

Appendix E (Move 

Triggers and 

Allowable Use 

Levels).

Daily riding by the 

permittee would 

ensure livestock stay 

in the uplands, 

reducing grazing use 

along Summit Creek 

in the Sagehen and 

Little Logan units 

during the season of 

use. 

Adaptive 

Management None

Adaptive 

management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 

summarized in 

Chapter 2, Table 2-

12.

Adaptive 

management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 

summarized in 

Chapter 2, Table 2-

22.

Adaptive 

management 

strategies shown in 

DEIS Appendix A 

(part3) are 

summarized in 

Chapter 2, Table 2-

32.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The environmental consequences of implementing this project, by alternative, are described in 

detail in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. A concise summary of the effects is displayed in the tables 

below.

Table S-8: Comparison of Alternatives: Significant and Analysis Issues

Significant 

Issue Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Bull Trout

Critical 

Habitat 

Miles of occupied 

bull trout habitat 

grazed during 

spawning season by 

stream 

0 0 0 0

Miles of critical bull 

trout habitat for 

occupied and 

unoccupied: 

 Not grazed 35 9.9 14.3 14.3
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 16

Significant 

Issue Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

 Grazed 

annually 0.0 7.3 12.1 15.4

 Grazed with 

periods of rest 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0

 Riparian 

pasture with 

rest

0.0 2.7 7.4 4.8

 Riparian 

exclosures not 

grazed 

0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Rate of Recovery:

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve PFC in 5 

years 

31.1 29.6 33.3 31.7

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve PFC in 

10years 

35 30.9 34.4 34.5

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve desired 

vegetation and 

channel conditions 

in 10 years 

31 17.2 32.1 25.5

Economic 

Impacts to 

Permittees 

and the 

Local 

Community 

Animal Unit Months

(AUMs) 0

AMUs are the same for every alternative: 

Lake Creek: 0

Logan Valley: 1,983 

McCoy Creek: 416

Summit Prairie: 1,546 

Costs of 

Improvements:

 Lake Creek 

$0

67,500 0 67,550

Logan Valley 74,400 12,600 80,100

McCoy Creek 3,000 3,000 3,000

Summit Prairie 224,100 333,800 155,600

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed (average 

minimum on an 

annual basis over the 

next 10 years):

 Lake Creek 10,196 5,056 10,196 9,459

Logan Valley 3,756 232 45 232

McCoy Creek 980 0 0 0

Summit Prairie 25,331 3,452 74 18

Acres available for 

Grazing (average)3: 

 Lake Creek 

$0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 4,127 3,926 4,127

McCoy Creek 660 660 660

Summit Prairie 26,380 25,310 25,365

 3 Acres do not include existing exclosures that would not be grazed.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 17

Significant 

Issue Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of Added Fence 

Maintenance4 : 

 Lake Creek 

$0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 4.8 2.3 2.3

McCoy Creek 1.4 1.4 1.4

Summit Prairie 7.3 12.5 6.4

Analysis 

Issues Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fences are 

movement 

barriers to 

wildlife 

Miles of Fence 

Removed:

 Lake Creek 

0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 2.3 1.5 1.5

McCoy Creek 1.0 1.0 1.0

Summit Logan 0.7 0.7 0.7

Miles of Fence 

Constructed 

See Significant Issue “Miles of Added Fence Maintenance” for 

miles of fence constructed. 

Design Elements to 

Reduce Impacts 

Not 

Applicable 

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, 

Design Elements are in place requiring a smooth 

bottom wire at least 16 inches above the ground 

to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum 

top wire height of 42 inches, and spacing of 10 

inches between the top and next lower wire to 

reduce the potential of back legs being caught 

when animals jump the fence. 

Proposed 

Move 

Triggers, 

End-Point 

Indicators 

not capable 

of allowing 

for riparian 

recovery

Move Triggers and 

End-Point Indicators See DEIS Appendix E 

Limited 

hardwoods

have resulted 

in a loss of 

beaver 

habitat and 

reduction in 

beaver 

populations

Short – and Long –

Term Effects on 

Shrub Development 

Not 

Applicable 

Adding the 

Bosenberg 

unit and 

requiring 

yearlong rest

(3 out of 10 

years) would 

improve the 

height and 

vigor of 

existing 

shrubs. 

The creation 

of riparian 

pastures and 

exclosures 

with 

immediate 

rest (5 years) 

along with 

reduced 

woody browse 

would 

improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

Site specific 

willow 

exclosures 

and a range 

rider along 

with reduced 

woody browse 

would 

improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

expiation of 

willow 

densities.

 4 Miles are cumulative, including acres from ongoing projects (see current management in Chapter 1 for further 

detail). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 18

Analysis 

Issues Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

expiation of 

willow 

densities. 

Shifting 

parts of 

vacant 

allotments 

into active 

livestock use 

Acres of Currently 

Vacant Allotment 

Grazed 

0 4,478 0 388

Miles of Critical Bull 

Trout Habitat Grazed 

in Currently Vacant 

Allotment 

0 4.4 0 0

Livestock 

Stocking 

Levels 

Should be 

Reduced 

Capability, 

Suitability and 

Forage Production 

No Grazing 

The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and 

may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual 

adjustment of both numbers and/or season. The 

analysis of available forage and stocking rates 

shows that adequate forage is available to 

support AUMs levels currently permitted 

including any proposed allotment boundary and 

management changes.

Table S-9: Comparison of Alternatives: Resource Areas

Resource 

Areas

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Propose Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Rangeland Vegetation

Range

Vegetation 

and Health 

Vigor

No direct or 

indirect effects

Proposed forage use levels are adequate to maintain or improve plant vigor 

(health) and allow continued improvement in forage condition trends.

Invasive 

Species

No direct or 

indirect effects

The ground disturbance for the new structural improvements could create an 

opportunity for invasive weed species to be introduced. 

The presence of livestock on the landscape would increase the risk of invasive 

weed species being introduced. The risk of spread is low.

Botany 

(Sensitive 

Plants)

See Table S-10 See Table S-10 See Table S-10 See Table S-10

Soils No direct or 

indirect effects Consistent with Forest Plan soil protection standards

Hydrology and Aquatics

Bull Trout

Habitat 

Recovery

See Table S-11

Threatened, 

Endangered 

and Sensitive 

Aquatic 

Species

See Table S-11

Forest Plant 

Consistency Consistent with Management Area 3A standards, Amendment 29, and INFISH.

Clean Water 

Act 

Consistent with the Clean Water Act; providing for the recovery of the wetland obligate vegetation 

attributes and channel morphology, resulting in water temperatures that would provide for Bull 

Trout beneficial uses.

Recreation Meets Recreation Opportunity Spectrum standard

Visual Meets Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 19

Resource 

Areas

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Propose Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Quality

Malheur 

Wild and 

Scenic River

Corridor

No direct or 

indirect effects

No improvements and/or structures within the corridor. Meets Forest Plan 

Standards. There would be no effect to the outstanding remarkable values or 

free flowing conditions of the river.

Heritage No direct or 

indirect effects

No additional impacts to heritage sites within the project area are expected from 

grazing. 

Social Economics

Animal

Month Units See Table S-8

Structural 

Improvement 

Costs 

See Table S-8

Wildlife See Table S-11 See Table S-11 See Table S-11 See Table S-11

Table S-10: Effects to Sensitive Plant Species 

Concern / Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale 1 2, 3, 4

Species where impacts 

from herbivory / 

grazing is a concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI These three species are palatable 

and have the potential to be 

negatively impacted by intensive 

grazing (Bakker et al. 2010, 

NatureServe 2012, Wilson et al. 

2008).

Species where impacts 

from trampling and 

defecation is a concern.

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium montanum

Botrychium paradoxum

Botrychium pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI These species are very small, 

delicate, and exists in areas with 

high soil moisture. Livestock are 

often concentrated in these areas. 

For these species, a single hoof 

print or cow pie can destroy an 

individual plant, and even a 

relatively small amount of hoof 

action and/or defecation can 

eliminate a small population.

Species where impacts 

from trampling, trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in peatlands 

is a concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium crenulatum

Harpanthus flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum pusillum

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

Splachnum ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/BI Adaptive management strategies 

that benefit these species would 

be implemented if detrimental 

effects are occurring and 

management objectives are not 

met within a 5 year period 

(SLVGA DEIS, Appendix A, 

parts 2 and 3).

BI=Beneficial Impact, NI=No Impact, MID=May Detrimentally Impact but would not lead to a tread toward federal 

listing [40 CFR §1508.8, FSM 2672.42(5)]. Species identified in bold font are documented within the project area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 20

Table S-11: Effects to Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species

Aquatic Species Status Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Columbia River Bull 

Trout T (MIS) NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE

Columbia River Bull 

Trout Designated 

Critical Habitat

D NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE

Interior Redband Trout S (MIS) MIIH/BI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Columbia spotted frog

S NI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Western Ridged Mussel S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Shortface Lanx S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Table S-12: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species Summary

Terrestrial 

Species Status Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Canada Lynx Threatened NE NE NE NE

Gray Wolf Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle Sensitive NI NI NI NI

American 

Peregrine 

Falcon

Sensitive NI NI NI NI

California 

Wolverine Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Greater SageGrouse Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Silverbordered 

Fritillary

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa 

Rosy Finch Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bobolink Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Grasshopper 

Sparrow Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland 

Sandpiper Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact

Tricolored 

Blackbird Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact

Bufflehead Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

White-headed 

Woodpecker Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend's 

Big-Eared Bat Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid Bat Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed 

Myotis Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 21

Terrestrial 

Species Status Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Hairstreak

Columbia 

Clubtail Sensitive No Impact MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia 

Spotted Frog Sensitive See Aquatic Section MIIH MIIH MIIH

Big Game 

Habitat (Elk) MIS No Impact Not expected to affect elk population numbers or viability. 

Old Growth 

Habitat MIS

No direct or 

indirect effects to 

old growth habitat 

and the MIS 

species associated 

with this habitat. 

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to Old Growth 

Habitat and associated MIS pileated woodpecker, American 

marten, and three-toed woodpecker. 

Primary 

Cavity 

Excavators

MIS

No direct, indirect 

or cumulative 

effects to the 

primary cavity 

excavators or their 

habitat.

No impact to snag and down wood habitat in ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine, or mixed conifer stands. Little or no impact 

to woodpeckers utilizing these habitats. 

Unprotected aspen stands may continue decline impacting 

nesting and foraging habitat. 

Goshawk, 

Osprey, Blue 

Grouse, 

Antelope

Features 

Species

No direct, indirect 

or cumulative 

effects to featured 

species or their 

habitat. 

There would be no impacts to goshawk nesting habitat, 

osprey nesting habitat (snags), or blue grouse winter roosts. 

Improvements in riparian shrub density and age classes, as 

well as herbaceous cover, would improve habitat for small 

mammals, birds (northern goshawk prey), fisheries (osprey 

prey), or blue grouse foraging areas.

Cattle grazing may displace female pronghorns. Because 

turn-out dates would be in mid- June or later, this would not 

impact newly born fawns. Most antelope have had their 

young by June. 

Beaver

Species of 

Concern 

During 

Scoping

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Recovery of herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods

could increase the expansion of beaver within the project 

area. 

Landbirds 

Including 

Neotropical 

Migratory 

Birds

Migratory 

Birds

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Overall disturbance from activities would be limited in time 

and place, and therefore, would not be expected to impact 

populations of species at the landscape level. 

Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

D Designated Critical Habitat 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

Effects Determination 

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA May Effect, Like to Adversely Affect 

BE Beneficial Effect 

Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trent Toward Federally Listing 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Summary Page 22

or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative #4 with the associated design criteria and monitoring items is the Agency Preferred 

Alternative.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 23

Chapter 1

Introduction 

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the 

potential effects of authorizing livestock grazing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization (SLVGA) project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization project area includes all of the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek 

and Summit Prairie Allotments.

The project area is predominately within the Upper Malheur River watershed. Numerous streams 

flow within the watershed including Summit Creek, Big Creek, McCoy Creek and Lake Creek. 

A minor portion of the Summit Prairie Allotment (371 acres or less than 0.6% of the analysis 

area) occurs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed (Crane Creek subwatershed). 

There are no streams within these 371 acres. 

The project area is located south and west of Prairie City, Oregon and includes approximately 

40,279 acres of National Forest System lands administered by the Prairie City Ranger District of 

the Malheur National Forest. Embedded within the project area is approximately 5,000 acres of 

private land. 

Decision Framework 

The Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest is the responsible official who will decide 

whether domestic livestock grazing should be authorized on all, part, or none of the project area. 

If the decision is to authorize some level of livestock grazing, then management prescriptions 

would be applied to ensure that the Forest Plan goals and the purpose and need for the project are 

met.

Forest Plan

This DEIS tiers to the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (1990) and incorporates by 

reference the accompanying Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan (1990)), as 

amended. Additional management direction is provided by Forest Plan amendments approved 

since 1990, some of which include:

 “Columbia River Anadromous Fish Management Policy and Implementation Guide”

(USDA 1994; herein referred to as Amendment #29). The amendment included changes 

to both Management Areas 3A (inland fish habitat) and 3B (anadromous fish habitat). 

 “Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada” (USDA Forest Service 

1995; also known as INFISH). This amendment provides riparian goals, management 

objectives, and standards and guidelines that reduce the risk of loss of populations of 

inland fish and potential negative impacts to aquatic habitat.

 The Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive 

Plant Program, 2005, herby referred to as the R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS. The R6 2005 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 24

Invasive Plant FEIS culminated in a Record of Decision (R6 2005 ROD) that amended 

the Malheur Forest Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants and 

released all National Forests from direction established by the 1988 ROD and Mediated 

Agreement for invasive plant management. Parts of the 1988 ROD and 1989 Mediated 

Agreement for unwanted native plants were not affected by the R6 2005 ROD.

 “Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife 

Standards for Timber Sales” (USDA Forest Service 1995; also known as Regional 

Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 or Eastside Screens). Amendment 2 is not 

applicable to this analysis. 

Forest Plan amendments are those analyses documented in the R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS and 

Record of Decision; and Decision Notices for INFISH and Amendment #29.

Management Area Standards 

The Forest Plan divided the analysis area into eight management areas (MA), each with different 

management goals and standards. In addition, INFISH created Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas (RHCAs) that overlap management areas and supersede Forest Plan direction with specific 

standards, except if the existing direction provided more protection for inland native fish habitat. 

The following MAs are located within the project area (see Table 1-1).

Table 1-1: Management Areas

Management Areas Acres % of Area

1-2: General Forest and Rangeland 9,117 23

3A: Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas (including 

RHCAs) 4,719 12

12: Developed Recreation 8 <1

13: Old Growth 2,115 5

14: Visual Corridors 24,278 60

19: Administrative Sites 27 <1

22B: Wild and Scenic River 15 <1

TOTAL 40,279 100%

Management Area 1 - General Forest

This management area primarily consists of forested lands and is designed to emphasize timber 

production on a sustained yield basis while providing for other resource values.

Generally, acres for MA 1 and MA 2 (see below) are combined. 

Management Area 2 – General Rangeland

This management area primarily consists of non-forested grasslands and low-site ponderosa pine 

lands that are unsuitable for timber production. Forage production is emphasized on non-forested 

areas on a sustained yield basis while providing for other resource values. This management area 

is usually included as non-forested lands within other MAs, primarily MA 1 – General Forest

(see MA-1 for acres). 

Management Area 3A – Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas 

Management Area 3A consists of lakes, perennial streams and seasonally flowing streams. 

These areas are to be managed to protest and enhance their value for wildlife, resident fish 

habitat and water quality. Fore Plan Amendment 29 incorporated the Columbia River 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 25

Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Policy Plan (USDA Forest Service 1994) establishing 

specific desired condition numeric values. INFISH (USDA 1995) provided riparian goals, 

riparian management objectives (RMO’s) and standards and guidelines that amended the Forest 

Plan. INFISH also directed that Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) be delineated to 

include portions of watersheds where riparian dependent resources of would receive primary 

emphasis. RHCAs are subject to specific standards. See Aquatic section in Chapter 3 for further 

detail. 

Management Area 12 – Developed Recreation Sites

Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing interpretation and enhancement of 

cultural and natural resources. This management area includes Murray and Big Creek 

Campgrounds. 

Management Area 13 – Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth

The primary goal is for wildlife and plant habitat, ecosystem diversity and aesthetic quality. 

Management Area 14 – Visual Corridors

This management area consists of visible and potentially visible landscape along major travel 

routes and the wild and scenic rivers where traveling public has a high-to-medium sensitivity to 

the scenery. 

Management Area 19 – Administrative Sites

This management area includes the Lake Creek Organization camp. The goal is to provide and 

maintain sites for facilities necessary for the administration of Malheur National Forest lands. 

Management Area 22b – Wild and Scenic River

The Malheur River has both wild and scenic segments designated. A portion of the scenic 

segment is located in the project area. The goal is within the corridor is to protect and enhance 

the scenic, geologic, wildlife habitat, and historic values of the river corridor. Preserve the freeflowing conditions of the river for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. A 

Decision Notice was signed on August 7, 1992 authorizing a management strategy for the 

Malheur Wild and Scenic River. This decision amended the Forest Plan and established a new 

Forest Plan Management Area (MA 22b) replacing Management Area 22. The management 

strategy from the decision was incorporated into the Malheur Wild and Scenic River Plan. 

Listed Species Consultation 

On June 18, 2012, the Malheur National Forest submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) and 

subsequent information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (FWS) La Grande Field Office for 

concurrence on the effects of grazing from 14 allotments on Columbia Basin bull trout

designated critical habitat. The Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments 

were included in the BA. Lake Creek was not included because no action was proposed. On 

September 6, 2012, the Malheur National Forest received a Biological Opinion/Concurrence 

Letter from the FWS. The FWS concurred that the proposed livestock management for the 

Logan Valley allotment is not likely to adversely affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. 

The FWS also concurred and wrote a letter of opinion that the proposed livestock management in 

the Summit Prairie and McCoy Creek allotments is likely to adversely affect bull trout critical 

habitat. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 26

Current Management 

The following outlines the current management system and conditions for each allotment: 

Lake Creek Allotment

Totals 10,196 acres and is currently vacant. It contains three units (Bosenberg, Horse Pasture 

and McCoy Creek) with separation fences. However some portions of the fence were burned 

during the 1990 Snowshoe fire. There are two developed springs on the allotment in the 

Bosenberg unit. 

Prior to the Snowshoe Fire in 1990, this allotment was unmanageable due to the dense overstory 

canopy and reduced forage base; the permittee waived the allotment back to the Forest Service. 

Since then it has been vacant and not been grazed for over 20 years. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Totals 3,756 acres with 11 grazing units in which fences separate the West Lake Creek, East 

Lake Creek, North Big Creek, South Big Creek, West Bosenberg, East Bosenberg, Corral 

Holding, Front Field, Lower Field, Big Field and Flat Field units will be analyzed. There is one 

developed water source that aids in the distribution of livestock throughout the Flat Field unit. 

Other stock water is provided by Lake Creek, Big Creek and Deardorff Ditch. Up to 357 head of 

cattle (cow calf pairs) are authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 15th.

Since completion of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments in 2007 changes in 

management have occurred on the West Lake Creek unit which was determined to be in a 

Functioning-at-Risk (FAR) with a downward trend condition. Adaptations to grazing

management in the West Lake Creek unit were made during the 2008-2012 grazing seasons to 

improve steam bank stability and the composition of stream bank stabilizing species. 

Adaptations include moving to early season grazing and reductions in authorized duration of 

grazing (Head Months), as well as the development of a portable solar panel pump with troughs 

placed in the uplands away from Lake Creek. 

In 2011,three Decision Memo’s were signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing 

projects within the Logan Valley allotment to enhance livestock management and improve shade 

and hardwood communities associated with bull trout habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek. 

Projects include:

Project Name Project 

Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated Implementation

Big Creek & Lake Creek Range Aquatics Project (signed: 08-02-2011)

Big Creek Fence and 

Water-Gap

Construction of a 

riparian pasture 

fence on 

approximately 0.2 

miles along Big 

Creek. A hardened 

water-gap (not 

exceeding 20 ft.) 

would be 

constructed within 

the fence line to 

Restoration of 

critical bull trout

habitat on Big Creek 

while maintaining 

livestock access to 

water

Logan Valley 

allotment/West 

Bosenberg unit 

Creates West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

2012-2013
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 27

Project Name Project 

Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated Implementation

provide water to the 

remainder of the 

West Bosenberg 

unit.

Big Creek & Lake Creek Off-Site Water Sources and West Lake Creek Riparian Fence Range Aquatic 

Projects (signed: 10-05-2011)

Big Creek & Lake 

Creek Off-Site 

Water Source

Development of 

solar system to 

pump water from 

Big and Lake Creeks 

to troughs located in 

the uplands of the 

units.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock along Big 

and Lake Creeks by 

providing water 

sources in the 

uplands of the 

allotment.

Logan Valley 

allotment/Big Field, 

Flat Field, East Lake 

Creek and West 

Lake Creek units. 

2012-2013

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Fence

Construction of a 

riparian pasture 

fence along 

approximately 1 

mile along Lake 

Creek.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock along Lake 

Creek, allowing the

herbaceous plant 

community to 

recover and stabilize 

the streambank.

Logan Valley 

allotment/West Lake 

Creek unit

Creates West Lake 

Creek Riparian 

pasture 

2012-2013

Big Creek & Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood Planting Restoration Project (signed: 12-09-2011)

Big Creek and Lake 

Creek Riparian 

Hardwood Planting

Planting hardwoods

within the newly 

created West 

Bosenberg and West 

Lake Creek Riparian 

pastures

Restore shade and 

cover (undercut 

banks) along Big 

and Lake Creeks

Logan Valley 

allotment/West 

Bosenberg and West 

Lake Creek Riparian 

pastures 

2012-2013

McCoy Creek Allotment

Totals 980 acres in 7 grazing units, where fences separate Cow Camp, Dry, Gov’t Flat, Lake 

Creek, North Fork, Ridge and Starvation units. There is one water development located with the 

Lake Creek unit. Other stock water is provided by Lake Creek and Deardorff Ditch. Up to 63 

head of cattle (cow calf pairs) are authorized for a season generally between June 1st and October 

30th.

Three units (Lake Creek, Starvation and North Fork) are detached from the main body of the 

McCoy Creek allotment and are not consistently grazed because of the logistics of moving 

livestock. Each of these units has a single source of water provided by ponds or streams. The 

pond in the Lake Creek unit only provides early season water. Irregular use has allowed the

palatability and vigor of upland vegetation to decline.

In the 4 units that are grazed on a yearly basis, Lake Creek is the only consistent source of water. 

The stream is accessed by all units through the Cow Camp unit. In the remaining 3 units, water 

is limited to ditches that do not provide a consistent source of livestock water, requiring the 4 

units to be managed as a single unit. Limited water and decreased forage palatability and vigor 

in uplands have decreased livestock distribution and use in uplands.

In 2011, three Decision Memo’s were signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing 

projects within the McCoy Creek allotment to enhance livestock management and improve shade 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 28

and hardwood communities associated with bull trout habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek. 

Projects include:

Project Name Project 

Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated Implementation

Big Creek & Lake Creek Range Aquatics Project (08-02-2011)

Lake Creek Unit 

Division Fence 

Reconstruction 

Reconstruction of 

approximately 1.0 

mile of fence 

Restore fence to 

an acceptable 

condition to 

control livestock 

movement and 

protect critical 

bull trout habitat 

on Lake Creek. 

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Lake 

Creek unit 

2012-2013

Lake Creek Fence 

and Water-Gap

Approximately 0.2 

miles of fence 

construction along 

Lake Creek. 

Construction of a 

hardened water 

gap within the 

fence line to 

provide water for 

livestock. 

Vegetation and 

stream channel 

to recovery while 

maintaining a 

functional water 

source for 

livestock 

McCoy Creek/ Cow 

Camp unit 

Creates temporary 

exclosure identified 

in this analysis as 

the Lake Creek 

Exclosure 

2012-2013

Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery 

Fence 

Approximately 0.5 

mile of fence 

construction along 

Lake Creek 

Provide 

protection of 

willow gallery 

along Lake 

Creek that is 

utilized by 

beaver and is 

critical habitat 

for bull trout. 

McCoy Creek/Cow 

Camp unit 

Creates temporary

exclosure identified 

in this analysis as 

the Lake Creek 

Willow Exclosure 

2012-2013

Big Creek & Lake Creek Off-Site Water Sources and West Lake Creek Riparian Fence Range 

Aquatic Projects (10-05-2011)

Big Creek & Lake 

Creek Off-Site 

Water Source

Development of 

solar system to 

pump water from 

Big and Lake 

Creeks to troughs 

located in the 

uplands of the 

units.

Reduce impacts 

of livestock 

along Big and 

Lake Creeks by 

providing water 

sources in the 

uplands of the 

allotment.

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Cow 

Camp unit 

2012-2013

Big Creek & Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood Planting Restoration Project (12-09-2011)

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

Planting 

hardwoods within 

the Lake Creek 

and Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery 

Fences. 

Restore shade 

and cover 

(undercut banks) 

along Lake 

Creek

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Cow 

Camp Grazing unit 

2012-2013

Summit Prairie Allotment

Totals 25,331 acres with seven units, fences separate the Sagehen, Crane Rock, Little Logan, 

Summit Rock, North Summit, South Summit, and West Summit units. Within the allotment, 31 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 29

ponds have been constructed for livestock water and springs developed help distribute livestock. 

Up to 260 head of cattle (cow calf pairs) are authorized for a season generally between June 10th

and October 24th.

Adaptations to grazing management were made in the Sagehen, West Summit and Summit Rock 

units during the 2008-2011 grazing seasons to improve stream bank stability and bank cover of 

stabilizing plants. Adaptations include reductions in authorized Head Months in the Sagehen 

unit in 2008-2011; installation of electric fencing along West Fork Summit Creek in 2009-2011; 

and the removal of all livestock that congregate along the West Fork of Summit Creek in the 

Summit Rock unit when approaching allowable use standards. 

In 2011, a Decision Memo was signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing projects 

within the Summit Prairie allotment to provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock 

distribution throughout grazing units.

Project Name Project 

Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated Implementation

Summit Creek Range Aquatics Project (09-09-2011)

West Fork Summit 

Creek Fence and 

Water Gap 

Approximately 0.3 

miles of fence 

construction along 

the West Fork of 

Summit Creek. 

Construction of a 

hardened water gap 

within the fence line 

to provide water for 

livestock.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock on West 

Fork of Summit 

Creek while 

maintaining a water 

source for livestock 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/ West 

Summit unit 

Creates West 

Summit Creek 

Riparian pasture 

2012-2013

West Fork Summit 

Creek Parallel Tree 

Felling 

Felling of green 

lodgepole pine 

parallel to West Fork 

of Summit Creek, 

restricting/ 

deflecting livestock 

and/or wild 

ungulates from the 

streambanks 

Reduce streambank

impacts of livestock 

and wild ungulates, 

protecting 

establishing 

hardwoods and other 

riparian plant 

communities 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Summit 

Rock unit 

2012-2013

Little Logan Willow 

Restoration 

Enlarge or replace 

existing cages 

around willows. 

Remove cages that 

have significantly 

grown above browse 

height. Construct a 

buck-n-pole 

exclosure 

approximately 1⁄4 

mile in length along 

Summit Creek 

Continue monitoring

willow recovery and 

browsing that occurs 

along Summit Creek 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Little 

Logan unit 

2012-2013

Sagehen Stock 

Ponds 

Construction of 

three uplands stock 

ponds 

Provide functional 

water source in the 

uplands, reducing 

livestock impacts 

along Summit Creek

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Sagehen 

unit 

2012-2013
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 30

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, has developed the project proposals, 

analyzed in this DEIS, to support the purposes of this project and meet Forest Plan goals and 

objectives.

The purpose of the proposed action is prompted by Section 2001(b) of Public Law 104-19, 

commonly known as the 1995 Rescission Act. The Act requires that each National Forest 

establish and adhere to a schedule for completion of National Forest Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) analysis on all active grazing allotments. The Lake Creek, Logan Valley, 

McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments were combined into this analysis because they have 

similar geographic, vegetative and ecological attributes. They are all located in the Upper 

Malheur River Watershed and are tributaries to the Malheur River. All four allotments contain 

critical habitat for threatened bull trout and have similar aquatic habitat needs. 

The purpose and need for an action is driven by the difference between the existing and desired 

conditions. The difference between these conditions helps define the resource need. Lake 

Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek are the three main fish bearing streams in the project area. 

Appendix A (part 1) compares the existing condition to the desired condition for each of these 

streams by stream reach.

The existing condition shows many stream reaches lack diverse age classes of willows and other 

hardwoods, and stabilizing herbaceous vegetation. Impaired shrub height and density and 

herbaceous vegetation is limiting stream shade, bank stability, hiding cover (undercut banks), 

and pool habitat. These essential stream components provide protection, food, and habitat 

(rearing, migratory, and reproductive) for bull trout and other aquatic species. Quantity and 

diversity of riparian vegetation is also limiting habitat for various wildlife species including 

beaver. 

Segments of Lake Creek, Summit Creek and West Fork of Summit Creek are Functioning-atRisk (FAR) with either an upward (5.1 miles) or downward (4.6 miles) trend. FAR riparian 

areas have an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them more susceptible to 

degradation during moderately high flow events. Most frequently, vegetation is the primary 

determining factor for trend on low-gradient streams common to those in the Summit Logan 

project area (Appendix A, part 1 shows PFC). 

Lake Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek are 303(d) listed streams for water temperature. The 

existing condition is not currently meeting the biological use criteria for bull trout spawning, 

rearing and migration. 

The purposes of the proposed action are two-fold: 

 Meet the requirements of the Rescission Act and provide for an appropriate level of 

domestic livestock grazing as set forth in the Malheur National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1990) and;

 Improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat.

Rescission Act 

There is a need to meet the Rescissions Act requirements to complete the NEPA analysis for the 

Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments. There is a need to 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 31

meet the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan goals by providing a sustained 

production of palatable forage for grazing by livestock and dependent wildlife species while 

meeting the needs of other resources and uses at a level which is responsive to site-specific 

objectives (Forest Plan, page IV-2) as well as to contribute to the social and economic health of 

communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management (IV-3, # 42). 

Aquatic Habitat 

There is a need to improve aquatic habitat in Lake Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek to 

support all life stages of bull trout. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation and 

hardwoods to enhance stream shade, temperature, riparian vegetation composition and vigor and 

streambank stability. Water temperature and streambank stability are important aquatic habitat 

features (riparian management objectives) identified in the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH. 

There is a need to develop an upward trend in riparian areas currently assessed as FAR with a 

downward or slowed trend, while continuing to improve or maintain riparian areas with upward 

recovery trends or properly functioning conditions toward desired conditions identified in 

Appendix A (part 1).

INFISH directs that grazing practices be modified (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to 

livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent 

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

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

Objectives (INFISH GM 1).

Proposed Action 

Overview 

A “proposed action” is defined early in the project-level planning process. It serves as a starting 

point for the Interdisciplinary Team and gives the public and other agencies specific information 

on which to focus comments. Using those comments (see discussion of Significant Issues later 

in Chapter 1) and information from preliminary analysis, the Interdisciplinary Team developed 

alternatives to the proposed action. 

The Malheur National Forest, Prairie City Ranger District, proposes to authorize livestock 

grazing on the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments and 

update grazing management direction by revising four AMP’s to address the purpose and need 

and meet Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines and the desired conditions for 

the analysis area. The specific elements of the proposed action are discussed in brief below. A 

more detailed description of the proposed action can be found in Chapter 2. 

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

Portions of this currently vacant allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments. The remaining 5,069 acres would remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and 

Corral Basin units. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 32

Boundary Changes

Approximately 4,778 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the adjacent 

Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments. Areas containing Lake Creek, Big Creek and 

Corral Basin Creek would remain vacant (5,069 acres). 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (349 acres) would be removed from the Lake 

Creek allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate 

environmental analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on 5,069 acres of the allotment.

Improvements and Structures

The removal of the southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from the Lake Creek allotment 

would require the construction 2.5 miles of new fencing. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Grazing System

The Logan Valley allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Rest or deferment would be determined based on resource needs and would not 

be a systematic or scheduled rotation. 

Boundary Changes

Approximately 655 acres from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to 

the Logan Valley allotment. The change would allow additional rest for the Logan Valley 

allotment, increasing the allotment acres to 4,359 (specific allotment and unit changes are 

included in Ch. 2).

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and South Big Creek would be 

combined into a single large unit known as Big Creek Riparian pasture.

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would be removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing season would remain as currently permitted, 

distributed over the larger landscape by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek 

allotments. 

The Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units that 

would be combined into a single riparian pasture would require livestock removal by August 15th

to protect bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Improvements and Structures

The North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit 

requiring removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 33

Absorbing a portion of the McCoy Creek unit along with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence. The new 

unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit.

Combining the Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek 

units would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-6 in 

Chapter 2.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Grazing System

A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied throughout the allotment. This system 

provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to change 

the time of year when units would be used. 

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 980 acres would decrease to 660 acres. The Dry and Ridge 

units of the allotment would be combined into a single unit as currently managed and would be 

called the Ridge unit. The Lake Creek and North Fork units (of the McCoy Creek allotment) 

would be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment. 

The Starvation unit (53 acres) would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment. This may be 

added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis would be 

required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number, forage allocation and grazing season would not change in the 

McCoy Creek allotment. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint indicators are listed 

in Appendix E. 

Improvements and Structures

The Dry and Ridge units would be combined into a single unit (as currently managed) requiring 

removal of 1 mile of fence. The combined units would be called the Ridge unit and would 

provide better livestock distribution.

Adaptive Management

No additional adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

The Summit Prairie allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Rest periods and deferment would be determined based on resource needs and 

would not be a systematic or scheduled rotation. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 34

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 25,331 acres would increase to 29,832 acres. The Front 

Field unit (from the Logan Valley allotment) would be absorbed into the Little Logan unit and 

the Bosenberg unit (from the vacant Lake Creek allotment) would be added as a separate grazing

unit.

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number, forage allocations, and the grazing seasons would remain as 

present conditions, distributed over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake 

Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment. 

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed if the Front Field unit is absorbed from the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit (from the Lake Creek allotment) would require construction of 

approximately 7 miles of additional fence. The water gaps would be located where Forest 

Service road 1648 crosses Bosenberg Creek and an unnamed tributary of Big Creek. Three ponds 

would be developed in the uplands to provide alternative water away from perennial streams. A 

spring would be developed off a head water spring for Bosenberg Creek. The spring source 

would be fenced and water piped to a water trough located 300 feet from the spring. Water 

would be piped from Bosenberg Creek to a trough located 100 approximately feet from the 

stream. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-12 in 

Chapter 2.

Allotment Management Plans (AMP)

Authorization of grazing would be implemented with grazing permits and AMPs. An AMP as 

defined in the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) is a document prepared in 

consultation with lessees or permittees that applies to livestock operations on the public lands 

and prescribes:

1. The manner and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to 

meet multiple use, sustained yield, economic and other needs and objectives.

2. Range improvements to be installed and maintained.

3. Range fences constructed to a standard that is compatible with wildlife and human 

uses, i.e. gates would be placed at a minimum of every one mile and bottom fence wire 

would be 16 inches off the ground.

4. Such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the 

Secretary to be consistent with provisions of FLPMA.

The AMPs also include upland and riparian vegetation community objectives (long-term goals), 

upland and riparian forage use standards and guidelines (short-term goals), required management 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 35

practices (e.g. salting and riding/herding for proper distribution), maintenance standards for 

structural improvements and monitoring plans.

Scoping

The CEQ defines scoping as “...an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 CFR 

1501.7). Among other things, the scoping process is used to invite public participation, to help 

identify public issues and to obtain public comment at various stages of the NEPA process. 

Although scoping is to begin early, it is really an iterative process that continues until a decision 

is made. To date, the public has been invited to participate in the project in the following ways:

Schedule of Proposed Actions

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project has been listed on the Malheur 

National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since April 2008. 

Public Mailing and Field Trips

Public comments were previously requested in October 2008 for this project. Since that time, 

the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project has transitioned from an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On February 1, 2012, a letter 

providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 230 entities, 

such as, agencies, groups, individuals and other parties that had requested information on general 

forest or specific range projects. Four comments letters were received: Oregon Natural Desert 

Association in conjunction with Oregon Wild, Grant County Conservationists, Blue Mountain 

Biodiversity and an anonymous commenter. Additionally, on February 8, 2012, a Notice of 

Intent was published in the Federal Register. 

Interaction with the Summit Logan allotment grazing permittees has been ongoing since the fall 

of 2007 and has included several field trips and meetings. Field trips to the project area were 

facilitated by the National Riparian Service Team and attended by representatives from U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the permittees. 

Tribal Government Consultation 

Tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis is ongoing with the Burns Paiute 

Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs Reservation. This government-to-government consultation is being conducted 

under the terms of specific agreements with individual tribes and includes regular contact and 

meetings as appropriate. Scoping letters were mailed to the tribal governments. In the spring 

and fall of 2008 the District Ranger, Rangeland Management Specialist and various 

Interdisciplinary Team members met with the Burns Paiute Tribe to discuss their proposals for 

the Logan Valley area. Several partnership projects are ongoing in the project area involving the 

Burns Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley allotment permittees. The Burns Paiute Tribe is 

constructing several riparian pasture and exclosure fences on Big Creek and Lake Creek to assist 

in grazing management and aquatic habitat recovery.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 36

Issues

Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to the effects of the proposed action. An issue is an 

unresolved conflict or public concern over a potential effect on a physical, biological, social or 

economic resource as a result of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to it. An 

issue is not an activity; instead, the projected effects of the proposed activity create the issue. 

Issues are generated by the public, other agencies, organizations and Forest Service resource 

specialists and are in response to the proposed action. Issues provide focus for the analysis of 

environmental effects and may influence alternative development, including development of 

project design criteria. In this document issues are tracked and are used to display differing 

effects of the proposed action and the alternatives.

The issues were separated into three groups for the purpose of this analysis: 

Significant issues, analysis issues and issues eliminated from detailed study. The CEQ NEPA 

regulations give guidance (40 CFR Sec. 1501.7) to “...identify and eliminate from detailed study 

the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review 

(Sec. 1506.3).”

 Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action; however, the effects cannot be reduced by normal Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) or Project Design Criteria (PDCs). Alternatives were developed to 

address these issues. 

 Analysis issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action; however, the effects could be reduced with normal BMPs and PDCs. An 

alternative was usually not developed to address these analysis issues. However, these 

analysis issues will be tracked in the relevant resource area effects analyses in Chapter 3 

and in the Comparison of Alternatives in Chapter 2. Several of the issues for this project 

fall into this category.

 Issues eliminated from detailed study are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the 

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level 

decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The CEQ NEPA regulations require identification and 

elimination from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been 

covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3). These are listed in project file with 

the rational for eliminating them from detailed study in this analysis.

The Interdisciplinary Team identified and carried through the analysis the significant issues and 

the analysis issues in order to fully develop and allow further comparison of the proposed action 

and alternatives. The environmental consequences of the proposal are disclosed in Chapter 3 for 

each resource affected by these issues. Each issue has indicators to allow members of the public 

and the Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) to determine how well issues are addressed by 

the alternatives (see Comparison of Alternatives Table in Chapter 2 for effects of the alternatives 

on issues). A complete issue identification summary is in the project record files. A discussion 

of all issue groups and indicators are presented below: 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 37

Significant Issues

After reviewing the public comments received during scoping, two significant issues were 

identified by the Responsible Official:

 Bull Trout Critical Habitat – Grazing may degrade critical habitat for threatened bull 

trout. There may be direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of livestock use of streams 

and riparian areas that could negatively affect spawning and reproductive success. 

Livestock grazing may trample eggs, impact stream banks increasing sediment and 

widening stream channels, decrease shade-providing plants on the banks and increase 

water temperatures. Continued grazing on streams that are “functional at risk” may 

impact recovery of resource values including critical bull trout and beaver habitat. In 

areas that are functioning at risk, channels may not be interacting with the floodplain, 

substrate is often highly embedded and pool quality low, banks are incised with little 

vegetation, willows are under-represented in density and age classes, and water 

temperatures are high. 

 Economic Impacts to Permittees and Community – Changes in how allotments are 

managed can affect operational and implementation costs. Riparian exclosures and 

riparian pastures can exclude productive forage areas and impact livestock movement. 

The addition of fences can increase annual fence maintenance costs. Permittees, 

managers and employees of allotments reside in the local communities and contribute to 

the local economy.

Table 1-1: Significant Issues Indicators 

Significant Issue Significant Issue Indicator(s)

Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazing during spawning season by 

stream 

 Miles of critical bull trout habitat5

• Not grazed 

• Grazed annually

• Grazed with periods of rest

• Riparian pastures with rest

• Riparian exclosures not grazed 

 Rate of Recovery

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve PFC in 5 years 

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve PFC in 10 years 

• Miles of Critical Habitat expected to achieve desired vegetation 

conditions and channel characteristics in 10 years 

Economic Impacts to 

Permittees and the 

Local Community 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Animal Unit Months

 Costs of Improvements 

 Acres Rested or Not Grazed 

 Acres Available for Grazing 

 Miles of Added Fence Maintenance

 5 Miles of 303d listed streams are included in the critical bull trout habitat miles
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 1 Page 38

Analysis Issues

Table 1-2 below lists the analysis issues considered for this analysis generated from public 

comments and/or the project Interdisciplinary Team.

Table 1-2: Analysis Issues 

Analysis Issue Analysis Issue Indicator(s)

Fences are Movement 

Barriers to Wildlife

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Miles of Fence Removed 

 Miles of Fence Constructed 

 Design Elements to Reduce Impacts 

Proposed Move 

Triggers, End-Point 

Indicators not capable 

of allowing for 

riparian recovery

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Move Triggers and End-Point Indictors 

Limited hardwoods

have resulted in a loss 

of beaver habitat and 

reduction in beaver 

populations

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Short- and Long-Term Effects on Shrub Development 

Shifting parts of 

vacant allotments into 

active livestock use 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Acres of Currently Vacant Allotment Grazed 

 Miles of Critical Bull Trout Habitat Grazed in Currently Vacant 

Allotment 

Livestock Stocking 

Levels Should be 

Reduced

Measure or element for evaluation: 

 Capability, Suitability and Forage Production

Project Record Availability 

This DEIS hereby incorporates, by reference, the project record. The project record contains all 

project-specific information including resource reports, the watershed analysis and other results 

of field investigations. The record also contains information resulting from public involvement 

efforts. The project record is available for review during regular business hours at Prairie City 

Ranger District in Prairie City, Grant County, Oregon.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 39

Chapter 2

Introduction 

Chapter 2 describes and compares the no action (no grazing), the proposed action and 

alternatives considered by the Forest Service for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project. This chapter is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, 

sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision 

maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14).

Development of Alternatives 

The Interdisciplinary Team used information from public scoping comments, the significant 

issues identified for the project (see Chapter 1) and direction given by the Responsible Official 

including Forest Plan direction and amendments, existing State and Federal laws, and fieldrelated resource information to formulate a reasonable range of alternatives. A reasonable range 

of alternatives to the proposed action was developed to 1: Meet the purpose and need for the 

project, and 2: Consider a reasonable range of solutions for the significant issues. 

This chapter includes a detailed description of each alternative, a list of design criteria, and other 

features of the alternatives. A summary of the alternatives is provided in Table 2-34. 

Each alternative is analyzed in detail to disclose environmental effects associated with its 

implementation in Chapter 3. A summary comparing the effects to the significant and analysis 

issues is provided at the end of this chapter in Table 2-36. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to rigorously 

explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for 

eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The following 

alternatives or components of alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed 

consideration for reasons summarized below.

Closure of Forest Roads 

Public comments during the scoping period requested road closures to be considered as part of 

the proposed action. A recent access travel management plan was implemented in Logan Valley 

area with the Merit Project. Over the last several years several miles of road closures and 

decommissioning were implemented in areas overlapping portions of the Logan Valley, Lake 

Creek, and McCoy Creek allotments benefiting aquatic and wildlife habitat. The Line Officer 

made a decision to not propose additional road closures in this analysis.

Beaver Recovery Projects 

Public comments requested that a credible and substantive beaver restoration alternative be 

considered. Although alternatives considered in detail do not specifically propose to restore 

beaver habitat, grazing management changes considered are expected to move riparian areas

toward desired conditions resulting in improved habitat for beaver across the project area. The 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 40

quality of beaver habitat will depend on the stream-type and vegetation potential. Closing roads 

was a beaver restoration strategy recommended in public comments. As stated above, the 

responsible official decided not to include road closures within the scope of the analysis.

Corridor Fencing of Big Creek 

A proposal was brought forward from the Burns Paiute Tribe to consider constructing corridor 

fences on Big Creek to eliminate livestock access and rest. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

Assessments on Big Creek stream reaches were conducted in 2007. All reaches of Big Creek 

assessed were determined to be in a Proper Functioning condition with an upward recovery

trend, therefore corridor fencing of all stream reaches was eliminated from detailed study. The 

Forest Service is working cooperatively with the Burns Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley 

allotment permittee to restore aquatic habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek. In 2011, the Prairie 

City District Ranger authorized creating a riparian pasture on approximately 0.2 miles of Big 

Creek that was not reviewed during the 2007 PFC assessments. The pasture fence is scheduled 

to be completed in 2012. In all alternatives the riparian pasture (West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture) is proposed to be rested and planted with willows to expedite recovery. 

Reduction of Permitted Grazing Numbers 

An alternative was considered that would have decreased the annual permitted livestock numbers 

and Animal Unit Months (AUMs) to improve stream conditions and habitat for bull trout. A 

capability and suitability and forage production analysis was completed for all allotments in the 

project area. The study showed that forage availability with the currently permitted livestock 

animal unit months (AUMs) is not a limiting factor in the allotments within the project area.

Reducing numbers as a stand-alone strategy would have economic impacts to the permittee and 

fails to fully consider the stressors on the riparian systems that are slowing or preventing their 

recovery. Recovery of stream conditions can successfully be accomplished using a combination 

of timing, duration and frequency of grazing. Within the alternatives considered in detail, 

changes in management were designed specifically for the stream reaches based on the existing 

condition. Strategies considered related to the timing, duration, and frequency of grazing 

include: periodic rest of entire grazing units, fencing to create riparian pastures and exclosures to 

better control the duration and frequency of grazing, changes in allowable stream bank impacts 

and forage use levels in riparian areas, and development of upland water source development and 

management requiring daily riding by the permittee to move livestock away from riparian areas. 

In addition, the AUMs proposed in all alternatives considered in detail were established as a 

maximum limit, maintaining flexibility for periodic adjustments in livestock numbers if needed 

to achieve desired conditions for streams.

Current Management 

Although current grazing strategies are facilitating recovery of most stream reaches, it was 

eliminated as an alternative studied in detail because there is still a need for changes in 

management to improve shrub, herbaceous vegetation, bank stability and stream shade

conditions on specific reaches of Summit Creek. Summit Creek is critical habitat for bull trout.

Scheduling Rest on all Stream Reaches that are Functioning at Risk

Several sources of data were used by the Interdisciplinary team to determine the existing 

condition and desired condition (see Appendix A, part1). This includes a Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) assessment completed in 2007. The assessment identified several stream 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 41

reaches in the project area as “functioning at risk”. Some stream reaches that are functioning at 

risk, have an upward recovery trend and scheduling rest to achieve the desired condition is not 

always necessary. Combinations of management that change the timing, duration and frequency 

of grazing are being considered based on the specific recovery needs of each stream reach. 

Scheduling rest as a stand-alone strategy for recovery all streams that are functioning at risk was 

eliminated from detailed study.

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

This DEIS assesses the potential effects of four alternatives: a no action alternative and three 

action alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)

For this DEIS, the no action alternative is interpreted to be No Grazing. 

Under Alternative 1, all Term Grazing Permits would be cancelled upon implementation of the 

decision and resolution of the appeal process. No permits would be issued for any of the affected 

allotments until or unless there was a subsequent NEPA analysis and a decision made to re-stock 

any or all of the allotments. Permittees would be given two years written advance notice of 

cancellation of their permits as provided for under 36 CFR 222.4 (a)(1).

Upon cancellation of the existing permit, there would be no livestock grazing under this 

alternative. During the two years prior to cancellation of the permits, livestock would continue 

to be managed under current management regimes for the existing permits.

Permittees would be reimbursed for their amortized share of cooperative range improvements 

where they participated in the development (FSH 2209.13 Chapter 70).

Allotment exterior boundary fences would be assigned to adjacent permittees for continued 

maintenance. Private land boundary fences would remain intact with ownership assumed to 

belong to the private landowners. Subsequent decisions would need to be made regarding 

retention of any improvements for other resource needs.

The purpose of the no grazing alternative is to describe the effects of cancellation of grazing 

permits, with no livestock grazing taking place. Other management activities taking place in the 

area would continue if this Alternative was selected. Activities such as motorized access travel 

management, road maintenance, dispersed recreation, noxious weed management and fire 

protection would be allowed to continue as they currently take place in the Project Area.

Actions Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Adaptive Management

All action alternatives are based on “adaptive management,” a process/model that uses 

monitoring and assessment information to determine if management changes are needed and, if 

so, what changes and to what degree. It is a process to cope with uncertainty and changing 

conditions over time. It gives the authorized officer the flexibility to adapt to changes on a 

yearly basis or after a period of longer term monitoring.

Adaptive management strategies that may be used with each alternative are identified in 

Appendix A (part 3). Monitoring would be used to determine if management objectives 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 42

identified in Appendix A (part 2) are being achieved in a timely manner. If it is determined 

through monitoring that objectives are not being achieved through the actions prescribed, then 

the pre-determined adaptive management strategy would be applied. 

The factors that would be considered in determining if or when adaptive management strategies 

would be applied include:

 Were management objectives identified in Appendix A (part) achieved within the desired 

timeframes?

 If management objectives were not achieved:

• Did unplanned circumstances cause non-attainment of the objectives (i.e., 

unauthorized or natural disturbance [ice scour, wildfire, flood event])?

• If some of the objectives were achieved but not others, were the objectives met 

for the indicators driving the upward trend for steam recovery and bull trout

habitat reached? Suggesting other management objectives need more time to 

develop but the rate of recovery is similar to reference DMAs. 

• Were the objectives achievable or appropriate? Provide flexibility of changing the 

numerical values or indicators for management objectives as time processes, more 

monitoring data becomes available and as future research improves the 

understanding of structure and function of riparian area. 

Chapter 3 discloses the effects of implementing the specific adaptive management strategies 

proposed, so they can be implemented without additional analysis in the future. 

Other Requirements

Grazing Would be Based on AUMs; Permits Would be Based on Average Animal Use and 

Cow/Calf Pairs or Yearlings

The action alternatives establish a maximum limit for animal unit months (AUMs) for each 

allotment. Alternatives propose livestock numbers (an average number of livestock) and the 

average season of use. Flexibility is maintained for annual adjustment of both numbers and/or 

season as long as the permitted use level (AUMs) is not exceeded. On an annual basis the actual 

livestock numbers and period of use may be adjusted in response to discussions with resource 

specialists and in response to resource needs, range readiness and monitoring. The grazing

season beginning and ending dates could be varied by as much as two weeks (from the average 

season of use) allowing flexibility for differences in annual range readiness. Flexibility that 

allows for annual adjustments provides a management tool to assure that riparian and rangeland 

objectives are met. 

Changes to numbers and season of use would be displayed in the Annual Operating Instructions 

(AOI). The permit would display the “average” number of livestock for the “average” season of 

use (Grazing Permit Administration Handbook 2209.13, Section 15.13; these dates and numbers 

may vary year by year in AOIs but when combined, would be equal to or less than the maximum 

permitted AUMs). 

Allotment Facilities are Maintained

Permittees would be required to perform all annual maintenance of range improvements (i.e. 

fences and water developments) assigned in their permits. All fences would be functional before 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 43

animals are turned out into the unit to be used. Range improvements would be reconstructed as 

the need arises (i.e., end of life span).

Appropriate Administrative Actions Would Occur

Appropriate administrative actions would be taken when the permittee’s management is not in 

compliance with the annual operating instructions (AOI). Consequences would occur (as 

described in FSH 2209.13, Section 16.21). Under the Terms and Conditions of the Forest Service 

Term Grazing Permit (Part2, number 8(b) and Part3) the Forest Officer in charge may modify the 

permitted number to protect resources. This is consistent with Forest Service Manual (FSM 

2200).

Recent Changes in Current Management 

Since completion of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments in 2007, several projects 

were authorized within the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie Allotments to 

enhance livestock management and improve shade and hardwood communities associated with 

bull trout habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek; and to provide aquatic restoration and improve 

livestock distribution along Summit and West Fork Summit Creeks. Projects include:

 Construction of riparian pasture fences on approximately 0.2 miles of Big Creek and 1.0

mile of Lake Creek. Riparian pasture fences are called West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 

and West Lake Creek Riparian pasture.

 Construction of riparian exclosure fences on approximately 0.7 miles of Lake Creek.

 Hardwood planting in riparian pastures and exclosures on Lake Creek and Big Creek.

 Development of solar water systems from Big Creek and Lake Creek to troughs located 

in the uplands.

 Reconstruction of 1.0 mile of division fence in the McCoy Creek allotment to control 

livestock movement.

 Fence construction to create a temporary livestock pasture called West Summit Recovery

unit. Streambank protection with trees on West Fork Summit Creek.

 Construction of a buck and pole fence on 0.25 miles of Summit Creek. Existing willow 

cage replacement, enlargement, and removal on Summit Creek.

 Construction of upland stock ponds to provide functional upland water sources. 

Decisions were signed in 2011 for all projects and are expected to be completed by 2013. These

projects are considered as part of current management for all action alternatives (see Chapter 1, 

Current Management for more detail).

Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) was developed to establish a grazing system that provides 

opportunities for rest and deferment (flexibility in season of grazing) in the Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie allotments to recover important attributes of aquatic habitat including riparian 

vegetation and hardwoods, stream shade, and streambank stability. Portions of the vacant Lake 

Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments, creating a 

larger landscape for grazing with no proposed increase in livestock numbers (AUMs). Adding 

additional acres to these allotments, combined with other grazing unit adjustments within the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 44

allotments provides the flexibility to periodically rest entire grazing units or defer the season of 

grazing to restore riparian area conditions, while maintaining enough acres to be grazed annually 

to support a viable grazing operation. 

Proposed allotment boundary and pasture adjustments in the McCoy Creek allotment establish a 

deferred rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would 

be used. Alternative 2 in combination with ongoing activities described in Chapter 1 (Current

Management) was developed to address the purpose and need to improve resource conditions for 

aquatic habitat. 

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 2-

34. See Appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities. 

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

Portions of this allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments. 

The remaining 5,069 acres would remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and Corral Basin units (see 

Table 2-1 below). 

Table 2-1: Alternative 2, Proposed Lake Creek Allotment Units to Remain Vacant

 *Part of the existing Bosenberg Unit

Boundary Changes

Approximately 4,778 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the adjacent 

Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments. Areas containing Lake Creek, Big Creek and 

Corral Basin Creek would remain vacant. Lake Creek and Big Creek contain occupied bull trout

habitat. 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (349 acres) would be removed from the Lake 

Creek allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate 

environmental analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on 5,069 acres of the allotment.

Table 2-2: Alternative 2, Lake Creek Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 5,069 0 0 Vacant None

Improvements and Structures

The removal of the southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from the Lake Creek allotment 

would require the construction 2.5 miles of new fencing. 

Unit Acres

McCoy Creek unit 2,639

*Corral Basin unit 2,430

Total 5,069
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 45

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

The Logan Valley Allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and 

would not be a systematic or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period 

critical to plant development, full growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis 

would be placed on resting units with aquatic habitat recovery needs. See Table 2-4 for 

minimum rest requirements.

Table 2-3: Alternative 2, Proposed Logan Valley Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

Deardorff unit 388

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 4,359

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley 

allotment.

Table 2-4: Alternative 2, Logan Valley Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) and 

willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have 

been achieved6

, with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year 

period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and 

use levels in Appendix E would be applied.

 6 Management objective is defined as conditions that have resilient vegetation and stream channel characteristics 

capable of withstanding disturbance and moving towards the desired condition when grazing is resumed. Site 

specific management objectives by target time periods are shown in Appendix A (part 2). If it is determined 

through monitoring that management objectives are not being achieved through the actions prescribed, then the 

respective adaptive management strategy would be applied to accelerate recovery. Adaptive management strategies 

are shown in Appendix A (part 3).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 46

Unit Required Rest

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012 or 

2013) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after willows have 

established, with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period. 

When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would 

be applied.

Big Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Boundary Changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 3,756 acres to 4,359 acres. Approximately 655 

acres from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to the Logan Valley 

allotment. Specific allotment and unit changes include:

 The Horse Pasture and a portion of the McCoy Creek unit of the Lake Creek allotment 

would be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 388 acres). This new 

unit is identified as the Deardorff unit.

 The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed 

into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would 

remain as an individual unit and North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field 

unit for better livestock distribution.

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and South Big Creek would be 

combined into a single large unit known as Big Creek Riparian pasture.

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would be removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, 

distributed over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy 

allotments to the Logan Valley allotment. 

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 15th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units that 

would be combined into a single riparian pasture would require livestock removal by August 15th

to protect bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Table 2-5: Alternative 2, Logan Valley Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 4,359 *357 1,983 06/10-10/15 Periods non-scheduled 

rest and deferment

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 47

Improvements and Structures

The North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit 

requiring removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted to a 

permanent let-down fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. 

Absorbing a portion of the McCoy Creek unit along with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence and 0.8 

miles of fence removal. The new unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit.

Combining the Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek 

units would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part3) are summarized in Table 2-6

below.

Table 2-6: Alternative 2, Logan Valley Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Lake Creek/West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture 

Additional rest within 

riparian pasture 

Big Creek/West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Additional rest within 

riparian pasture 

Big Creek/Big Creek 

Riparian pasture

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen 

area 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Grazing System

A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied throughout the allotment. This system 

provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to change 

the time of year when units would be used. 

Table 2-7 below shows the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 2-7: Alternative 2, Proposed McCoy Creek Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Cow Camp unit 157 (23 ac. excluded in 

riparian protection exclosures7)

Ridge unit (Combed Ridge/Dry) 292

Gov’t Flat unit 211

Total 660

 7 Includes Lake Creek and Lake Creek Willow Exclosures 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 48

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 980 acres would decrease to 660 acres. The Dry and Ridge 

units of the allotment would be combined into a single unit as currently managed and would be 

identified as the Ridge unit. The Lake Creek and North Fork units (267 acres) of the McCoy 

Creek allotment would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment and absorbed into the 

Logan Valley allotment. Both units are isolated from the main body of the McCoy Creek 

allotment and would be more efficiently managed as part of the Logan Valley allotment.

The Starvation unit is a small (53 acres), isolated area not easily managed with McCoy Creek 

allotment. This unit would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment and possibly added to 

the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis would be required to 

add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 63 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 1th and October 

30th. Authorized use would not exceed 416 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and 

endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

Table 2-8: Alternative 2, McCoy Creek Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

McCoy Creek *660 **63 416 06/01-10/30 Deferred Rotation

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

** Although the allotment acres would decrease from approximately 980 acres to 660 acres the authorized head of 

cattle would remain as presently grazed. Grazing numbers would not change for the following reasons: 1) the Lake 

Creek, North Fork, and Starvation units are currently disconnected from the main body of the allotment and 

therefore are not often grazed; 2) The three grazing units (Cow Camp, Government Flat, and Ridge) remaining in

the allotment are primarily upland areas reducing the potential for concentrations of livestock within the Lake Creek 

riparian area and bull trout habitat.

Improvements and Structures

The Dry and Ridge units would be combined into a single unit (as currently managed) requiring 

removal of 1 mile of fence. The combined units would be identified as the Ridge unit, providing 

better livestock distribution.

Adaptive Management

No additional adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System 

The Summit Prairie allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during 

seasons of use. Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and 

would not be a systematic or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period 

critical to plant development, full growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis 

would be placed on resting units with aquatic habitat recovery needs. See Table 2-10 for 

minimum rest requirements.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 49

Upon the completion of the boundary fences to incorporate the portion of the Bosenberg unit 

(4,449 acres) into the Summit Prairie allotment, the Sagehen unit would be rested 3 years out of 

the 10 year period. This would provide a period of non-use or rest to allow desired vegetation 

composition and stream channel characteristics to improve. Until completion of the new 

boundary fences, the Sagehen unit would continue to be grazed early season with reduced 

numbers. 

Part of the Bosenberg Unit was burned in early 1990 wildfires. To allow continued recovery of 

Bosenberg Creek, specific monitoring criteria and stream bank alteration standards would be 

applied. See Chapter 2 (Monitoring) and Appendix E (Move Triggers and Allowable Use 

Levels).

Table 2-9 below shows the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 2-9: Alternative 2, Proposed Summit Prairie Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Bosenberg unit 4,449

Crane Rock unit 7,838

Little Logan unit 3,270

North Summit unit 195

Sagehen unit 3,767

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,222

West Summit unit (holding 

unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit

(temporary) 19

Total 29,832

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment.

Table 2-10: Alternative 2, Summit Prairie Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest

Sagehen 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest). 

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary 

fence) 

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

Bosenberg Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Little Logan Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Note: Entire unit would be rested.

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 25,331 acres would increase to 29,832 acres. Changes to the 

allotment include the following:
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 50

 The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be absorbed into 

the Little Logan unit to provide a larger unit for better livestock distribution.

 The Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) from the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added 

as a separate grazing unit.

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, 

distributed over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek allotment to 

the Logan Valley allotment. 

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 24th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

Since direct impacts to bull trout spawning is not likely to occur from livestock activities, 

livestock may use the North Summit Unit after August 15 (start of the bull trout spawning 

period).

Table 2-11: Alternative 2, Summit Prairie Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 29,832 *260 1,546 06/10-10/24 Periods non-scheduled 

rest and deferment

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) 

from the Logan Valley allotment with the Little Logan unit. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) from the Lake Creek allotment would require 

construction of approximately 7 miles of additional fence. Water gaps in the fence line would be 

located where Forest Service road 1648 crosses Bosenberg Creek and an unnamed tributary of 

Big Creek. Three ponds would be developed in the uplands to provide alternative water away 

from perennial streams. Ponds would be constructed in the far northeastern portion of the unit 

well above the headwaters of Bosenberg Creek and Corral Basin Creek. A spring would be 

developed off a headwater spring for Bosenberg Creek. The spring source would be fenced and 

water piped to a water trough located 300 feet from the spring. The spring is located 

approximately 1.5 miles from the junction of the Forest Service road 1648 and 1649. Water 

would also be piped from Bosenberg Creek to a trough located approximately 100 feet from the 

stream. The withdrawal site would be located approximately 1⁄2 mile from the junction of Forest 

Service road 1648 and 1649. To ensure adequate protection of all streams in the unit, riding in 

the Bosenberg unit would be required to maintain livestock concentrations in the uplands.

To alleviate current safety concerns on Forest Service Road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary (T. 16 S. , R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed 

with railroad timbers. The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in 

size and constructed out of wood or wire material.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 51

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-12

below.

Table 2-12: Alternative 2, Summit Prairie Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Bosenberg 

Creek/Bosenberg unit

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Summit Creek/Sagehen 

unit 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Summit Creek/Little 

Logan unit 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Summit Creek & West 

Fork Summit Creek/ 

Summit Rock unit 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E )

Summit Creek/North 

Summit unit 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E )

West Fork Summit 

Creek/West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Additional rest within 

the Recovery unit 

Alternatives 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to the public’s concern over bull trout critical habitat. 

All of the Lake Creek allotment would remain vacant in this alternative. The Lake Creek 

allotment contains all or portions of Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg 

Creek which are designated critical habitat for bull trout.

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and 

allowable use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture 

based on the existing condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and 

other disturbances, and the presence of critical bull trout habitat. See Appendix E for specific 

details. 

Ongoing water developments in the Logan Valley allotment would provide opportunities to defer 

the season of grazing and a change to a deferred grazing system. 

Proposed allotment boundary and pasture adjustments in the McCoy Creek allotment establish a 

deferred rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would 

be used. Ongoing activities described in Chapter 1 (Current Management) would construct 

fences that exclude grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to recover hardwoods and 

stream shade.

Riparian pastures and exclosures would be constructed on Summit Creek in the Little Logan and 

Sagehen pastures. Riparian pastures would be rested for several years to accelerate recovery of 

riparian vegetation to enhance stream shade, riparian vegetation composition and vigor, and 

streambank stability. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 52

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 2-

34. See Appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities.

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

The allotment (Bosenberg, Horse Pasture and McCoy Creek units) would remain vacant with no 

authorized grazing in the three existing grazing units.

Table 2-13: Alternative 3, Proposed Lake Creek Allotment Units to Remain Vacant

 

Boundary Changes

The entire allotment would remain vacant with no change in the allotment boundary. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on the allotment.

Table 2-14: Alternative 3, Lake Creek Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 10,196 0 0 Vacant None

Improvements and Structures

There are no proposed improvements or structures. Existing structures needed for other resource 

management such as existing aspen protection fences would continue to be maintained.

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

The grazing system would change to a deferred system with opportunities to defer the season of 

use. 

Table 2-15: Alternative 3, Proposed Logan Valley Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Unit Acres

Bosenberg unit 6,970

Horse Pasture unit 90

McCoy Creek unit 3,136

Total 10,196
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 53

Unit Acres

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 3,971

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley 

allotment.

Table 2-16: Alternative 3, Logan Valley Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) and 

willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have 

been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period 

after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use 

levels in Appendix E would be applied.

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) and 

willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have 

been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period 

after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use 

levels in Appendix E would be applied.

Boundary Changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 3,756 acres to 3,971 acres. This change would 

allow for additional rest for this allotment. 

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would be removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the 

into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would remain 

as an individual unit, while the North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit. The 

added acres would allow for additional rest within the Logan Valley allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 15th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

The Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units that 

would be combined into a single riparian pasture that would require livestock removal by August 

15th to protect bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 54

Table 2-17: Alternative 3, Logan Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 3,971 *357 1,983 06/10-10/15 Deferred Rotation

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

Improvements and Structures

The North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit, 

requiring the removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted to a 

permanent let-down fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. 

The combining the Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big 

Creek units would require the removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part3) are summarized in Table 2-18

below.

Table 2-18: Alternative 3, Logan Valley Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Lake Creek/West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture

Additional rest within 

the riparian pasture

Big Creek/West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture

Additional rest within 

the riparian pasture

Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E )

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen 

area 

McCoy Creek Allotment

The grazing system, boundary changes, livestock numbers and grazing season, improvement and 

structures, and adaptive management strategies are the same as in Alternative 2.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally 

move from unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. Riparian exclosures (with 

no grazing) and riparian pastures would be constructed along portions of Summit Creek. The 

riparian pastures would be rested as proposed in Table 2-20 below.

Table 2-19 below show the grazing units and associated acres.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 55

Table 2-19: Alternative 3, Proposed Summit Prairie Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Crane Rock Unit 7,838

Little Logan Unit 3,191

Lower Little Logan Riparian 

pasture 64

Upper Little Logan Riparian 

pasture 15

North Summit unit 108

North Summit Riparian pasture 87

Sagehen unit 3,730

Sagehen Riparian exclosure 8

Sagehen Riparian pasture 29

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,222

West Summit unit (holding 

unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit 

(temporary) 19

Total 25,383

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Summit Prairie 

allotment.

Table 2-20: Alternative 3, Summit Prairie Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest

Sagehen 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

Upper and 

Lower Little 

Logan 

Riparian 

pastures

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary 

fence)

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

North Summit 

Riparian 

pasture 

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

Note: Only the riparian pasture or recovery area would be rested. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 56

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 25,331 acres would increase to 25,383 acres. Changes to the 

allotment include the following:

 The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be absorbed into 

the Little Logan unit. 

Riparian pastures or grazing exclosure would be constructed in the Sagehen, Little Logan and 

North Summit units allowing portions of Summit Creek to be rested. No grazing would occur 

within the exclosure. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 24th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

Table 2-21: Alternative 3, Summit Prairie Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 25,383 *260 1,546 06/10-10/24 Deferred Rotation

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) 

from the Logan Valley allotment to the Little Logan unit. 

Approximately 7.3 miles of fence would be constructed in the Little Logan unit to create the 

Lower Little Logan Riparian pasture fence (5.9 miles) and the Upper Little Logan Riparian 

pasture fence (1.4 miles) along Summit Creek.

Approximately 4.1 miles of fence would be constructed in the Sagehen unit to create the Sagehen 

Riparian exclosure fence (1.5 miles) and the Sagehen Riparian pasture (2.6 miles) fence 

containing Summit Creek.

Approximately 0.8 miles of fence would be constructed in the North Summit unit to create the 

North Summit Riparian pasture fence. 

To alleviate current safety concerns on Forest Service Road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary (T. 16 S. , R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed 

with railroad timbers. The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in 

size and constructed out of wood or wire material.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-22.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 57

Table 2-22: Alternative 3, Summit Prairie Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Summit Creek/Sagehen 

Riparian pasture 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E)

Summit Creek/Sagehen 

unit (outside of Riparian 

pasture)

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E)

Summit Creek/Little 

Logan unit 

Additional rest within 

the Riparian pasture 

Summit Creek/Lower 

Little Logan 

Additional rest within 

the Riparian pasture

Summit Creek/Upper 

Little Logan 

Additional rest within 

the Riparian pasture 

Summit Creek & West 

Fork Summit Creek/ 

Summit Rock unit 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E)

West Fork Summit 

Creek/West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Additional rest within 

the Recovery unit 

Summit Creek/North 

Summit Riparian 

pasture

Additionally rest within 

the riparian pasture

Alternatives 4

Alternative 4 was developed using public scoping comments and recommendations from Summit 

Prairie allotment grazing permittee. 

Part of the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The 

portions of the Lake Creek allotment containing Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and 

Bosenberg Creek (critical bull trout streams) would remain vacant. 

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and 

allowable use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture 

based on the existing condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and 

other disturbances, and the presence of critical bull trout habitat. See Appendix E for specific 

details. 

Adding acres from the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment establishes a larger

grazing landscape providing the flexibility to rest and defer (flexibility in season of grazing) 

grazing to recover important attributes of aquatic habitat, while maintaining enough acres to be 

grazed annually to support a viable grazing operation. 

Proposed allotment boundary and pasture adjustments in the McCoy Creek allotment establish a 

deferred rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would 

be used. Alternative 4 in combination with ongoing activities described in Chapter 1 (Current 

Management) was developed to address the purpose and need to improve resource conditions for 

aquatic habitat. Ongoing activities would construct fences that exclude grazing from most of 

Lake Creek within the allotment.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 58

Management changes are proposed in the Summit Prairie allotment to encourage recovery of 

riparian vegetation to enhance stream shade, riparian vegetation composition and vigor, and 

streambank stability. Daily riding by the permittee would be required when livestock are within 

the Sagehen and Little Logan units to move and distribute animals into the uplands away from 

Summit Creek. Small exclosures would be constructed and cages placed in the Sagehen and 

Little Logan units. A riparian pasture would be constructed from a portion of the Summit Rock 

and North Summit units containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek.

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 2-

34. See Appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities.

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

Portions of the allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The remaining 9,459 

acres would remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and Bosenberg units.

Table 2-23: Alternative 4, Proposed Lake Creek Allotment Units to Remain Vacant 

Unit Acres

McCoy Creek unit 2,581

Bosenberg unit 6,878

Total 9,459

Boundary Changes

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the adjacent 

Logan Valley allotment. Areas containing Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek and 

Bosenberg Creek would remain vacant. Lake Creek and Big Creek contain occupied bull trout

habitat. 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (349 acres) would be removed from the Lake 

Creek allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate 

environmental analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 

Livestock Numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on 9,459 acres of the allotment. 

Table 2-24: Alternative 4, Lake Creek Allotment

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 9,459 0 0 Vacant None

Improvement and Structures

The removal of the southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from the Lake Creek allotment 

would require the construction 2.5 miles of new fencing. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 59

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

The Logan Valley Allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during the 

season of use. Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and 

would not be a systematic or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period 

critical to plant development, full growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis 

would be placed on resting units with aquatic habitat recovery needs. See Table 2-26 for 

minimum rest requirements.

Table 2-25: Alternative 4, Proposed Logan Valley Grazing Units 

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

Deardorff unit 388

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 4,359

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley 

allotment.

Table 2-26: Alternative 4, Logan Valley Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) 

and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives 

have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 

year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger 

and use levels in Appendix E would be applied.

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) 

and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives 

have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 

year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger 

and use levels in Appendix E would be applied.

Big Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 60

Boundary Changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from existing 3,756 acres to 4,359 acres. 

Approximately 655 acres from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to 

the Logan Valley allotment. Specific allotment and unit changes include:

 The Horse Pasture and a portion of the McCoy Creek unit of the Lake Creek allotment 

would be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 388 acres). This new 

unit is identified as the Deardorff unit.

 The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed 

into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would 

remain as an individual unit and North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field 

unit for better livestock distribution.

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and South Big Creek would be 

combined into a single large unit known as Big Creek Riparian pasture.

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would be removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock Numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, 

distributed over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy 

allotments to the Logan Valley allotment. 

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 15th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

The Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units that 

would be combined into a single riparian pasture that would require livestock removal by August 

15th to protect bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Table 2-27: Alternative 4, Logan Valley Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 4,359 *357 1,983 06/10-10/15 Periods of deferment

and non-scheduled rest

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

Improvement and Structures

The North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit 

requiring removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Absorbing a portion of the McCoy Creek unit along with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence and 0.8 

miles of fence removal. The new unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit.

Combining the Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek 

units would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 61

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted from a

permanent to a let-down fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. 

Adaptive Management 

Table 2-28: Alternative 4, Logan Valley Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Lake Creek/West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture 

Additional rest within 

riparian pasture 

Big Creek/West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Additional rest within 

riparian pasture 

Big Creek/Big Creek 

Riparian pasture

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen 

area 

McCoy Creek Allotment

The grazing system, boundary changes, livestock numbers and grazing season, improvement and 

structures, and adaptive management strategies are the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

The grazing system would change to a deferred system with opportunities to defer the seaon of 

use. Riparian exclosures (with no grazing), willow cages and a riparian pasture would be 

constructed along portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. The riparian pasture 

would be rested as proposed in Table 2-30 below.

Daily riding by the permittee would ensure livestock stay in the uplands, reducing grazing use 

along Summit Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. 

Table 2-29 below show the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 2-29: Alternative 4, Proposed Summit Prairie Allotment Grazing Units

Unit Acres

Crane Rock Unit 7,838

Little Logan Unit 3,270

North Summit unit 143

Prairie Riparian pasture 126

Sagehen unit 3,767

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,148

West Summit unit (holding 

unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit 

(temporary) 19

Total 25,383
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 62

The following table shows the rest and season of use requirements for the grazing units in the 

Summit Prairie allotment.

Table 2-30: Alternative 4, Summit Prairie Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Required Rest 

Prairie 

Riparian 

pasture 

A deferred rest grazing system would be applied. The riparian pasture would 

be grazed early season one year and late season the following year. 

West Summit 

Recovery

Unit 

(temporary 

fence)

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved. 

When grazing is resumed, the area within the recovery unit would be grazed as 

part of the Prairie Riparian pasture utilizing the same use levels and use triggers 

(see Appendix E). 

Boundary Changes

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be 

absorbed into the Little Logan unit. 

The total acres in the allotment would increase from 25,331 to approximately 25,383 acres. A 

riparian pasture named Prairie Riparian pasture would be constructed from a portion of the 

Summit Rock and North Summit units containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork 

Summit Creek.

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and 

October 24th. Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators are listed in Appendix E. 

Table 2-31: Alternative 4, Summit Prairie Allotment Summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AMU’s Season of Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 25,383 *260 1,546 06/10-10/24 Deferred Rotation

* Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs.

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) 

from the Logan Valley allotment to the Little Logan unit. 

Small exclosures (combination of buck and pole, and wire) and cages would be constructed 

along approximately 10% of the total riparian length along Summit Creek within the Little 

Logan and Sagehen units. Exclosures and cages would be located in areas with the highest 

potential for willow development (as identified by the Carex Working Group). 

The Prairie Riparian pasture would absorb 86 acres from the North Summit unit and 311 acres of 

the Summit Rock unit. Approximately 3.1 miles of fence would be constructed to create a 

riparian pasture. 

To alleviate current safety concerns on Forest Service Road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 63

boundary (T. 16 S. , R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed 

with railroad timbers. The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in 

size and constructed out of wood or wire material.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in Appendix A (part 3) are summarized in Table 2-32 

below.

Table 2-32 Alternative 4, Summit Prairie Allotment Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy

Summit Creek/ Prairie 

Riparian pasture Rest riparian pasture 

Summit Creek/Sagehen 

unit 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E )

Summit Creek/Little 

Logan unit 

Change allowable use

levels (see Appendix E )

West Fork Summit 

Creek/West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Additional rest within 

the recovery unit 

Summit Creek/Little 

Logan unit 

Construct exclosure 

around a higher 

percentage of the area 

Summit Creek/Sagehen 

unit

Construct exclosure 

around a higher 

percentage of the area

Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as 

Amended 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose amendments to the Malheur Land and Resource Management 

Plan as amended by Amendment #29. Specifically, the numeric value for shade in 

hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan Amendment #29 would be modified for site 

specific stream reaches. 

The proposed percent shade values developed for hardwood/meadow complexes within the 

Summit Logan allotments are based on work by the Carex Working Group (2012) and the 

Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan 

completed by State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2010). Work carried out 

by the Carex Working Group involved estimating the expected (and perhaps maximum) level of 

streamside shade (height and density) that could be attained from willows, sedges, and other 

hardwoods under near-natural rates of recovery at two time scales: (a) five years, and (b) twenty 

years from all stream reaches on Summit Creek. To determine the historic range of variability of 

the various reaches of Summit Creek the Carex Working Group considered the habitat 

characteristics of each reach, the habitats occupied by mature willow thickets, alder thickets, and 

sedge meadows on the reference sites, and similar plant communities we have observed 

elsewhere in Grant and Harney Counties (Carex Working Group 2010, 2011a, and 2011b). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 64

The stream reaches where modifications are proposed to Amendment #29 Numeric Values are 

shown in Table 2-33. Potential values for shade in the TMDL were derived using Ecoregion 

Based Effective Shade Curves if reference data was not available. These effective shade curves 

are general heat load allocations that are identified by region and channel width for various 

riparian plant communities. The given values represent the maximum possible effective shade if 

the potential height and density are present. The curves account for latitude, critical summertime 

period and stream aspect. The Carex Working Group only collected reference data for alder 

and/or willow riparian plant communities. As a result, the Native Floodplain Grasses effective 

shade curve was used from the TMDL. 

Table 2-33 Proposed Modifications to the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan

Stream/

Reach

Amendment #29 Numeric Value to be Modified Proposed Modification 

and Reference Source Forest Plan 

Source 

Amendment #29 

Element Location Specific Value 

Summit 

Creek

Reach 1 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex 

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded 

Shade 65% or greater 

(TMDL 2010) 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with 

hardwoods (CWG 2012) or 

≥25% in areas with native

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010)

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 4 

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with 

hardwoods (CWG 2012) or 

≥25% in areas with native

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010)

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 5 

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/Meadow 

Complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 60%

(CWG 2012) 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 6 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010) 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 7 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 80% 

for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% 

for mixed shrub areas 

(Carex Working Group

2012), or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 80% 

for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% 

for mixed shrub areas 

(CWG 2012), or ≥ 25% for 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 65

Stream/

Reach

Amendment #29 Numeric Value to be Modified Proposed Modification 

and Reference Source Forest Plan 

Source 

Amendment #29 

Element Location Specific Value 

native floodplain grasses 

(TMDL 2010).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade 

component; shade ≥ 60% in 

hardwood areas (CWG 

2012) or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 20 10).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Increased hardwood shade 

component: shade ≥ 60% 

(Carex Working Group

2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Lake 

Creek 

Reach 3

Amendment 

#29 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Lake 

Creek 

(no PFC

assessment) 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed

shrub (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses

(TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

(no PFC

assessment, 

south side 

of FS rd 16 

for 0.15 

miles)

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses

(TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 1

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 2

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).

Big Creek 

Reach 3

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

d) Hardwood/ 

Meadow Complex

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

50-65% canopy 

closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer (Carex 

Working Group 2012).

Bosenberg 

Creek 

Amendment 

#29

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer 

species 

Hardwood/meadow 

complex 80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed 

shrub (CWG 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain 

grasses (TMDL 2010).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 66

Summary of Alternatives 

Table 2-34: Summary of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Lake Creek Allotment

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing 

System

Portion of this allotment 

would be added to the

Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments. The 

remaining 5,069 acres 

would remain vacant.

Allotment would remain 

vacant. 

Portions of this allotment 

would be added to the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

9,459 acres would remain 

vacant. 

Boundary 

Changes 

4,778 acres would be would 

be absorbed into the 

adjacent Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie allotments. 

The southwest corner of 

McCoy Creek (349 acres) 

would be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

No change in allotment 

boundary. Boundary would 

remain as approximately 

10,196 acres. 

Approximately 388 acres of 

the allotment would be 

absorbed into the Logan 

Valley allotment. 

The southwest corner of 

McCoy Creek (349 acres) 

would be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

Unit and Acres 

(all units would 

remain vacant)

McCoy Creek unit: 2,639

acres

Corral Basin unit: 2,430

acres 

Bosenberg unit: 6,970 acres

Horse Pasture unit: 90 acres

McCoy Creek unit: 3,136 

acres 

McCoy Creek unit: 2,581

acres

Bosenberg unit: 6,878 acres 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

0 Head of Cattle 

0 AUMs

No Season of Use

See Alternative 2 for 

details.

See Alternative 2 for 

details.

Improvements 

and Structures 

2.5 miles of fence 

construction to remove the 

southwest corner of the 

McCoy Creek unit from 

this allotment. 

No improvements or 

structures are proposed. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing System

This allotment would be 

managed with periods of 

rest of deferment during 

the season of use. Rest or 

deferment would be 

determined based on 

resource needs. 

The grazing system would 

change to a deferred 

system with opportunities 

to defer the seaon of use. 

See Alternative 2 for 

detail. 

Boundary 

Changes 

The Big Creek Portion of 

the East Lake Creek, North 

Big Creek and South Big 

Creek would be combined 

into a single large unit (Big 

Creek Riparian pasture).

The Front Field unit 

(approximately 52 acres) 

would be removed from 

this allotment.

Approximately 655 acres 

from the Lake Creek and 

McCoy allotments would 

be added to the Logan 

Valley allotment: 

Alternative 3 would 

include the same boundary 

changes as described in 

Alternative 2, expect 

Alternative 2 would not 

create the Deardorff unit 

(excluding 388 acres from 

this alternative). 

The allotment size would 

be approximately 3,971

acres. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 67

Lo

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

 Horse Pasture and a 

portion of McCoy 

Creek unit of the 

Lake Creek allotment 

(388 acres). New unit 

identified as 

Deardorff unit. 

 Lake Creek and 

North Fork units of 

the McCoy Creek 

allotment would be 

absorbed into Logan 

Valley allotment 

(267 acres). The 

Lake Creek unit 

would remain as an 

individual unit while 

the North Fork unit 

would be absorbed in 

to the Flat Field unit.

The allotment size would 

be approximately 4,359

acres.

Unit and Acres 

Big Creek Riparian 

pasture: 623 acres

Big Field unit: 1,024 acres

Corral Holding unit : 22 

acres

Deardorff unit: 388 acres

East Bosenberg unit: 118

acres

East Lake Creek unit: 399

acres

Flat Field unit: 595 acres

Lake Creek unit: 218 acres

Lower Field unit: 283 acres

West Bosenberg unit: 269

acres

West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture: 14 acres

West Lake Creek unit: 271 

acres 

West Lake Creek Riparian 

Pasture: 135 acres

Acres for this alternative 

are the same as Alternative 

2, excluding the Deardorff 

unit and acres. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

357 Head of Cattle

1,983 AUMs

June 10th to October 15th

See Alternative 2 for 

details.

See Alternative 2 for 

details.

Improvements 

and Structures 

Absorbing the North Fork 

unit of the McCoy Creek 

allotment into the Flat 

Field would require 

removal of 0.3 miles of 

fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of 

electric fence in the North 

Fork unit along Big Creek 

converted to a permanent 

let-down fence.

Alternative 3 would 

include all of the 

improvements and 

structures as described in 

Alternative 2 except the 

creation of the Deardorff 

unit.

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 68

Lo

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Absorbing a portion of the 

McCoy Creek unit along 

with the Horse Pasture 

from the Lake Creek 

allotment creating the 

Deardorff unit (2.5 miles 

of additional fence and 0.8 

miles of fence removal). 

Combining the Big Creek 

Portion of the East Lake 

Creek, North Big Creek 

and South Big Creek units 

would require removal of 

1.2 miles of fence. 

McCoy Creek Allotment 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing System

A deferred rotation grazing

system would be applied

throughout the allotment. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Boundary 

Changes 

The present allotment 

consisting of 980 aces 

would decrease to 660 

acres. 

The Dry and Ridge units 

would be combined into a 

single unit (called Ridge 

unit) as currently managed. 

The Lake Creek and North 

Fork units (267 acres)

would be absorbed into the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

The Starvation unit (53 

acres) would be removed 

from the Lake Creek 

allotment. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Unit and Acres 

Cow Camp unit: 157 acres 

(23 acres excluded in 

riparian protection 

exclosure)

Ridge unit: 292 acres 

Gov’t Flat unit: 211 acres 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

63 head of Cattle 

416 AUMs

June 1st to October 30th

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Improvements 

and Structures 

Combining the Dry and 

Ridge units would require 

1 mile of fence removal. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 69 Summit Prairie Allotment 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Grazing System

This allotment would be 

managed with periods of 

rest or deferment during 

the season of use. Rest or 

deferment would be 

determined based on 

resource needs. 

The grazing system would 

change to a deferred 

system with opportunities 

to defer the seaon of use. 

The grazing system would 

mirror Alternative 3. 

Additionally, daily riding 

by the permittee to ensure 

livestock stay in the 

uplands in the Sagehen and 

Little Logan units. 

Boundary 

Changes 

The total allotment acres 

would be increased to 

approximately 29,832

acres:

 The Front Field unit 

(52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment would be 

absorbed into the 

Little Logan unit.

 The Bosenberg unit 

(4,449 acres) from 

the vacant Lake 

Creek allotment 

would be added as a 

separate grazing unit.

The total allotment acres 

would be increased to 

approximately 25,383

acres:

 The Front Field unit 

(52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley 

allotment would be 

absorbed into the 

Little Logan unit.

See Alternative 3 for 

details. 

Unit and Acres 

Bosenberg unit: 4,449 

acres

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 

acres

Little Logan unit: 3,270 

acres

North Summit unit: 195 

acres

Sagehen unit: 3,767 acres

South Summit unit: 45

acres

Summit Rock unit: 10,222

acres

West Summit unit: 27 

acres (holding 

unit/handling facility)

West Summit Recovery 

unit: 19 acres

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 

acres 

Little Logan unit: 3,191 

acres 

Lower Little Logan 

Riparian pasture: 64 acres 

Upper Little Logan 

Riparian pasture: 15 acres 

North Summit unit: 108 

acres 

North Summit Riparian 

pasture: 87 acres 

Sagehen unit: 3,730 acres 

Sagehen Riparian 

exclosure: 8 acres 

Sagehen Riparian pasture: 

29 acres

South Summit unit: 45

acres 

Summit Rock unit: 10,222

acres 

West Summit unit: 27 acres 

(holding/handling facility) 

West Summit Recovery

unit: 19 acres

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 

acres 

Little Logan unit: 3,270 

acres 

North Summit unit: 143

acres 

Prairie Riparian pasture: 

126 acres 

Sagehen unit: 3,767 acres 

South Summit unit: 45

acres 

Summit Rock unit: 10,148

acres 

West Summit unit: 27 

acres (holding/handling 

facility) 

West Summit Recovery

unit: 19 acres 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

260 head of Cattle 

1,546 AUMs

June 10th to October 24th

See Alternative 2 for 

details.

See Alternative 2 for 

details. 

Improvements 

and Structures 

Removal of approximately 

0.7 miles of fence to 

absorb the Front Field from 

the Logan Valley allotment 

to the Little Logan unit. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit 

would require construction 

Removal of approximately 

0.7 miles of fence to absorb 

the Front Field from the

Logan Valley allotment to 

the Little Logan unit.

Approximately 7.3 miles of 

fence constructed to create 

Removal of approximately 

0.7 miles of fence to 

absorb the Front Field 

from the Logan Valley 

allotment to the Little 

Logan unit.

Small exclosures 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 70

rie

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

of 7 miles of fence. Three 

upland ponds would be 

developed. A spring 

would be developed off a 

headwater spring for 

Bosenberg Creek. 

A loading ramp with 

attached catch pen would 

be constructed in the 

Sagehen unit near the 

private property boundary.

Lower Little Logan and 

Upper Little Logan 

Riparian pastures in Little 

Logan unit. 

Approximately 4.1 miles of 

fence construction to create 

the Sagehen Riparian 

exclosure and the Sagehen 

Riparian pasture in 

Sagehen unit. 

Approximately 0.8 miles of 

fence construction in North 

Summit unit to create 

North Summit Riparian 

pasture.

A loading ramp with 

attached catch pen would 

be constructed in the 

Sagehen unit near the 

private property boundary.

(combination of buck and 

pole, and wire) and cages 

would be constructed along 

approximately 10% of the 

total riparian length along 

Summit Creek within the 

Little Logan and Sagehen 

units. Exclosures and 

cages would be located in 

areas with the highest 

potential for willow 

development. 

Approximately 3.1 miles 

of fence would be 

constructed to create the 

Prairie Riparian pasture 

along Summit and West 

Fork Summit Creeks. The 

new pasture would absorb 

86 acres from the North 

Summit unit and 311 acres 

from the Summit Rock 

unit. 

A loading ramp with 

attached catch pen would 

be constructed in the 

Sagehen unit near the 

private property boundary.

Design Criteria and Resource Protection Measures 

The Forest Service developed the following additional design criteria to be used as part of the 

alternatives. 

Design Criteria for Alternative 1 (No Grazing) 

 All equipment used to remove fences and water developments would be cleaned in a 

manner sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried onto the analysis area. 

Cleaning would occur off of National Forest System lands. Cleaning would be inspected 

and approved by the Forest Officer in charge of administering the project.

 Any restoration of disturbed sites would follow the Malheur Native See Policy. Any seed 

used in restoration would be certified weed free.

Design Criteria for Alternative 2, 3 and 4 

Throughout the project, all applicable Watershed Management and Vegetative Management Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) (General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific 

Northwest Region 2011) would be used to enable the achievement of water quality standards.

Table 2-35: Design Criteria (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

To avoid Place salt blocks outside of conifer where the 2,3,4 Range 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 71

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

damaging 

regeneration 

trees are less than 6’ high. Salt blocks would 

not be placed in aspen stands or aspen 

plantations.

Management 

Specialist, 

Silviculturist 

To avoid over 

utilization of 

hardwoods

Reference to Use Level Table (Appendix E) 2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

Protect Water 

Quality 

Livestock would be herded when moving to a 

new unit on or off the Forest. Drift movement 

(e.g., simply opening a gate and allowing stock 

to move of their own accord) would not be 

allowed.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

or Fish 

Biologist

Throughout the project, all applicable 

Watershed Management and Vegetative 

Management Best Management Practices 

(Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for Water 

Quality Management on National Forest 

System Lands, 2011) would be used to facilitate 

the achievement of water quality standards, 

including:

 RM-1: Rangeland Management 

Planning 

 RM-2: Rangeland Permit 

Administration 

 RM-3: Rangeland Improvements 

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Reduce 

Impacts to 

Riparian 

Areas and 

Spring 

Developments 

Avoid impacting vegetation and creating wheel 

tracks in wet meadows or riparian areas. Time 

project implementation when sites and access 

are dry is preferred. Alternately, access routes 

would be designated to cross areas of higher 

and drier ground. Any impact to vegetation 

would be rehabilitated after project 

implementation to remove visible wheel tracks 

(to avoid encouraging additional use by the 

general public).

2,3,4

Rangeland

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

Water source must be fenced if wet or boggy 2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Do not place water troughs in draw bottoms or 

ephemeral channels. 2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Bosenberg unit (spring developments): 

developed spring source would be fenced and 

water piped to troughs located a minimum of 

300 feet from the spring. 

Bosenberg unit (Bosenberg Creek): The trough 

from the developed water source that withdraws 

2

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 72

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

water from the stream channel would be located 

at a minimum of 100 feet away from the 

channel. 

Trailing along changes associated with springs 

should be avoided. 

Water not utilized shall be returned to the 

existing draw or channel with the appropriate 

slope in order to prevent cutting of the channel 

banks.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Trench excavation for pipe shall be buried in a 

manner that does not impede overland flow of 

water nor concentrate/capture overland flow on 

hill slopes. Trech excavation area would be revegetated using natural grass seed.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

For channel protection trees larger then 21 

inches in diameter would not be cut. 2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Where available in forested areas, retain 

effective shade of water developments and 

associated channels at >50%. 

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Use suitable measures to protect the spring 

when preparing the site for construction or 

maintenance activities.

 Locate access and staging areas near the 

project site but outside of work area 

boundaries, streamside management 

zones, wetlands and sensitive soil areas.

 Refuel and service equipment only in 

designated staging areas 

 Consider using small, low ground 

pressure equipment and/or hand labor 

where practicable.

 Ensure all equipment operated in or 

adjacent to the waterbody is clean of 

aquatic invasive species as well as oil 

and grease.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody 

when clearing the site.

 Clearly delineate the geographic limits 

of the area to be cleared.

 Use suitable drainage measures to 

improve the workability of wet sites.

 Avoid or minimize unacceptable 

damage to existing vegetation, 

especially plants that are stabilizing the 

spring.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 73

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts to the waterbody when implementing 

construction and maintenance activities.

 Minimize heavy equipment entry into or 

crossing water as is practicable.

 Conduct operations during dry periods.

 Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize 

disturbed areas as needed following 

construction or maintenance activities. 

 Stockpile topsoil for reuse in site revegetation.

 Properly compact fills to avoid or 

minimize erosion.

 Contour site to disperse runoff, 

minimize erosion, stabilize slopes and 

provide a favorable environment for 

plant growth.

 Use suitable species and establishment 

techniques to re-vegetate the site in 

compliance with local direction and 

requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 

2080 for vegetation ecology and 

prevention and control of invasive 

species.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Head boxes would be excavated by shovel and 

hand tools or small low ground pressure 

excavator.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

All troughs will have a float to conserve water 

and will be turned off when the pasture is not in 

use.

2

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Protect 

Wildlife

To avoid disturbance or potential trampling of

nesting upland sandpipers, delay grazing Big 

Field pasture (upland sandpiper nesting area) 

until late season (August 1). To negotiate early 

season grazing of this pasture, monitoring

would be required for upland sandpiper 

presence in May and June. If upland sandpipers 

are documented in any given year, turn-out in 

affected pastures would be postponed to avoid 

impacts to nesting sandpipers during critical 

breeding and nesting periods. Avoid grazing 

Big Field and Flat Field at the same time; 

upland sandpipers may use areas north and 

south of the FS 16 road. 

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

Retain wildlife snags (dead trees) at levels to 

provide for 100% population levels of primary 2,3,4 Rangeland Specialist, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 74

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

cavity excavators. Avoid as much as possible 

layout of new fencelines through snag patches 

or near large snags (12 inch dbh or greater). 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

If active nests (raptors, sensitive species, 

sandhill cranes) are discovered during project 

implementation (fence construction, 

construction of water developments, etc.), the 

District wildlife biologist would be consulted to 

determine appropriate buffers or timing 

restrictions, if necessary, to minimize 

disturbance for nesting birds.

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

Chainsaw or large equipment use (for fence 

construction, spring/pond development, etc) 

within 1⁄2 mile of occupied goshawk nest sites 

within or adjacent to the project area are

prohibited between April 1-September 30. 

Management activities are prohibited at all 

times within occupied nest stands. Exceptions 

to this element would require clearance from 

District Wildlife Biologist and Ranger. 

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist

Chainsaw or large equipment use (for fence 

construction, spring/pond development, etc) 

within 666 feet of occupied raptor nest sites

(including osprey and eagles) within or adjacent 

to the project area are prohibited between April 

1-September 30. Management activities are 

prohibited within 100 feet of occupied nest tree. 

Exceptions to this element would require 

clearance from District Wildlife Biologist and 

Ranger. 

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist

In known calving/fawning areas, off-road 

vehicle use is restricted from May 1 through 

June 31 (LRMP 36, IV-29). Most of these 

animals readily move and avoid areas of human 

activity. However, if newborn fawns (antelope, 

mule deer) or elk calves are observed, the area 

should be avoided, allowing the mothers to 

move the young away from the project.

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

Four-wire fence construction would consist of 

smooth wire on the lower wire, to facilitate 

fawn movement. Lower wire height would be a 

minimum of 16 inches above the ground. 

Maximum height of the topmost wire would be 

42 inches. Spacing between top wire and next 

wire down would be a minimum of 10 inches to 

avoid catching back legs (between the two 

wires) of animals jumping the fence (ODFW, 

2011).See handbook “A Landowner’s Guide to 

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 75

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

Wildlife Friendly Fences” (Paige 2008) for 

additional recommendations for increasing 

fence visibility to reduce impacts to big game as 

well as raptors, bats, and neotropical songbirds.

Minimize impacts to riparian vegetation by 

placing fences on higher ground outside of the 

active floodplain, except where crossing are 

necessary for designed water gaps.

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist

To protect amphibians: Avoid early season 

pond clean-out or resealing, to reduce impact to 

egg masses or tadpoles.

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist

Wildlife escape ramps: Expanded metal ramps 

would be installed to provide a means of escape 

for birds and small mammals that may fall into 

the trough when seeking water. (See “Water 

for Wildlife” handbook for examples of 

effective placement and design of escape 

ramps.

2,3,4

Rangeland 

Specialist, 

Wildlife 

Biologist

Protect NRHP 

eligible and 

potentially 

eligible sites 

from 

significant 

grazing

related 

impacts

If site inspection indicates a need for mitigation 

measures at any archaeological or historic sites 

these would be developed in consultation with 

the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and would be tailored to the specific 

conditions at each site.

2,3,4

District 

Archaeologist, 

Range 

Specialist

Cultural sites identified in the project report that 

were not monitored during this project would 

be placed on a monitoring schedule to be visited 

in the future. 

2,3,4

District 

Archaeologist, 

Range 

Specialist

If cultural resources are located during 

implementation of the alternatives, work would 

be halted and the District Archaeologist would 

be notified. The cultural resource would be 

evaluated and a mitigation plan would be 

developed in consultation with Oregon SHIP, if 

necessary.

2,3,4

District 

Archaeologist, 

Range 

Specialist

Salt blocks would not be located on 

archeological and historic sites. Site specific 

salting areas would be established for each 

grazing unit.

2,3,4

District 

Archaeologist, 

Range 

Specialist

For proposed range improvement projects, 

clearances under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act would be completed 

and concurred with as needed by the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation Office before the 

projects are implemented.

2,3,4

District 

Archaeologist, 

Range 

Specialist

To maintain 

visual quality 

Move prolonged congregation of livestock at 

the junction of Forest Service roads 1600-815 2,3,4 Range Specialist, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 76

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

along the 

visual 

corridor

and 1600 (visual corridor). Recreation 

Specialist 

Watering troughs would be built with natural 

colored materials to blend with the surrounding 

landscape if visible from Forest Service road 

1600 (visual corridor).

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Recreation 

Specialist 

Structures such as fences would be constructed 

with materials that would blend with the 

existing landscape where they can be seen from 

Forest Road 1600 (visual corridor).

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Recreation 

Specialist 

To reduce the 

risk of 

introducing 

noxious 

weeds 

Any gravel, fill, sand and rock used in the 

construction, reconstruction or maintenance of 

water developments would be judged to be 

weed free by district weed specialists.

2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

Native plant materials are to be used for revegetation unless accepted extenuating 

circumstances are identified.

2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

Permittees would identify infestations of 

noxious weeds and report these annually to the 

Forest Service. New populations of weeds 

would be scheduled for treatment (introduction, 

spread and establishment of noxious weeds).

2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

All equipment used (including ATVs) would be 

cleaned in a manner sufficient to prevent 

noxious weeds from being carried onto the 

project area. This requirement does not apply 

to passenger vehicles or other equipment used 

exclusively on roads. Cleaning would occur off 

of National Forest System lands. Cleaning 

would be inspected and approved by the Forest 

Officer in charge of administering the project.

2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

Defer season 

of use to 

maintain 

vegetation 

health 

Rotation of livestock from unit to unit may 

change from one year to the next and would be 

reflected in the annual operating instructions. 

This would be worked out jointly between the 

Forest Service and grazing permittee with end 

of the season allowable use levels.

2,3,4 Range 

Specialist 

ARBO ESA 

compliance 

and minimize 

effects to Bull 

Trout Critical 

Habitat 

Fence placement should allow for lateral 

movement of stream. 2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Minimize vegetation removal, especially 

potential large wood recruitment source, when 

constructing fence lines. 

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

When constructing livestock crossings and 

water gaps, use the following design criteria:

 Locate crossings or water gaps where 

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 77

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

streambanks are naturally low.

 When possible, crossings and gaps 

should not be constructed within known 

or suspected spawning areas (e.g. pool 

tailouts where spawning may occur).

 Fences at stream crossings and water 

gaps should not inhibit upstream or 

downstream movement of fish or 

significantly impede bedload movement. 

Where appropriate, construct fences at 

water gaps as to allow passage of large 

wood and other debris.

 If necessary, the streambank and 

approach lanes can be stabilized with 

native vegetation and angular rock to 

reduce chronic sedimentation. The 

stream crossing or water gap should be 

armored with cobble-size rock, and use 

angular rock if natural substrate is not of 

adequate size.

 Livestock crossings or water gaps must 

not be located in areas where 

compaction or other damage can occur 

to sensitive soils and vegetation (e.g., 

wetlands) due to congregating livestock.

 The maximum width of a water gap or 

stream crossings should be no less than 

10 feet and no more than 20 feet in the 

upstream-downstream direction.

 When using pressure treated lumber for 

fence posts only, complete all 

cutting/drilling offsite so that treated 

wood chips and debris do not enter 

water or flood prone areas.

Fish Biologist

If other aquatic restoration activities are used as 

complementary actions, follow the associated 

design criteria and conservation measures.

2,3,4

Range 

Specialist, 

Hydrologist, 

Fish Biologist

Monitoring

Monitoring is a key component of successful management and compliance with pertinent laws 

and policy. Decisions regarding identifying any need to change management, and the direction 

that the change should take are based upon evaluation of the results of monitoring. Monitoring 

should be targeted at those indicators that are both annually influenced by livestock grazing

(implementation monitoring) and those that indicate the long term condition (effectiveness 

monitoring) from annual effects. The management objectives (Appendix A, part 2) were 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 78

developed with the most pressing issues identified for each site specific reach during data 

collection and analysis. This was primarily developed from analyzing the departure of the 

existing to desired conditions in Appendix A, part 1 and reviewing the PFC assessments. Annual 

implementation monitoring, including allowable use are used to make short-term adaptive 

decisions regarding removal of livestock and adjustments in timing, intensity, duration, and 

frequency of grazing. The long term effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if satisfactory 

progress is being made toward meeting the management objectives and thus the desired 

conditions (Appendix A, part 1). If not, this would inform the decision maker to determine what 

additional changes to management would be needed from the suite of adaptive management 

options. 

Annual Implementation and Compliance Monitoring for Range and Aquatics 

Use Levels 

Allowable use levels proposed for annual implementation monitoring of Riparian and Upland 

Vegetation are found in Appendix E. Riparian implementation monitoring for bank alteration, 

stubble height and woody browse would be collected as outlined in Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation (Interagency Technical 

Reference 1737-23 2011). Implementation monitoring would be done at Designated Monitoring 

Areas (DMA). 

Compliance with Permit and AOI

Follow FSH 2209.13 Grazing Permit Administration Handbook and Terms and Condition of the 

Term Grazing Permit parts 1, 2 and 3.

Future Consultation (BA for project) 

Consultation for this project with the Regulatory Agency may identify additional monitoring

needs that would supplement this plan. 

Long Term Effectiveness for Range and Aquatics 

Overview

The MNF LRMP established utilization standards for grass and grass-like species and shrubs. In 

1995, the LRMP was amended by PACFISH and INFISH. PACFISH/INFISH amendments 

identified six Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and four Standards & Guidelines 

(S&Gs) for grazing management activities (GM-1 to GM-4).

Among other things, PACFISH/INFISH S&Gs call for modification of grazing practices that 

retard or prevent the attainment of RMOs8

. Enclosure B of the PACFISH Grazing Guidelines 

(1995) clarifies this direction by stating that its primary objective to not "retard" or "measurably 

slow" recovery of degraded riparian features is to avoid authorizing grazing practices that are 

likely to "carry over to the next year." Any effect of sufficient magnitude such that its influence 

is still present in some meaningful way at the beginning of the following grazing season has the 

potential to result in cumulative negative effects, and therefore measurably slow recovery of 

 8 More specifically, GM-1 states as follows: “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 listed anadromous fish. Suspend grazing if 

adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objects and avoiding adverse effects on listed 

anadromous fish.”
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 79

degraded riparian features to an unacceptable rate under the PACFISH/INFISH S&Gs. Thus, a

primary focus of the S&Gs is to avoid negative effects, the influence of which is likely to still be 

existent at the beginning of the next grazing season to a degree that would meaningfully impede 

recovery. Some environmental impacts are inherent with the presence of livestock. However, 

"near natural" rates of recovery can be provided if environmental impacts are limited to those 

that do not carry through to the next year, thereby avoiding cumulative, negative effects 

(PACFISH/INFISH Enclosure B).

The PACFISH/INFISH RMOs that may be most directly affected by grazing activities are: 1) 

bank stability, 2) bank angle, 3) width to depth ratio, 4) and percent undercut banks. As reported 

in the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) 2011 Tech Reference (1737-23), unstable banks can 

lead to accelerated bank erosion and subsequent channel widening, increased sediment supply, 

decreased sediment transport capability, and damaged fisheries habitat. Of all the indicators of a 

correct channel type, the relation between its width and depth is perhaps the most revealing 

(Bengeyfield, 2006). It is this relationship that determines whether or not the stream can perform 

the various tasks that lead to a healthy riparian area (Bengeyfield, 2006).

Clearly understanding the direction of change would ensure compliance with Forest Plan, 

Amendment 29 and INFISH’s Goals, Objectives and Standards, The Clean Water Act and The 

Endangered Species Act. INFISH Provide overview related to long-term trends, INFISH, 

Appendix A (part 1 and 2). The effectiveness monitoring would show if plant communities and 

channel characteristics are moving towards desired conditions. Monitoring grazed and exclosed 

reaches in Summit Creek Reaches 2 and 5 would best illustrate the natural rate of recovery that 

should be expected in herbaceous and hardwood plant communities, bank stability and habitat 

complexity characteristics that are ideal for aquatic dependent species. 

Monitoring protocols for each indicator may change into the future. Research is actively being 

done to reduce the variability of monitored data and trying to make it as accurate to the measured 

disturbance that is cost effective. 

Management objectives that were developed identify which Riparian Monitoring protocol that

would be used in Appendix A (part 2).

Riparian Monitoring

Monitoring Locations

Three types of DMAs that inform land managers include Representative, Reference and Critical. 

Representative DMAs are monitoring sites in a riparian complex that is representative of the 

riparian resources found in a pasture. If more than one riparian complex is present in a pasture, 

the most sensitive complex is chosen for monitoring. Reference DMAs are monitoring sites in 

riparian complexes that are not grazed and representative of grazed riparian complexes in 

adjacent pastures. Critical DMAs are monitoring sites that warrant monitoring because of higher 

sensitivity within the riparian complex. Critical DMAs are not representative of the larger area. 

Monitoring would occur at all established representative DMAs other than for Big Creek (see 

Appendix B). 

The representative DMA in the Big Creek Riparian Pasture would be moved to a more sensitive 

riparian complex than where it is currently located. This is due to the pasture increasing in size 

and adding different riparian complexes to the larger unit. A representative DMA would be 

established in the Bosenberg Unit on Bosenberg Creek in a riparian complex in 2013. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 80

Reference DMAs would be established in the exclosure on Summit Creek Reach 2 in the 

Sagehen Unit and in the 1⁄4 mile buck and pole fence that would be built in Summit Creek Reach 

5 in the Little Logan Unit. These DMAs would serve to provide a baseline in ungrazed natural 

recovery rates of vegetative and channel attributes. This would validate if the management 

objectives are achievable. 

One Critical DMA would be established in the Bosenberg Unit on Bosenberg Creek. The 

purpose of this DMA is to monitor grazing effects on the areas that were burnt in the 1990 High 

Roberts Wildfire. A 10% bank alteration endpoint indicator was established for this DMA to 

ensure bank stability and bankfull width/depth characteristics continue to maintain and improve. 

DMAs may not be monitored if livestock grazing is not authorized for any unit. 

Monitoring Types

Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring sites exist within the Project Area. This 

information would provide effectiveness monitoring of riparian vegetation species, channel 

characteristics and macroinvertebrate assemblages every five years. PIBO monitoring was read 

in 2001, 2006, 2011 and would be read again in 2016 and 2021. PIBO monitors riparian 

vegetation species composition along the greenline and perpendicularly across the stream 

channel. They monitor channel attributes of undercut bank, bank stability, bank angle, bankfull 

width/depth, pool quality and quantity that would inform us of the channel characteristics. PIBO 

also monitors Macroinvertebrate assemblages. PIBO has a crew from Logan, Utah that monitors 

indicators. Information on PIBO monitoring can be found 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/

The Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation

(Interagency Technical Reference 1737-23) protocol would be used to monitor both 

implementation and effectiveness indicators. MIM monitors riparian vegetative species 

composition along the greenline only. MIM monitors channel characteristics for the greenline to 

greenline width and bank stability. MIM is collected by District interdisciplinary teams of a 

Range and Aquatics (Fisheries or Hydrologist) Specialists. Effectiveness monitoring is usually 

conducted every five years on riparian areas and stream banks. This period of time is usually 

necessary to detect long term changes. 

Channel characteristics would be monitored using surveyed cross sections and longitudinal 

profiles to assess changes in bankfull width and width/depth, pool quality and quantity. These 

sites would be located mainly at DMA and would be permanently benchmarked. Survey 

procedures would follow principles outlined in Harrelson et al. 1994. Channel characteristics 

would be collected by District Aquatics Specialists. 

Carex Working Group (CWG) monitoring sites were used to describe a baseline of riparian shrub 

heights and densities across 32 representative plots across all reaches of Summit Creek. The 

CWG monitoring protocol was developed to be a rapid, simple, and easily repeatable assessment 

of key riparian vegetation types over relatively long stream reaches. The method provides basic

data useful for monitoring changes in important plant community traits, such as density and 

height classes of riparian shrubs. CWG monitoring would be collected by District Range and 

Aquatics (Fisheries or Hydrologist) Specialists. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 81

Shade measurements would be monitored at DMAs in coordination with PIBO, MIM and 

channel characteristic measurements. Shade would be measured using a Solar Pathfinder on the 

order of every 10 years.

Monitoring of the fen areas and associated sensitive species populations and habitats would be 

accomplished using (1) the USFS’s Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Level 2 protocol 

with modifications to adequately assess the extent and distribution sensitive moss populations, 

(2) methods described in the Fen PFC assessment guide, (3) the Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Species module of the USFS’s Natural Resource Information System, and (4) 

photopoints. This would achieve the goal of monitoring key components of fen condition and 

function, such as peat formation and peatland maintenance, as well as trends of the extent and 

distribution sensitive species.

Photopoint monitoring would occur at benchmarked locations to ensure photos are repeatable

and can be used to illustrate clearly change in vegetative and channel characteristics. Photopoint 

locations would be selected by the IDT. 

USFS Region 6 Stream Surveys may be collected into the future on the creeks in the Project 

Area. This may inform land managers on changing channel conditions from previous Stream 

Surveys for larger geographical areas than already mentioned monitoring sites. Stream Surveys 

are identified as an inventory and not a monitoring tool and should be used with caution. With 

this, they are not tested for repeatability and accuracy as rigidly as MIM and PIBO monitoring 

designs are. However, using Stream Surveys with monitoring results may provide a better 

understanding of trends across larger areas. 

Upland Monitoring

Beginning in the 1930s, permanent camera points were established on the Malheur National 

Forest. Their purpose was to monitor the effects of management on the resources of the Forest 

(Fifty Years of Change on the Range, R6-Mal-035-89). Many camera points have been rephotographed a number of times. This monitoring would continue. 

In the 1950s and early 1960s Parker Three-Step C&T (Condition & Trend) Transects were 

installed throughout the Forest. The majority of these were established in the uplands. Over the 

last five years some of these transects have been re-examined. The procedure has been to read 

the transect using the original Three-Step method and then reread the transect using a modified 

Daubenmire cover /frequency method (see Technical Reference 1734-4). This allows 

comparisons between old and new information to determine ecological condition and trend and 

establishes a baseline using the more accurate cover/frequency method for gathering future data. 

The re-examining of these established transects would continue. If new trend transects are 

established the modified Daubenmire cover/frequency would be used.

There are a variety of additional or other monitoring methods available for use. The method or 

methods to be used would depend on the questions needing to be answered and considering other 

priorities. In some cases ocular observation (qualitative) would be sufficient to measure 

utilization, but when specific concerns are identified the forest may need quantitative methods 

such as Paired Clipped plots or development and use of height/weight curves may be necessary. 

Some of the more commonly used methods can be found in “Utilization Studies and Residual 

Measurements” (Interagency Technical Reference 1996, BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730). (Please 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 82

refer to Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines, October 16, 2006 for additional 

accepted methodology)

All of the monitoring methods used by the Forest are also intended to facilitate communications 

between forest range and resource personnel, grazing permittees and consulting agency 

personnel. This would largely be accomplished through participation and one-on-one interaction 

during the interdisciplinary, on the ground implementation.

Other Resources 

Wildlife 

For any early season grazing (prior to August 1) of the Big Field pasture, monitoring for upland 

sandpipers would occur. If upland sandpipers are documented in any given year, turn-out in 

affected pastures would be postponed to avoid impacts such as trampling to nesting sandpipers 

during critical breeding and nesting periods. 

Monitoring would consist of qualified birders (district wildlife biologist, district wildlife 

technician, trained volunteers, etc.) walking, watching, and listening for upland sandpipers in 

vicinity of their historic nesting and use areas within the Big Field pasture. Monitoring would 

occur weekly during morning hours (dawn to noon) from May 1st through June 15th. Weather 

conditions would be calm, with no rain, to maximize potential detection of the birds. If upland 

sandpipers are discovered, no further walk-throughs of the area would occur to minimize 

disturbance from Forest Service personnel and volunteers as well. 

Areas covered during monitoring, and results (upland sandpipers found or not found) would be 

documented in the NRIS wildlife database, with a summary report shared with district range 

management personnel. 

Heritage 

All monitoring activities would be in accordance with the Grazing Allotment Review Strategy 

for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 

2006 “Grazing Permit Reauthorization and the National Historic Preservation Act”. See Section 

5: Monitoring, in the Grazing Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance. 

Summary of Effects in Relation to Issues

Table 2-36 compares the effects of the alternatives in relation to the issues identified in Chapter 

1. 

The information used to compare alternatives in Table 2-36 is summarized from Chapter 3, 

“Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.” For a full understanding of the 

effects of the alternatives, refer to Chapter 3, as well as the specialist reports available in the 

project file at the Prairie City Ranger District.

Comparison of Alternatives

The following tables provide a summary comparison of the effects of implementing each 

alternative in regard to purpose and need and the Significant and Analysis issues identified in

Chapter 1.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 83

Table 2-36: Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Significant 

Issue Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Bull Trout

Critical 

Habitat 

Miles of occupied 

bull trout habitat 

grazed during 

spawning season by 

stream 

0 0 0 0

Miles of critical bull 

trout habitat for 

occupied and 

unoccupied: 

 Not grazed 35 9.9 14.3 14.3

 Grazed 

annually 0.0 7.3 12.1 15.4

 Grazed with 

periods of rest 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0

 Riparian 

pasture with 

rest

0.0 2.7 7.4 4.8

 Riparian 

exclosures not 

grazed 

0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Rate of Recovery:

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve PFC in 5 

years 

31.1 29.6 33.3 31.7

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve PFC in 

10years 

35 30.9 34.4 34.5

 Miles of Critical 

Habitat expected to 

achieve desired 

vegetation and 

channel conditions 

in 10 years 

31 17.2 32.1 25.5

Economic 

Impacts to 

Permittees 

and the 

Local 

Community 

Animal Month Units 

by Allotment and 

Alternative 

0

AMUs are the same for every alternative: 

Lake Creek: 0

Logan Valley: 1,983, 

McCoy Creek: 416

Summit Prairie: 1,546 

Costs of 

Improvements by 

Allotment and 

Alternative:

 Lake Creek 

$0

67,500 0 67,550

Logan Valley 74,400 12,600 80,100

McCoy Creek 3,000 3,000 3,000

Summit Prairie 224,100 333,800 155,600
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 84

Significant 

Issue Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed (average 

minimum on an 

annual basis over the 

next 10 years):

 Lake Creek 10,196 5,056 10,196 9,459

Logan Valley 3,756 232 45 232

McCoy Creek 980 0 0 0

Summit Prairie 25,331 3,452 74 18

Acres available for 

Grazing (average)9: 

 Lake Creek 

$0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 4,127 3,926 4,127

McCoy Creek 660 660 660

Summit Prairie 26,380 25,310 25,365

Miles of Added Fence 

Maintenance10 : 

 Lake Creek 

$0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 4.8 2.3 2.3

McCoy Creek 1.4 1.4 1.4

Summit Prairie 7.3 12.5 6.4

Analysis 

Issues Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fences are 

movement 

barriers to 

wildlife 

Miles of Fence 

Removed:

 Lake Creek 

0

0 0 0

Logan Valley 2.3 1.5 1.5

McCoy Creek 1.0 1.0 1.0

Summit Logan 0.7 0.7 0.7

Miles of Fence 

Constructed 

The miles of fence construction is the same as listed in under the 

Significant Issue “Miles of Added Fence Maintenance”. See 

Table S-8 for fence miles. 

Design Elements to 

Reduce Impacts 

Not 

Applicable 

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, 

Design Elements are in place requiring a smooth 

bottom wire at least 16 inches above the ground 

to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum 

top wire height of 42 inches, and spacing of 10 

inches between the top and next lower wire to 

reduce the potential of back legs being caught 

when animals jump the fence. 

Proposed 

Move 

Triggers, 

End-Point 

Indicators 

Move Triggers and 

End-Point Indicators See DEIS Appendix E 

 9 Acres do not include existing exclosures that would not be grazed.

10 Miles are cumulative, including acres from ongoing projects (see current management in Chapter 1 for further 

detail). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 85

Analysis 

Issues Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

not capable 

of allowing 

for riparian 

recovery

Limited 

hardwoods

have resulted 

in a loss of 

beaver 

habitat and 

reduction in 

beaver 

populations

Short – and Long –

Term Effects on 

Shrub Development 

Not 

Applicable 

Grazing management that allows for recovery of 

herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods

could increase the expansion of beaver within the 

project area. 

Shifting 

parts of 

vacant 

allotments 

into active 

livestock use 

Acres of Currently 

Vacant Allotment 

Grazed 

0 4,478 0 388

Miles of Critical Bull 

Trout Habitat Grazed 

in Currently Vacant 

Allotment 

0 4.4 0 0

Livestock 

Stocking 

Levels 

Should be 

Reduced 

Capability, 

Suitability and 

Forage Production 

No Grazing 

The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and 

may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual 

adjustment of both numbers and/or season. The 

analysis of available forage and stocking rates 

shows that adequate forage is available to 

support AUMs levels currently permitted 

including any proposed allotment boundary and 

management changes.

Implementation and Management Schedule 

Depending on which alternative is selected by the Responsible Official, activities included in the 

decision would occur in approximately the following timescale. All activities and improvements 

are expected to occur within 10 grazing seasons of the decision. All improvements would be 

maintained during the same time period. Boxes checked represent the approximate time period 

when all or portions of the proposed activity would be completed. 

Table 2-37: Implementation Schedule by Alternative

Alternative 1 – Not Grazing

Activity 2012 2015 2019-2022

Notices of permit cancellation given to permittees X

No grazing implemented X

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 86

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan 

Valley allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine Big Creek portion of East 

Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek 

units. New unit called Big Creek Riparian pasture.

X

Fence removal to absorb the North Fork unit of the 

McCoy allotment into the Flat Field unit of the Logan 

Valley allotment.

X

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture and West Bosenberg riparian 

pasture.

X

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North 

Fork unit along Big Creek converted to a permanent 

let-down fence.

X

Absorb Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. X

Construction of new fence and removal of exiting 

fence to absorb a portion of the McCoy Creek unit 

with the horse pasture from the Lake Creek allotment 

(new unit would become part of the Logan Valley 

allotment, named the Deardorff unit).

X X

Begin resting the Big Creek Riparian pasture (3 years 

out of 10). X X

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the Logan 

Valley allotment. X X

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine the Ridge and Dry units. 

Combined areas would be called the Ridge unit. X

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for 

Summit Prairie allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 3-5 

years. X

Fence removal to absorb Front Field unit from the X
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 87

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Logan Valley allotment to into the Little Logan unit. 

The additional 52 acres would be grazed as part of the 

Summit Prairie allotment. 

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the 

Sagehen unit near the private property boundary. X

Fence and water gap construction to add the 

Bosenberg unit of the Lake Creek allotment to the 

Summit Prairie allotment. New unit would be named 

the Bosenberg unit. 

X X

Pond construction and spring development in the 

Bosenberg unit. X X

Being grazing the Bosenberg unit. X X

Begin resting the Sagehen, Little Logan and 

Bosenberg units (3 years out of 10 years). X X

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the 

Summit Prairie allotment. X X

Alternative 3

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan 

Valley allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and moves triggers 

as shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine the Big Creek portion of 

the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big 

Creek units. New unit would be named the Big Creek 

Riparian pasture.

X

Fence removal to absorb the North Fork unit of the 

McCoy Creek allotment into the Flat Field unit of the 

Logan Valley allotment.

X

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North 

Fork unit along Big Creek converted to a permanent 

let-down fence.

X

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture and West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture.

X

Absorb the Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. X

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the Logan X
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 88

Alternative 3

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Valley allotment.

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine the Ridge and Dry units. 

Combined areas would be named the Ridge unit. X

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for 

Summit Prairie allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 3-5 

years. X

Fence removal to absorb the Front Field unit from the 

Logan Valley allotment into the Little Logan unit. X

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the 

Sagehen unit near the private property boundary. X

Fence construction to create the Lower Little Logan, 

Upper Little Logan, North Summit, Sagehen, Riparian 

pastures and the Sagehen Riparian exclosure.

X X

Begin resting the Lower Little Logan, Upper Little 

Logan, North Summit, Sagehen Riparian pastures and 

the Sagehen Riparian exclosure. All areas would be 

rested from 3-5 years after fences are constructed. 

X X

Begin deferment rotation on Summit Prairie 

allotment. X X

Alternative 4

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan 

Valley allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and moves triggers 

as shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine the Big Creek portion of 

the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big 

Creek units. New unit would be named the Big Creek 

Riparian pasture.

X

Fence removal to absorb the North Fork unit of the 

McCoy Creek allotment into the Flat Field unit of the X
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 89

Alternative 4

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

Logan Valley allotment.

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture and West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture. 

X

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North 

Fork unit along Big Creek converted to a permanent 

let-down fence.

X

Absorb the Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. X

Construction of new fence and removal of existing 

fence to absorb a portion of the McCoy Creek unit 

with the horse pasture from the Lake Creek Allotment 

(new unit would become the part of the Logan Valley 

Allotment and called the Deardorff unit).

X X

Begin resting the Big Creek Riparian pasture (3 years 

out of 10 years). X X

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in Logan 

Valley allotment. X X

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers as 

shown in Appendix F. X

Fence removal to combine the Ridge and Dry units. 

Combined areas would be named the Ridge unit. X

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy 

Creek allotment. X

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for 

Summit Prairie allotment. X

Application of grazing use levels and move 

triggers as shown in Appendix F. X

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 

3-5 years. X

Start use of rider in the Sagehen and Little Logan 

units. X

Fence removal to absorb the Front Field unit 

form the Logan Valley allotment into the Little 

Logan unit. 

X

Construct the Prairie Riparian pasture along 

Summit and West Fork Summit Creeks. X X

Start resting Prairie Riparian pasture in North 

Summit unit (3 to 5 years). X X

Start installation of cages and small riparian X
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 2 Page 90

Alternative 4

Activity 2013-2015 2016-2019 2020-2023

exclosures in Sagehen and Little Logan units. 

Begin resting riparian exclosures.

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the 

Sagehen unit near the private property boundary. X

Begin deferment rotation on the Summit Prairie 

allotment. X X
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 91

Chapter 3

Introduction 

This chapter provides information concerning the affected environment of the Summit Logan

Project area, and potential consequences to that environment from the Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2), Alternative 3, Alternative 4, or the likely results of taking No Action (Alternative 

1). All types of effects, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, are disclosed. Effects 

are quantified where possible, or discussed qualitatively. The means by which potential adverse 

effects would be reduced are described (see also Chapter 2).

Specialist Reports and Project Record

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement hereby incorporates by reference the Rangeland 

Vegetation and Invasive Species, Botany, Soils, Hydrology, Aquatics, Recreation, Visual 

Quality, Heritage, Social and Economics, and Wildlife Specialist Reports in the Summit Logan

Valley Grazing Authorization Record (40 CFR 1502.21). Specialist Reports are located in each 

specialist’s section of Appendix F (Specialist Reports) and contain the detailed data, 

methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the 

resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions in this environmental impact statement. 

Appendix F is available for review upon request. 

The Project Record for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project includes all 

project-specific information, including field investigations and other data. The record also 

contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The planning record is located at 

the Prairie City Ranger District Office in Prairie City, Oregon, and is available for review during 

regular business hours.

Analyzing Effects 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or 

action. 

Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. 

Cumulative effects are those effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the agency or 

person that undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. These 

“related actions” may be influencing current conditions. If so, their current (or foreseeable) 

effects are relevant to considerations of whether the proposed action would add to their effects. 

In the descriptions of cumulative effects of the proposed action, relevant related actions that are 

known are identified and discussed. (A full listing of relevant related actions is provided in 

Appendix C.) Each cumulative effects analysis, for each environmental component, is guided by 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 92

and consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality letter, “Guidance on the Consideration 

of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” of June 24, 2005. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

NEPA regulations also state that the Forest Service must show any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives. An irreversible commitment is a 

permanent resource loss including the loss of future options. It usually applies to nonrenewable 

resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors that are renewable only over long 

periods, such as soil productivity. Such commitments are considered irreversible because the 

resource has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time, at a 

great expense or because the resource has been permanently destroyed or removed. An 

irretrievable commitment is the loss of use or production of a natural resource for some time. 

This analysis determined there are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources due 

to this project. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The proposed action is consistent with the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1990) and its amendments. Applicable 

Forest-wide and land use designation standards and guidelines have been incorporated. The 

Forest Service uses design elements in the planning and implementation of land management 

activities. The application of these elements begins during the planning and design phases of a 

project.

Plans of Other Agencies 

The CEQ regulation implementing NEPA requires a determination of possible conflicts between 

the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, State, and Local land use plans, policies, and 

controls for the area. The major land use regulation of concern is the Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan. See the “Other Disclosures” section at the end of this chapter for a discussion 

of compliance with this and other laws.

Rangeland Vegetation__________________________________

Introduction

This is a summary of the Rangeland Vegetation Report that evaluates the potential effects of 

livestock grazing on the rangeland within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project. The full report can be found in Appendix F which is available for review by request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Granger-Thye Act of 1950

Granger-Thye authorizes the Forest Service to issue grazing permits and use grazing receipts for 

range improvements; provides direction on establishment of local grazing advisory boards and 

other purposes.

National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 93

The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of 

renewable resources on National Forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the 

Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on 

multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each 

unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of 

National Forests. 

The Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19)

Requires each National Forest to establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA 

analysis and decisions on all grazing allotments within a 15 year period. 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The principle guiding document relevant to range management on the Forest is the 1990 Malheur 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to as the Forest Plan for the 

remainder of this section. The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for range 

management. Standards and guidelines are presented at the Forest level (LRMP, pp. IV-34 to IV35) or Management Area level (Applicable sections of the LRMP to this report include: 

Management Area 3A -Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas pp. IV-57 to IV-58) 

Analysis Method 

Vegetation Information

The project area was mapped using an existing vegetation cover according to the R6 Ecological 

Classification (Ecoclass) standards. The mapping was completed using existing GIS mapping 

and field reconnaissance. Forage production is related to the plant communities and species, soil 

productivity, and tree densities (canopy cover) on the landscape. The Forest Plan established 

percent allowable use of available forage based on vegetation type (i.e. forested stands, 

grasslands, and shrublands). Vegetation information was used in combination with Forest Plan 

direction to conduct the forage production and livestock stocking rate analysis.

Condition and Trend

In the 1950s and early 1960s Parker Three-step C&T (Condition & Trend) Transects were 

installed throughout the Forest. The majority of these were established in the uplands. Four sites 

were established in the Summit Logan project area between 1953 and 1956. The procedure has 

been to read the transect using the original Three-Step method and then reread the transect using 

a modified Daubenmire cover/frequency method (see Technical Reference 1734-4). This allows 

comparisons between old and new information to determine ecological condition and trend and 

establishes a baseline using the more accurate cover/frequency method for gathering future data. 

These sites have been re-examined which allows comparisons between old and new information 

to determine ecological condition and trend. In the 1990’s and 2000’s ecology plots were 

established across the Blue Mountains with some plots overlapping the project area. Information 

from C&T transects and ecology plots were used in the analysis to analyze forage conditions and 

trends.

Forage Condition 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 94

Forage condition is a resource value rating for livestock forage condition and is designed to 

depict grazing impacts on understory vegetation; the condition is derived from species density 

and species composition (USDA FS 1984). Forage condition evaluates departure from potential 

under existing environmental conditions, including density of woody cover (USDA FS 1984). 

There are four classes of forage condition: good, which equals 76-100 percent of species density 

and composition; fair, which equals 51-75 percent of species density and composition; poor, 

which equals 26-50 percent of species density and composition; or, very poor, which equals 0-25 

percent of species density and composition. Current forage condition was also determined based 

on the C & T data from 1995 and scored using two sources: Hall 1973 and USDA FS 1967; these 

sources were chosen over the Tentative Forage Condition Guide (USDA FS 1984) because they 

are more site specific and comparable to past data. 

Photo Points

Beginning in the 1930s, permanent camera points (photo points) were established on the Malheur 

National Forest. Their purpose was to monitor the effects of management on the resource. Many 

camera points have been re-photographed a number of times. In the Summit Logan project area 

several points have been identified from which photographs are taken at periodic intervals. In 

the analysis photographs were used to supplement data and served as a valuable tool in 

determining and/or interpreting vegetation trends. Photo point information is available in the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project file. 

Global Information System (GIS)

An analysis of rangeland capability was completed for the project area using existing GIS data 

and mapping. Site conditions such as slope, soil type and productivity, and landscape features 

were used to determine the percentage of the landscape that is capable of producing forage and 

grazing management at a given level. 

Forest Plan 

The analysis also considered direction in the Forest Plan regarding range and livestock 

management for specific management areas. Developed campgrounds (MA-12) and 

administrative sites (where not compatible with livestock grazing), (MA-19), are designated as 

unsuitable in the Forest Plan. In addition, fenced road rights of ways, long-term enclosures that 

exclude livestock grazing, and areas with over-story tree canopy cover greater than seventy 

percent (70%) were considered to be unsuitable. 

Other Information 

The analysis also uses information from a variety of sources including:

 Annual compliance monitoring

 Submitted permittee monitoring

 Contracted surveys and assessments

 Actual use records and end of year reports. 

 Existing range and environmental analysis files (1950, 2080, 2210/2230/2240/2270)

 Other historical records of the allotments/pastures. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 95

Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of rangeland vegetation and forage conditions, and rangeland 

management for the Summit Logan Valley project area. The rangeland vegetation section 

discusses vegetation types in the project area and trends in range and forage conditions. The 

rangeland management discussions provide an overview of past grazing management, existing 

grazing management, current monitoring protocols, capability and suitability of the area for 

grazing, and potential forage production/stocking rates for each of the allotments. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Vegetation in the project area consists primarily of forested types with shrub and elk

sedge/pinegrass understories. At the lower elevations, sagebrush, bunchgrass communities, and 

dry meadows are some common plant communities. As the elevation rises, ponderosa pine and 

grand fir become dominant. Lodgepole pine is found on poorly drained cold pockets. Aspen 

stands are interspersed throughout the project area. The following descriptions of the plant 

associations found in the project area are from Plant Association of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains (Johnson, Clausnitzer, 1992), Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the 

Malheur, Umatilla and Wallow-Whitman National Forests (Crowe, Clausnitzer, 1997), Plant 

communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington (Hall, F.C. 

1973), and Bunchgrass Plant Communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains a Guide for 

Mangers (Johnson, Swanson, 2005).

For this analysis, the project area has been mapped at an existing vegetation cover according to 

the R6 Ecological Classification (Ecoclass). The mapping was completed using existing GIS 

mapping and field reconnaissance. In 2007 Forage Production Studies were conducted on these 

allotments to support that areas are capable of supporting livestock grazing across the project 

area.

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Area is a mix of forested and nonforested vegetation types as well as other land features such as rock and water. Forested lands 

account for 86% of the area, non-forested lands account for 13% of the area and rock and water 

account for 1% of the area. 

Forested Types

Of the forested vegetation types, all but the grand fir associations are considered capable of 

producing forage for livestock. 

The majority of the conifer plant association acres are thought to be outside the range of the 

natural fire regimes represented by the type with the exception of portions in the Lake Creek 

allotment which has had two major wildland fires (Snowshoe Fire in 1990 and the High Roberts 

Wildland Fire in 2002). Commercial thinning activities have recently been completed on this 

allotment with the Merit Timber Sale. 

The Sheep Mountain Fire occurred in 1990, overlapping a small portion of the Summit Rock unit 

of the Summit Prairie Allotment. Much of the fire area was salvage logged and replanted. 

Throughout the fire large patches of snowbrush ceanothus exist, some of which are inaccessible 

to livestock grazing.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 96

Subapline Fir Types

Subalpine fir stands occur across approximately 988 acres within the project area. High 

elevations, cold, dry habitats, subalpine fir dominants in absence of spruce due to the 

droughtiness of the sites. The dominant herbaceous plant is elk sedge. Sites are too cold to 

support pinegrass which requires warmer, moister conditions to complete and persist with elk 

sedge.

Mixed Conifer, Pinegrass, Elk Sedge Types

Mixed conifer stands occur across approximately 20,063 acres within the project area. The 

mixed conifer plant community occupies drier sites than grand fir. Soils have the lowest waterholding capacity of the grand fire plants associations. Residual soils are prominent substrates; 

this reduces pinegrass abundance and favors elk sedge.

Other conifers species found within the mixed conifer stands are lodgepole pine stands which 

occur across approximately 1,118 acres within the project area. Ponderosa pine stands occur 

across approximately 4,161 acres within the project area. Douglas-Fir stands occur across 

approximately 314 acres within the project area. Grand fir stands occur across approximately 

5,242 acres within the project area. 

Non-Forested Types/Juniper

Juniper stands occur across approximately 120 acres within the project area. This plant 

community forms a mosaic with scattered western juniper among mountain big sagebrush and 

bunchgrass.

The majority of the sage types are thought to be outside the range of the historical fire 

disturbance regime for these types. Fire return intervals of 10 to 50 years maintained these types 

in a mix of structural height and ecological status. Fire suppression and the focus on timber 

management have caused these types to miss at least one and probably several fire disturbance 

events. These plant community types are mostly in late seral condition, with sagebrush 

dominating and grasses and forbs decreasing as cover components. Fire suppression has also 

contributed to the encroachment of conifer into non-forested vegetation types.

Other non-forested types of lands found within the project area are grassland which is comprised 

853 acres. Aspen which includes 126 aspen stands totals approximately 372 acres in the project 

area. Encroachment by conifers is typical with the suppression of fire. Lack of fire, as well as a 

combination of historic overuse by livestock combined with timing of grazing and use by 

wildlife has resulted in a decrease of aspen regeneration. Decadent stands benefit from the 

introduction of fire and thinning of encroaching conifers. Where aspen stands have been treated 

by removal overstory conifers or protection to exclude or restrict browsing, regeneration has 

been successful. Within the project area approximately 39 acres of aspen have been protected 

with fences. 

Meadows comprise 2,864 acres. Non-forested uplands within the watershed are characterized by 

dry, moist, and wet meadows. The majority of the Logan Valley and McCoy Creek allotments 

are comprised of moist and dry meadows. Logan Valley is the most expansive grassland area 

and is dominated by several introduced grasses which were seeded after the valley was plowed 

and disked in the 1920s. These species have replaced the native Idaho fescue and bunchgrass 

communities that were native to the area. Introduced grasses including timothy, crested 

wheatgrass, orchard grass, and red fescue are the dominant grasses within the Logan Valley and 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 97

McCoy grazing allotments. Listing of bull trout (1998), resulted in grazing season changes to 

protect bull trout spawning areas. With season of use changes these species have become 

“wolfy” and decadent, which has started to reduce their vigor and palatability to ungulates. 

Lodgepole pine is currently encroaching into Logan Valley as a result of fire suppression. 

Low sage is comprised of 898 acres. These sites are characterized by shallow to very shallow 

soils with rock fragments common while big sage is comprised of 714 acres. The majority of the 

sagebrush-dominated communities are in mid-to-late seral ecological status, primarily due to the 

suppression of fire on these rangelands. 

Measured upland vegetative conditions varied throughout all of the pastures under analysis from 

poor to excellent. Factors which resulted in poor condition did not appear to be related only to 

livestock grazing. 

The data collection forms for specific monitoring sites provide additional detail on the reasons 

for individual condition determinations. This data is maintained within the ecology database 

located on the Wallow-Whitman National Forest Tri-Forest Ecology Department. A print out of 

these sites is located in the analysis file for this project at the Prairie City Ranger District Office.

Condition and Trend 

Available data shows that forage condition and trends are improving in the project area. At the 

most recent reading, forage condition ranges from fair to good and trend range from fair to good 

at all C&T and Ecology plot sites. The general trend for the C&T plots is an increase in litter 

and canopy cover and a decrease in bare soil in ponderosa pine and western juniper sites. 

Rangeland Management

History and Past Livestock Grazing Management

Domestic livestock grazing first occurred in the project area as early as the mid-1850’s when the 

first miners and homesteaders entered the area. The Malheur National Forest, like many areas in 

the Western United States, has a reputation of livestock overuse that started in the late 1800’s 

and continued into the mid 1930s. Thousands of sheep grazed the planning area from the late 

1860's until the 1940's. From the 1940's until the present day, domestic livestock grazing in the 

area has been primarily cattle. Sheep and cattle utilized available forage in a continuous season 

grazing regime. Early grazing was essentially unregulated and resulted in significant impacts, 

some of which are still observable today. High stocking levels, stock driveways, and lack of 

management resulted in degraded upland and riparian conditions (Report on the Proposed Blue 

Mountain Forest Reserve 1906).

Livestock use was not managed until the early 1900’s with establishment of the Forest Reserves

in 1906 and the Malheur National Forest in 1908. Historical livestock grazing data for Grant 

County ranges from 1890 through 1959, after that time actual use records were reported. In 

1918, the Forest Service instituted a permit system, which defined areas to be grazed, set the 

season of use and established the number of livestock to be permitted. During the early part of 

the century, the Forest Service also took significant action to regulate numbers and seasons, and 

to establish workable grazing seasons and allotments. This action continued into the latter half 

of the century when emphasis shifted to development of management systems and regulation of 

effects on specific resources.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 98

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) were developed in the 1960-70’s to manage livestock 

grazing. The allotment and unit boundaries in the analysis area have been changed numerous 

times. 

Improved grazing systems and pasture designs were implemented to accelerate riparian area

recovery in the late 70s to the present. Specific changes have included construction of fences, 

installation of water tanks and ponds, and herding and strategic salt placement to improve 

livestock distribution while reducing riparian area impacts. Implementation of the Malheur 

National Forest Land Management Plan (FLMP) in the early 90s lowered the allowable use

standard for livestock grazing to accelerate the rate of recovery in riparian areas. In the late 

1990’s, when bull trout were listed as threatened under the ESA, changes to utilization levels of 

grass and riparian species were further. 

More recent management changes have occurred and are ongoing to improve upland and riparian 

area conditions, reduce negative effects to aquatic species and increase management flexibility. 

In 2011, three Decision Memo’s were signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing 

projects within the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments to enhance 

livestock management and improve shade and hardwood communities associated with bull trout

habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek; and to provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock 

distribution along Summit and West Fork Summit Creeks. All projects are scheduled to be 

implemented between 2012 and 2013. Projects include construction of exclosure and riparian 

pasture fences, water and pond development, and hardwood planting (see Current Livestock 

Grazing Management below for a summary of projects). 

Grazing Utilization Standards (History)

In 1990, Region 6 of the Forest Service developed grazing utilization standards to be included in 

the Forest Land Management Planning process. Upon approval, the Forest Plan incorporated the 

Region 6 utilization standards and guidelines. The Malheur Forest Plan lists a range of allowable 

use standards to be applied based upon:

1. Management Area Designation (Riparian or Non-riparian). See Forest Plan Table IV-2, 

page IV-35 (non-riparian areas) and Table IV-4, page 58 (non-anadromous riparian areas) 

for more detail.

2. The allotment condition classification. Is the area in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory 

condition (to be determined in a site-specific analysis completed in accordance with the 

activity schedule in Forest Plan Appendix A, Table A-10 on page A-18 through 21

3. The management intensity level (Stewardship or Extensive). 

The four allotments in the Summit Logan analysis have been managed under an extensive 

management strategy since the Forest Plan was approved in 1990. The Forest Plan (page IV-35) 

defines extensive management as a strategy where “management seeks full utilization of forage 

available to livestock. Cost-effective management systems and techniques, including fencing 

and water development, are designed to obtain relatively uniform livestock distribution and use 

of forage to maintain plant vigor.” 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 99

Range forage conditions in the project area were evaluated using a combination C&T transects, 

ecology plots, and photo point information. The evaluation determined that forage conditions 

on suitable rangeland are in a satisfactory condition11 based on the Forest Plan definition. 

Table R-1 summarizes the Forest Plan allowable use levels for allotments in satisfactory 

condition under extensive management. 

Table R-1: Allowable Use of Forage by Percent Weight Removed 

Plant Community Sub-type Range Condition

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Non-Anadromous 

Riparian

Grassland 45 0-35

Shrubland 40 0-30

Non-riparian

Grassland 55 0-35

Shrubland 50 0-30

Forestland 45 0-35

Note: Utilization of grasslands is based on percent removed by weight for grass, grasslike, and forbs. Utilization of 

shrubs is based on weight and twig length.

After bull trout were listed as threatened in 1998, utilization standards were developed for 

allowable use of herbaceous riparian species, riparian woody shrubs, grass and grasslike species, 

and bank alteration through the consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). From 1998 through 2004, utilization levels were 6-inch stubble height along the 

greenline, moderate browse use, 45% utilization in uplands, and 10% bank alteration.

From 2005 through 2011, utilization standards were 4-inches stubble height along the greenline, 

light to moderate browse use, 45% utilization in uplands, and 20% bank alteration. These levels 

are used as both livestock move triggers and end-point indicators. 

Between 2005 and 2011 utilization standards have been met consistently in most grazing units 

with the exception of the West Lake Creek unit in the Logan Valley allotment and the North 

Summit and Sagehen units in the Summit Prairie Allotment.

Rangeland Capability and Rangeland Suitability Analysis

Forest planning regulations require the determination of capability and suitability at the Forest 

level. These regulations are derived from the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (Section 6, (g) (2) (a) & (3). 

The 1990 Malheur Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1990, FEIS V-20, and Appendix B, 

B-60 and B-71-75) used FORPLAN to estimate Animal Unit Months (AUMs) and rangeland 

capability/suitability of the Forest, including Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and 

Summit Prairie allotments. A capability/suitability analysis was conducted during the 

development of the Forest Plan for the Malheur National Forest, which made management 

direction determinations based upon Management Area designation. Subsequent changes to the 

definitions of capability and suitability have been made since the Forest Plan was completed. 

Information queries have been performed that updated the capability and suitability analysis to 

 11 The Forest plan defines Satisfactory Range Condition as “on suitable range, forage condition is at least fair with 

stable trend, and allotment is not classified as PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage)”. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 100

incorporate the most current information available and most recent Region 6 Guidance attached 

as Attachment C (USDA 2003).

Rangeland Capability 

Capable rangelands comprise approximately 94% of the total acres within the allotments in the 

Planning Area. Capability is defined as the potential of an area of land to produce resources, 

supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current 

resource conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as 

well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, 

insects, and disease.

The analysis of capability began with all lands in the project area. The following were 

subtracted from these acres.

 Soil types that are dominated by large percentage of rock, areas with highly erosive soils, 

very wet and boggy soils and sites with high mass movement risk.

 Areas with soil types that are not inherently capable of producing more than 200 pounds 

or forage/acre.

 Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds.

 Major rivers 

 Perennial streams

 National Forest System Roads

 Steep slopes

The remaining acres were considered Capable Rangeland. 

Rangeland Suitability 

Forest Service Manual 1905 (91) indicates that suitability is a determination of “the 

appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as 

determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequence and alternative uses 

forgone...”.

Most Forest Plan management areas in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project 

area are suitable for grazing. The project area includes the Big Creek and Murray Campgrounds 

(MA 12), and Lake Creek Organization Camp (MA 19) which were determined to be unsuitable 

for grazing. 

In the suitability analysis for the project area fenced road rights of ways, long-term enclosures, 

areas with over-story tree canopy cover greater than seventy percent (70%) were also considered 

to be unsuitable. Within the project area unsuitable acres total approximately 689 acres. 

Capable and Suitable Rangelands comprise approximately 92% of the project area. Based on 

this information the majority of the project area is capable and suitable for livestock grazing; and 

consistent with the analysis in 1990 Forest Plan.

Forage Production and Stocking Rates Analysis

Forage production helps determine a guideline for carrying capacity on allotments. Forage 

production is related to the plant communities and species on the landscape and determines how 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 101

much vegetation is available for forage. There are many different ways to calculate forage 

production, ranging from collecting data in the field to using maps. To determine production in 

this analysis, the focus was on plant associations mapped in a GIS database by acres, 

supplemented with production field data collected in 2007. Forage pounds per acre (lbs/acre), as 

determined by the Plant Associations of the Blue and Choco Mountains (Hall 1973 and Johnson 

and Clausnitzer 1991), were calculated with some adjustments, as follows. 

 Rangelands not suitable or capable were removed from the forage production analysis. 

 The average annual production of the Plant Association was used (lbs/acre air dry). 

 Percent forage allocated. Allowable utilization levels from the Forest Plan were utilized 

for areas in satisfactory condition with an extensive management strategy (see Forest 

Plan Tables IV-2 on page IV-35). 

• Forested 45% 

• Grasslands 55% 

• Shrublands 50% 

To determine the carrying capacity (typically expressed in AUMs, or how many 1,000 lb. cows 

with a calf could graze for one month) you take the total production of an area divided by the 

pounds of forage required (26 lbs/day) divided by the days in a month (30). 

For Example Lake Creek Allotment:

 2,638,833 lbs. Forage Produced X .45 = 1,187,474 lbs. of Forage Available 

 1,187,474 lbs./26 lbs./30 days = 1,522 AUMS

Table R-2 summarizes forage production and carrying capacity (AUMs) by allotment and 

pastures; please refer to the project file (Prairie City Ranger District) for further information.

Table R-2: Forage Production and AUMs

Allotment Total Forage 

(lbs.)

Available 

Forage (lbs.)

Calculated

AUMs

Permitted 

AUMs

Lake Creek 2,638,833 1,187,474 1522 0

 Bosenberg 1,764,017 793,808 1017

 Horse Pasture 34,122 15,354 20

 McCoy Creek 840,694 378,312 485

Logan Valley 8,446,623 4,120,092 5,284 1,983

 West Lake Creek 548,642 246889 317

 East Lake Creek 1,245,379 560,421 718

 North Big Creek 280,404 126,182 162

 South Big Creek 335,024 167,512 215

 West Bosenberg 189,747 94,874 122

 East Bosenberg 151,086 75,543 97

 Corral Holding 32,489 16,245 21

 Front Field 161,760 80,880 104

 Lower Field 540,948 270,474 347

 Big Field 3,108,510 1,554,255 1,993

 Flat Field 1,853,634 926,817 1,188

McCoy Creek 4,352,415 2,158,447 2,766 416

 Cow Camp 677,669 338,835 434
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 102

Allotment Total Forage 

(lbs.)

Available 

Forage (lbs.)

Calculated

AUMs

Permitted 

AUMs

 Dry 162,370 81,185 104

 Gov’t Flat 1,227,848 613,924 787

 Lake Creek 355,237 159,857 205

 North Fork 284,436 142,218 182

 Ridge 1,403,222 701,611 899

 Starvation 241,633 120,817 155

Summit Prairie 56,662,746 25,388,469 33,572 1,546

 Sagehen 36,938,136 16,622,161 21,310

 Crane Rock 5,395,628 2,428,033 3,113

 Little Logan 7,246,133 3,260,760 4,180

 Summit Rock 6,543,359 2,944,512 1,141

 North Summit 448,005 91,835 3,775

 South Summit 22,289 10,030 13

 West Summit 69,196 31,138 40

The analysis of available forage and corresponding animal unit months (AUMs) shows that 

adequate forage is available to support AUMs at levels greater than what is currently being 

permitted in the McCoy Creek, Logan Valley and Summit Prairie Allotments. 

Permitted Livestock Use 

For the most part authorized use has been the same as permitted use over the last 12 years. 

Actual use of livestock grazing, however, has declined in the allotments over the last several 

years. Actual use is monitored throughout the season to ensure grazing effects are consistent with 

meeting Forest Plan standards and bull trout consultation requirements. Over the last five years 

the average of actual use has decreased on the allotments due to water availability, range 

readiness, the permittee’s grazing operational changes and desire to address previously identified 

concerns. Actual use (average annual head months) has fluctuated 24% on Logan Valley, 13% 

on McCoy Creek and 13% on Summit Prairie. The Logan Valley allotment has had one 

permittee, McCoy Creek allotment has had thee permittees and Summit Prairie has had two 

permittees in the last 12 years.

Current Livestock Grazing Management

Introduction

Three permittees currently graze livestock on Summit Logan Valley Grazing Autorization 

project area allotments under term grazing permits. The allotments in the analysis area are 

currently permitted for livestock grazing as follows: 

Table R-3: Summary of Allotment Status and Permitted Use

Allotment Acres Status AMP Permit 

Type

Permitted 

Numbers

Permitted 

AUMs Season

Lake Creek 10,196 Vacant 1966 Term 0 0 --

Logan Valley 3,756 Active 1971 Term 357 cow/calf 

pairs 1,983 6/10-10/15

McCoy Creek 980 Active 1971 Term 63 cow/calf 

pairs 416 6/1-10/30

Summit Prairie 25,331 Active 1965 Term 260 cow/calf 

pairs 1,546 6/10-10/24
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 103

Lake Creek Allotment

Allotment contains three units (Bosenberg, Horse Pasture and McCoy Creek) with separation 

fences, although some portions of the fence were burned during the 1990 Snowshoe fire. 

Prior to the Snowshoe Fire in 1990, this allotment was unmanageable due to the dense overstory 

canopy and reduced forage base; the permittee waived the allotment back to the Forest Service. 

Since then it has been vacant and not been grazed for over 20 years. Currently, range conditions 

are capable and suitable for grazing. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Livestock generally enter the unit on the south side of the 1600 road (East Bosenberg, West 

Bosenberg, Front Field, Lower Field, and Flat Field) when the range is ready and stock water is 

available. The livestock are moved to the units on the north side of the 1600 road (North and 

South Big Creek, East and West Lake Creek, and Big Field) when the range is ready later in the 

season. Per consultation agreement livestock grazing is not permitted after August 15th in the 

North and South Big Creek and Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek units to prevent 

livestock redd interaction. 

In the Logan Valley allotment the lack of off-stream water sources has been a problem. One 

existing developed water source helps distribute livestock through the Flat Field unit. Other 

livestock water is provided by Lake Creek and Deardorff Ditch. Because of the lack of water 

opportunities to defer the season of use has been very limited. Some units can only be grazed 

early season because water sources are not available later in the year. 

Several projects are ongoing in the Logan Valley allotment that reduce the impacts of livestock 

along Lake Creek and Big Creek by providing functional water sources in the uplands which 

would provide for better livestock distribution throughout grazing units.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Livestock generally enter the unit on the south side of the 1600 road (Ridge/Dry, Gov’t Flat, 

Starvation and Cow Camp) when the range is ready and stock water is still available. The 

livestock are moved to Lake Creek unit when the range is ready later in the season. 

There are limited opportunities to defer the season of grazing because of current pasture 

configurations and water availability. Off-stream water sources are needed to reduce livestock 

use of the Lake Creek riparian area while allowing better use of upland forage. The primary 

stock water source is Lake Creek. One other existing water development is located within the 

Lake Creek unit. 

Several projects are ongoing in the McCoy Creek allotment that are reducing the impacts of 

livestock along Lake Creek and allowing vegetation and stream channel recovery while still 

maintaining a functional water source for livestock.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Livestock would generally enter the Sagehen and Crane Rock units when the range is ready for 

grazing. Then move up Summit Creek to the Little Logan, Summit Rock, North Summit, West 

Summit and South Summit units as the range is ready.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 104

Upland water sources are needed to pull livestock use away from Summit Creek and allow better 

forage utilization in upland areas. Use levels are generally reached in the Summit Creek riparian 

area before forage can be fully utilized in upland areas.

Several projects are ongoing in the Summit Logan Allotment. These ongoing projects are to 

improve aquatic habitat conditions on Summit Creek and improve the distribution of cattle 

through the development of upland water sources. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the no grazing alternative. No action does not result in 

direct or indirect effects but rather removes the effects of previous management that authorized 

and managed livestock grazing. While not technically an effect of a Federal action, when 

compared to the effects of the action alternatives there would be an evolution of vegetation 

conditions as biophysical processes continue to occur on the ground in the absence of domestic 

livestock grazing. The degree that this evolving condition would differ from current conditions 

for any given portion of land would be determined in part on the past level or degree of the 

grazing activities impacts on that portion of land. In general, the degree of impact from past 

grazing activities relates to location on the landscape particularly as that location relates to other 

resource factors such as water and forage. The primary category division related to landscape 

location is the split between upland vegetation types and riparian vegetation types. 

Removal of livestock grazing as a disturbance to the forest and non-forest vegetative upland 

portions of the planning area is not expected to result in substantial changes in plant distribution, 

density, or composition. 

The elimination of livestock grazing would result in the fastest improvement to riparian 

vegetation. The production and composition of sedges, rushes, and hardwoods in riparian areas

and mesic meadows should improve more rapidly than uplands due to their inherent productivity 

and resiliency as a result of greater soil moisture availability. The effects to riparian vegetation 

are discussed in detail in the Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report.

Discontinuation of grazing and other activities associated with livestock use would allow areas 

where vegetation has been impacted in the past to recover over time. The rate of recovery would 

vary based on current site condition and other factors like recreation and wildlife use. Overall an 

upward trend in range conditions is expected to continue with vegetation compositions slowly 

changing late seral species in locations where the potential exists. 

As vegetation increases, the percentage of bare ground would be expected to decrease. Dead 

plant matter (litter) would accumulate, helping to protect and stabilize soils. In the absence of 

grazing, plant matter accumulates on the soil surface. After years of this accumulation (which 

surpasses the rate of decay in arid environments), some plants (many grass species in particular) 

go into a “self-imposed stress” whereby the litter chokes out new shoots competing for light 

(Knapp, et al., 1986). The vigor of the entire plant is reduced. When this occurs over a broad 

scale rangelands become less productive and healthy. Healthy and productive grass and shrub 

lands are important for many invertebrate and wildlife species that depend upon them 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 105

particularly for winter range. With the accumulation of dead plant matter (litter) fine fuels would 

build potentially increasing the susceptibility of the landscape to wildfire. 

Some grass species that evolved with the periodic removal of vegetative material by fire, insects, 

or ungulates would probably not benefit over the long term under this alternative. Plant 

productivity, diversity and species composition may change over time. Plants with low tolerance 

to grazing may actually increase in abundance. Shrub communities without fire or other 

disturbance would gradually move towards the predominance of shrubs over grasses and forbs. 

Rangeland Management

Under this alternative, all existing Term Grazing Permits would be cancelled two years after the 

decision and resolution of the appeals process. No permits would be issued for any of the 

affected allotments until or unless there was a subsequent NEPA analysis and a decision was 

made to restock any or all of the allotments. The existing permittees would be given two years 

written advance notice of the cancellation of their permits as provided for under 36 CFR 

222.4(a)(1). 

With no action (no grazing) all range improvements and fences would be, abandoned, removed, 

or assigned to another entity (i.e. adjacent permittee, private land owner, etc.) for maintenance. 

Maintenance of range developments such as fences and water improvements on the allotments 

would no longer be the responsibility of the permittees. Existing improvements may continue to 

be maintained by the Forest Service if considered a benefit to other resources. 

Elimination of livestock grazing permits in this locality could jeopardize the viability of the 

ranches associated with those permits. Re-zoning and land use changes such as development of 

smaller subdivisions on private lands could occur adjacent to Forest Service Lands, and could 

affect soils and vegetation in watersheds already impacted by other uses, potentially leading to 

increased runoff and stream sedimentation, and decreased soil productivity. 

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects with no action (no grazing), there are no 

cumulative or additive effects. Ongoing and foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C would 

continue in the project area. However, ongoing activities directly associated with grazing 

management may be terminated or cancelled. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation (All Allotments)

Grazing Use Levels

Allowable use levels of herbaceous forage for the action alternatives are displayed in detail in 

Appendix E of the DEIS. 

All action alternatives allow use of herbaceous vegetation by livestock. Herbaceous vegetation 

includes grasses, grasslike, and forbs (nonwoody flowing plants). In general cattle prefer grasses 

and grasslike vegetation over forbs, but preferences depend on many variables, including season 

of use and available forage. Application of allowable use is based on the concept that plants can 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 106

withstand removal of part of their current year’s growth and still achieve normal growth the 

following year. 

A review of available science (summarized below) on the intensity of grazing shows that 

proposed use levels in all action alternatives are adequate to maintain or improve plant vigor 

(health) and allow continued improvement in forage condition trends. Studies show that light to 

moderate levels of livestock grazing have positive effects on maintaining, sustaining, and 

improving rangelands that are either in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition. All alternative 

propose the same use levels with riparian benches and upland areas of grazing units. Action 

alternatives vary in the proposed standards for the riparian communities along the “greenline” 

directly adjacent to streams. The “greenline is defined as the first communities dominated by 

perennial vegetation as you proceed outward from the center of the channel. The amount of 

forage left along the stream’s edge has been found to be important in catching sediments during 

the runoff periods, both from the stream channel as well as from overland flow (Clary and 

Webster 1988). The trapping of sediment is critical in rebuilding of streambanks as well as the 

maintenance of water quality. The effects of proposed differences in greenline stubble heights 

between the action alternatives on riparian vegetation and stream function and recovery is 

discussed in detail in the Aquatic Habitat section. 

In an intensive literature review Clary and Webster (1989) concluded that vegetation appears to 

be more affected by grazing intensity than by grazing systems. They found that the success of 

grazing systems depend in part upon managerial control of intensity and forage utilization. Eight 

years of research at Meadow Creek, Starkey, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, WallowaWhitman National Forest, in Northeastern Oregon, indicated that herbage production was 

increased 1-to-4 fold through timing and intensity of grazing (Bryant 1985). Several grazing 

rotations were tested including deferred rotation, rest-rotation, and season-long grazing. There 

was no statistically different change in plant composition among the systems tested however the 

production of riparian vegetation increased dramatically when utilization was 70% or less. 

Use levels for riparian areas have been studied by many authors. Clary and Webster (1988) 

compiled information from numerous sources and recommended that “utilization of streamside 

herbaceous forage should be limited to about 65 percent of current growth. Utilization based on 

current growth, however, does not translate directly to utilization based on annual production. 

The authors went on to note that recommendations of 40-50% utilization (approximately 3 to 4 

inches of residual height) would maintain plant vigor. They noted, however, that stubble height 

(e.g. 6 inches or more) might be necessary to protect riparian ecosystem function. 

In more recent publications, Hall and Bryant (1995) maintain that undesirable grazing impacts 

can occur any time stubble height in riparian areas reaches three inches or less. Maintaining a 

minimum stubble height can help preserve forage plant vigor, reduce browsing on willows, 

stabilize sediments and indirectly limit streambank trampling (Clary and Leininger 2000). Clary 

and Webster (1989) and Clary (1995) noted when defoliation, compaction, and nutrient return 

effects are considered in mountain meadows sedge-dominated communities, grazing to a 10 cm 

(4-inch) stubble height (end of growing season) appears to be adequate for maintenance of 

biomass production. Clary also noted that non-riparian vegetation grazed to about 5 cm (2-inch) 

stubble height at end of growing season would maintain vigor and biomass. Clary and Leininger 

(2000) explain that stubble height is a short-term monitoring tool and not an objective itself. 

Desired conditions are the long-term objective.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 107

Available data shows that forage condition and trends are improving in the Summit Logan 

project area. The most recent information from Condition and Trend Transects and Ecology 

plots shows that forage conditions ranges from fair to good and trend range from fair to good 

(see Affected Environment for more detail). Literature acknowledges a relationship between 

range condition and appropriate grazing intensities. Frear 1983, buckhouse et al. 1979, Chaney 

et al. 1990, Buckhouse 1981, May and Sommes 1982, Clary and Webster 1989, Chaney et al. 

1993 documents that light to moderate grazing/proper stocking levels sustains and improved 

degraded rangeland areas, restoring long-term productivity. Elmore (1998) suggested that 3 to 4 

inches of stubble height would maintain plant vigor and sustain riparian conditions. However, 

Clary and Webster (1989) recommend that a residual standing height of 4 to 6 inches is 

necessary to improve riparian ecosystem function. 

Deferred Rotation Grazing System

All action alternatives propose deferred rotation as part of the grazing system. Rotational 

grazing, where each area is grazed at a different season each year, was developed because 

different plant communities and physical features are affected differently at different seasons. 

All sites and species, over the grazing cycle, are grazed equally during seasons beneficial for 

each characteristic and seasons that are detrimental. This prevents preferred sites from receiving 

continuous detrimental timing (seasonal) effects and also limits the frequency of use during any 

one year.

Deferment is defined as a period of non-grazing during part of the growing season. There are 

several benefits to upland and riparian vegetation with application of deferred grazing. This type 

of system provides flexibility to change the timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing on an 

annual basis. The frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants and species of plants 

varies depending on preference and availability. In a given grazing season, the result is that most 

preferred plants would be defoliated more frequently or severely than less preferred plants. With 

variations in the season of use there is decreased likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired 

plants species, allowing for longer periods of plant recovery. In general, the year to year 

variability in pasture use under a deferred rotation grazing system would protect the 

phonological stages of plant species and improve species compositions. Plant vigor would be 

increased and species recruitment would improve. 

Deferred grazing has been successful in restoring and improving riparian areas. The season of 

grazing is important factor for willow recovery. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) documented that 

early season upland grasses have crude protein levels of 15-17%, but levels fall below 5% as 

grasses mature. As this occurs, cattle increase the amount of available palatable forbs and 

browse in their diets and soon move into the riparian zone. In the spring, cattle often avoid 

riparian zones because of the cold temperatures, soil wetness, and forage immaturity (Kruger 

1983). Therefore, spring grazing can encourage cattle to graze uplands where forage maturity 

and climate are more favorable compared to the riparian zone (Platts 1984). As a result, springgrazed riparian zoned have less than half the cattle occupancy compared to fall use (Kruger 

1983). As spring grazing precludes late-summer use, willow browsing is light and seedling 

survival high (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

Riparian Pastures
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 108

All action alternatives propose to construct riparian pastures. The quantity and location of 

pastures varies by alternative. With riparian pastures there is closer management and control to 

achieve goals and objectives.

In the project area, pastures along Lake Creek, Big Creek, Summit Creek, and West Fork 

Summit Creek contain a mix of riparian and upland vegetation. The riparian zones within the 

pasture are much different from the terrestrial systems, making management of the combined 

systems difficult. Livestock are selective grazers, therefore the frequency and severity of 

defoliation of individual plants or species of plants varies depending on preference and 

availability. The result is that most preferred plants would be defoliated more frequently or 

severely than less preferred plants. Because of this preference livestock tend to concentrate in 

the riparian areas, making management of the frequency and intensity of use in these areas a 

challenge. Use levels and move triggers in the riparian portion of units have historically been 

reached before authorized forage in upland areas can be utilized. 

Rest

All alternatives include rest as part of proposed management. All alternatives proposed resting 

of riparian pastures or riparian exclosures. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose rest as part of the 

grazing system (termed periods of non-scheduled rest and deferment). In most cases, rest is 

proposed as part of the management strategy to meet riparian area recovery objectives. The 

length of rest proposed in all action alternatives for the West Bosenberg, West Lake Creek, and 

West Summit Recovery unit pastures is 3 to 5 years. After this period of rest, grazing would 

resume with management strategies that vary between action alternatives (effects of rest are 

similar to those discussed under Alternative 1, no grazing.)

Rest proposed in all of the action alternatives would be beneficial to vegetation recovery. With 

rest, plants are not affected by herbivory, and streambanks are not affected by livestock 

trampling. Woody riparian plants are allowed to reach escapement height. There is quick 

recovery period, especially in the first few years after grazing is eliminated. Rest or non-use may 

be one of the best methods for rapid improvement of woody plant regeneration (Davis 1982). 

Padgett (1995), noted that while there is not data that specifically state how long it would take a 

community to change from unsatisfactory to satisfactory condition, the amount of time it takes to 

move toward desired future condition (DFC) can be decreased through increased rest. 

Skovin (1984) found that exclusion of livestock had produced improved riparian and aquatic 

habitat following 4 to 7 years of rest, woody plant (shrub) recovery following 5 to 8 years of rest. 

A study on Big Creek in northern Utah concluded that a minimum of 6 to 8 years of rest was 

necessary to restore a deteriorated streamside riparian area to the point where livestock grazing

would be allowed at reduced levels (Duff 1983). However, substantial recovery of streambanks 

and vegetation was observed following 4 years of rest from grazing. 

Adaptive Management

All actions alternatives are based on “adaptive management,” a process that uses monitoring

information to determine if management changes are needed. Adaptive management strategies 

proposed for each alternative are shown in Appendix A (part 3). Strategies have been identified 

to ensure that riparian recovery objectives are met with specified timeframes. Short-term 

objectives for riparian areas are primarily focused on vegetation recovery. Specific recovery 

objectives for the streams in the project area are identified by stream reach and pasture (see 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 109

Appendix A (part 2)). If monitoring indicates that specific objectives are not being achieved, at 

any given time the Line Officer can choose to apply the analyzed adaptive strategy to reduce 

delays in recovery timeframes. Specific adaptive management strategies with their potential 

effects are described below: 

 Changes in use levels (herbaceous forage use, bank alteration, shrub use) – An increased 

rate of riparian vegetation recovery is expedited by decreasing the grazing intensity.

 Rest or exclusion from grazing – Rest would benefit vegetation recovery. With rest, 

plants are not affected by herbivory, and streambanks are not affected by livestock 

trampling. Woody riparian plants are allowed to reach escapement height. There is quick 

recovery period, especially in the first few years after grazing is eliminated. Rest or nonuse may be one of the best methods for rapid improvement of woody plant regeneration 

(Davis 1982). Padgett (1995) noted that while there is not data that specifically state how 

long it would take a community to change from unsatisfactory to satisfactory condition, 

the amount of time it takes to move toward DFC can be decreased through increased rest, 

lower utilization levels, and/or rehabilitation. 

 Fencing to create riparian pastures – Construction of fences would have minimal ground 

effects to vegetation. With riparian pastures there is closer management and control to 

achieve goals and objectives. Each riparian pasture may be managed individually or 

rested depending on current conditions. 

Logan Valley Allotment

All action alternatives would combine the Big Creek portion of East Lake Creek, North Big 

Creek and South Big Creek units into one large riparian unit. These units are currently being 

grazed as a single unit which is allowing riparian recovery with noted improvement in density, 

cover, and composition of stabilizing riparian vegetation species (i.e. sedges and rushes). 

Removal of fences to combine the pastures is expected to continue the upward recovery trend in 

vegetation.

Over the last several years a section of electric fence (0.3 miles) has been maintained in the 

North Fork unit to exclude livestock grazing from Big Creek. All alternatives would replace the 

electric fence with a permanent let-down fence. The permanent fence would continue to protect 

the Big Creek Riparian area and effectively distribute livestock into the upland portions of the 

unit. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the 

Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would remain as an 

individual unit and North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit for better livestock 

distribution. A larger unit would improve distribution of forage use (effects to vegetation are 

similar to those in the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Deferred Rotation Grazing).

McCoy Creek Allotment

To develop pasture sizes and configurations that would facilitate a rotation of deferment several 

unit and allotment boundary changes are proposed. The Dry and Ridge units of the allotment 

would be combined into a single unit as currently managed and would be identified as the Ridge 

unit. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units (267 acres) of the McCoy Creek allotment would be 

absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment. Due to past private land fencing, these pastures are 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 110

geographically isolated from the main allotment and are best suited for management with the 

adjacent allotment. Absorbing the Lake Creek and North Fork units into the Logan Valley 

allotment would decrease fence maintenance.

The Starvation unit (53 acres) would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment as it is 

geographically isolated from the main allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin 

allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis would be required to add this area to 

the Dollar Basin allotment. 

A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied throughout the allotment (see Deferred 

Rotation Grazing System under Effects Common for additional effects analysis). This grazing 

system provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to 

change the time of year when units would be used. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

All the action alternatives propose enlarging the Little Logan unit by adding the Front Field unit 

(52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment. The larger unit would provide a larger landscape 

for better livestock distribution. The Front field unit does not have adequate water for livestock 

and the Little Logan unit has adjacent water sources. Improve livestock water availability is 

expected to improve use distribution and continue recovery of forage conditions. 

A loading ramp with attached catch pen along Forest Service road 1647 would be constructed in 

the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property boundary under all action alternatives. 

Rangeland Management (All Allotments)

Forage Production and AUMs

All action alternatives propose to retain the currently permitted AUMs. The AUMs proposed 

are maximum limits and may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual adjustment of both 

numbers and/or season. The action alternatives identify the permitted livestock numbers (an 

average number of livestock) and the average season of use which includes the earliest possible 

“on” dates related to range readiness and the latest dates that livestock are permitted to be on the 

allotment. Flexibility that allows for annual adjustments provides a management tool to assure 

that riparian and rangeland objectives are met. 

The analysis of available forage and stocking rates shows that adequate forage is available to 

support AUMs at levels currently permitted, including any proposed allotment boundary and 

management changes. 

Management Practices

Implicit in all action alternatives is active livestock management, with distribution tools, 

(including additional infrastructure). Each alternative prescribes a series of actions that include 

physical changes (such as constructing new water developments, fences and changes in 

allotment/pasture boundaries and configurations) to address the site specific concerns within the 

planning area. 

Management practices may affect cattle distribution. Neither salt placement nor alternate water 

location away from riparian zones influenced the use of riparian areas in a study by Bryant 

(1982). A study by Workman indicated that cost effective measures for improving distribution 

were spring development, salting (18.6% improvement) and herding (20% improvement), but 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 111

that fencing was not cost effective (Workman and Hooper, 1968). It may be concluded from 

these seemingly contradictory study results that water development and salting are effective 

methods of improving distribution, but by themselves may not be adequate to obtain desired 

levels of use on riparian areas. Fencing may change the location of excessive use from one site 

to another, but does little for overall distribution. Fencing may be cost effective if it provides for 

implementation of improved grazing systems which improve timing and duration of use more 

than distribution. Salting practices have been utilized for many years and, with few exceptions, 

appear to be effective to improve livestock distribution, especially on gentle slopes within the 

project area. Activities proposed are expected to improve livestock forage use and distribution in 

upland areas while allowing rest and lower use levels in riparian areas. 

Fence Maintenance

Fence maintenance would be required as part of the term grazing permit. All action alternatives 

propose to construct new fences which would increase the miles of fence maintenance required 

by the permittee. Fence maintenance requirements include replacement or splicing of broken 

wires, removal of trees or limbs that have fallen across the fence, and replacement of deteriorated 

wood pieces and structures. The time and cost of completing fence maintenance repairs depends 

on the terrain (steep or gentle slopes, accessibility (access by ATV or vehicle), age or state of 

deterioration of the fence, and vegetation type (timbered or grassland). Year to year maintenance 

needs can vary based on weather conditions. High winds can increase the number of down trees 

or limbs that fall across the fence. Cold weather and heavy snows can increase wire breakage 

and structural damage. 

Cumulative Effects

Several ongoing projects in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area would 

provide additive benefits when combined with the actions proposed in the action alternatives. 

The specific ongoing projects and their effects are described in Tables R: 4, 5, and 6. Additional 

cumulative effects discussions are provide for each specific alternative.

Logan Valley Allotment

Table R-4: Ongoing Activities in the Logan Valley Allotment

Project Name Specific Management Technique and General Effects 

Big Creek Fence 

and Water-Gap

Creates West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Constructing a riparian pasture would protect riparian values. The pasture would provide closer 

management and control to achieve riparian goals and objectives. In the pasture may be 

managed individually or rested depending on resource conditions. Depending on the type and 

level of management in the riparian pasture there may be a loss of forage to the livestock 

operator. For this specific fence construction costs and maintenance labor costs would be 

incurred by a Forest Service partner. The water gap in the fence would maintain access to Big 

Creek from the adjacent upland unit for watering. The water gaps would limit access to only a 

few feet of the stream (approximately 20 feet) minimizing streambank impacts. The water gap 

would be hardened with rock material to reduce hoof impacts.

Big Creek & 

Lake Creek OffSite Water 

Source

Water developments would provide key water in units that currently lack distributed water 

sources, and/or units where the available water from streams would be excluded by fences (i.e., 

exclosures and riparian pastures). Water developments would reduce livestock concentrations 

in riparian areas allowing recovery of vegetation and aquatic habitat. Water developments 

would improve livestock distribution and more uniform utilization of forage in the uplands. In 

some upland pastures operators have not been able to utilize available forage because move 

triggers and utilization levels in riparian areas are reached first. Improved water and livestock 

distribution would provide better utilization of forage in some upland pastures. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 112

Project Name Specific Management Technique and General Effects 

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Fence

Creates West 

Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

The effects would be similar to the Big Creek Fence (Bosenberg Riparian Pasture). Effects that 

are different include:

 Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing permittee.

 Water gaps would not be constructed.

Big Creek and 

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

Planting of hardwood would increase the rate of willow recovery on Big Creek and Lake Creek. 

Expediting recovery would improve vegetation resiliency, allowing the pastures to be managed 

for grazing in the future. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Table R-5: Ongoing Activities in the McCoy Allotment

Project Name Specific Management Technique 

Lake Creek Unit 

Division Fence 

Reconstruction 

Fencing would control livestock movement and distribution to protect critical bull trout habitat. 

Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing permittee. 

Lake Creek 

Fence and WaterGap

Riparian exclosure fence to exclude livestock from this portion of Lake Creek to allow 

vegetation and stream channel recovery while also providing a functional water source to 

livestock. Constructed water-gap would maintain livestock water to upland portions of the unit.

The fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by a Forest Service partner.

Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery 

Fence 

Riparian exclosure to provide protection of a willow gallery along Lake Creek. The stream is 

being utilized by beaver and is critical habitat for bull trout. The fence maintenance labor costs 

would be incurred by a Forest Service partner.

Big Creek & 

Lake Creek OffSite Water 

Source

See Big Creek & Lake Creek Off-Site Water Source (above)

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

See Big Creek and Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood Planting (above)

Summit Prairie Allotment

Table R-6: Ongoing Activities in Summit Prairie Allotment

Project Name Specific Management Technique

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Fence and Water 

Gap

Creates West 

Summit Creek 

Riparian pasture

Constructing a riparian pasture would protect riparian values and improve degraded stream bank 

conditions. The pasture would provide closer management and control to achieve riparian goals 

and objectives. In the pasture may be managed individually or rested depending on resource 

conditions. Depending on the type and level of management in the riparian pasture there may 

be a loss of forage to the livestock operator. For this specific fence construction costs and 

maintenance labor costs would be incurred by a Forest Service partner. The water gap in the 

fence would maintain access to the stream from the adjacent upland unit for watering. The 

water gaps would limit access to only a few feet of the stream (approximately 20 feet) 

minimizing streambank impacts. The water gap would be hardened with rock material to 

reduce hoof impacts. Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing

permittee.

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Parallel Tree 

Felling

Barriers formed by placing trees and brush on the edge of the stream would discourage 

livestock use and help stabilize eroding streambanks. Felled trees would protect established 

hardwoods and other riparian plant communities from livestock and ungulate use.

Little Logan Riparian exclosure and caging would improve age class and height development of willows on 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 113

Project Name Specific Management Technique

Willow 

Restoration

Summit Creek.

Sagehen Stock 

Ponds

Ponds would help reduce impacts of livestock on Summit Creek by providing functional water 

sources in the uplands. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 4,733 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. Effects to 

rangeland forage would be same similar to those described under Alternative 1, no action.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Portions of the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be absorbed into the Logan 

Valley allotment. The larger landscape (which is made up of larger grazing units) would be 

managed with periods of rest or deferment during the season of use. The grazing system would 

allow changes in the timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing which benefit both upland and 

riparian plant species development and vigor (effects to vegetation are similar to those in the 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Deferred Rotation Grazing).

The portions of the Lake Creek allotment absorbed into the Logan Valley Allotment have not 

been grazed since 1988. Initiation of the proposed use levels would keep grass vegetation 

vigorous by removing the decadence (wolfiness) from the plants which would increase the 

photosynthetic surface and the plants ability to synthesize carbohydrates. This would increase 

root mass as well as plant mass.

Summit Prairie Allotment

The addition of approximately 4,449 acres from the Lake Creek allotment to the Summit Prairie 

allotment would allow periods of rest or deferment during seasons of use. Rangeland vegetation 

would benefit from periods of rest and deferment in the season of grazing. Effects to vegetation 

are similar to those in the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Deferred Rotation

Grazing.

A new fence could be constructed to configure the new Bosenberg unit added from the Lake 

Creek allotment. Big Creek and Corral Basin Creek would not be included within the new unit. 

To ensure adequate protection of Bosenberg Creek and other streams in the unit, riding to move 

livestock away from riparian areas into the uplands would be required. Ponds or springs would 

be developed in the uplands to provide alternative water away from the streams. The new water 

developments would facilitate desired cattle distribution in the upland by providing more water 

in appropriate locations. Upon establishment of the new fences in the allotment, the Bosenberg, 

Sagehen, and Little Logan units would be rested 3 years out of the 10 year period. This would 

provide a period of non-use or rest to allow desired vegetation composition and stream channel 

characteristics to maintained or improved. Until completion of the new boundary fences, the 

Sagehen unit would continue to be grazed early season with reduced numbers. Herbaceous 

vegetation recovery has been observed since management was changed in 2008 to early season 

with reduced numbers. See Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report for more detail.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 114

The Lake Creek allotment has not been grazed since 1988. Initiation of proper grazing would 

have positive effects to plant physiology including increased photosynthesis, increased tillering, 

reduced shade, reduction of excessive mulch accumulations that may be inhibiting growth 

(Holecheck et al. 1989).

Rangeland Management

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 4,778 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie allotments. The remaining 5,069 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would 

continue to be vacant and not managed for livestock grazing. Effects for the vacant acres would 

be the same as that described under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). 

Logan Valley Allotment

The Logan Valley allotment would have a larger landscape (gain of 603 acres) for grazing with 

no net gain in number of grazing units allowing a change from a deferred rotation grazing system 

to a system that includes rest and deferment. Although there would be an overall increase in 

allotment acres, there is no proposed change in currently permitted AUMs. The objective of 

Alternative 2 is to increase flexibility in allotment management to adapt to future changes. The 

acres added from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would increase the overall forage 

available in the allotment, which would help offset forage losses with resting pastures. The 

majority of rest would occur in units with riparian habitat. The following table shows the 

minimum rest requirements for the units in the allotment.

Table R-7: Logan Valley Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture 14

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) 

and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives 

have been achieved, with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 

year period after grazing is resumed.

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 135

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012 

or 2013) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after willows have 

established, with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year 

period.

Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 623 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an Annual 

Basis (Average)

261 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 2.3 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

To ensure adequate protection of Bosenberg Creek and other streams in the Bosenberg unit, 

riding would be required to maintain livestock concentrations in the uplands. A rider may be 

able to train cows and calves to use uplands and discourage their use of riparian areas by 

consistently moving them away from riparian area to other locations. When cattle are regularly 

herded from riparian areas to uplands, generally the best practice is to herd cattle away from the 

stream after they have watered. Some research has found that herding combined with strategic 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 115

placement of desirable supplement appears to be even more effective in attracting cattle to graze 

previously underutilized areas. Herding lessens impacts on riparian areas and provides better 

distribution of livestock. Better distribution increases useable forage and thus capacity of a 

pasture or allotment. It may also result in the ability to keep livestock in management units 

longer because they spend less time in riparian area. Use of a rider would be an economic

impact to the permittee.

Table R-8: Summit Logan Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

Sagehen 3,767 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary fence)

19

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in 

Appendix E would be applied.

Bosenberg 4,449 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Little Logan 3,270 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an 

Annual Basis 

(Average)

3,455 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Approximately 7.0 miles of new fence would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland 

management. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, 

and wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Logan Valley Allotment

In the Logan Valley allotment the combination of offsite water developments in upland areas and 

construction of riparian pastures (with water gaps) would allow riparian area recovery while still 

allowing upland areas to be grazed. Resting of riparian pastures would improve herbaceous 

vegetation and hardwood recovery (see Aquatic report for specific details). Offsite water 

developments in upland areas would provide better water distribution and opportunities to defer 

the season of grazing providing for better livestock distribution and even forage utilization. The 

availability of livestock water in Logan Valley allotment has been problem, limiting the 

opportunity to vary the season of grazing. Improving livestock watering availability would 

provide greater flexibility in grazing rotations and the ability to adapt to resource needs in the 

future.

Areas that were thinned and underburned in the Merit project over the last decade in the vacant 

Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. Thinning and fuel 

treatments reduced debris on the forest floor and density of tree thickets. Past wildfires reduced 

dense tree canopies and excessive down material. Vegetative conditions have recovered from 

past wildfires. The combined effect of thinning, underburning, and past wildfires has increased 

water, sunlight and nutrients available to grasses and shrubs, thereby improving forage 

conditions. Adding acres from the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment would 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 116

provide additional forage and the opportunity to rest riparian units with less economic impacts to 

permittees. 

Several vegetation restoration activities are ongoing in the Logan Valley allotment with the 

Logan Valley Meadow/Grassland Enhancement/Aspen Restoration Project. This project 

includes removal of encroaching conifers in meadows, underburning, commercial thinning, and 

aspen restoration on more than 300 acres in the Logan Valley area. Restoration activities 

exclude livestock grazing within approximately 18 acres of aspen. Thinning, meadow 

restoration (cutting encroaching conifers in meadows), and underburning would increase the 

forage production potential for livestock and big game.

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 2.3 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 2. Ongoing projects would add an additional 2.8 miles of fence. 

Combined a total of 5.2 miles of fence would be constructed, of which 4.8 miles would be 

permittee maintenance responsibility. The other 0.4 miles of fence would be maintained by a 

Forest Service partner.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Several ongoing projects would continue to be implemented in the Summit Prairie allotment. 

The combined effects of these projects and the action proposed in Alternative 2 would provide 

better livestock water availability and livestock distribution in the Sagehen unit. Creation of the 

West Summit Creek riparian pasture with schedule rest starting in the 2012 grazing season for 3 

to 5 year period plus parallel tree felling (barrier) would aid in vegetation and stream channel 

recovery on West Fork Summit Creek (see Aquatic report for specific details).

The combined effect of periodic resting of the Little Logan unit (3 years out of 10) combined 

with ongoing activities of fencing and caging of willows would restore hardwood and 

herbaceous vegetation recovery on Summit Creek. See Aquatic report for specific details.

Approximately 7.0 miles of additional fences would be constructed under the implementation of 

Alternative 2. Ongoing projects would add an additional 0.3 miles of fence. Combined a total of 

7.3 miles of fence would be constructed. Maintenance of all new fences would be the permittee 

responsibility. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation

Lake Creek Allotment

All of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. The effects of Alternative 3 would be the 

same as no action (Alternative 1).

Logan Valley Allotment

No acres from the vacant Lake Creek Allotment would be added to the Logan Valley Allotment. 

Approximately 267 acres from the Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek 

allotment would be absorbed into the into the Logan Valley allotment. See effects Common to 

All Action Alternatives.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 117

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally 

move from unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use on an annual basis. 

Opportunities to utilize more uplands of the allotment would improve with water source 

development (See cumulative effects discussions).

Summit Prairie Allotment

This alternative would create several riparian pastures and exclosures on Summit creek and West 

Fork Summit Creek. Portions of Summit Creek in the Sagehen unit would be fenced into 

riparian pastures (29 acres) and riparian exclosure (8 acres). The riparian pasture (Sagehen 

Riparian Pasture) would be rested for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. The constructed 

Lower Little Logan Riparian Pasture (87 acres) and Upper Little Logan Riparian Pasture (15 

acres) would be rested the same as the Sagehen riparian pasture. Grazing would resume after 

management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 

10 year period after grazing is resumed. Within the fenced areas the density, cover and 

composition of stabilizing riparian vegetation species (i.e. sedges and rushes) are expected to 

improve. Water gaps would be constructed into the riparian pastures and exclosures on Summit 

Creek to provide access to water from upland pastures. Management objectives for each of the 

reaches on Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek are identified in Appendix A (part 2). A 

primary objective in the Sagehen and Little Logan unit is to expand willow species shrub density 

and heights across the floodplain over the next 5 to 10 years. Excluding livestock use is 

expected allow recovery to meet these objectives. See Aquatic report for specific details.

Recovery in upland areas of these units is expected with application of proposed use levels. 

Forage use in upland areas should increase with riparian portions of the units being removed and 

fenced into exclosures and riparian pastures. With current management, use levels in riparian 

areas has been a limiting factor with use levels and move triggers being reached before allocated 

forage in upland areas can be utilized.

The North Summit Riparian pasture (87 acres) would be created containing Summit Creek in the 

North Summit unit. The riparian pasture would be rested for 3-5 years after the fence is 

constructed with an objective of improving the greenline vegetation and streambank stability. 

Rangeland Management

Lake Creek Allotment

All of the existing 10,196 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant and would not 

be managed for grazing. 

Logan Valley Allotment

The grazing system will not change from current management. Livestock would generally move 

from unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. The Logan Valley allotment 

would increase from 3,756 acres to 3,971 acres as a result of adding the Lake Creek and North 

Fork units (267 acres) from the McCoy Creek allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. 

The West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek Riparian pastures (149 acres) would be rested for a 

minimum of 3-5 years after the fences are constructed. Although this is a relatively small 

number of acres when compared to the allotment as a whole, the acres are very productive forage 

areas which may have an impact to the economics of the grazing operation. The added 

productive forage acreage from the McCoy Allotment is anticipated to offset the planned rest. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 118

Table R-9: Logan Valley Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture 14

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2012) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management 

objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years 

out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed 

the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be applied.

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 135

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2012) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after management 

objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years 

out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed 

the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be applied.

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an Annual 

Basis (Average) 

75 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 1.5 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 3. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally 

move from unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use.

Riparian exclosures (with no grazing) and riparian pastures (with controlled gazing) would be 

constructed along portions of Summit Creek and West Fork of Summit Creek. Approximately 8 

acres would be fenced into exclosures and 218 acres fenced into riparian pastures in this 

alternative. All riparian pastures would be rested for 3-5 years. Although this is a relatively 

small number of acres when compared to the allotment as a whole, the acres are very productive 

forage areas which would have an impact to the economics of the grazing operation. Table R-10

shows the minimum rest requirements for the Summit Logan allotment.

Table R-10: Summit Prairie Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

Sagehen Riparian 

pasture 29

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When 

grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be 

applied.

Upper and Lower 

Little Logan Riparian 

pastures

75

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When 

grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be 

applied.

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary fence)

27

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When 

grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be 

applied.

North Summit 

Riparian pasture 87

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When 

grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in Appendix E would be 

applied.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 119

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an Annual 

Basis (Average)

109 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Note: Only the riparian pasture or recovery area would be rested. 

Approximately 12.2 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland 

management. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, 

and wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Logan Valley Allotment

In the Logan Valley allotment the combination of offsite water developments in upland areas and 

construction of riparian pastures (with water gaps) would allow riparian area recovery while still 

allowing upland areas to be grazed). Resting of riparian pastures would improve herbaceous 

vegetation and willow recovery (see Aquatic report for specific details). Offsite water 

developments in upland areas would provide better water distribution and opportunities to defer 

the season of grazing providing for better livestock distribution and even forage utilization. The 

availability of livestock water in Logan Valley allotment has been problem, limiting the 

opportunity to vary the season of grazing. Improved availability of livestock watering sources

would provide greater flexibility in grazing rotations and the ability to adapt to resource needs in 

the future.

Several vegetation restoration activities are ongoing in the Logan Valley allotment with the 

Logan Valley Meadow/Grassland Enhancement/Aspen Restoration Project. This project 

includes removal of encroaching conifers in meadows, underburning, commercial thinning, and 

aspen restoration on more than 300 acres in the Logan Valley area. Restoration activities 

exclude livestock grazing within approximately 18 acres of aspen. Thinning, meadow 

restoration (cutting encroaching conifers in meadows), and underburning would increase the 

forage production potential for livestock and big game on more than 300 acres.

Approximately 0.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed and1.5 miles removed with

the implementation of Alternative 3. Ongoing projects would add an additional 0.3 miles of 

fence. Combined 2.7 miles of fence would be constructed of which 2.3 miles would be 

permittee maintenance responsibility. The other 0.4 miles of fence would be maintained by a 

Forest Service partner.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Several ongoing projects would continue to be implemented in the Summit Prairie allotment. 

The combined effects of these projects and the action proposed in Alternative 3 would aid in 

vegetation and stream channel recovery of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. The 

actions combined would increase the availability of upland water sources, while maintaining 

access to water in streams through constructed water gaps. The actions combined would allow 

better utilization forage and more even distribution of forage in upland areas allowing vegetation 

condition to continue their upward recovery trend. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 120

Construction and resting of riparian pastures and exclosures on Summit Creek and West Fork of 

Summit Creek as part of ongoing actions and Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of available 

forage thus having an economic impact to the permittee. All of the exclosures are located within 

riparian areas would be rested over the next 3-5 years. The forage within these exclosures is 

higher quality compared to the forage in the upland pastures. The allotment acres would increase 

slightly in this alternative. This increase would not offset losses in forage from more restrictive 

move triggers and use levels on the riparian greenline combined with acres rested in exclosures 

and riparian pastures. This could potentially shorten the season of use. 

Approximately 7.0 miles of additional fences would be constructed with implementation of 

Alternative 3. Ongoing projects listed in would add an additional 0.3 miles of fence. Combined 

7.3 miles of fence would be constructed. Maintenance of all new fences would be the permittee 

responsibility. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 9, 459 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. Effects to 

rangeland forage would be same similar to those described under Alternative 1, no action.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Effects are the same as described for Alternative 2

Summit Prairie Allotment

The allotment would be managed with a deferred grazing system with livestock generally 

moving from unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use.

A key part of this alternative is the required use of a rider on a daily basis to ensure livestock stay 

in the upland portions of the Little Logan and Sagehen units. A comparison of the existing and 

desired conditions for the stream reaches in the Sagehen and Little Logan units shows a 

difference for stream shade, shrub development, and stable stream banks. The general 

management objectives established for the stream reaches is to improve willow and stream bank 

recovery (see Aquatic report for specific details). To accomplish these objectives more 

restrictive move triggers and allowable use levels for herbaceous riparian species on the 

greenline, shrubs, and percent bank alteration would be applied with this alternative compared to 

current management (see Appendix E for specific use levels). With use of a rider, cattle would 

be consistently moved away from the Summit Creek riparian area and distributed in upland 

areas. In the past move trigger and use levels in the riparian area have been reached prior to 

allowable use levels being met in the uplands. The goal in using a rider is to increase upland 

forage use and distribution, while decreasing the shrub use levels and stream bank impacts on 

Summit Creek. In addition to using a rider, riparian small riparian exclosures and cages would 

be placed on approximately 10 percent of the length of Summit Creek within the Sagehen and 

Little Logan units to provide additional protection and expedited recovery of willows (see 

Aquatic report for more detail). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 121

Based on these management changes upland and riparian vegetation recovery is expected to 

improve (see Aquatic report for specific details regarding riparian areas).

A riparian pasture containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek would be 

constructed from a portion of the Summit Rock and North Summit units containing portions of 

Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. 

The creation of the Prairie Riparian pasture along Summit Creek and the West Fork Summit 

Creek in portions of the North Summit and Summit Rock units with the construction of 3.1 miles 

of fence would allow the rest of the unit to be grazed in the upland portions. Livestock grazing is

not expected to slow the upward or improving trend of upland vegetation conditions because 

riparian management standards would be expected to be met far in advance of substantial 

livestock grazing impacts occurring on the uplands.

Rangeland Management

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley 

allotment. The remaining 9,459 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would continue to be vacant 

and not managed for livestock grazing. Effects for the vacant ares would be the same as that 

described under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Small riparian exclosures (with no grazing) and riparian pastures would be constructed along 

portions of Summit Creek. There would be some forage lost by excluding livestock from the 

exclosures. The exclosures would be small in size (built tight to the steam) and contain 

approximately 10% of the total length of Summit Creek in these two pastures. 

Daily riding by the permittee would ensure livestock stay in the uplands, reducing grazing use 

along Summit Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. Providing 

the rider would be the permittees responsibility which would increase management costs. 

Approximately 6.1 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with 

implementation of Alternative 4. All new fences would be the maintenance responsibility of the 

permittee.

Table R-11: Summit Prairie Allotment Minimum Rest Requirements

Unit Acres Required Rest 

Prairie Riparian 

pasture 126 A deferred rest grazing system would be applied. The riparian pasture would be 

grazed early season one year and late season the following year. 

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 

(temporary fence)

19

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). 

Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved. When 

grazing is resumed, the area within the recovery unit would be grazed as part of 

the Prairie Riparian pasture utilizing the same use levels and use triggers (see 

Appendix E). 

Acres Rested or 

Not Grazed on an 

Annual Basis 

18 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 122

Unit Acres Required Rest 

(Average) 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland 

management. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, 

and wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Cumulative Effects are the same as described for Alternative 2.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Small riparian exclosures and cages within the Sagehen and Little Logan would exclude 

livestock while continuing to develop a multiple age class of willows. This would be in excess 

of the buck and pole exclosure and cages proposed in the Little Logan unit.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives are consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan standards related to Range 

Management. Key Forest Plan standards include:

 Forest Wide Standard #80, page IV-34

 Forest Wide Standard #84, page IV-34

 Forest Wide Standard #86, Page IV-34

 Forest Wide Standard #87, Page IV-35

 Forest Wide Standard #88, Page IV-35

 Management Area 3A Standard #16, Page IV-57

 Management Area 3A Standard #18, Page IV-57

 Management Area 3A Standard #19, Page IV-58

 Management Area 3A Standard #20, Page IV-58

 Management Area 3A Standard #21, Page IV-58

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

No irreversible or irretrievable effects would occur to rangeland vegetation as the result of 

implementing the action alternatives.

Invasive Species______________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the invasive weed species report that evaluates the potential effects of 

livestock grazing on invasive weed species within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project. The full report can be found in Appendix F which is available for review 

by request. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 123

Regulatory Framework 

Forest Service Strategies, Regulations and Policies 

 National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management 

 National Interagency “Pulling Together” Strategy 

 Federal Noxious Weeds Act 

 Invasive Species Executive Order, Feb. 3, 1999

 Forest Service National Noxious Weed Direction, FSM 2080

 Pacific Northwest Region, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS and Record of 

Decision (October 2005) 

Oregon Noxious Weeds Laws 

 Chapter 452-Vector and Weed Control 

 Chapter 541-State Department of Agriculture 

 Chapter 570-Plants: Inspection, Quarantine, Pest and Weed Control 

 Noxious Weed Quarantine; OAT 603-52-1200

Analysis Methods 

Invasive weed species surveys have been conducted throughout the Malheur Forest. All 

documented weed sites from these surveys are recorded in a National data base, Natural 

Resources Information System (NRIS). The data base includes individual site records indicating

the location, size of infestation, plant numbers and density, type of treatment implemented, 

follow-up treatments and effectiveness. The NRIS data base was used as a source to identify 

known weed sites within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area.

Other sources of information used in this analysis include:

 Malheur National Forest GIS data base

 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

 Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant 

Program, 2005.

Affected Environment

The invasive weed species found in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

Area by allotment area as follows: 

Table N1: Lake Creek Allotment

Invasive Weed Species Common Name Size (acres)

Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted Knapweed 3

Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 0.2

Linaria vulgaris Yellow Toadflax 0.2

Table N2: Logan Valley Allotment

Invasive Weed Species Common Name Size (acres)

Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted Knapweed 0.3
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 124

Invasive Weed Species Common Name Size (acres)

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse Knapweed 2.1

Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 0.1

Linaria dalmatic Dalmation Toadflax 0.1

Linaria vulgaris Yellow Toadflax 0.1

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle 0.1

Table N3: McCoy Creek Allotment

Invasive Weed Species Common Name Size (acres)

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse Knapweed 0.1 

Table N4: Summit Creek Allotment

Invasive Weed Species Common Name Size (acres)

Cynoglossum officinale Hounds-Tongue 0.1

Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted Knapweed 0.3

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse Knapweed 0.2

Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 2.1

Linaria dalmatic Dalmation Toadflax 1.5

Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort 0.2

Species known to occur along highways and roadsides accessing the project area are 

houndstongue, spotted knapweed; diffuse knapweeds, Canada thistle, dalmation toadflax, yellow 

toadflax, St. Johnswort. These areas can be vectors for the spread of weeds into other areas in 

the Malheur National Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1 because no actions are being 

proposed. There would be no change to the treatment of noxious weed infestations within the 

project area under Alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects

Because Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 the lands comprising the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Planning 

area would be managed to achieve a desired condition as described in the Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and would maintain a healthy ecosystem. The 

proposed activities would foster a healthy, weed-resistant plant community consisting of a 

collection of species diverse enough to fill all the niches. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 125

Under all the action alternatives, new structural improvements are proposed. The ground 

disturbance for the new structural improvements could create an opportunity for invasive weed 

species to be introduced. 

The action alternatives would allow livestock to continue to act as a vector for invasive weed

species to spread throughout the allotments. The presence of livestock on the landscape results 

in a risk of invasive weed species being introduced into non-infested site because livestock can 

carry weed propagates in their hair, hooves, and digestive tract. However, based on the current 

invasive weed species population, the risk of spread is low. 

Livestock grazing or associated permittee actions have not been identified as a major factor in 

the establishment and spread of invasive weed species in the project area. Although the action 

alternatives may increase the chances for the spread of invasive weed species the permittees and 

Forest Service range management personnel presence on the allotments would assist in detection 

and control of infestations. 

District personnel and permittees would continue to work together to develop an accurate and up 

to date inventory of the invasive weed species present on the allotments within the project area. 

Once inventoried, each site would be treated. Permittees are encouraged to monitor high-risk 

sites (loading and unloading sites, corrals, high impact sites) and take immediate action if 

invasive species are found. This would continue to reduce the risk of subsequent invasive weed

species invasion and therefore, would reduce the risk of systemic alteration of: resource 

partitioning, hydrologic, nutrient and erosion/sedimentation processes. Grazing fee funds (range 

betterment funds) would be available for the treatment of invasive weed species. 

All action alternatives propose adaptive management. Adaptive management gives the land 

manager greater opportunity to tailor utilization rates and the amount of disturbance to specific 

areas which are not meeting desired conditions. All action alternatives would allow control of 

livestock impacts if prescribed standards are not met. Herbaceous plant communities respond 

differently to grazing impacts; the duration of rangeland recovery and increased resilience to 

invasive species invasion is better met with more options to control livestock. 

Mitigation measures for all action alternatives would be followed to prevent any new infestations 

and the spread of invasive weed species (see Ch. 2 for specific measures). 

Adaptive management under the action alternatives provides a range of use rates that can shorten 

the recovery period if more stringent standards need to be implemented.

Cumulative Effects

The project area has very few invasive species sites. Livestock impacts, both as a physical 

vector of spread and herbivory effects on native plants, would be different across the project 

area. The cumulative effect of disturbance caused by livestock grazing would recover at a slower 

rate compared to no livestock grazing. The longer the duration of recovery, the more susceptible 

the project area is to invasive species invasion and the resulting consequences to the resources. 

Certain invasive species populations would almost certainly continue to expand, regardless of the 

alternative chosen. However, other species that occupy limited area would be managed to 

prevent further spread. 

Cumulatively there are a tremendous number of activities that occur within the Rangeland 

Planning Area which can and do provide a moderate to high probability of the introduction and 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 126

spread of invasive species propagules. These reasonably foreseeable future activities (Appendix 

C) include (but are not limited to): timber harvest, mining, motorized and nonmotorized 

recreation, road construction and maintenance, and resource enhancement projects.

Although the action alternatives continue as a disturbance factor that provides a potential risk of 

invasive weed species introduction and spread, and provides for a greater level of disturbance, all 

actoin althernative retain current levels of recognition and reporting of new infestations. The 

increased spread and establishment of invasive weed species would be expected to be 

imperceptible when viewed in the context of all of the other ongoing activities. 

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives are consistent with Forest-wide standards for rangeland resources and noxious 

weeds, including Forest plan modifications made by the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant 

Program FEIS.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

None of the alternatives result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to herbaceous vegetation for 

the establishment of invasive weeds species.

Botany______________________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Biological Evaluation which analyzes the effects or impacts from the 

proposed action and alternatives of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project to 

plant and lichen species that are federally-listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for 

federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and species currently 

identified as sensitive (FSM 2670.5, USDA Forest Service 2011) by the Regional Forester of the 

Pacific Northwest Region (collectively called TES species). The full Biological Evaluation can 

be found in Appendix F which is available for review by request. 

Only sensitive plant and lichen species that are documented or suspected to occur within general 

biophysical area where the project would occur (i.e. the headwaters of the Malheur River 

watershed) are analyzed. Furthermore, only those species which may possibly be directly, 

indirectly, or cumulatively affected by the proposed actions are considered. Species that are not 

suspected to occur within the analysis area, or are eliminated from consideration due to other 

factors, are not described and are not considered in the detailed effects analysis [as per 40 CFR 

§1500.4, 40 CFR §1500.1(b)]. However, information on these species is available at the 

Supervisor’s Office of the Malheur National Forest, upon request.

Regulatory Framework 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

There are not threatened, endangered or proposed plant species documented or suspected to 

occur on the Forest. However, forty-seven sensitive plant species listed on the 2008 Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List are documented or suspected to occur in the Malheur National 

Forest. This Biological Evaluation fulfills the applicable standards and guidelines of Malheur 

National forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 127

Analysis Methods 

A pre-field analysis (or pre-field review) was used to determine the probability that TES species, 

and/or their respective habitats, are located within or adjacent to the project area, and to 

determine the extent and intensity of previous survey efforts. Information from the pre-field 

review, in conjunction with the project description, was used to determine the need and intensity 

of field surveys and, in part, fulfills the standards and procedures for conducting a biological 

evaluation (FSM 2672.42). 

A complete list of previous and historical surveys for sensitive and rare plants in the project area 

were determined by querying the Forest Service’s Natural Resource Information System for 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species (NRIS-TESP 2012) and by examining 

historical survey forms and maps, NEPA records, and electronic botanical databases.

The following sources of information were used to determine which TES species and their 

respective habitats, occur or may occur within or near the project area: 

 The Regional Forester’s most current Sensitive Species List, released December 2011 

(USDA Forest Service 2011); 

 The Forest Service’s Geographic Information System (GIS) corporate database: Natural 

Resource Information System – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant species 

(NRIS-TESP 2012);

 The Malheur National Forest sensitive plant species database and Geographic 

Information System (GIS) layer, and other pertinent GIS mapping layers; 

 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon (Oregon Biodiversity Information 

Center 2010); 

 Sensitive Plants of the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests (USDA Forest Service 

2006); 

 Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests (Brooks et al. 1991); 

 Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973); 

 Flora of North America (FNA 2007); 

 Moonwort (Botrychium) Workshop handbook (Farrar and Johnson-Groh 2004) and 

Conservation Assessment for 13 Species of Moonworts (Botrychium Swartz Subgenus 

Botrychium) (Ahlenslager and Potash 2007); 

 Field Guide to the Sedges of the Pacific Northwest (Wilson et al. 2008) and Field Guide 

to Intermountain Sedges (Hurd et al. 1998); 

 Species Fact Sheets provided by the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species 

Program website [http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/] of the Pacific Northwest Region, 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management’s Oregon and Washington State Offices;

 Available literature, reports, conservation plans, conservation assessments, and species 

descriptions on file at the Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s Office; and 

 Project maps and aerial photographs provided by the Interdisciplinary Team.

More than 46 separate surveys have been conducted in the Summit Logan Valley analysis area, 

over a nine year period (2003-2012). This includes work accomplished by District, Forest, Area, 

and Regional staff, as well as contractors, partners, universities, and numerous volunteers. In 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 128

total, over 120 individuals have participated in the survey efforts; this easily represents over 

3,000 personnel-hours of equivalent work covering more than 2,000 acres of rare plant habitat. 

Affected Environment

As a result of all of the survey efforts, 14 sites of five different sensitive species have been 

discovered: three sensitive mosses, Helodium blandowii (Blandow's feather moss), 

Tomentypnum nitens (tomentypnum moss), and Meesia uliginosa (meesia moss), and two 

sensitive moonwort ferns Botrychium crenulatum (crenulate moonwort) and Botrychium

montanum (mountain grape-fern). All of these species were found in or near the fen/peatland 

complex in the Big Field unit, West Lake Creek Riparian pasture, and Big Creek Riparian 

pasture of the Logan Valley Allotment. Table B-1 lists the sensitive species populations, 

management units, and approximate extent of the population. No sensitive species were found in 

the Lake Creek, McCoy Creek, and Summit Creek Allotments, even though the Summit Creek is 

one of the most intensively surveyed riparian areas on the Forest.

Table B-1: Documented Sensitive Species Populations

Sensitive Species Population Location by Unit Extent of Population*

Botrychium montanum Big Field unit > 2 m2

Botrychium crenulatum Big Field unit > 1 m2

Helodium blandowii

Big Field unit 1.0 acres

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 0.8 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.5 acres

Meesia uliginosa

Big Field unit 0.1 acres

Big Field unit 0.7 acres

Big Field unit 0.1 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.1 acres

Tomentypnum nitens

Big Field unit 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.1 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

 * This represents the geographic extent of the population; not all of this area is occupied by the species

In addition to the discovery of the fen-dependent sensitive species listed above, qualitative and 

quantitative assessments of their habitats in the fen complex were also conducted. Habitat 

assessments utilized standardized procedures and protocols designed for evaluating and 

monitoring conditions of fens and other groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Weixelman and 

Cooper 2007, USDA Forest Service 2010, 2012).

The fen complex, which houses the sensitive species populations and habitats, can be described 

as a broad helocrene spring system with a mosaic of peatlands, fen pools, wet and moist 

meadows, mesic shrublands, aspen stands, lodgepole pine swamps, and occasional mixed conifer 

stands. The fen complex and associated wetland systems are primarily dominated by wetland 

mosses, graminoids, and willow species (Malheur NF 2009, Rausch 2009, Mellmann-Brown and 

Rausch 2010). 

The three sensitive moss species occur exclusively on permanently saturated or flooded 

peatlands. Peatlands, or fens, are some of the most sensitive, endangered, and fragile ecosystems 

in the western United States (ISSSSP 2012, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, USDA Forest Service 

2010, Vitt & Wieder 2008, Weixelman and Cooper 2007; and references cited herein). Damage 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 129

or substantial degradation to peatland systems should be avoided to prevent loss of rare species 

habitat integrity, among many other reasons (Ibid.). Hydrologic function, peat development, and 

species composition are some of the general components used to evaluate peatland condition. 

Appendix A, Part 1 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization DEIS describes the 

existing condition of the Logan Valley fen complex as it relates to sensitive plant habitat and 

ecosystem integrity. 

Twenty-six sensitive species are further analyzed for potential effects (Table B-2). These species 

are either documented or are suspected to occur in the project area, and the specific 

characteristics of the species’ habitat, ecology, and/or biology are such that a more detail analysis 

of potential effects are needed.

Table B-2: Selected Sensitive Species Habitats, and Presence in the Area

Sensitive Species

(Common Name) Habitat(s) Presence in the Project Area

Carex cordillerana

(Cordilleran sedge)

Woodlands and forested lands in the shade of 

conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs; rocky 

slopes, grassy slopes, and stream benches; 

often growing in leaf litter and duff.

Suspected – high probability

Muhlenbergia minutissima

(Annual dropseed)

Intermittent and ephemeral streams, sandy or 

gravelly drainages; open, lightly-disturbed 

areas; also on rocky slopes, flats, and old roads.

Suspected – low probability

Trifolium douglasii

(Douglas' clover)

Moist meadows, prairie remnants, vernally wet 

areas, riparian areas along streams. Suspected – low probability

Botrychium ascendens

(Upward-lobed moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, openings in 

cold forests, grassy fields, and moist roadsides. Suspected – high probability

Botrychium hesperium

(Western moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian areas, openings and 

edges of forests, grassy slopes, sand dunes, 

snow fields, moist roadsides, and road ditches.

Suspected – high probability

Botrychium lunaria

(Common moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian areas, openings and 

edges of cold forests, open fields, and moist 

roadsides.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Botrychium montanum

(Mountain grape-fern)

Dark coniferous forests, usually near swamps, 

streams, and springs; wet meadows, saturated 

soils. Often growing in a bed of mosses.

Documented

Botrychium paradoxum

(Twin-spiked moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, openings and 

edges of cold coniferous forests, grasslands, 

fallow pastures, forb-dominated meadows, 

moist roadsides, and snowfields.

Suspected – high probability

Botrychium pedunculosum

(Stalked moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, brushy 

secondary-growth habitats along streams and 

roadsides, openings or on edges of cold 

coniferous forest, moist roadsides.

Suspected – high probability

Bryum calobryoides

(Beautiful bryum moss)

Rock outcrops, exposed boulder fields, cliffs, 

and soils in montane meadows. Suspected – high probability

Eleocharis bolanderi

(Bolander's spikerush)

Vernally wet meadows with poorly drained 

soils, moist meadows, intermittent stream 

margins, springs and seeps.

Suspected – high probability

Listera borealis

(Northern twayblade)

Springs, seeps, swamps, and cold water streams 

in moist, rich soils of shady coniferous forests. Suspected – high probability

Mimulus evanescens

(Disappearing 

monkeyflower)

Vernally wet sites and fluctuating banks of 

intermittent streams or pools in sagebrush, 

juniper, and ponderosa pine zones. Often in 

Suspected – low probability
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 130

Sensitive Species

(Common Name) Habitat(s) Presence in the Project Area

sites with sand or heavy gravel.

Phacelia minutissima

(Dwarf phacelia)

Moist meadow and seep edges, or on vernally 

wet open meadows and barren slopes. Reported 

to occur with aspen.

Suspected – high probability

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

(Schistidium moss)

Intermittent streams, rock outcrops, on wet or 

dry rocks, on soil in crevices of rocks and 

boulders.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Tortula mucronifolia

(Mucronleaf tortula moss)

Springs, seeps, riparian forests, aspen stands, 

exposed tree roots, sheltered ledges and 

crevices of rock outcrops and cliffs.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Anthelia julacea

(Alpine liverwort)

Peatlands, fens; associated with low ericaceous 

shrubs.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Botrychium crenulatum

(Crenulate moonwort)

Peatlands, fens, springs, seeps, marshy areas, 

moist and wet meadows, riparian zones, 

openings in cold forests, and moist roadsides.

Documented

Harpanthus flotovianus

(Great mountain flapwort)

Peatlands, fens, on soil covered rocks and 

decaying wood in moist forests.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Helodium blandowii

(Blandow's feather moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, springs, wet meadows, and 

along streams with highly organic soils. Documented

Meesia uliginosa

(Meesia moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, springs, wet meadows, and 

other areas saturated with groundwater. Documented

Ophioglossum pusillum

(Adder's-tongue)

Open fens and other peatlands, wet meadows, 

springs, seeps, marsh edges, pastures, grassy 

shores, roadside ditches, damp sand, grassy 

swales, pastures, old fields, and floodplain 

woodlands in wet acid soil. 

Suspected – low probability

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

(Blunt water moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, pools, and other areas 

saturated with groundwater.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Splachnum ampullaceum

(Small capsule dung moss)

Peatlands or other wetlands on old dung of 

herbivores, or on soil enriched by dung. 

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Tomentypnum nitens

(Tomentypnum moss)

Peatlands, fens, springs, wet meadows, and 

other areas saturated with groundwater. Documented

Utricularia minor

(Lesser bladderwort)

Open water in peatlands, in low nutrient lakes 

and ponds, beaver ponds, sloughs, marshes, 

mudflats, and other low energy waterways. 

Suspected – moderate 

probability, * reported in the 

area, but report is not 

confirmed

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Grazing/Herbivory

Absence of livestock grazing would result in less overall herbivory in the area (although 

herbivory from wildlife would continue) would likely have beneficial consquences for these

species.

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation

These species are often reconized as being threatened by livestock grazing therefore the absence 

of livestock gazing could be a beneficial consquences for these species. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 131

Potential Impacts to Sensitive Peatland Species

Absence of livestock grazing would have a beneficial consquences for these species and their 

associated habitats.

Alternative 2, 3, 4_

Direct and Indirect Effects

The twenty-six sensitive plant species that may be affected are analyzed for potential effects 

from the action alternatives. These species are either documented or are suspected to occur in the 

project area and are listed and analyzed by three potential impact groups: (1) impacts from 

grazing and herbivory, (2) impacts from trampling and/or defecation, and (3) impacts to 

peatlands and peatland-dependent species from trampling, trailing, herbivory, and defecation. 

Potential impact group are roughly based on groupings of species by preferred habitat, but also 

takes into consideration the general biology, growth habits, and taxonomy of the species.

Table B-3 Direct/Indirect Effects to Sensitive Species by Alternative

Concern / Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale 1 2, 3, 4

Species where impacts 

from herbivory / 

grazing is a concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI These three species are 

palatable and have the potential 

to be negatively impacted by 

intensive grazing (Bakker et al. 

2010, NatureServe 2012, 

Wilson et al. 2008).

Species where impacts 

from trampling and 

defecation is a concern.

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium montanum

Botrychium paradoxum

Botrychium pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI These species are very small, 

delicate, and exists in areas 

with high soil moisture. 

Livestock are often 

concentrated in these areas. For 

these species, a single hoof 

print or cow pie can destroy an 

individual plant, and even a 

relatively small amount of hoof 

action and/or defecation can 

eliminate a small population.

Species where impacts 

from trampling, trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in peatlands 

is a concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium crenulatum

Harpanthus flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum pusillum

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

Splachnum ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/BI Adaptive management 

strategies that benefit these 

species would be implemented 

if detrimental effects are 

occurring and management 

objectives are not met within a 

5 year period (SLVGA DEIS, 

Appendix A, parts 2 and 3).

BI = Beneficial Impact, NI = No Impact, MDI = May Detrimentally Impact, but will not lead to a trend toward 

federal listing [40 CFR §1508.8, FSM 2672.42(5)]. Species identified in bold font are documented within the 

project area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 132

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Grazing/ Herbivory

Species in this group are those which are known to be palatable to livestock, and are unlikely to 

be affected by any other potential impacts from livestock grazing. This includes the sedge Carex

cordillerana, the grass Muhlenbergia minutissima, and the clover Trifolium douglasii. Currently, 

there are no known populations in the area. While these three species occur in different habitats, 

each species is palatable to livestock and have the potential to be negatively impacted by grazing 

(Bakker et al. 2010, NatureServe 2012, Wilson et al. 2008). Continued grazing under any of the 

three “action” alternatives may detrimentally impact these species, but would not lead to a trend 

toward federal listing.

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation

This species group includes those species that are susceptible to impacts from trampling or 

defecation from livestock. These plants are all too small and/or devoid of nutritional value to be 

consumed by livestock. This group is comprised of tiny plants that often occur in isolated 

patches (i.e. individuals are less than 3 inches high and occurrences are often less than 1 square 

foot in total area). These are most often found in areas with high levels of soil moisture for all or 

some of the growing season. Such species include many Botrychium species, bryophytes, and 

other inconspicuous plants. There is one documented population of Botrychium montanum; all 

other species are suspected to occur in the area.

As stated above, these species are very small, delicate, and exists in areas with high soil moisture 

(e.g. springs, intermittent streams, glades, aspen stands, and moist to wet meadows). Livestock 

are often concentrated in these areas. For these species, a single hoof print or cow pie can destroy 

an individual, and even a relatively small amount of hoof action and defecation can eliminate an 

entire population. These species are often recognized as being threatened by livestock grazing

(ISSSSP 2012). Conversely, continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives may 

detrimentally impact these species, but should not lead to a trend toward federal listing.

Potential Impacts to Sensitive Peatland Species

Peatlands are unique and important types of wetlands. In the Blue Mountains, peatlands are 

dependent upon a constant supply of groundwater. Groundwater-dependent peatlands are 

referred to as fens. Fens require thousands of years to develop, are hotspots of biodiversity, and 

cannot be easily restored once degraded or destroyed (Rydin and Jeglum 2009; USDA Forest 

Service 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2012b; Vitt and Wieder 2008; Weixelman and Cooper 2009). 

They often contain a disproportionate amount of rare and sensitive plant and animal species 

(NRIS 2012, Weixelman and Cooper 2009).

Domestic livestock grazing is often recognized as a potential threat to fen ecosystems (ISSSSP 

2012, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). The following impacts that are recognized as major 

contributors to the degradation of fens: exposed peat and subsequent peat loss due to livestock 

trampling, loss of peat forming species due to trampling and grazing, alteration of hydrologic 

regimes due to entrenched livestock trails and effluent channels, and introduction of non-native 

and non-peat-forming species in areas with substantial soil disturbance.

The fen complex in the Logan Valley Allotment can be described as a broad helocrene spring 

system with a mosaic of peatlands, fen pools, wet and moist meadows, mesic shrublands, aspen 

stands, lodgepole pine swamps, and occasional mixed conifer stands. The fen and wetland 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 133

systems are primarily dominated by wetland moss, graminoids, and willow species (Rausch 2009 

and references in Appendix A). Portions of the fen complex exist throughout the allotment. 

Four sensitive plant species are documented within the fen complex (Botrychium crenulatum and 

the mosses Helodium blandowii, Meesia uliginosa, and Tomentypnum nitens,), and six other 

sensitive plants are suspected to occur. These species can be impacted by cattle in the same way 

as described in the section above (“Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation”). 

Additionally, these species are intricately dependent on an intact peatland system. Thus, any 

negative changes to the water table, peat, or species composition of the peatland habitat would

cause the loss of these species from the system. To address this, a series of management 

objectives and associated adaptive management strategies have been developed.

Management objectives for peatland habitats and peatland-dependent sensitive species focus on 

three general topics which address the integrity and resiliency of these sensitive ecosystems: 

hydrologic function, peat development, and species distribution and composition. Within five 

years the following management objective shall be met (Appendix A, parts 1 and 2):

 Exposed or bare peat is less than or equal to 15%. 

 Livestock trails are re-vegetating and are diverting less early season flow of water.

 The proportion of peat forming species is equal to or greater than 90%. 

 The proportion of obligate wetland plant species is equal to or greater than 90%.

 Non-native and invasive plant species are absent or are not expanding.

 Sensitive plant species populations are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

 Sensitive plant habitats are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

A more detailed description of the management objectives and existing conditions are provided 

in Appendix A, parts 1 and 2, of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization DEIS. Failure 

to meet these management objectives within a five year period will trigger an adaptive 

management strategy. In this case, a riparian pasture fence shall be constructed around the fen 

complex; this is common to all three “action” alternatives (Appendix A, part 3). Construction of 

a riparian pasture would allow better control of livestock use in the fen complex, and would

provide the option of rest or non-use of the riparian pasture(s).

Continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives may detrimentally impact 

documented populations of these species in the short-term, but would not lead to a trend toward 

federal listing. Furthermore, in the long-term (> 5 years), there should be a beneficial impact if 

either (1) the management objectives are met, or (2) adaptive management strategies are enacted.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects to sensitive plant species may include past, present, and foreseeable 

future activities described in Appendix C. Possible effects from past activities, such as grazing, 

timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, and other activities, are unknown. These are 

difficult to accurately assess as the details of the activities and existing condition of sensitive 

species at the time of the actions were either not known or not described. However, since 1990, 

protection and management of sensitive species has been included in analysis and design of all 

projects. Therefore, present and future projects, and those that have occurred in the recent past 

are not likely to contribute any negative impacts to the sensitive species described above. In 

addition to Forest activities, browsing and herbivory from insects, wild ungulates, and other 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 134

wildlife, or trampling and trailing from wild ungulates, may also possibly contribute to 

cumulative effects on sensitive plant species.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

This analysis has shown that the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Project is consistent with the 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as ammended. This analysis also 

indicates that there may potentially be detrimental impacts individuals, populations, and habitats 

of some sensitive plant species, but that this would not result in the loss of population or species 

viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Furthermore, with adaptive management strategies in place, there may be beneficial impacts to 

individuals, populations, and habitats of some sensitive plant species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project should not result in an irretrievable 

and irreversible commitment of resources.

Soils_______________________________________________

Introduction

For soils, the following sections describe the Regulatory Framework, Affected Environmentand 

Environmental Consequences of the alternatives.

Regulatory Framework 

The Malheur National Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and FSM R6 

Supplement 2500-98-1 describe all legal and regulatory requirements for soil conservation for 

this EIS. 

Two Forest Plan standards in particular are applicable to this EIS. Forest Wide Standard 127

(page IV-40) gives minimum percent effective ground cover levels as follows:

Table S-1: Standard 127

Soil Erosion Hazard Minimum Ground Cover, %

Low 30-40 

Medium 40-60

High 60-75

Very High 75-90

If ground cover meets Standard 127, erosion would not be expected. Small amounts of erosion 

from roads are acceptable and similarly small amounts of erosion from small areas of rangeland 

are acceptable, as long as water quality standards are met. 

Forest Wide Standard 126 says detrimental soil conditions (including compaction and puddling

which decrease infiltration rates and productivity) shall not exceed 20% of the total acreage 

within any activity area. For this soil section "activity area" means each allotment.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 135

Analysis Methods 

In order to check on how commonly current livestock use increases erosion, the project soil 

scientist visited the allotments (except Lake Cr. Allotment), examining selected areas for signs of 

erosion and overland runoff on September 22 and 26, 2008. 

The analysis area for this soil analysis is each allotment. The analysis time period for this soil 

analysis is the period that the management practices are applied.

Affected Environment

Livestock detrimentally compact and puddle soil in the small areas where they concentrate, such 

as around salting ground and water troughs. However, on forested areas, current cattle impacts 

on the soil are minor because of the abundant ground cover and relatively small amounts of 

forage. Thus, over the whole activity area of an allotment, livestock plus other sources of 

compaction (such as roads, logging, firewood gathering, and ATVs) cause a cumulative amount 

of compaction and puddling less than the 20% limit of Forest Wide Standard 126. On parts of 

Lake Creek Allotment burnt by the 1990 fires, ground cover has recovered so that soils function 

as forest soils and erosion is close to zero (Table S-2). On parts of the Lake Creek Allotment 

burnt by the 2002 High Robert fire, ground cover is nearly recovered, and soil erosion is close to 

zero (Table S-2, between 1997 & 2004).

Table S-2: Ground Cover on C & T Clusters on Forested Sites

Cluster Year 

Read

Bare 

Soil %

Rock + Erosion 

Pavement % Moss % Litter + Plant %

C-201, Lake Cr. 

Allotment Burned 

1990, Erosion Seeded 

1990, Logged 1991, 

Tree Planted ~ 1992

1991 34 15 0 51

1993 36 12 1 51

1995 27 13 6 64

1997 14 13 8 65

2004 8 5 1 86

2010 5 1 0 94

C-201, Lake Cr. 

Allotment Burned 

1990, Logged ~ 1991, 

Trees Planted ~ 1992

1991 43 0 1 56

1993 32 4 7 57

1995 20 3 24 53

1997 14 5 57 54

2004 5 7 8 77

2010 7 0 7 92

Logan 11, LO-11, 

Summit Prairie 

Alltoment, Stumps in 

1956 & 2004 photos

1956 12 1 0 87

2004 5 0 0 95

However, compaction and puddling caused by cattle can decrease infiltration capacity enough 

that it increases runoff and erosion. Two types of areas that cattle could detrimentally affect are 

non-forest upland soil, and grassy riparian areas and meadows. 

Erosion effects, of past and ongoing activities listed in Appendix C, on non-forest upland soil 

and grassy riparian areas, are described in this paragraph. Concentrated water from roads is 

eroding some soil, especially from shallow soil areas, but this erosion is minor and local. Road 

prisms produce some sediment, but the loss of soil productivity from this erosion is minor, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 136

because roads already have been removed from the productive land base. Recreational use of 

ATVs and hiking trails may cause minor, localized erosion in grassy riparian areas and 

meadows, but these effects are minor, because these soils have low erosion hazard, and because 

of the small amount of soil affected. No erosion from ATVs or hiking trails was seen during the 

soil scientist's inspections. Dispersed camping may have compacted and puddled a negligible 

amount of soil. Cumulative loss of soil productivity from these erosion sources combined is 

negligible. Water withdrawals and irrigation has increased the production of some meadows, but 

may have reduced production along some streams. Other past and on-going activities listed in 

Appendix C (including timber harvest, stand replacing fire, activities on private land, and 

meadow restoration) have had no effect on non-forest upland soil areas or meadows or grassy 

riparian areas in the allotments.

On Lake Creek Allotment, soil and vegetation effects from livestock grazing have partially 

recovered during the period of rest. The soils are as vulnerable to erosion as similar soils 

elsewhere in the planning area.

Non-Forest Upland Soil

Soil Types

The Malheur Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Carlson 1974) is the best source of information 

about soils at the scale of this project. 

Non-forest upland soils tend to occur in two environments: 1) outwash in Logan Valley, and 

2) dry environments with shallow, rocky soils. These include soils that support juniper 

woodland, as well as stands of shrubs or herbaceous plants. Gravel and cobble content, both of 

outwash and shallow soils, range from 30 to 80%. The outwash soil (soil type 15 in the SRI) has 

slopes less than 10%, and it has loam to sandy loam texture, with soil depth greater than 120 

inches. The shallow soils, (soil types 7, 44, and 46), have slopes between 2 and 70%, and they 

have loam texture, with soil depth between 4 to 20 inches. Parent materials for the shallow soils 

are andesite and basalt, with some tuffaceous materials.

Soil type 15 underlies perhaps 80% of the Logan Valley and McCoy Creek Allotments. Summit 

Prairie and Lake Creek allotments are mostly forested. The shallow soils are scattered, mostly in 

the southwestern part of Summit Prairie Allotment. Perhaps 5% of Summit Prairie Allotment is 

occupied by shallow soil. Shallow soil occupies perhaps 2% of Lake Cr. Allotment and 0% of 

the other two allotments. 

Soil Erosion on Non-Forest Upland Soils

The USDA Forest Service (1990) noted "Many of the adverse ... grazing impacts occurred before 

the Malheur became a National Forest. Early sheep and cattle grazing was particularly damaging 

to meadows and upland range sites, many of which were compacted and eroded" (p. III-4). Also 

"Early sheep and cattle grazing practices have accelerated erosion over a good portion of the 

range and more open timber types." (p. IV-5). The "grazing practices" were unregulated overgrazing that severely reduced ground cover. These generalizations probably apply to the 

planning area. However, some non-forest soils in the planning area show only minor signs of 

accelerated erosion; either they were never heavily impacted, or they have recovered.

Probably some non-forest upland sites in their natural state, before the unregulated grazing, had

less ground cover than prescribed by Standard 127. The unregulated grazing increased the area 

that has sub-standard ground cover. Some non-forest upland soils have not recovered from the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 137

historic erosion, and still Standard 127. They continue to erode at rates greater than prior to the

unregulated grazing. In places like these, plant production and resultant ground cover may have 

been decreased for hundreds of years. However, rates of erosion are fairly low in these 

allotments because of the relatively level ground. 

Almost all of the non-forest uplands observed during field visits by the soil scientist show no 

signs of erosion, because they are so flat. If sediment is produced from steeper slopes, most of 

the sediment produced is deposited on flatter areas below, before it reaches a stream. 

Impacts from livestock grazing on uplands generally are minor under current management. 

Livestock tend to prefer places where water, shade, or better forage are available. However, 

cattle do decrease ground cover where non-forest areas are adjacent to good forage, water, and/or 

salting ground, such as part of the North Fork Unit of McCoy Cr. Allotment, and places along 

lower Summit Creek. Areas such as this occupy probably well under 1% of any allotment. 

Burrowing mammals also decrease ground cover on some soils. Any sediment that may be 

produced from areas with decreased ground cover probably is filtered out on flat, well vegetated 

riparian soils before it reaches a stream. These observations are similar to other undocumented 

observations by the soil scientist elsewhere on Malheur National Forest. In summary, because 

impacts from current grazing on uplands are localized to small areas that do not affect water 

quality, Standard 127 is being met.

Biological Soil Crusts on Non-forest Uplands

It is unknown how much biological soil crust was present on non-forest soils in the planning area

before unregulated grazing. Crusts were probably less abundant in the planning area than in 

drier, hotter arid and semi-arid areas which have less plant and litter cover and less frequent fires 

(Belnap and coworkers 2001, pp. 14, 42). So it is difficult to know which, if any, reports of 

biological soil crusts can be extrapolated to the Planning Area.

Crusts were probably variable, and covered perhaps between 0% and 50% of the ground on 

various shallow soil areas. For instance, Kaltenecker and coworkers (1999) reported between 

5% and 60% ground cover by moss and lichens in sagebrush communities. On the other hand, 

on desert sites Hansen, Ostler, & Hall (1999) found only 31 to 50 % of the stands had visible 

crusts. The planning area may have had less, because it had more plant and litter cover, and 

more fires. Despite their probable relative scarcity, biological soil crusts probably contributed to 

erosion control.

The unregulated grazing decreased the amount of biological soil crusts. Recovery after 

unregulated grazing has not been complete, due to erosion where ground cover was reduced. In 

addition, in many places crusts probably were never abundant. The existing crust is mostly 

moss. 

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Soil Types

Soils in meadows and riparian areas are highly variable, often changing within a few feet. In 

riparian areas, the parent material has been deposited from adjacent slopes by colluvial transport 

or from upstream by alluvial transport. In some riparian areas, volcanic ash is important. These 

soils vary from wet to dry, and from clayey to sandy. In comparison to upland soils in the area, 

they are usually less steep, with thicker darker, more root-filled topsoil, with more organic 

matter, with fewer coarse fragments, and often deeper. They vary greatly in these and other 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 138

properties. Most of these soils are not steep, often less than 5% slope so the erodibility is low. 

Some meadows grade into non-forest, shallow soil areas around their edges. 

Grassy riparian areas are found along named and several unnamed streams in Logan Valley and 

McCoy Cr. Allotments and are also found along Summit Cr. Meadow soils are found away from 

streams in the Big Field, East Lake Cr, and West Lake Cr. Units of Logan Valley Allotment and 

Summit Prairie part of Summit Prairie Allotment.

Soil Erosion in Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Conditions in meadows and grassy riparian areas in the project area probably are similar to those 

in in north-eastern Oregon, where Kauffman and coworkers (2002 p.20) found an average of 

84% ground cover and a minimum of 64% ground cover. In a meadow in Logan Valley 

Allotment, ground cover is probably 94% (Table S-3). On the other hand, cattle do severely 

decrease ground cover in small areas (for instance near salting grounds). The soil scientist's field 

inspection indicates that some spots in dry parts of meadows and riparian areas have ground 

cover less than 40%. However, the soil scientist's field inspection indicates that where the soil is 

moist, even heavily grazed areas often have 90% or more ground cover. The high ground cover 

in moist or wet parts of meadows compensate for areas where burrowing mammals or 

concentrated cattle use decreased ground cover. Meadows and riparian areas are usually on level 

ground so they have low erodibility. In summary, current grazing meets Standard 127 on 

meadows and grassy riparian areas, as indicated by ground cover levels mentioned above and 

low erodibility. 

Table S-3: Ground Cover on a C&T Cluster on a Meadow

Cluster Year Read Bare Soil

%

Rock + 

Erosion 

Pavement

%

Moss

%

Litter +

Plants

%

Logan 3, LV3

Logan Valley Allotment

1954 28 16 19 37

2003 6 4 30 60

Moss provides some ground cover in some moist meadows. However, this is not usually 

considered "biological soil crust," which is a term used on dry rangelands.

The minor effects of ongoing livestock use described above have been decreasing, or have 

disappeared, on Lake Cr. Allotment.

Environmental Consequences

The general principle for the following section is that decreased grazing (compared to current 

grazing) would cause decreased effects, and vice versa.

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

Ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts would continue 

their slow recovery on non-forest soils that were degraded by early 20th and late 19th century 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 139

grazing. In addition the small areas near water, good forage, and/or salting ground where current 

grazing is affecting ground cover would start recovering.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

In places where ground cover has been decreased below potential, it would increase above 

current levels. Erosion of soil from outside stream channels would decrease. The decrease 

would be negligible because cattle are causing a negligible amount of soil erosion. Detrimental 

soil conditions would decrease.

Compaction would decrease back to natural levels within 8 years (Kauffman and coworkers 

2004), as root growth, animal burrowing, and soil freezing loosens the soil.

Cumulative Effects

The areas considered for cumulative effects are each allotment individually.

Effects from past and on-going actions are described in the Affected Environment section. 

Detrimental impacts on areas outside non-forest uplands, meadows and grassy riparian areas

would remain at about current levels, as recovery from past activities (such as logging) is 

counter-balanced by impacts from future activities.

For future actions, implementation of the Travel Management plan would result in negligible 

decreases in soil erosion, because cross country travel is currently causing negligible erosion. 

Treatments of invasive weeds would comply with laws, regulations, and the Forest Plan. Thus, 

these treatments would not significantly increase erosion or detrimental soil conditions. No other 

foreseeable future action would take place on shallow soils, meadows, or grassy riparian areas, 

so no additional effects are expected. 

In summary, for every allotment, there would be a negligible decrease in erosion and detrimental 

soil conditions under Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

The parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would not be grazed would continue the small, slow 

recovery of ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts

described under Alternative 1. On the parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would be grazed, 

conditions would become like the other three allotments with slightly reduced ground cover and 

biological soil crusts and slightly increased erosion and detrimental soil conditions. 

On the other three allotments, for the small areas near water, good forage, and/or salting ground 

where current grazing has decreased ground cover, existing conditions would be maintained. For 

the rest of the non-forest upland soils ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and 

biological soil crusts would continue their slow recovery on soils that were degraded by early 

20th and late 19th century grazing. The recovery under the action alternatives would probably 

be slower than under Alternative 1.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Parts of the Lake Creek Allotment that would not be grazed would continue the slow recovery of 

ground cover, erosion, and detrimental soil conditions described under Alternative 1. On the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 140

parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would be grazed, conditions would become like the other 

three allotments with slightly reduced ground cover and slightly increased erosion and 

detrimental soil conditions. 

On the other three allotments, existing soil conditions would be maintained, except as described 

in the next paragraph. Allotments would continue to meet Standard 127. Soil outside stream 

channels would continue to contribute a negligible amount of sediment to stream channels.

Places where decreased grazing (compared to current grazing) would decrease effects to ground 

cover, erosion, and detrimental soil conditions are as follows:

Logan Valley Allotment:

 West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 

 West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture 

 Big Creek Riparian unit

Summit Prairie Allotment:

 Sagehen unit 

 West Summit Recovery unit 

 Bosenberg unit 

 Little Logan unit

In pastures that are being rested for 3-5 years, ground cover may increase during the rest and 

then decrease somewhat when they are grazed. However, ground cover would remain above 

current levels because the grazing would be more closely controlled than at present. Any 

implementation of adaptive management strategies, such as rest or decreasing allowable use

levels, would decrease effects a little more. 

Cumulative Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils and Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

The areas considered for cumulative effects are each allotment individually. Cumulative effects 

from past and on-going actions are described in the Affected Environment section. Generally, 

the same effects would continue, except as described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section. 

See the Alternative 1, Cumulative Effects section for a discussion of the cumulative effects of the 

Travel Management plan and invasive weeds treatments.

The actions listed in Chapter 2, Recent Changes in Current Management section and in 

Appendix C would decrease soil impacts in riparian areas and increase them in certain small 

upland areas. Like existing impacts, these increases in upland effects are expected to be minor.

Because the effects on soil of 1) Alternative 2 grazing (including adaptive management), 2) past 

and ongoing actions as shown in the Affected Environment section above, and 3) foreseeable 

actions are so minor, the sum and interaction of these effects on soil would also be minor on all 

allotments.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 141

Lake Creek Allotment would continue the small, slow recovery of ground cover, erosion, 

detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts described under Alternative 1. 

On the other three allotments, effects on non-forest uplands would be similar to Alternative 2.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

The Lake Creek Allotment would continue the small, slow recovery of ground cover, erosion, 

and detrimental soil conditions described under Alternative 1. 

On the other three allotments, existing soil conditions would be maintained, except as described 

in the next paragraph. Allotments would continue to meet Standard 127. Soil outside stream 

channels would continue to contribute a negligible amount of sediment to stream channels.

Places where decreased grazing (compared to current grazing) would decrease effects to ground 

cover, erosion, and detrimental soil conditions are as follows:

Logan Valley Allotment: 

 West Bosenberg Riparian pasture

 West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Summit Prairie Allotment:

 Sagehen riparian pasture

 Upper and Lower Little Logan riparian pastures

 West Summit Recovery unit

 North Summit Riparian pasture

Any implementation of adaptive management strategies, such as rest or decreasing allowable use

levels, would decrease effects a little more.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

On all four allotments effects would be similar to Alternative 2, except the number of un-grazed 

acres in Lake Creek allotment is greater under Alternative 4.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

On all four allotments effects would be similar to Alternative 2, except in Summit Prairie 

Allotment, where West Summit Recovery unit and Prairie Riparian pasture would be the only 

areas with increased ground cover and decreased erosion and detrimental soil conditions due to 

decreased grazing.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative 2.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 142

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives would be consistent with LRMP soil protection standards. Under all alternatives, 

effects of livestock compaction and puddling, on soil erosion would be negligible, in terms of 

water quality and soil quality.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

None of the alternatives result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil.

Hydrology and Aquatics________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Biological Evaluation (BE) that evaluates the potential effects of 

livestock grazing on aquatic species and their associated habitat within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project. The full Biological Evaluation can be found in Appendix F 

which is available for review by request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The MNF Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides program direction for wildlife and 

range management. The following elements are applicable to the proposed and other alternatives 

for the project area analysis (USFS 1990).

Goals

 Provide for improved habitat conditions to support increased populations of anadromous 

and resident fish (IV-2, #18).

 Provide a diversity of habitat sufficient to maintain viable populations of all species (IV2, #19).

 Manage rangelands to meet the need of other resources and uses at a level which is 

responsive to site-specific objectives (IV-2, #21).

 For Non-anadromous Riparian Areas (3A), manage riparian areas to protect and enhance 

their values for wildlife, resident fish habitat, and water quality. Mange timber, grazing, 

and recreation to give preferential consideration to riparian-dependent species on that 

portion of the management area “suitable” for timber management, grazing, or recreation. 

Design and conduct management in riparian areas to maintain or improve water quality 

and beneficial uses (IV-55).

Objectives 

 Manage fish habitat and riparian areas to achieve increases in fish habitat capability. 

This habitat improvement will be through the implementation of livestock management 

activities to achieve better distribution of livestock, and better control of forage 

utilization in riparian areas. This will help achieve a more diverse and abundant riparian 

vegetation condition and geomorphic recovery of the stream channel (IV-17).

 All riparian areas will be managed to protect or enhance their values for water quality, 

fish habitat, and wildlife (IV-19).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 143

Forest-wide Standards

 Provide riparian habitat requirements for steelhead, bull trout, cutthroat trout, and 

rainbow/redband trout (IV-32, #61).

 Specify all protection or mitigation requirements (36 CFR 219.27(a) (8)) before project 

implementation begins. Manage all habitats for existing federally classified threatened 

and endangered species to help achieve recovery objectives (IV-33, #65).

MA 3A Standards

 Manage the composition and productivity of key riparian vegetation to protect or enhance 

riparian-dependent resources. Emphasis will be on the reestablishment of remnant 

hardwood shrub and tree communities (IV-56, #8).

 Improve the rate of recovery in riparian areas that are not in a condition to meet 

management objectives by eliminating or reducing the impacts of management activities

that may slow riparian recovery (IV-56, #10).

 Maintain non-stream associated riparian areas such as seeps, springs, bogs, and wallows 

together with their associated vegetative structure. Develop mitigation measures for 

management activities during project level environmental analysis (IV-57, #14).

 Manage allotments to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources (IV-58, #19).

 Manage livestock grazing so that water quality meets Oregon State standards and fish 

populations are maintained at an acceptable condition or in an upward trend (IV-58, #20).

 Maintain sufficient streamside vegetation to maintain streambank stability and fish 

habitat capability (IV-58, #21).

 Restrict season long grazing, unless specifically evaluated and approved through the 

environmental analysis process (IV-58, #22).

 Allowable utilization of available forage in riparian areas (percent allowable use of 

available forage). Table IV-4 from the Forest Plan (IV-58). Note: all alternatives would 

use Strategy C.

Grasses and Grasslikes1 Shrubs2

Range Resource Management Level S3 U4 S U

Strategy B – Stewardship Management5 40 0 – 30 30 0 – 25

Strategy C – Extensive Management6 45 0 – 35 40 0 – 30

1. Utilization based on percent removed by weight.

2. Utilization based on weight and twig length. Example if 2/3 of the available leader length is removed than browsed 

utilization is 50% (USDA-FS-PNW-472, April 1988).

3. Satisfactory condition – See Forest Plan Glossary.

4. Unsatisfactory Condition – See Forest Plan Glossary.

5. Management Controls livestock numbers so that livestock use is within present gracing capacity. Distribution is achieved 

through riding, herding, and/or salting. Improvements are minimal and construction is only to the extent needed to cost 

effectively maintain stewardship of the range in presence of grazing.

6. Management seeks full utilization of forage available to livestock. Cost-effective management systems and techniques, 

including fencing and water development are designed and applied to obtain relatively uniform livestock distribution and 

use of forage to maintain plant vigor.

In 1994 the Forest Plan was ammended (Amendment 29) to incorporate the Columbia River 

Anadromous Fish Habitiat Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Forest Plan 

(USFS 1994). The amendment included changes to both Management Areas 3A (inland fish 

habitat) and 3B (anadromous fish habitat). The existing Forest Plan direction would stand if it 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 144

provides more protection than Ammendment 29. The following elements are applicable to the 

proposed and other alternatives for the project area analysis.

Manage riparian areas to achieve the following desired conditions by habitat element, subelement and numeric value. These values are to be measured on a subwatershed basis, and to the 

degree the indivdual riparian area contains these specific habitat elements:

Sediment/Substrate

 Cobble embeddedness is ≤ 20%

Channel Morphology

 Maintain large woody debris within the following ecosystems:

Ecosystem # of Pieces Minimum Length Diameter Key Pieces

Ponderosa Pine 20 to 70 35’ or 1.5x bankfull 12” 20% > 20”

Mixed-Conifer 80 to120 35’ or 1.5x bankfull 12” 20% > 20”

Lodgepole Pine 100 to 350 18’ or 1.5x bankfull 6” 10% > 12”

 Pool Frequency (See INFISH objectives where data was measured at wetted width)

Bankfull width (ft) 5 10 20 25 50 75

Pools per mile 151-264 75-132 38-66 30-53 15-26 10-23

 Bank stability for forested ecosystems is 90% stable, no decrease if above 90% stable.

 For non-forested ecosystems, see INFISH bank stability and undercut banks objectives.

 The wetted width to depth ratio is <10 for all systems (same as INFISH objective)

Riparian Vegetation

 Provide a rate of input to maintain large wood debris standard (Channel Morphology).

 The ground cover is at 90% of site potential, covered by herbaceous species, litter, rock, 

moss, or lichens.

 Stream bank vegetation is at 90% of site potential.

 Maintain shade/canopy closure for the following ecosystems:

Ecosystem Ponderosa Pine Mixed-Conifer Lodgepole Pine Hardwood/meadow Complex

Shade/Closure 40 – 50% 50 – 60% 60 – 75% 80%

In 1995 the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) provided riparian goals, management 

objectives (RMOs), and standard and guidelines (S&Gs) that amended the Regional Guides and 

the MNF Forest Plan. The existing Forest Plan direction (including ammendment 29) would 

stand if it provides more protection than INFISH. The RMOS and S&Gs provide the specific 

measurements and guidance to implement the riparian goals identified in INFISH (USFS 1995a). 

The following RMOS are applicable to the proposed and other alternatives for the project area 

analysis.

 Minimum pool frequency (See Amendment 29 desired condition where data was 

measured at bankfull width):

Wetted width (ft) 10 20 25 50 75

Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23

 There is no measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7-day moving average 

of daily maximum temperature measured as the average of the maximum daily 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 145

temperature of the warmest consecutive 7-day period). Maximum water temperatures are 

below 59°F within adult holding habitat and below 48°F within spawning and rearing 

habitats.

 Large woody debris; see Amendment 29 desired conditions for large woody debris.

 Bank stability should be greater than 80% for non-forested systems.

 There should be greater than 75% undercut banks for non-forested systems.

 The wetted width to depth ratio is <10 for all systems (same as Amend. 29).

The following S&Gs are applicable to the proposed and other alternatives for the project area 

analysis.

 Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of 

grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent obtainment 

of RMOs or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting 

practices is not effective in meeting RMOs.

 Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs). For existing livestock handling facilities inside the 

RHCAs, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of RMOs. Relocate or close 

facilities where these objectives cannot be met.

 Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to 

those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely 

affect inland native fish.

Executive Order 11990 -- Wetlands

Wetlands would be identified in the Project Area using Cowardin’s Classification scheme. 

The basic requirement of E.O. 11990 is that a Federal agency would avoid construction or 

management practices that would adversely affect wetlands unless that agency finds that (1) 

there is no practicable alternative, and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures 

to minimize harm to the wetlands. 

Executive Order 11990 directs all Federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands; and preserve and enhance the natural beneficial values of wetlands in 

the conduct of the agency's responsibilities for: 

(1) Acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; 

(2) Providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and 

(3) Conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to 

water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. 

Clean Water Act

Rivers, streams, and lakes within and downstream of the treatment areas are used for boating, 

fishing, swimming, and other water sports. Additionally, the Forest streams provide habitat and 

clean water for fish and other aquatic biota, each with specific water quality requirements. The 

Clean Water Act (CWA) protects water quality for all of these uses. 

The CWA requires States to set water quality standards to support the beneficial uses of water. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 146

The Act also requires States to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water bodies whose 

water quality is limited or impaired. For Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) develops water quality standards and lists water quality limited waters. In addition, 

Region 6 of the Forest Service has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the 

Oregon State DEQ to acknowledge the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency 

for implementation of the CWA on National Forest land. In an effort to support the CWA, the 

Forest conducts a variety of monitoring and inventory programs to determine status of meeting 

state water quality standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements. 

By direction of the CWA, where water quality is limited, DEQ develops Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) plans to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of water. For water 

quality limited streams on National Forest System lands, the USDA Forest Service provides 

information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support state processes to protect and 

restore water quality. The Malheur River Basin TMDL Plan for stream temperature was 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 2010. Listed streams for water 

temperature are removed from the 303(d) list and stream recovery would be achieved through the 

implementation plan specified in the TMDL. 

Oregon’s stream temperature standard is designed to protect cold water fish (salmonids) rearing 

and spawning as the most sensitive beneficial use. Numeric criteria are based on temperatures 

that protect various salmonid life stages. To address stream temperature, effective shade is used 

as a surrogate measure. Effective shade is measured at the stream surface using a Solar 

Pathfinder. Effective shade is defined as the percent reduction of potential daily solar radiation 

delivered to the water surface. 

The TMDL addresses overgrazing impacts on riparian vegetation disturbance/removal reducing 

shade and increasing solar radiation, providing micro-climate effects that can provide cooler day 

time temperatures (Anderson et al 2007; Chen et al. 1999), and its role in stabilizing the channel 

characteristics and providing a narrower channel that has less surface area exposed to solar 

radiation. 

The TMDL state that areas which do not meet the current effective shade surrogates, DMAs with 

an improving trend in riparian vegetation growth, effective shade, channel morphology, large 

wood abundance or floodplain connectivity would be considered in compliance with TMDL. If 

improving trends are compromised by natural disturbance factors such as flooding, ice jam 

scouring and wildfires, DMAs would still be in compliance with the TMDL. Compliance with 

the TMDL and implementation plans on public lands is evaluated on a 5-year cycle. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

ESA of 1976, as amended, directs each federal agency to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their 

critical habitat (Section 7). The ESA also directs each federal agency to confer or consult with 

the appropriate Secretary on any action, which is likely to jeopardize or affect the continued 

existence of any species or its habitat. Additionally Section 2(c)(1) of the ESA includes 

affirmative conservation direction, stating “that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek 

to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in 

furtherance of the purposes of this act.” 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 147

Bull trout Recovery Plan

Bull Trout Recovery Objectives as Defined by USFWS in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2006a) 

Recovery of bull trout requires reducing threats to the long-term persistence of populations, 

maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the diverse habitats of their 

native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history strategies (e.g., resident or 

migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local habitat adaptations). To recover 

bull trout, the following four objectives have been identified:

 Maintain the current distribution of bull trout within the core area and reestablish bull 

trout in previously occupied habitats in the Upper Malheur River and tributaries and the 

North Fork Malheur River and tributaries.

 Maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of bull trout in the Malheur Recovery

Unit. This requires increasing abundance within the two local populations (Upper 

Malheur and North Fork Malheur).

 Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages and 

strategies.

 Conserve genetically diverse populations of bull trout populations within the Malheur 

Recovery Unit. This can best be achieved by ensuring connectivity between the North 

Fork Malheur River and the Upper Malheur River.

Bull Trout Recovery Actions Needed as Defined by USFWS in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2006)

Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas and implement tasks to restore their 

appropriate functions.

 Restore shade and canopy, riparian cover, and native vegetation in all bull trout spawning 

areas. Summit Creek, the Malheur River downstream of Logan Valley, and Crooked 

Creek in the Upper Malheur subbasin have suppressed woody vegetation in reaches that 

need this component to become stable, as well as tributary streams to the North Fork 

Malheur on the lower end of the Malheur National Forest.

 Reduce grazing impacts in all bull trout spawning areas. Implement measures to reduce 

livestock impacts to streams, (e.g., fencing, changes in timing and use of riparian 

pastures, off-site watering and salting), to accomplish this task. Areas that would benefit 

from shade restoration include lower Lake Creek, lower Big Creek, lower Bosenberg 

Creek, lower McCoy Creek, Crane Creek, and Buttermilk Creek, as well as, private and 

tribal lands in Logan Valley. The highest grazing management priority for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service is that no direct effects occur to spawning fish or redds after August 

15.

Bull Trout Protection and Recovery Guidance for Federal Lands in Regards to Grazing 

Management (USFWS 2000c)

 Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of 

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

of bull trout biological needs or are likely to adversely affect bull trout.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 148

 Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting bull trout biological 

needs and avoiding adverse effects on bull trout.

 Locate new livestock handling and management facilities outside of riparian habitat 

protection zones. For existing livestock handling facilities inside the riparian habitat 

protection zones, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of bull trout biological 

needs or adversely affect bull trout. Relocate or close facilities where these objectives 

cannot be met.

 Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to 

those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of bull trout biological 

needs or adversely affect bull trout.

 Adjust wild horse and burro management to avoid negative effects that prevent 

attainment of bull trout biological needs or adversely affect bull trout. Include riparian 

habitat protection zones in a separate unit with separate management objectives and 

strategies than the rest of the allotment.

 Fence or herd livestock out of riparian areas for as long as necessary to allow vegetation 

and stream banks to recover.

 Control the timing of grazing to: (a) keep livestock off stream banks when they are most 

vulnerable to damage; and (b) coincide with the physiological needs of target plant 

species.

 Add more rest to the grazing cycle to increase plant vigor, allow stream banks to heal, or 

encourage more desirable plant species composition.

 Limit grazing intensity to a level that would maintain desired species composition and 

vigor.

 Permanently exclude livestock from riparian habitat protection zones or streambank areas 

at high risk and with poor recovery potential when there is no practical way to protect 

them while grazing adjacent uplands.

 Implement changes consistent with monitoring results. Monitor consistent with the Range 

Resource Implementation Monitoring Module and Effectiveness Monitoring. 

Bull trout designated Critical Habitat: Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)

Bull trout (Columbia River bull trout population segment) were listed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened under the federal ESA on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). 

Critical habitat for Columbia River bull trout was designated on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 

63898). Critical habitat is present in the Fisheries Analysis area. 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in 

determining which areas occupied at the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, USFWS 

considered the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features are 

the PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the 

species.

 Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporehic 

flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 149

 Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments 

between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, 

including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.

 An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

 Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and 

processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and 

substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.

 Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal refugia 

available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within 

this range would vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; 

elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; 

and local groundwater influence.

 Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and 

embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. 

A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 

in.) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are 

characteristic of these conditions.

 A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and 

seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural 

hydrograph.

 Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival 

are not inhibited.

 Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; 

inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.

Analysis Methods 

Project area site visits for the analysis of livestock grazing began during 2007 by Malheur 

National Forest (MNF) staff and contractors and have continued through the spring of 2012. 

Data was collected to determine the existing condition of the vegetative, channel, fish habitat 

attributes, in conjunction with developing a desired condition. During this process we identified 

where there were differences or gaps between existing and desired condition related to livestock 

grazing within specific reaches of stream based on vegetative type, channel type, soil type, and 

slope. Data used in this analysis included: Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment, 

Carex Working Group Report, USFS Region 6 Stream Surveys, PACFISH-INFISH Biological 

Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), water temperature data, and 

MNF Roads Analysis. The table below identifies the strengths and weaknesses associated with 

the data used for this analysis. 

Data used for Analysis 

Type of 

Study Study What the Data Provides What the Data Does NOT Provide

Inventory Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC)

A qualitative assessment by an interdisciplinary 

team that identifies issues, potential and existing 

condition in hydrology, vegetative and soils 

attributes. This data has been collected using a 

Does not inform fish 

habitat condition 

quantitatively. It was not 

collected on all of the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 150

Type of 

Study Study What the Data Provides What the Data Does NOT Provide

nationally standardized protocol.

PFC does provide qualitative indicators of 

existing vegetation and hydrologic function 

which are interconnected to fish habitat and 

related to recovery of riparian areas. PFC provides a way for determining appropriate 

monitoring sites 

riparian areas present in the 

Project Area.

PFC is not appropriate for 

monitoring or determining 

long term trend. 

R6 Stream 

Surveys

Provides site-specific metrics for fish habitat 

condition. This data has been collected using a 

nationally standardized protocol. 

Not collected regularly 

across years because of its 

intensive design for data 

collection and high 

economic cost. 

Monitoring Multiple 

Indicator 

Monitoring

(MIM) includes 

Implementation 

(end of year) 

and 

Effectiveness 

(3-5 year trend 

that indicates 

condition)

Provides a random, systematic sampling design 

to collect quantitative metrics for riparian 

vegetation, hydrological and channel complexity 

indicators. These indicators are sensitive to 

changes in livestock management and are used 

to determine existing condition, trend and for 

establishing management objectives. Provides 

linkages between annual effects (herbivory, 

browsing and bank trampling) on the long term 

condition (stability). This data has been 

collected using a nationally standardized 

protocol. It has been well tested to allow for 

accurate and repeatable measurements. 

Not all data was collected 

with an interdisciplinary 

team. The Protocol has 

been adjusted through the 

development of a final 

product. Bank stability 

and greenline composition 

are indicators that had 

protocols changed and can 

make interpretation of 

trend difficult. 

Pacfish/Infish 

Biological 

Opinion (PIBO)

Strengths are similar to MIM. More discussion 

of attributes across the Interior Columbia Basin 

has been done in the scientific literature. 

Collects more indicators than MIM, such as 

bankfull width/depth, bank angle and vegetative 

cross section composition. The data is more 

informative when there are at least three visits to 

a site or monitored across 10 years. 

Weaknesses are similar to 

MIM. The indicators are 

collected using a different 

protocol than MIM and 

makes comparison difficult 

(i.e. bank stability has 

longer distances between 

sampled areas). Protocols 

change across years. 

Bankfull width/depth 

protocol has changed for 

the third reading, but not 

first two. Making trend 

interpretations difficult. 

Carex Working 

Group (CWG)

Provides a linkage for comparing the density 

and height classes of woody shrubs within the 

Summit Allotment to reference conditions in the 

local area. The survey method is repeatable. 

The survey was quantitative.

Density and height classes 

were not collected for other 

areas in the Project Area.

Water 

Temperature 

(collected by 

USFS, ODFW, 

and BPT)

Provides continuous data annually that helps 

identify water characteristics.

Not collected the same 

years across all sites and 

may have climatic 

variability. 

Relevant actions relating to riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, bull trout critical habitat 

and water quality were compared across alternatives for the project area. Specific monitoring

indicators that are responsive to changes in land management were selected based on issues 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 151

identified during the scoping process and within the ID team. It was assumed that all alternatives 

are consistent with Forest Amendment 29 direction and INFISH in relation to recovery of fish 

habitat and riparian areas. Specific actions occurring within each alternative were analyzed for 

their effects to bull trout critical habitat and existing riparian condition as well as their potential 

to for facilitating recovery towards or achievement of desired condition in Appendix A part 1 

and 2. For analysis purposes the miles of bull trout CH, miles of riparian PFC rating (FAR DN,

FAR, FAR UP, PFC) were broken down by unit and allotment for each alternative and those 

miles were related to the relevant actions within each alternative by allotment and unit. Actions 

in each alternative were analyzed whether they would facilitate recovery of specific riparian 

areas identified as having issues towards desired conditions or maintain the condition if near the 

desired potential. The rate of recovery for riparian area is dependent on the actions proposed and 

the existing condition of the riparian area. For example, an existing PFC rating of FAR DN to 

FAR UP or PFC relates to the time it would take for recovery. Changes in management for areas 

that are FAR is often a high priority since these areas often respond quickly or at the tipping 

point for being NF. Once a riparian area is NF it usually takes large investments of time and 

money to recover the area (Pritchard et al. 1998). Rates of recovery or improvement were 

expected to be faster for those riparian areas demonstrating a mid seral state or already having 

suitable vegetative components present or channel characteristics for recovery. Riparian areas 

already at PFC are expected to improve beyond PFC if the actions facilitate continual 

improvement thus are directly linked to improved bull trout CH, channel characteristics, water 

quality. 

Appendix A part 1 was developed to show the existing and desired condition for stream reaches 

in the project area utilizing the 2007 PFC surveys, PIBO Monitoring sites, Forest DMA MIM 

sites, and Carex Working Group Report. Within the Appendix, reaches are broken out by 

vegetation community potential, existing condition and desired condition. Appendix A, part 2 

lists the specific indicators selected for monitoring along with the management objective and 

target time period the response is expected for. Management objectives were developed that are 

site specific using measured data that is attainable and time oriented. The attributes identified 

within a reach that were developed into a management objective had either vegetative or channel 

characteristics that were not in balance with the potential for the site identified. The numeric 

values identified per site were based on reviewing data collected at that site. Monitoring is 

critical to determine if actions specified in the alternatives are facilitating recovery or movement 

towards desired conditions within the project area. One of the assumptions made is that until 

vegetation recovers channel characteristics would not recover. Recovery of channel 

characteristics is expected to occur rapidly at first as the vegetation improves and captures 

sediment (bank building process). As the vegetation improves less sediment is available for 

deposition and therefore the bank building and channel forming processes may slow. 

Additionally channel forming event are often dependent on 20 year flood events which are 

variable and may occur within the first 5 years, 10 years or not for another 20 years or longer. 

Monitoring included a phased approach where vegetative objectives were primarily monitored 5 

years out and stream channel objectives related to hydrology, channel complexity, and fish 

habitat objectives were monitored 10 years. This process was selected based on expected 

response intervals to changes in management. Vegetation is often the first to respond to changes 

in livestock management followed by channel characteristics and fish habitat. Normally, the 

most common return interval high flow (1-2 years) is most important for forming channel 

characteristics such as flood plains. Flows of 5-10 year intervals are scour and re-deposit events. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 152

Flows of 10-20 year return intervals are largely the ones that provide stream and habitat 

complexity such as needed by fish. Above these moderately high levels, stream channels are 

often re-set especially on stream not at PFC (Elmore 2007). Quantitative measurements on 

several of the parameters such as width:depth ratios or undercut banks are not positively 

sustainable below PFC, thus lessening their importance for monitoring until a rating of PFC is 

obtained or vegetation is recovering. It is not unusual for streams below PFC to make a series of 

recovery/degradation progressions that alter important channel characteristics. Therefore, until a 

rating of PFC is obtained within those reaches not at PFC within the project allotments the 

quantitative indicators relating to channel characteristics and fish habitat were assumed to follow

vegetative characteristic recovery and monitoring of these characteristics would happen at longer 

time scales following vegetative recovery. Once the vegetative component of the PFC protocol 

and desired condition (Appendix A part1) is obtained channel characteristics and fish habitat 

monitoring would be initiated. 

For the small, generally low-gradient stream systems reviewed during the PFC assessment, 

vegetation is the key component for long-term maintenance and recovery (Elmore 2007). 

Stream temperatures and the quality of habitat for bull trout are the major limiting factors within 

the Malheur River Watershed which includes the Summit, McCoy, Lake Creek and Logan 

Valley allotments. Primary effects from grazing are related to vegetation removal and hoof 

action along the banks and areas of saturated soils. Though much of streams in the project areas 

have improved, wide and shallow streambanks that are open to solar radiation and reduce the 

cooling effect of deep pools, undercut banks, and hardwood shade. Deep pools, undercut banks, 

and riparian hardwood are deficient within the mid/lower elevation streams in the project area. 

Well shaded cover also provides productive terrestrial and aquatic macro-invertebrates for an 

abundant food base. This complexity of cover also reduces stress to individual trout allowing for 

productive growth and reproduction.

The Draft Recovery Plan (USFW 2002) indicated past and ongoing human-induced activities 

have increased stream temperatures, increase sediment delivery, and resulted in the loss of large 

pools. These activities include the creation and management of Warm Springs and Agency 

dams, forest management practices, irrigation withdrawals, livestock grazing, past bull trout

harvest, and introduction of non-native species (brook trout).

Analysis Process and Rates of Recovery

The following premise was used to analyze effects related to proposed actions in each alternative 

to riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality 

recovery in the project area. Any action to improve PFC ratings especially vegetative 

characteristics would also improve fish habitat to some degree within a given stream reach 

because of the inter-connectivity of riparian areas and in-stream hydrological functions for fish 

habitat. The extent and rate of recovery is dependent on the existing condition, extent of action, 

and intensity within the alternative. It was assumed that vegetation would respond more quickly 

to passive/active restoration and hydrological function would follow at a slower rate for the 

improvement of in-stream fish habitat (Appendix A part 2). Riparian and in-stream functionality 

conditions are consistently in a state of flux and the ratings can vary from year to year especially 

for riparian areas rated below PFC. Likewise each stream reach can be in various stages of 

recovery or degradation. This can be manifested in the resiliency of the streambanks and 

vegetation along any individual reach (some are more susceptible to impacts than others) for 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 153

example streambanks may be well armored with large cobble or boulders and thus more resistant 

to the actions of overland flow or other actions that may impact streambanks. Additionally 

riparian areas may be in a more advanced late seral state resulting in resiliency to natural 

disturbances such as fire and 20-50 year flood events or land management actions such as 

grazing. The likelihood of recovery beyond a rating of PFC also increases within a more 

advanced seral state coupled with the extent and intensity of proposed action. These two factors 

are correlated with the rate of recovery of a riparian area. 

Riparian vegetation, channel characteristics (hydrology), and fish habitat are interrelated and 

interdependent. Because of these attributes mutual linkages, actions that facilitate recovery of 

one may also facilitate recovery of the other and have a cascade effect. This also can manifest 

itself for actions that may impact one or more of the attributes in a negative manner. A dynamic 

feedback loop exists between these attributes. Additionally the rate of recovery of these 

attributes often varies in space and time. 

The difference in rates of recovery for riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, and fish 

habitat were analyzed between alternatives within the EIS and the responsiveness of these 

attributes to changes in land management were used to delineate indicators for monitoring 5 and 

10 years out (Appendix A part 2). The desired conditions were based on the Malheur Forest Plan 

as amended by INFISH and Amendment #29. Modifications are proposed to Amendment #29 

Numberic Values and INFISH RMOs for some specific stream reaches to better reflect 

conditions that are attainable based on the stream type and vegetation potential. Specific data 

used to support these modifications came from monitoring data from the Carex Working Group, 

PFC, DMA, PIBO, R6 stream surveys and the TMDL. A table depicting the relationships 

between vegetation community potential, existing condition and long term desired condition is 

provided in Appendix A part 1 along with the data sources. The relationship between recovery of 

herbaceous and woody vegetation to channel characteristics (channel stability) and how they 

relate to specific standards for aquatic habitat, water quality, and livestock forage and are shown 

in Figure 1. The relationship to PFC ratings are shown at the bottom of the figure.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 154

Figure 1: PFC Rating Relationship to Vegetation, Aquatic Habitat HC (channel 

characteristics), Water Quality Standards and Livestock Forage

Potential natural condition (PNC) is defined in the PFC protocol as the highest ecological status 

an area can attain given no political, social, or economical constraints (Pritchard 1998). As a 

riparian area recovers toward PNC resiliency and resistance to disturbances increases above a 

minimum rating of PFC. Within the range between PFC and desired condition the range of 

flexibility for potential management actions increases. Below a rating of PFC, flexibility for the 

decision maker decreases as a result of the riparian area being functioning at risk and susceptible 

to impacts related to management actions. The range of values between PFC and desired 

condition is called the decision space and represents flexibility in management actions and 

decisions. 

Water quality standards are those standards related to 303d listed streams for water temperature

with beneficial uses, including salmonid fish rearing and spawning. 

Key Assumptions

 Channel characteristics can only improve once the appropriate vegetation has become 

established and is present in sufficient quantity and quality (vigor, diverse age classes).

 Optimal conditions for riparian shrub development and herbaceous vigor occur annually 

(climate conditions).

 Rates of recovery for riparian areas would differ between actions identified in the 

alternatives based on the existing condition.

 Immediate rest of 3-5 years would facilitate recovery of riparian vegetation at a faster rate 

than rest of 3 years out of 10 especially in regards to riparian hardwood development.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 155

 Improvements in riparian condition would facilitate improvement in bull trout critical 

habitat, redband trout habitat and to some degree Columbia spotted frog habitat 

associated with the lotic, fish bearing, and perennial streams in the project area.

 Streams rated as FAR during the PFC surveys were more at risk to the effects of actions 

proposed in the alternatives than those at PFC.

 The rates of recovery within Appendix A part 2 would occur within the 10 year time 

frame. 

 Riparian areas rated as PFC have the ability to improve beyond a minimum rating of PFC 

when the appropriate actions are taken as well as the appropriate vegetation and channel 

characteristics.

 Indicators related to Bull trout critical habitat and fish habitat in general as well as water 

quality are often achieved beyond a rating of PFC.

 Development of resilient riparian areas would allow for resumption of grazing within the 

pastures.

 Changes in livestock management would result in expression of riparian vegetation

within 5 years for reaches rated as FAR and potential channel characteristics in 10 years.

 Riparian areas for which the existing condition is related to livestock grazing would 

improve while riparian area whose condition is related to other legacy effects for example 

roads and railroad grades as well as logging would not improve to the extent as those 

simply related to livestock grazing by the actions proposed in the alternatives. 

 Rates of Recovery for riparian areas would be the same or similar for those areas with no 

livestock grazing (alternative 1) compared to those where the appropriate management is 

proposed.

Lennox et al (2009) found that stream channel attributes that improved following restoration of 

riparian vegetation included bankfull width/depth, streambank stability, and woody debris 

frequency metrics. Additionally, water columnar attributes that improved following restoration 

of vegetation included shade, canopy cover, number of pools with project age, maximum pool 

depth, and mean pool depth. Decreasing the bankfull width/depth ratio from vegetation 

improvement tends to result in deepening, and narrowing of the channel as sedimentation on 

floodplains increases following willow re-establishment (Hupp and Osterkamp 1996; Opperman 

and Meren-lender 2004; Corenblit et al 2007). Thus, until vegetation recovers channel 

characteristics and criteria associated with bull trout critical habitat and water quality are not 

expected to achieve desired condition until vegetative criteria is achieved beyond a rating of PFC

(Figure 1). 

The analysis consisted of determining whether the action contributes to attaining the goals and 

objectives identified in Appendix A part 1, has a neutral effect, or reduces the likelihood that the 

goals and objective would be achieved within the time frame identified in Appendix A part 2. 

Within each of the alternatives, a certain amount of “risk” is associated with actions under the 

various alternatives as to whether the objectives for riparian management would be met within 

the 5 and 10 year period identified in Appendix Apart 2. The word “risk” refers to uncertainty 

such as natural events or unforeseen management actions the less resilient a riparian area is the 

more risk of set-back there is associated with actions proposed for it. When riparian vegetation

and channel characteristics are in balance and composed of resistant vegetation (PFC minimum) 

the associated risk of these events to riparian areas becomes less and recovery is more likely 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 156

following these events. This is referred to as riparian resiliency. Because of this, alternatives may 

have the same amount of miles of riparian area at risk (<PFC) but the number of actions, 

intensity, duration, annual use (endpoint indicator), adaptive management strategy, and periods 

of rest could vary between the alternatives resulting in one alternative being preferable to another 

for attainment of the riparian objectives identified in Appendix A part1. 

Affected Environment

The Affected Environmentsection examines the existing and desired vegetative and channel 

characteristics, water quality, and aquatic habitat in the project area. Information on climate, 

hydrology, and channel characteristics were taken from the Malheur Headwaters Watershed 

Analysis (USFS 2000) to provide a general background on the Project Area and its surrounding 

watershed. 

Background on Malheur Headwaters

The Malheur River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River and 

eventually the Pacific Ocean. Major tributaries (streams) that drain to the Malheur River in the 

watershed include Big Creek, Bosenberg Creek, Conroy Creek, Crooked Creek, Frazier Creek, 

Lake Creek, Larch Creek, McCoy Creek, Summit Creek, Tureman Creek, and Wickiup Creek.

The hydrologic regime of the Blue Mountain Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) is characterized 

as a snow pack-dominated system. Peak discharge generally occurs from May through June. 

Generally, base flow in the late summer is maintained by groundwater and is relatively 

unaffected by precipitation, although occasional thunderstorms and infrequent showers may 

cause minor rises in streamflow for short periods of time (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

Streams start as high-gradient, first-order channels (Rosgen A or B channels) in the upper 

headwater portions of the watershed, and drop rapidly down to low-gradient third-order streams 

that bisect the meadow complex of Logan Valley (Rosgen E channels). Upper reaches are 

confined and have bedrock substrates. Sinuosity is low, and the streams consist predominantly 

of step-pool reaches (Rosgen B channels). Woody debris is common in these upper reaches and 

provides complexity and habitat in the stream ecosystem. Stream reaches in the valley bottoms 

above Logan Valley have occasional beaver dams and associated pond complexes. As stream 

gradients decrease in the valley bottoms, sinuosity increases and floodplain features become 

wider and more pronounced. In contrast to upland stream reaches, channel substrates in valley 

bottom reaches are generally comprised of a greater proportion of fine material. 

Bankfull flows occur every year in the spring and generally prevail throughout the period of 

spring snowmelt. As such, they are the dominant process that functions to maintain and shape 

channels in the watershed. Land use practices have introduced human-influenced channelshaping processes. Humans have influenced and altered certain stream reaches with such 

changes as irrigation diversions and ditches in the valley and road segments that cross streams. 

There are eight known diversion structures in the valley that redirect stream flow to a system of 

approximately 11 miles of irrigation ditches. These features, as well as the absence of beavers, 

have altered the flow route of several of the primary tributaries in the watershed. Sinuous valley 

bottom E channels have been changed and more closely resemble G channels that eventually 

evolve back to C and then E channels.

Water Temperature
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 157

Table A-1: Water Temperature for Lake Creek 

Stream Site Allotment Unit Elevation 7DAD

M (F)

TMDL

7DADM

Standard (F)

INFISH

Spawning 

& Rearing 

(F)

Adult 

Holding (F)

Lake 

Creek

Lake 1 Lake Creek McCoy 5520 59.3

53.6 48 59

Lake 2 Logan 

Valley 

W. Lake 

Creek 5520 58.2

Lake 3 Private -- 5060 75.6

Lake 4 Private -- 5060 73.2

Lake 5 McCoy 

Creek

Cow 

Camp 5020 75.0

Table A-2: Water Temperatures for Big Creek

Stream Site Allotment Unit Elevation 7DAD

M (F)

TMDL

7DADM

Standard (F)

INFISH

Spawning 

& Rearing 

(F)

Adult 

Holding (F)

Big 

Creek

Big 1 Lake 

Creek McCoy 5280 56.8

53.6 48 59

Big 2 Logan 

Valley 

W. 

Bosenberg 5082 63.8

Table A-3: Water Temperatures for Summit Creek

Stream Site Allotment Unit Elevation 7DAD

M (F)

TMDL

7DADM

Standard (F)

INFISH

Spawning 

& Rearing 

(F)

Adult 

Holding (F)

Summit 

Creek

Summit 

1

Summit 

Prairie

Summit 

Rock 5735 54.8

53.6 48 59

Summit 

2

Summit 

Prairie

Summit 

Rock 5283 66.9

Summit 

3

Summit 

Prairie

Little 

Logan 5190 72.8

Summit 

4

Summit 

Prairie

Little 

Logan 5160 72.8

Summit 

5

Summit 

Prairie Sagehen 5078 72.5

Summit 

6

Summit 

Prairie Sagehen 4950 76.8

Summit 

7 Private -- 4820 78.7

Wildfire History

Wildfires occurred on 497 acres of Lake Creek (410 acres) and Summit Prairie allotments (87 

acres) in 1958 from the Bosenberg Fire. Of that, 62 acres reached Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas (RHCA) in the Lake Creek Allotment and 10 acres reached RHCAs in Summit Prairie 

allotment. Three wildfires occurred in 1990 with the Corral Basin, Sheep Mountain and 

Snowshoe Fires. The Corral Basin wildfire burnt 813 acres in the Lake Creek (753 acres) and 

Summit Prairie allotments (60.6 acres). The Corral Basin Fire burnt 45 acres of RHCAs in the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 158

Bosenberg Unit of the Lake Creek allotment. The Sheep Mountain Fire ignited 2,067 acres in 

the Summit Prairie allotment and 11 acres of RHCAs in the Summit Rock unit. The Showshoe 

Fire ignited 7,011 acres in the Lake Creek (6410 acres), Logan Valley (122 acres), and the 

Summit Prairie allotment (480 acres). RHCAs burnt in the Snowshoe Fire include Bosenberg 

Unit (45 acres) and McCoy Creek unit (90 acres) of the Lake Creek allotment; East Lake Creek 

(48 acres), North Big Creek (20 acres) of the Summit Prairie allotment; Little Logan unit (27 

acres) and Summit Rock (16 acres) of the Summit Prairie allotment.

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species (TES)

The following is a summary of effects determinations for alternatives documented from the 

Aquatic Biological Evaluation for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project. See 

Environmental Consequences section for further discussion on Effects Determination for 

threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species. 

Table A-4: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species

Aquatic Species Status Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Columbia River Bull Trout

Salvelinus confluentus T (MIS) NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE

Columbia River Bull Trout

Designated Critical Habitat D NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE

Interior Redband Trout

O. mykiss gairdneri S (MIS) MIIH/BI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris S NI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Western Ridged Mussel

Gonidea angulata S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Shortface Lanx

Fisherola nuttalli S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

D Designated Critical Habitat 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

Effects Determination 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA May Effect, Like to Adversely Affect 

BE Beneficial Effect 

Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trent Toward Federally 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 159

Columbia River Bull Trout

See discussion under Management Indicator Species. 

Interior Redband Trout 

See discussion under Management Indicator Species. 

Columbia Spotted Frog

Columbia spotted frog habitat in the project area is highly associated with wet meadows and 

drainages of the three subwatersheds. The acres of the 4 primary wetland types are displayed 

below. Where wet meadows are associated with drainages or standing water they provide 

potential spotted frog habitat. Actions that effect riparian areas containing bull trout and redband 

trout would have similar effects to Columbia spotted frog. 

Table A-5: Acres of Wetland Type within the Allotments for the Summit Logan Grazing 

Project.

Allotment Wetland Type Acres Percentage

Lake Creek

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland 3.49 6.5

Freshwater Forested/Shrub 

Wetland 4.03 7.5

Riverine* 45.95 85.9

TOTAL 53.46 3.6

Logan Valley

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland 545.50 62.5

Freshwater Forested/Shrub 

Wetland 321.28 36.8

Riverine 5.12 0.6

TOTAL 871.90 59.6

McCoy Creek

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland 180.81 87.1

Freshwater Forested/Shrub 

Wetland 23.55 11.3

Riverine 3.28 1.6

TOTAL 207.64 14.2

Summit Prairie

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland 214.99 65.2

Freshwater Forested/Shrub 

Wetland 38.86 11.8

Freshwater Pond 0.45 0.1

Riverine 75.47 22.9

TOTAL 329.8 22.5

PROJECT AREA TOTAL 1462.8

* Riverine habitats constitute wetlands along a flowing stream 

Percentages that are italized represent the dominant wetland type within the specific allotment. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Aquatic Species within the project area include threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confuentus), 

Malheur National Forest MIS sensitive redband trout (Oncorhynchus gairdi), and Columbia 

spotted frog. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 160

Bull Trout

Bull trout are a Malheur National Forest management indicator species. Bull trout within the 

Upper Malheur Watershed are part of the Malheur River metapopulation that includes 

populations in the upper Malheur River and the N.F. Malheur River. 

For the Upper Malheur River populations, spawning and rearing is limited to headwater streams 

within the Upper Malheur River. Spawning and rearing habitat was identified to occur in all of 

McCoy, Lake, Big, Meadow Fork Big, Snowshoe, Corral Basin, Bosenberg, and Summit Creeks 

during the designation of Critical Habitat (USFW 2010). These streams include all the major 

drainages except for Crooked Creek and the Malheur River. Presently, spawning habitat is 

minimal in areas below the FS 16 road due to limited spawning gravel and high summer and fall 

stream temperatures. The populations in the Malheur River and N.F. Malheur River do not 

connect with each other or other Snake River populations due to impassable Warm Springs Dam 

on the Malheur River and the impassible Agency Dam on the North Fork of the Malheur River. 

Populations were historically thought to use the entire Malheur River where as present use is 

confined to the upper tributaries. Bull trout have not been documented within the Warm Springs 

Reservoir, which has the potential to provide overwintering habitat. Since the Upper Malheur 

River local population lack connectivity, this population is considered to be at risk of genetic 

drift and failed the distribution criterion in the bull trout recovery plan. In regards to abundance, 

the Malheur River metapopulation contains less than 1,000 adults and is isolated from other 

populations. The Meadow Fork of Big Creek was the apparent stronghold of this population and 

has yet to recover from the 2002 High Roberts fire and consequent flood event (2003).

A radio telemetry study began in 2000 conducted by the Burns Paiute Tribe of fluvial bull trout

in the upper Malheur River and tributaries. Bull trout tagged near the confluence of Big Creek 

and Lake Creek spawned in the Meadow Fork of Big Creek in 2000. Bull trout redds have been 

counted within the Meadow Fork of Big Creek every year since 2000 with the exception of 2003 

in which no redds were observed. Radio tagged bull trout overwintered downstream of Lake 

Creek subwatershed in the vicinity of Malheur Ford.

Population Status

In 1997, ODFW considered the upper Malheur River subpopulation at high risk of extinction. 

The number of age 1+ bull trout in the upper Malheur subpopulation was estimated as 3,554 +

30% (Buchanan et al 1997). The majority of bull trout were found in the area of Big Creek, 

lower reaches of Snowshoe Creek, and Meadow Fork of Big Creek. The maximum length 

observed in 1993, 1994 and 2003 was 440mm suggesting few fluvial adults are present. 

Primary spawning areas for the Upper Malheur subpopulation are located in the Meadow Fork, 

Big Creek, Snowshoe Creek, and Lake Creeks. Meadow Fork is the key spawning stream for the

local population. The majority of bull trout spawning within the project area occurs prior to midSeptember. Due to the presence of brook trout redds are only counted as bull trout redds 

observed prior to mid-September. The estimated number of bull trout redds peaked in 2000 (39) 

and has since declined to 5 redds in 2004. The decline in the estimated number of redds is most 

likely attributed to the effects of the 2002 High-Roberts Fire and the 2003 flash flooding that 

originated in the area. A passage barrier on the Meadow Fork at culvert FSR 1648021 developed 

following the 2003 flash flooding. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 161

Limiting Factors

Stream temperatures and the quality of habitat are the major limiting factors to bull trout

recovery within the Malheur River Watershed. Primary effects from grazing are related to 

vegetation removal and hoof action along the banks and areas of saturated soils. Though much of 

the area has improved from historical conditions, wide and shallow streambanks are still 

prevalent which increases solar radiation reducing the cooling effect of deep pools, undercut 

banks, and hardwood shade. Well shaded cover also provides productive terrestrial and aquatic 

macro-invertebrates for an abundant food base. This complexity of cover also reduces stress to 

individual trout allowing for productive growth and reproduction.

The Draft Recovery Plan (USFW 2002) indicated past and ongoing human-induced activities 

have increased stream temperatures, increase sediment delivery, and resulted in the loss of large 

pools. These activities include the creation and management of Warm Springs and Agency 

dams, forest management practices, irrigation withdrawals, livestock grazing, past bull trout

harvest, and introduction of non-native species (brook trout).

The FWS published a proposed rule revising designation of critical habitat for bull trout on 

January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2270). 

Columbia Bull trout Recovery Plan

The Columbia River Bull Trout Recovery plan identified the specific recovery criteria for the 

Malheur River population. 

Recovery Criteria:

 Bull Trout are distributed among 2 or more local populations in the recovery unit within 

the Malheur River Core Area.

 Estimated abundance of adult bull trout in the Malheur River Recovery Unit is between 

2,000 and 3,000 individuals between the two local populations.

 Adult bull trout exhibit a stable or increasing trend for at least two generations at or 

above the recovered abundance level within the Malheur River Core Area.

 Specific barriers inhibiting bull trout movement and recovery in the Malheur River 

Recovery Unit have been addressed, assuring opportunities for connectivity among local 

populations within the core area.

Livestock grazing has the potential of effecting strategies 1-3. The recovery plan lists over 

grazing and loss of shade as a reason for an increase in mid elevation stream temperatures and 

decline in bull trout populations. Livestock Grazing was considered a high significance of threat 

to recovery for the Malheur River Recovery Unit. The highest priority for the USFWS is that no 

direct effects occur to spawning bull trout or redds after August 15th.

The Recovery Plan Addresses sediment issues identified in the upper Malheur River watershed 

assessment, (e.g., road related sediment in Lake Creek and Bosenberg Creek). Noted was a 

diversion ditch on Lake Creek that diverts flow into a draw where erosion and head-cutting have 

been occurring on the return flow ditch.

The Plan noted that there was a need to restore shade and canopy, riparian cover, and native 

vegetation in all bull trout spawning, rearing and migration areas. Specifically, Summit Creek, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 162

the Malheur River downstream of Logan Valley, and Crooked Creek in the Upper Malheur River 

subbasin have suppressed woody vegetation in reaches that need this component to become 

stable. The Plan recommended reducing grazing impacts in all bull trout spawning areas such as 

implementing measures to reduce livestock impacts to streams, (e.g., fencing, changes in timing 

and use of riparian pastures, off-site watering and salting), to accomplish this task. Lower Lake 

Creek lower Big Creek, Lower Bosenberg Creek, Summit Creek, and lower McCoy Creek are

areas that would benefit from shade restoration.

Habitat in the Analysis Area – Rearing Habitat

Currently, occupied rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout is present in Lake Creek, Big Creek, 

Meadow Fork, and Snowshoe Creek. Potential rearing habitat for juveniles is currently present 

in McCoy, Bosenberg, and Summit Creeks. Stream reaches with daily maximum water 

temperatures < 20oC were considered to be potential rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout 

(Dunham and Chandler 2001). Currently, juvenile bull trout occupy about 63% of potential 

habitat in the Upper Malheur subpopulation area (Table A-6).

Table A-6: Miles of Potential and Occupied Habitat for Juvenile Bull Trout in the Upper 

Malheur Subpopulation Area

Stream Name Documented Use 

Prior to 1990

Miles of Potential 

Juvenile Rearing Habitat

Miles of Occupied Juvenile 

Rearing Habitat

Big Creek Yes 5.8 5.8

Meadow Fork Yes 4.8 4.8

Snowshoe Creek Yes 1.6 1.6

Corral Basin Creek Yes 2.7 0.0

Bosenberg Creek Yes 2.6 0.0

Lake Creek Yes 5.0 5.0

McCoy Creek No 1.8 0.0

Summit Creek Yes 3.0 0.0

Crooked Creek Yes 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 27.3 17.2

Spawning Habitat

There are about 14 miles of bull trout spawning habitat in the subpopulation area. Primary 

spawning areas for the upper Malheur subpopulation are located in Meadow Fork, Big, 

Snowshoe, and Lake Creeks. Highest numbers of suspected bull trout redds are found in 

Meadow Fork. A bull trout was observed on a redd in upper Summit Creek in 2000.

Table A-7: Miles of Suspected Bull Trout Spawning Habitat in the Upper Malheur 

Subpopulation Area

Stream Name Bull Trout Spawning Habitat (Miles)

Big Creek 3.7

Lake Creek 4.5

Meadow Fork 3.4

Snowshoe Creek 1.8

Summit Creek 0.8

TOTAL 14.2
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 163

Subadult Rearing Habitat

There is little information currently available on areas used by subadults for rearing during 

summer months in the upper Malheur River and tributaries. However based upon general life 

history information, it is assumed that rearing habitat for fluvial subadult bull trout is present 

downstream of juvenile rearing areas and may extend down to at least the Forest boundary. 

Winter and spring use of Crooked and Summit creeks by subadults is possible. A bull trout 

200mm in length, most likely a subadult, was captured in Crooked Creek in August of 1998 (L. 

Schwabe, BPT, pers. com.). In 2004, one radio-tagged subadult reared throughout the summer in 

the East Fork of Lake Creek and one in Big Creek below FSR 16.

Adult Winter Holding Habitat

Winter holding habitat for fluvial adults is present in the upper Malheur River downstream of the 

confluence of Lake and Big creeks to at least the Forest boundary. Spring use of Crooked Creek 

by adult bull trout has been documented. A bull trout 356mm in length was captured in Crooked 

Creek in May of 1995. Winter and spring use of Summit Creek by adults is also possible. 

Migration Habitat

The Malheur River serves as a migration corridor for the subpopulation. Seasonal thermal 

barriers occur at the lower ends of tributaries and on the Malheur River (Bowers et al. 1993). An 

apparent thermal barrier exists in Lake Creek downstream of national forest lands in Logan 

Valley that restricts the movement of fluvial adults into spawning areas on Lake Creek. This 

thermal barrier has probably resulted in the isolation of the local population of Lake Creek from 

the rest of the subpopulation.

Redband Trout 

Redband trout occur in the following streams within the project area Crooked Creek, Lake 

Creek, Big Creek, Bosenberg Creek and Summit Creek. Redband trout are sensitive to changes 

in water quality and habitat. Adult redband trout are generally associated with pool habitats, 

although various life stages require a wide array of habitats for rearing, hiding, feeding, and 

resting. Pool habitat functions as important refugia during low water periods. An increase in 

sediment lowers spawning success and reduces the quantity and quality of pool and interstitial 

habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and 

LWD.

Spawning occurs during the spring, generally from March to June. Redds tend to be located 

where velocity, depth and bottom configuration induce water flow through the stream substrate, 

generally in gravels at the tailout area of pools. Water temperatures influence emergence of fry, 

which is typically from June through July.

Redband trout are present in all fish bearing streams in the analysis area. Highest densities are 

found in Crooked Creek. Lower numbers are found in Lake Creek and McCoy Creek where 

brook trout are the dominant salmonid.

The project area has approximately 45.39 stream miles of occupied redband habitat. 

Comparatively, the Malheur National Forest contains approximately 840 miles of redband trout 

habitat (Malheur Forest GIS data). The miles of occupied redband trout habitat by allotment, 

unit and 6th field HUC are displayed below (Table A-8).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 164

Table A-8: Miles of Occupied Redband Trout Habitat within the Allotment Boundaries in 

the Project Area for Summit Logan

Allotment Unit HUC Miles Percentage

Lake Creek

Bosenberg Bosenberg Creek, 

Upper Big Creek 

12.61 68.53

McCoy Creek Lake Creek

Upper Big Creek

5.79 31.47

TOTAL 18.4 40.54

Logan Valley

Big Field Lake Creek 0.17 3.31

Corral Holding Bosenberg Creek 0.17 3.31

East Lake Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek

0.32 6.23

Lower Field Bosenberg Creek 0.16 3.11

North Big Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek

1.80 35.02

South Big Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek

0.92 17.90

West Bosenberg Upper Big Creek 0.32 6.23

West Lake Creek Lake Creek 1.28 24.90

TOTAL 5.14 11.32

McCoy Creek

Cow Camp Lake Creek 0.58 31.87

North Fork Upper Big Creek 0.43 23.63

Starvation Lake Creek 0.81 44.51

TOTAL 1.82 4.01

Summit Prairie

Crane Rock Summit Creek 1.26 6.29

Little Logan Summit Creek 5.03 25.11

North Summit Summit Creek 0.97 4.84

Sagehen Summit Creek 6.43 32.10

South Summit Summit Creek 0.01 0.05

Summit Rock Summit Creek 5.93 29.61

West Summit Summit Creek 0.40 2.00

TOTAL 20.03 44.13

GRAND TOTAL 45.39 --

Redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the exception that bull 

trout are relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. Therefore the 

analysis of bull trout critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed would 

have the same effects on redband trout habitat within the project area. 

Summary by Allotment

Lake Creek Allotment

Streams within the Lake Creek allotment include Bosenberg Creek (4.4 miles of unoccupied bull 

trout critical habitat), Corral Basin Creek (3.6 miles), Meadow Fork Big Creek (0.5 miles), Big 

Creek (2.3 miles), Lake Creek (1.8 miles) and McCoy Creek (1.6 miles). 14.3 miles (41%) of 

bull trout critical habitat is within the Lake Creek allotment of the total 35 miles in the Project 

Area. The Bosenberg unit contains 8.6 miles of bull trout critical habitat (60%) while the McCoy 

Creek unit contains 5.7 miles (40%). 9.6 miles (67%) of the total 14.3 miles of bull trout critical 

habitat within the Lake Creek allotment are unoccupied and 4.7 miles (33%) are occupied. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 165

Appendix A part 1 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Lake Creek allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel 

potential. The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in Appendix A part 2 based 

on vegetation and channel characteristics documented to not be in balance by the PFC 2007 

surveys, MIM and PIBO data, and Carex Working Group Report 2012. Specific indicators 

related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement based on their repeatability and relationship to other 

specific indicators for bull trout critical habitat as well as existing monitoring that is currently 

ongoing in these areas and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as 

livestock grazing. The following descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water 

temperature and bull trout critical habitat describe the existing condition by unit for streams 

within the Lake Creek allotment and a more detailed description as well as the desired condition 

for stream reaches within the specific units can be found in Appendix A part 1.

Bosenberg Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest 

Roads Analysis (MNF 2004b). Findings from the report include:

 The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (RML) 1-5 and 1-2 

 The risk rating for total road density within the 200 foot of perennial and intermittent 

streams was extreme for both RML 1-5 and 1-2 

 The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated high

Vegetation

The potential vegetation for the riparian plant community are dominated with a conifer overstory 

with alder, willow and mesic graminiods in open areas (IDT Review 2012). This vegetative 

community is dominated by the landform of the valley bottoms and by the soil texture. 

Channel Characteristics

Rosgen B channel types are dominant in the Lake Creek allotment also due to the landforms. 

The gradient of these streams is between 2 and 4 percent slope and there is little floodplains 

developed in these type of streams. Rosgen C channel types develop on the downstream extent 

of the allotment. Gravel substrate dominates the bed of these channels. Recent wildfires in the 

headwaters have introduced large sediment sources that the channel is transporting downstream 

in pulses. Organic ash and debris from the post fire have been deposited on the streambanks and 

floodplain downstream of the burnt areas. These stream banks are extremely sensitive to 

disturbance and are vulnerable to over widening through streambank trampling. 

Water temperatures across Lake Creek allotment likely are compliant with the INFISH criteria 

for adult holding temperatures (59 F), but not INFISH spawning and rearing (48 F) or the TMDL 

standard (53.6 F). Water temperatures for streams within the Lake Creek allotment are displayed 

in Streams within the Lake Creek allotment include Bosenberg Creek (4.4 miles of unoccupied 

bull trout critical habitat), Corral Basin Creek (3.6 miles), Meadow Fork Big Creek (0.5 miles), 

Big Creek (2.3 miles), Lake Creek (1.8 miles) and McCoy Creek (1.6 miles). 14.3 miles (41%) 

of bull trout critical habitat is within the Lake Creek allotment of the total 35 miles in the Project 

Area. The Bosenberg unit contains 8.6 miles of bull trout critical habitat (60%) while the McCoy 

Creek unit contains 5.7 miles (40%). 9.6 miles (67%) of the total 14.3 miles of bull trout critical 

habitat within the Lake Creek allotment are unoccupied and 4.7 miles (33%) are occupied. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 166

Appendix A part 1 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Lake Creek allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel 

potential. The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in Appendix A part 2 based 

on vegetation and channel characteristics documented to not be in balance by the PFC 2007 

surveys, MIM and PIBO data, and Carex Working Group Report 2012. Specific indicators 

related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement based on their repeatability and relationship to other 

specific indicators for bull trout critical habitat as well as existing monitoring that is currently 

ongoing in these areas and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as 

livestock grazing. The following descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water 

temperature and bull trout critical habitat describe the existing condition by unit for streams 

within the Lake Creek allotment and a more detailed description as well as the desired condition 

for stream reaches within the specific units can be found in Appendix A part 1.

Bosenberg Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest 

Roads Analysis (MNF 2004b). Findings from the report include:

 The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (RML) 1-5 and 1-2 

 The risk rating for total road density within the 200 foot of perennial and intermittent 

streams was extreme for both RML 1-5 and 1-2 

 The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated high

Bull trout Critical Habitat

Lake Creek allotment is a stronghold for Bull Trout survival in the Upper Malheur Drainage. 

Much of the spawning and rearing takes place in the allotment. Meadow Fork of Big Creek had 

the highest density of redds until the wildfires introduced large amounts of sediment and have 

reworked the system. 

A fish barrier is present on Bosenberg Creek, inhibiting fish connectivity to cooler water 

upstream. R6 stream survey data suggests bankfull width/depth and LWD are meeting 

standards, whereas pool quantity did not. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Streams within the Logan Valley Allotment include of Big Creek, Bosenberg Creek and Lake 

Creek. 3 miles (9%) of bull trout critical habitat is within the Logan Valley allotment of the total 

35 miles in the project area. Big Field, East Bosenberg, Flat Field and Front Field do not have 

aquatic habitat or riparian resources identified. A large fen occurs in the Big Field unit. Please 

see the Botany Section for a discussion on these resources. 

Appendix A part 1 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Logan Valley allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel 

potential. The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in Appendix A part 2 based 

on vegetation and channel characteristics documented to not be in balance by the PFC 2007 

surveys, MIM and PIBO data, and Carex Working Group Report 2012. Specific indicators 

related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement based on their repeatability and relationship to other 

specific indicators for bull trout critical habitat as well as existing monitoring that is currently 

ongoing in these areas and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 167

livestock grazing. The following descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water 

temperature and bull trout critical habitat describe the existing condition by unit for streams 

within the Logan Valley allotment and a more detailed description as well as the desired

condition for stream reaches within the specific units can be found in Appendix A part 1.

Big Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads 

Analysis (MNF 2004b). Findings from the report include:

 The road density risk was moderate for road maintenance level (RML) 1-5 and 1-2 

 The risk rating for total road density within the 200 foot of perennial and intermittent 

streams was moderate for both RML 1-5 and 1-2 

 The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated moderate 

Lake Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads 

Analysis (MNF 2004b). Findings from the report include:

 The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (RML) 1-5 and moderate for 

RML 1-2 

 The risk rating for total road density within the 200 foot of perennial and intermittent 

streams was high for both RML 1-5 and 1-2 

 The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated moderate 

Big Creek

Vegetation

Three reaches along Big Creek (1.8 miles) was rated PFC in 2007. It transitions from a conifer 

with alder and mesic graminiods upstream to a willow/sedge-rush controlled system near the 16 

road. The ecological status of the designated monitoring area (DMA) on Big Creek Reach 3 was 

mid seral. The distribution of stabilizing plant communities along Big Creek Reaches 1 and 2 

were near desired condition (Appendix A, part 1). 

Channel Characteristics

Big Creek has a Rosgen Da5/6 channel type and is a glacial outwash, multiple threaded and 

highly sinuous stream. The stream became braided because of the excessive sediment loads due 

to historic glacial activities. At the DMA in Reach 3, bank stability is at the long-term desired 

condition and meets the Amendment #29 numeric standard. The channel stability throughout 

Big Creek is largely controlled by the large woody debris that falls into the stream. 

Big 2 in the West Bosenberg unit is the only water temperature monitoring site that occurs in the 

Big Creek portion of the Logan Valley Allotment. Big 1 is in the McCoy Creek unit of Lake 

Creek allotment. They are approximately 2.3 miles away from each other. The 7DADM was 

56.8°F at Big 1 and 63.8°F at Big 2. Big Creek heats up approximately 7°F between sites Big 1 

and 2. Without a monitoring site in the unit it is difficult to determine if the water temperatures 

met standards. It is likely that water temperatures in the South Big Creek unit met INFISH

standards for adult holding (59 F), but may exceed INFISH standards for spawning and rearing 

(48 F) or the TMDL standard (53.6 F).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 168

Bull trout Critical Habitat

Bull trout likely use Big Creek for rearing and spawning habitat. 1.8 miles are occupied bull 

trout critical habitat listed for spawning and rearing. 

Bosenberg Creek

Vegetation

Bosenberg Creek flows through Corral Holding and Lower Field units that are separated by 

private land ownership. Corral Holding has approximately 0.1 miles of the North end of the unit 

contained in a riparian pasture on the back side of the corral. This section of stream is a 

sedge/rush with some willow plant community in very good condition and likely at a PFC rating. 

Willows appeared in multiple age class heights and at an appropriate density of individuals. 

Approximately 0.02 miles at the bottom of the reach are outside of the corral area and appear to 

be grazed annually with private lands. This area would likely be rated FAR with an unknown 

trend. The area lacks adequate vegetative cover and the channel looks over widened with the 

bankfull width/depth not in balance with its landform setting. Lower Field unit is a sedge/rush 

plant community that is developing into developed community types. 

Channel Characteristics

Bosenberg Creek has a Rosgen E channel type with channel stability controlled by herbaceous 

plants with a very narrow channel width and is highly sinuous. Abundant undercut banks and 

quality pools were observed throughout these two units. However, there are indicators of 

isolated spots that were historically over widened and slow to recover. 

No water quality monitoring sites were available on Bosenberg Creek. 

Bull trout Critical Habitat

0.24 miles are unoccupied bull trout critical habitat listed for spawning and rearing. 

Lake Creek

Vegetation

Lake Creek is a conifer overstory with alder, willow and mesic graminiods in the open areas 

while the lower end of the reach has little or no conifer overstory (PFC 2007). The ecological 

status was monitored at the MIM DMA as early seral with alder (19%) / Kentucky bluegrass 

(8%) plant community (MIM 2008). The young age class of willow and alder hardwoods is low. 

The effective shade averaged at 39% and did not meet the desired condition of 60-80% in mixed 

shrub and conifer plant communities (CWG 2012). Two PIBO DMAs occur in the Lake Creek 

portion of the Logan Valley allotment. A decrease in woody cover along the stream bank was 

the only statistical change observed associated with vegetative attributes. The wetland rating 

across the floodplain slightly improved at PIBO site 1884.

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek has a Rosgen F4/C4 complex of channel types. The potential channel type that 

could exist is an E4/C4. This reach has legacy disturbances that over widened the channel form. 

The poor channel shape has resulted in issues in sediment transport through the reach and has 

decreased the likelihood of a typical flood from reaching its floodplain. This yields excessive 

energy that may make the channel more unstable. Stream bank stability (55%, MIM 2008) was 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 169

not meeting the 90% desired condition using the MIM protocol, but did meet the desired 

conditions with 95% using PIBO in 2006 and 2011. The MIM value is suggested to being more 

representative since the sampling interval is closer. 

PIBO channel characteristics data from site 1884 indicate numbers of pools per mile have 

increased by two fold, bank angle and percent undercut banks have improved. Residual pool 

depth has significantly decreased and bankfull width/depth has decreased. 

PIBO site 2037 has less data collected in 2006 to compare 2011 data for trend interpretation. 

Percent stable banks has remained static and is meeting Forest Standards. Bank angle has 

significantly improved and percent undercut banks have improved. 

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 2) occurs in the West Lake Creek unit and two 

approximately one mile downstream below the 16 road on two channels of Lake Creek (Lake 3 

and 4). Lake 3 is the east channel and Lake 4 is the west channel. Lake 2 is near the most 

upstream extent of the unit. The 7DADM was 58.2°F at Lake 2, 75.6°F at Lake 3 and 73.2°F at 

Lake 4. Lake Creek heats up approximately 17.4°F between sites Lake 2 and 3 and heats up by 

15°F from sites Lake 2 and 4. Site 1 met the 59°F INFISH standard for adult holding, but 

exceeded the 53.6°F TMDL standards and 48 ̊F INFISH standard for spawning and rearing. The 

temperature difference from sites Lake 2 to 3 and 4 is because of the irrigation withdrawals that 

occur on private land. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently 0.95 miles of Lake Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the West Lake Creek.

McCoy Allotment

Streams within the McCoy Creek Allotment include of Big Creek, Crooked Creek and Lake 

Creek. 1 mile (3%) of bull trout critical habitat is within the McCoy Creek allotment of the total 

35 miles in the project area. Lake Creek, Ridge, Dry, and Gov’t Flat do not have aquatic habitat

or riparian resources identified. 0.02 miles of Big Creek flow through the North Fork unit and 

have been excluded to livestock by an electric fence. This reach is likely at PFC, but was not 

assessed. 

Appendix A, part 1 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the McCoy Creek allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel 

potential. The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in Appendix A, part 2 based 

on vegetation and channel characteristics documented to not be in balance by the PFC 2007 

surveys, MIM and PIBO data, and Carex Working Group Report 2012. Specific indicators 

related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement based on their repeatability and relationship to other 

specific indicators for bull trout critical habitat as well as existing monitoring that is currently 

ongoing in these areas and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as 

livestock grazing. The following descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water 

temperature and bull trout critical habitat describe the existing condition by unit for streams 

within the McCoy Creek allotment and a more detailed description as well as the desired 

condition for stream reaches within the specific units can be found in Appendix A part 1.

See the Logan Valley allotment description for information on roads. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 170

Big Creek

Vegetation

Big Creek reach 2 has a vegetative potential of sedge, rush, grass, and willows (PFC 2007). PFC 

identified an abundant cover of stabilizing plants along the streambanks of this reach. A recent 

change in livestock management has resulted in numerous increases in number and vigor of 

willow species present. 

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek reach 2 was a Rosgen E5 channel type that has channel stability controlled by 

vegetative attributes and is sensitive to livestock grazing. The beaver activity in this reach has 

created channel complexity that helps retain water and sediment and provide fish habitat faster 

than any other manner. The reach is a series of dams with a low gradient, meandering channel 

between the dams. 

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 5) occurs in the Cow Camp unit and one just 

upstream of the unit on the east channel (Lake 3). The 7DADM was 75.6°F at Lake 3 and 

75.0°F at Lake 5. Lake Creek stays relatively constant as it flows through Lake Creek reach 2. 

Site 5 exceeds INFISH standards and TMDL standards. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently 0.51 miles of Lake Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Cow Camp unit. 

Lake Creek

Lake Creek has two reaches that flow through two pastures that are not adjacent. 

Vegetation

Lake Creek has a vegetative potential of sedge, rush, grass, and willows (PFC 2007). PFC 

identified an abundant cover of stabilizing plants along the streambanks of this reach. A recent 

change in livestock management has resulted in numerous increases in number and vigor of 

willow species present on reach 1. 

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek reach 2 has a Rosgen E channel type and reach 1 a Rosgen C channel type that has 

channel stability controlled by vegetative attributes and is sensitive to livestock grazing. The 

beaver activity in reach 2 has created channel complexity that helps retain water and sediment 

and provide fish habitat faster than any other manner. The reach is a series of dams with a low

gradient, meandering channel between the dams. Reach 1 has narrowed dramatically and is 

meeting Forest Plan standards for undercut banks. 

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 5) occurs in the Cow Camp unit and one just 

upstream of the unit on the east channel (Lake 3). The 7DADM was 75.6°F at Lake 3 and 

75.0°F at Lake 5. Lake Creek stays relatively constant as it flows through Lake Creek reach 2. 

Site 5 exceeds INFISH standard and TMDL standards. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 171

An R6 stream survey was conducted on reach 1 of Lake Creek within the Starvation unit in 1999. 

Lake Creek reach 1 did not meet the INFISH and Forest Plan Amendment 29 criteria for average 

Bankfull Width/depth of 19.23. It met INFISH and Forest Plan Amendment 29 standards for 

stream bank stability with 91%. Lake Creek reach 1 measured 85% undercut banks and is 

meeting Forest Plan Standards

Currently 0.72 miles of Lake Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Cow Camp and Starvation units. 

Crooked Creek

Vegetation

Crooked Creek has a sedge/rush with some willows (PFC 2007). 

Channel Characteristics

Crooked Creek was rated functioning at risk with a downward trend (PFC 2007). This reach 

was an intermittent Rosgen E4/5 channel type. The potential is a perennial E5 channel type. 

The bankfull width/depth was not in balance and the riparian area is shrinking from eroding 

stream banks. The stream energy is excessive and has downcut below the rooting depths of 

vegetation present. This is considered high risk for additional downcutting and system 

unraveling (PFC 2007). 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

R6 stream survey was conducted on reach 1 of Crooked Creek within the McCoy Creek 

allotment in 1999. Reach 1 did not meet INFISH and Amendment 29 standards for average 

bankfull width:depth, pool quantity, and large woody debris. Crooked Creek reach 1 did meet 

INFISH and Amendment 29 standards for stream bank stability. 

Currently 0.21 miles of Crooked Creek are unoccupied foraging and migratory bull trout critical 

habitat. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Summit Creek is the only stream within the Summit Prairie Allotment that has bull trout critical 

habitat. All bull trout critical habitat within the Summit Prairie allotment is considered 

unoccupied. 14.5 miles (49%) of bull trout critical habitat is within the Summit Prairie allotment 

of the total 35 miles in the project area. Crane Rock unit is the only unit that does not have bull 

trout critical habitat resources. South Summit contains a water gap on Summit Creek that is 

approximately 20 feet wide and this unit will not be discussed. Summit Creek is also the only 

allotment in the Project Area that is approximately entirely contained in a watershed. 

Appendix A part 1 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream

reaches within the Summit Prairie allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel 

potential. The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in Appendix A part 2 based 

on vegetation and channel characteristics documented to not be in balance by the PFC 2007 

surveys, MIM and PIBO data, and Carex Working Group Report 2012. Specific indicators 

related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement based on their repeatability and relationship to other 

specific indicators for bull trout critical habitat as well as existing monitoring that is currently 

ongoing in these areas and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 172

livestock grazing. The following descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water 

temperature and bull trout critical habitat describe the existing condition by unit for streams 

within the Summit Prairie allotment and a more detailed description as well as the desired 

condition for stream reaches within the specific units can be found in Appendix A part 1.

Summit Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest 

Roads Analysis (MNF 2004b). Findings from the report include:

 The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (RML) 1-5 and 1-2. 

 The risk rating for total road density within the 200 foot of perennial and intermittent 

streams was extreme for both RML 1-5 and 1-2. 

 The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated high. 

Note: A 1⁄4 mile long buck and pole riparian exclosure will be built in the Little Logan Unit and will serve as a 

reference in which to compare the vegetative, channel characteristics and complexity indicators to.

Riparian exclosures would serve as a reference for determining rates of recovery and movement 

towards desired conditions within Appendix A part 1 and Appendix A part 2. When livestock are 

managed appropriately recovery rates should approximate those within areas where no livestock 

use is occurring. If not adaptive management strategies would be implemented. 

Table A-9: PFC Stream Reaches on Summit Creek with Unit, Rating and Miles

Reach Unit Rating Miles

Summit Creek 1

Sagehen

FAR NA 0.3

Summit Creek 2 FAR DN 2.43

Summit Creek 2 (exclosure) PFC 0.24

Summit Creek 3 PFC 0.65

Summit Creek 4 FAR UP 1.1

Summit Creek 5 Little Logan FAR UP 5.03

Summit Creek 6 Summit Rock PFC 1.97

Summit Creek 7 North Summit PFC 0.97

Summit Creek 8 Summit Rock PFC 1.74

West Fork Summit Reach 1 West Summit FAR DN 0.4

West Fork Summit Reach 2 Summit Rock FAR DN 0.81

Table A-10: Vegetative Type on Summit Creek with Habitat Type and Reach 

Habitat Type Probable Historic Vegetation Reaches

Constrained rocky reaches Alder-dominated thickets along stream Reaches 1, 3

Broad Valleys with Mesic 

Terraces

Extensive willow-dominated thickets along 

stream in mosaics with grasslands, aspen groves 

and cottonwood groves 

Reaches 2,4,5,7

Wetlands with Lateral or 

Hypothetic Flows 

Sedge meadows (often with willows or alders 

along creek banks) Reach 6

Headwater Reaches Conifer-dominated with scattered alders and 

shrubs along stream Reach 8

Vegetation
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 173

Four major habitat types indicate four likely riparian vegetative communities along Summit 

Creek as you transition from the top of the watershed downward. 

Reaches 1 and 3 are constrained, rocky reaches where alder species are dense. The existing 

conditions for shrub density and stabilizing plant species are very similar to desired conditions

(Appendix A, part 1). 

Reaches 2, 4, 5 and 7 are broad valleys where willow cover would be extensive. Currently, these 

reaches have plant cover that is dominated by sedges, rushes, mesic grasses and forbs. The 

herbaceous plant community has been narrowing the channel’s form and developing into 

sedge/rush plant communities. Reaches 4 and 7 are closer to their desired stabilizing plant cover 

than Reaches 2 and 5. Sites for new willow establishment may become limited as the sedge/rush 

plant community continues to improve. Localized areas where scour and aggradation occurs will 

be likely areas for willow germination. However, the willow density levels in these reaches 

compared to the reference levels suggest there is a large departure. The willow species are 

present, but are being maintained in a 0-3 foot height category and are not able to be expressed 

into a height class that is above ungulate browse lines (approximately 4.5 feet for deer, 5 feet for 

cattle and 7 feet for elk). The lack of shrubs decreases the effective shade that can help keep the 

water temperatures cool. The MIM site on Reach 2 has observed a decrease in woody browse 

use leading to an increase in the number of seedlings and young woody plants from 2004 to 

2010. An exclosure occurs on Reach 2 that has abundant age and height classes of different 

willow species and has beaver activity. 

Reach 6 occurs where a groundwater upwelling or spring emerge into the bottom of the 

floodplain. This reach is dominated by sedge meadows because of the abundance of soil 

moisture. The existing stabilizing plant species and effective shade are very similar to the 

desired levels (Appendix A Part 1). The effective shade is largely provided by the channel form 

and the herbaceous floodplain vegetation. 

Reach 8 occurs in the most upstream extent of Summit Creek and is a headwaters reach. The 

overstory is dominated by conifer species with alders scattered throughout the reach. The 

existing stabilizing plant species and effective shade are very similar to the desired levels 

(Appendix A Part 1).

West Fork of Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2 have potential vegetative communities of 

sedge/rush/grass with some alder. The existing vegetative community is a Kentucky bluegrass 

community with isolated sedges and rushes. Reach 2 has an conifer overstory near the upstream 

most extent of the reach. 

Channel Characteristics

Reaches 1 and 3 are Rosgen B channel types largely because the landforms produce constrained, 

rocky reaches. Reach 3 has pockets of Rosgen C channel types scattered amongst the B because 

of localized areas where the valley bottom is wider. Rosgen B channel types are commonly 

inherently stable to livestock effects because the streambed is armored with cobbles and gravels. 

Summit Creek Reaches 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and West Fork Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2 are broad 

valleys that are low gradient and commonly have highly meandering channels across the valley 

bottom. All the reaches are currently in a Rosgen C channel type with a potential of a Rosgen E 

channel type in all but Reach 4. Being departed to a Rosgen C channel type is typical in 

livestock grazing areas because of hoof action and the loss of vegetative cover to dissipate the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 174

stream energy and the channel is over widened as a result. Rosgen E channel types have 

increased bank storage of water and a tighter channel form to maintain water temperatures and 

not accelerate heating losses. Vertical stability issues in the form of headcuts were observed in 

West Fork Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2. The MIM DMA on Reach 2 has statistically 

improved for bank stability from 2004 to 2010. Reach 5 has two PIBO DMAs that have 

measured a statistically significant change in the bankfull width/depth or channel form between 

2001, 2006 and 2011, suggesting sufficient vegetation is catching sediment and the banks are 

building. 

Reach 8 has a Rosgen B channel type similar to Reaches 1 and 3. However, it is a first order 

stream and does not receive the streamflows or sediment supply Reaches 1 and 3 does. Energy is 

largely dissipated in Reach 8 through large rock, down wood and step pool sequences. 

Water temperatures are coldest in Reach 8 where they emerge from groundwater and heat up as 

your progress towards the Malheur River. Site 1 is towards the top of Reach 8 with an average 

7DADM of 54.8°F at Summit 1 heating up to 78.1°F at Summit 2 and cooling down to 66.9°F at 

Summit 3. Summit Creek heats up approximately 23°F between sites Summit 1 and 2 and cools 

down by 11°F from sites Summit 2 and 3. Reach 6 has numerous springs that drain into the 

floodplain that cool the water considerably before flowing through Summit 3. Summit Creek 

heats up approximately 6°F between sites Summit 3 and 4 and stays relatively continuous 

through sites Summit 4 and 5 in the Little Logan unit. The average seven day average daily max 

was 72.5°F at Summit 5 and 78.7°F at Summit 7, heating up approximately 6°F. Site 1 is the 

only site to meet the INFISH standard for adult holding. All sites did not meet the INFISH 

spawning and rearing or TMDL standard. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently 14.5 miles of Summit Creek are unoccupied, spawning and rearing Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Currently suitable water temperatures for spawning and rearing within Summit Creek are located 

within the headwaters Reaches 8 and above. Within reach 5 there are some spring and 

groundwater upwelling.

Reaches 1 and 2 are located within a ponderosa pine/lodgepole pine/alder system. They are 

considered constrained rocky reaches where large wood plays an important role in forming pools 

and maintaining bull trout habitat. These reaches are the lowest in the Summit Creek system and 

are the closest in proximity to the Malheur River. Primary utilization of these reaches by bull 

trout would be as migratory corridors, and possibly over wintering habitat.

Reaches 3, 4 and 5 are primarily in a meadow system that lacks adequate vegetation for shade 

(riparian hardwoods) and undercut bank formations which would be the primary cover for bull 

trout within these reaches with limited input of lodge pole pine. Additionally, channel incision 

and widening within these reaches and some straightening has occurred which also has reduced 

the streams capability for forming pools, undercut banks, and deposition (bank building). The 

potential channel characteristics for the reaches suggest sinuosity and the ability of the stream to 

access its floodplain are critical elements for recovery of this system. These factors have reduced 

the potential for Summit Creek in these reaches to provide juvenile rearing, spawning, and 

migratory habitat. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 175

Reaches 5 and 6 would primarily be used for migratory behavior by transitory bull trout

currently because of the existing warm stream temperatures. However with improvement in 

existing condtion cold influxes within reaches 5 and 6 may provide adequate rearing habitat. 

The components of quality migratory habitat include quality pools that are refugia for migrating 

fish and the absence of thermal barriers related to water temperature. A potential culvert barrier 

for adults and juvenile bull trout exists within reach 8 of Summit Creek which may limit access 

to cold water thermal refugia for juvenile bull trout. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, grazing would not be authorized within the Summit Prairie, 

Logan Valley, and McCoy allotments and the permit cancelled. Direct effects related to livestock 

grazing would not occur under this alternative resulting in improvements in riparian vegetation, 

channel characteristics, bull trout CH, and water temperatures within the three allotments 

following removal of livestock 2 years after the permit cancellation. Recovery objectives 

(Appendix A, part 2) and desired condition (Appendix A, part 1) would likely be achieved within 

the time frames prescribed for many of the reaches (Appendix A, part 2) if the existing condition

is related to livestock grazing. The rate of recovery within this alternative would have the 

greatest extent of all alternatives for recovery. Riparian areas that have concentrated wildlife use 

would have limited riparian hardwood recovery and thus would have a slower recovery than 

areas where wildlife exclosures are proposed. Improvement in riparian hardwood condition may 

be slower than that of areas where exclosures are proposed because of the effects related to 

fencing limiting wildlife use. 

Grazing would continue as permitted under the current permit for 2 years following notification 

of cancellation of the permit. The effects from another 2 years of grazing under the current 

permitted use are summarized in chapter 2 alternatives considered but eliminated from detail 

study (Current Management). Reaches of Summit Creek are not expected to improve at a rate 

sufficient for the desired conditions in Appendix A, part 1 under the existing management and 

therefore the existing condition within this area is expected to remain the same for those two 

years. 

Table A-11: Summary of Expected Recovery for PFC Ratings by Unit Based on the Actions 

Proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 

5 years

PFC in 

10 years

Desired Condition in 

10 years

Lake Creek

Bosenberg 8.64 >12PFC >>13PFC Y

McCoy 

Creek 5.66 >PFC >>PFC Y

Logan 

Valley

Corral 

Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y

 12 > : Shows improvements in bull trout critical habitat indicators moving toward PFC 13 >> : Shows continued improvements in bull trout critical habitat indicators near or beyond PFC
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 176

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 

5 years

PFC in 

10 years

Desired Condition in 

10 years

East Lake 

Creek 0.33 >PFC >>PFC Y

Lower 

Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y

North Big 

Creek 0.73 >PFC >>PFC Y

South Big 

Creek 0.62 >PFC >>PFC Y

West 

Bosenberg 0.13 PFC >>PFC Y

West Lake 

Creek 0.95 PFC >PFC Y

McCoy 

Creek

Cow Camp 0.51 >PFC >>PFC Y

North Fork 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y

Starvation 0.29 >PFC >>PFC Y

Starvation 0.21 PFC >PFC Y

Summit 

Prairie

Little 

Logan 5.03 PFC >PFC Y

North 

Summit 0.97 >PFC >>PFC Y

Sagehen

2.75 N14 PFC N

1.10 PFC >PFC Y

0.89 >PFC >>PFC Y

South 

Summit 0.04 PFC PFC N

Summit 

Rock

0.81 N PFC N

3.71 >PFC >>PFC Y

1.00 >PFC >>PFC Y

West 

Summit 0.39 N PFC N

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects includes all of the Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit 

Creek, Bosenberg Creek – Malheur River Subwatersheds (to the confluence of Bosenberg and 

the Malheur River) in the Headwaters Malheur River Watershed. All activities in Appendix C of 

the DEIS have been considered for their cumulative impacts on riparian habitat and aquatic

dependent species. These cumulative effects geographical area upstream extent was selected 

because activities that occur upstream of the project area up to the drainage divide may be 

transported by runoff into the project area. The downstream extent was selected because most 

materials flowing out of the project area should deposit before leaving the subwatershed. The 

cumulative effect for past actions has been described in the existing condition for this analysis 

area. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and foreseeable activities that 

may contribute impacts to riparian condition and aquatic species. 

 14 N: Indicates not at PFC or Desired Condition within defined time period 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 177

The subwatersheds that contain the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit Creek 

allotments vary in condition depending on the land management designation and the primary 

activities that have occurred within those spaces. The upper portions of Lake Creek and Big 

Creek are in wilderness areas with little human caused effects. Riparian vegetation and aquatic 

habitat conditions are properly functioning in these areas to the extent of natural variability (w/o 

anthropogenic influence). The mid to lower portions of these subwatersheds have been affected 

by a variety of human-caused impacts, but mostly grazing, timber harvest, and road 

development. Private land occurs in about the mid portion of all the subwatersheds. Livestock 

grazing and agriculture are the primary uses of those private lands. 

The No Action alternative would not add any cumulative effects to the existing riparian 

vegetation, channel characteristics and complexity, water temperature and Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat in the project area. The current livestock grazing activities on the Logan Valley, Lake 

Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments would not occur and areas where current 

grazing management impact fish and their habitat would stop. Grazing access points that result in 

bank trampling and streamside vegetation removal would no longer occur and these areas would 

improve, leading to improved aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. Because no direct or

indirect effects would occur, there would be no cumulative effects. The No action alternative 

would result in the greatest extent of recovery of all alternatives when considered cumulatively 

for riparian areas whose existing condition is primarily attributable to livestock grazing. The rate 

of recovery for no livestock grazing including exclosures would be similar to those areas with 

the appropriate livestock management. 

The following tables depict the expected PFC rating by miles for each stream reach within each 

allotment and unit based on the existing condition, the potential for recovery towards or 

achievement of desired conditions (Appendix A, part 1) and the relevant actions proposed in 

Alternative 1.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives

Livestock Grazing – All Allotments

There are three primary ways in which livestock grazing may affect riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality. The three ways include browse 

utilization, hoof shearing/compaction, and riparian herbaceous plant utilization. An increase in 

any of these 3 factors and its effect on riparian vegetation and channel characteristics are 

synthesized below. Likewise a decrease in any of these factors would have the opposite effect. 

The intensity, duration, season of use, and periods of rest associated with these effects vary by 

alternative as well as the standards (endpoint indicators) for specific units in each of the 

alternatives (Appendix E). Additionally, the effects of increasing any of the three values is also 

dependent on the existing condition (PFC rating, CWG 2012, USFS stream surveys) of the 

riparian area and its resiliency to these effects and other disturbances. For example, these 

general effects would be lessened annually or not measureable if a site is at greater than PFC and 

the existing condition is very close to the desired condition. If a reach is below PFC and there is 

large departure from desired condition, then the annual effects will be exacerbated. This is 

because the vegetative and channel attributes are not resilient enough to provide channel 

stability. The general effects of the primary actions related to livestock grazing and their effects 

on riparian hardwoods, channel characteristics, and herbaceous plants in riparian areas are listed 

below. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 178

 Stubble Height: 6 inches (typically 4-8 inches based on season of use and similarity to 

desired conditions); stubble height has been widely used as an annual monitoring

indicator for adaptive management to evaluate livestock vegetation use in riparian areas

and provides information useful in determining the degree to which livestock grazing is 

influencing the achievement of desired conditions (streams dominated by herbaceous 

hydrophytic vegetation). Stubble height has been identified as being related to the 

physiological health and vigor of individual plants/communities as well as the ability of 

vegetation to protect streambanks and filter sediment during overbank flows, although by 

itself it is generally not sufficient to establish a relationship between grazing and riparian 

vegetative conditions. Research is limited, but the literature generally suggests 4-6 

inches of residual stubble height allows for improved riparian grazing management and 

provides for adequate riparian protection. Clary and Leininger (2000) conducted studies 

on stubble height and its ability to improve riparian habitats and to capture and stabilize 

sediment. They concluded that stubble heights of 4-6 inches appear to stabilize the 

greatest amount of sediment. Boyd and Svejcar (2004) found similar results, reporting 

adequate regrowth occurred on most sites tested in Oregon when 4-6 inch stubble height 

remained. Clary (1999) states that by maintaining stubble heights of 4-5.5 inches

allowed for streambank recovery. It is acknowledged; however, that in some instances 3 

inches may provide adequate riparian protection while in other instances 6 to 8 inches 

may be required to limit streambank trampling or to reduce willow browsing. Grazing 

use indicator values are intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired 

conditions, resiliency of the site being monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity 

of livestock use (UI Stubble Height Review Team Report 2004, Clary and Leininger 

2000, Clary et al. 1996, Hall and Bryant 1995, PACFISH Enclosure B – Recommended 

Livestock Grazing Guidelines 1995, Clary and Webster 1989). This annual use indicator 

should be used in combination with long-term monitoring of vegetation and stream 

channel attributes

 Bank Alteration: 20% (10-30% depending on measurement method used and on 

resiliency of site); like stubble height, streambank alteration is another annual or shortterm indicator used to evaluate the potential effects of livestock grazing in riparian areas, 

primarily any potential effects to long-term streambank stability and channel shape. It is 

used as a tool to assess the intensity of grazing along streambanks and to determine when 

such intensity may be appropriate or deemed too excessive. It can also prove useful in 

determining the cause-and-effect relationships between livestock grazing and stream 

channel conditions and whether management changes are needed for the following year. 

Streams are naturally dynamic and have the ability to repair a certain amount of annual 

disturbance each year (the amount is variable based upon stream gradient, substrate 

composition, streambank materials, vegetation type and abundance, channel geometry, 

flow regime, etc.). The literature is not extensive but generally suggests 10-30% 

streambank alteration is consistent with providing adequate riparian protection, and is 

intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired conditions, resiliency of the 

site being monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock use (Burton et al. 

2011, Heitke et al. 2008, Bengeyfield 2006, Cowley 2002, Bengeyfield and Svoboda 

1998). Bengeyfield (2006) found that when streambank alteration measured 15-20%, 

width to depth ratios showed an improving trend. He also noted that the vegetation 

improvements kept pace with the physical changes. This annual use indicator should be 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 179

used in combination with long-term monitoring of streambank stability and channel 

geometry. In addition, it is worth noting that research is continuing to be conducted on 

the various ways that can be used to monitor for and measure actual streambank 

alteration (including MIM, which the District is presently using) to account for accuracy 

of results, reduction of variability among observers, and the resources necessary to carry 

out such measures.

 Mean incidence of use on woody species: 40% (30-50% based on season of use and 

similarity to desired conditions); Woody vegetation is an important component of many 

stream/riparian ecosystems as they provide a strong root system, filter sediments, and 

provide stream shade and habitat diversity. Woody species browse is a short-term 

indicator of grazing utilization of woody species. Studies have shown that it is quite 

difficult to accurately measure utilization of many riparian woody species, but that a 

general estimate of overall browsing of woody plants is important for determining the 

success of various grazing management prescriptions (detailed rule sets for describing 

classes of woody species use help with consistency). Overall, there is generally a 

reduction in seed production of woody plants that receive more than 55 percent 

utilization, and when heavy and severe utilization levels are sustained over time overall 

plant health, including size and root strength, is reduced. Although the literature is not 

extensive, it generally suggests light to moderate allowable use on woody species (~30-

50%) in order to maintain or improve woody plant communities; and is intended to vary 

by site depending on similarity to desired conditions, resiliency of the site being 

monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock use (Winward 2000, 

Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements – USDI BLM 1996b, PACFISH 

Enclosure B – Recommended Livestock Grazing Guidelines 1995). It has also been 

suggested that a preference change, from grasses and sedges to shrubs, be used as a 

trigger to manage livestock in order to protect sprouts and young woody species (Hall 

and Bryant 1995). This annual use indicator should be used in combination with longterm monitoring indicators of woody species age class and greenline composition to help 

determine the health of woody plant communities. The overall health of these plants can 

be a substantial factor influencing streambank stability, aquatic habitat, as well as water 

quality. Furthermore, this information can assist managers in determining whether 

management actions are making progress towards desired objectives or if adjustments are 

needed. 

The following numbered items depict the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation and channel 

characteristics when not managed appropriately or the existing condition is FAR with a large 

departure from desired conditions and lack resiliency to grazing impacts. Riparian areas that are 

closer to desired condition may not demonstrate these responses when managed appropriately 

and sufficient resiliency is present (minimum of PFC) therefore effects may not be measurable 

annually.

General effects from an increase in browse utilization 

 decrease in riparian hardwood height and density 

 decrease in percent effective shade

 increase of existing water temperature

 decrease in terrestrial insect input
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 180

 decrease of wetted floodplain

General effects from an increase in stream bank hoof shearing/compaction

 decrease in undercut banks

 increase in bankfull width to depth ratio

 decrease in residual pool depth and quality pools

 decrease in channel complexity/decrease in greenline to greenline width

 increase in sediment and unstable banks

 contraction of wetted floodplain

General effects from an increase in riparian plant utilization (stubble height)

 decrease in terrestrial insect input

 decrease in hydric plant vigor

 contraction of wetted floodplain

 decrease in stable banks

Relationship of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Effects to Bull trout from livestock grazing can be in the form of direct impacts to individual fish 

or indirectly through habitat disturbance. Direct disturbance includes trampling on bull trout

redds, resulting in injury or death to incubating embryos or alevin; disturbing holding or 

spawning adults, forcing them to alter their behavior and seek cover; or disturbing rearing 

juveniles, forcing them to alter their behavior and seek cover. Bull trout critical habitat 

designated as occupied within the project area would have livestock removed prior to August 

15th to prevent direct impacts to spawning adult bull trout and bull trout redds. 

Grazing can have a number of detrimental effects on riparian and aquatic habitat which includes 

reduction of herbaceous plant cover and litter, disturbing and compacting soils, reducing water 

infiltration rates, and increasing soil erosion (Belsky et al. 1999). When riparian habitat is 

negatively affected, the survival and growth of listed fish species, sensitive species, and water 

quality may also be negatively affected. 

Riparian Vegetation

Shrub Development

Livestock grazing can result in reduced recruitment of riparian shrubs (density), and a reduction 

in height classes as well as age classes. Willows require at least 2 years of leader growth before 

being able to set seed. When leaders are hedged each year, recruitment does not occur. A large 

portion of riparian woody browse occurs on riparian shrubs less than 5 feet tall that are 

accessible to livestock and wildlife. Livestock grazing of riparian shrubs in the fall often 

extenuates the use of woody riparian plants. Shrub height can directly affect shade which 

impacts water temperature. Also shrubs are an important source for terrestrial insects which are 

a source of food for bull trout and other fish species (Saunders and Fausch 2007). Terrestrial 

invertebrate prey that come directly from riparian vegetation have been shown to account for 50-

85% of trout diets during summer months (Utz et al 2007) and provide about 50% of their annual 

budget (Kawaguchi and Nakano 2001; Baxter et al 2005; Sweka and Hartman 2008). Browse 

and herbaceous utilization levels that limit the amount of detrital matter into streams may also 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 181

impact aquatic invertebrates that are dependent on detrital matter (Saunders 2006, Saunders and 

Fausch 2007b). Riparian shrub stems provide roughness and resistance to high flows. Their root 

system creates a matrix with herbaceous plants and increases bank stability and holding the 

channel’s shape in a stable form. 

Stabilizing plant cover

Livestock grazing can alter ecological status rating or maintain an early seral state. Hydric 

species such as sedges and rushes are often preferred by livestock. These hydric species 

contribute to a higher green line stability rating and wetland indicator rating. They also often are 

the first green vegetation immediately adjacent to the stream or the greenline. Hydric species 

also include the first colonizers of eroded banks and depositional areas facilitating a reduction in 

greenline to greenline width followed by channel narrowing. Early, mid, and late seral stages 

differ in their resilience to impacts from grazing and their ability to repair damage from one year 

to the next. Riparian areas that are in an early seral or mid seral state are susceptible to yearly 

high flow events and 5 year flow events which may result in a reset of improving riparian 

condition. These types of riparian areas are usually rated below PFC. Streams with adequate 

stabilizing plant cover build banks through deposition of sediment during high flows. 

Shade

Livestock grazing can impact shade through a reduction in height of herbaceous cover, decrease 

in bankfull width/depth and decreases in height and density of riparian shrubs. They can also 

reduce hydric vegetation heights by reducing plant vigor. Reduced plant vigor can affect the 

channel’s shape and stability. Riparian shrubs adjacent to the channel can provide microclimate 

effects that can provide cooler day time temperatures (Anderson et al 2007; Chen et al. 1999). 

Overhanging sedges and rushes provide shade to the stream and hiding cover for fish. In 

meadow systems with meandering, low gradient stream channels, herbaceous vegetation may be 

the only shade-providing plants.

Channel Characteristics

The streams that are discussed are largely alluvial and develop and function through continual 

adjustments from high flows and sediment loads coming in. Livestock grazing can result in 

changes in hydrology and channel complexity by direct bank alteration and a reduction in 

stabilizing bank cover and riparian hardwood shrub density. Bank stability decreases with a 

reduction stabilizing bank cover and a reduction in riparian plant vigor. Reductions in riparian 

hardwood density can also decrease bank stability. Channel can become overwidened and 

susceptible to erosional process resulting in channel incision when these vegetative components 

are reduced. Depositional processes can be accelerated facilitating pool filling reducing residual 

pool depth and the number of quality pools. Floodplain connectivity is reduced when channel 

incision or over widening occurs. The effects are manifested in the indicators of bankfull width 

to depth, average bankfull width, and Rosgen channel type. 

Water temperature and Aquatic Species

Water temperature is related to several of the indicators discussed above. Livestock grazing can 

impact shade by reducing overhead cover in the form of riparian hardwood shrub height and 

densities thus increasing solar heating. Floodplain connectivity is related to channel type, 

geomorphology, and riparian vegetation. Hyphoreic exchange (cold ground water) is related to 

floodplain connectivity therefore a reduction in riparian vegetation function and maintenance of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 182

an over-widened stream channel from livestock bank alteration and reduction in bank stability 

also affects cold groundwater influence within a reach. Pool depth and the number of quality 

pools also interact with stream temperature acting to mediate stream temperatures during the 

summer and winter months (Ebersole et al 2001). Mediation of winter temperatures by deep 

pools was found to be important for bull trout over wintering (Jakober 1995). Winter movement 

by bull trout was found to be more extensive in mid elevation streams where frequent freezing 

and thawing led to variable surface ice cover and frequent super cooling (Jakober et al 1998). 

Excessive fine sediment can result in filling of pools within a reach. Current climate model 

predictions for the Pacific Northwest suggest less snowpack followed by more rain on snow 

events. This suggests more freezing/thawing events in mid elevation streams similar to streams 

in the project area. 

Bull trout critical habitat relates to the indicators discussed above in several ways. The primary 

elements are stream temperature, shade, pool quality, and suitable spawning substrate. All of 

which vary in importance based on life history and stage-migratory, spawning, rearing. These 

elements are often not found within the same locale therefore migratory behavior or the ability to 

move between the distinct habitats based on life stage is critical for continuation of the 

population and its ability to endure natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Temperature may act 

as a thermal barrier to this type of behavior for bull trout. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Corral Holding Unit

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be 

maintained on Bosenberg Creek within the Corral Holding unit. The indirect effects of livestock 

grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperature and Bull Trout

Critical habitat would be maintenance of condition for the small section downstream of the 

fenced out riparian area. Inside the fenced area, minimal grazing would occur and there would 

be an improvement in condition. This exclosed section is approximately 0.1 miles. The woody 

browse would further increase the density and height classes of riparian shrubs across the entire 

reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate movement towards of improvements in the 

bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, it benefits Bull Trout critical 

habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired 

condition within 10 years. This reach would likely maintain PFC and potentially move towards 

desired condition in 5 years. 

Flat Field Unit

The direct effects of the unit boundary changes and fence removal and conversion would be no 

livestock use on Big Creek in the Flat Field unit. The indirect effect of no livestock grazing

would benefit riparian resources, channel characteristics, water temperature and critical habitat. 

The ground disturbing impacts removal of 0.3 miles would be not measurable. Any effects from 

conversion of 0.3 miles electric fence to permanent let down would be minimized through 

following design criteria. Excluding livestock grazing from 0.13 miles of critical habitat on Big 

Creek in the Flat Field unit would move it towards a rating of PFC or beyond. 

Lower Field Unit

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be 

maintained on Bosenberg Creek within the Lower Field unit. The indirect effects of livestock 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 183

grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperature and Bull Trout

Critical habitat would have a continued improvement. Bosenberg Creek is on the far east corner 

of the unit and an irrigated meadow produces abundant vegetation and provides livestock water 

through the grazing season. The permittee actively salts in the northwest corner and these 

management strategies likely are successful for providing recovery for Bosenberg Creek. Sedge 

and rush plant communities would continue to develop dense root masses and narrow the 

channel. Improvements in vegetative attributes would improve the bankfull width/depth, 

undercut banks and shade values in the reach. Thus, it benefits bull trout critical habitat. Bull 

trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition 

within 10 years. This reach would likely attain PFC in 5 years. 

West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in a reduction in hoof 

shearing of streambanks, reduction in woody browse use, and an increase in hydric plant vigor 

within Big Creek. This site did not have any data collected on it other than field observations, but 

was in good condition likely rated at PFC. A photopoint would be monitored in this 14 acre unit 

to ensure there’s an increase in shrubs and wetland obligate plant communities. The adaptive 

management strategy is additional rest if sufficient movement towards or achievement of desired 

conditions (Appendix A, part 1) has not occurred following the 3-5 years of rest. 

The indirect effects of reducing livestock effects would likely result in an increase in shrub 

density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. It would also maintain potential channel type

(Da5/6) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pastures would likely move towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 1 and Appendix A, part 

2 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality 

pools. As a result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in 

bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade, 

cooler water temperatures are expected. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a 

result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel 

characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would 

facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives Appendix A part 1. The use 

levels identified in Appendix E for the West Bosenberg unit, resting 3 years out of 10, 

monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of recovery trajectory) as well as the 

adaptive management strategy (additional rest) would ensure movement towards desired 

conditions following re-initiation of livestock grazing.

The 0.13 miles reach is identified at PFC in 2012 and is expected to improve beyond a rating of 

PFC within the next 10 years based on the management actions within the West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture. Any improvement beyond a rating of PFC is directly related to improvements 

in bull trout critical habitat. Annual use levels would facilitate maintenance of or improvement 

beyond a rating of PFC within the West Bosenberg Riparian pasture. The application of the 

adaptive management strategy (additional rest) for the West Bosenberg riparian if sufficient 

progress towards or achievement of desired conditions (Appendix A, part 1) has not been made 

following 3-5 years of rest would benefit this reach. This would ensure that movement towards 

desired vegetative and channel characteristics are continued. 

McCoy Allotment

Cow Camp Riparian Exclosure
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 184

Livestock grazing would be excluded from Lake Creek Reach 2 because of the Lake Creek 

Fence and Water-Gap and the Lake Creek Willow Gallery Fence. These two fence projects are 

discussed in Chapter 1. Direct effects of herbivory, browsing and bank trampling would be 

reduced. Indirect effects of riparian and channel condition would be improved through the 

reduction of livestock use. Shade would be improved as the herbaceous vegetation becomes 

established into and decreasing the channel’s width. Water temperatures would likely 

experience less solar radiation. As the vegetation, channel and water temperatures improve, fish 

habitat would also be improved. The active beaver colony would likely expand and provide 

increased groundwater recharge. The beaver activity would also improve channel complexity for 

further improved fish habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian exclosure would be 

moving towards desired condition within 10 years. This reach would likely remain at PFC. 

Starvation Unit

The Starvation unit (Lake Creek Reach 1 and Crooked Creek Reach 1) would be removed from 

the McCoy Creek allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. 

A separate environmental analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin 

allotment. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Action Alternatives

The area considered for cumulative effects includes all of the Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit 

Creek, Bosenberg Creek – Malheur River Subwatersheds (to the confluence of Bosenberg and 

the Malheur River) in the Headwaters Malheur River Watershed. All activities in Appendix C of 

the EIS have been considered for their cumulative impacts on riparian habitat and aquatic

dependent species. These cumulative effects geographical area upstream extent was selected 

because activities that occur upstream of the project area up to the drainage divide may be 

transported by runoff into the project area. The downstream extent was selected because most 

materials flowing out of the project area should deposit before leaving the subwatershed. The 

cumulative effect for past actions has been described in detail in the existing condition for this 

analysis area. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and foreseeable activities 

that may contribute impacts to riparian condition and aquatic species. 

The subwatersheds that contain the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit Creek 

allotments vary in condition depending on the land management designation. The upper portions 

of Lake Creek and Big Creek are in wilderness areas with little human caused effects. Riparian 

vegetation and aquatic habitat conditions are properly functioning in these areas. The mid to 

lower portions of these subwatersheds have been affected by a variety of human-caused impacts, 

but mostly grazing, timber harvest, and road development. Private land occurs in about the mid 

portion of all the subwatersheds. Livestock grazing and agriculture are the primary uses of those 

private lands. 

Past Activities

Past activities such as legacy livestock grazing and dispersed camping in riparian areas have 

influenced riparian plant communities. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, 

wildland fire, and dispersed camping in riparian areas have influenced channel characteristics 

and complexity. Past actions relevant to water temperature and aquatic habitat resources are 

water withdrawals for irrigation, timber harvest, road construction, wildland fire livestock 

grazing and stocking of nonnative fish. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 185

Livestock grazing (prior to adoption of the Forest Plan in 1990) likely influenced riparian 

vegetation in the greatest extent and magnitude of all past actions. Legacy livestock grazing has 

affected plant vigor, potential area of wetland obligate communities, density and height classes 

of riparian shrubs that have strongly influenced effective shade and thus water temperatures. 

These changes have affected the recruitment and maintenance of the riparian vegetative 

attributes. Dispersed camping from recreation uses in the project area had minor effects on 

aquatic and riparian function. There are a few trails that cross streams resulting in localized 

sediment delivery and a few dispersed recreation sites that have disturbed riparian vegetation. 

Legacy livestock grazing has resulted in direct effects to fish species when they accessed 

occupied streams and may have trampled redds, resulting in altering normal behaviors and 

mortalities. It has also resulted in channels with wider bankfull widths that increase solar 

radiation. Legacy effects from browsing on stunted riparian shrubs have decreased the amount 

of effective shade available. 

40 timber sales have occurred within the project area since 1972 (40 years). These included 

multiple harvest prescriptions see Appendix C. Past timber harvest likely resulted in compacted 

upland soils, leading to increased runoff and sediment yield. This can change the patterns of 

runoff from large areas in watersheds by changing vegetation characteristics. INFISH standards 

and RHCA buffers have been applied for timber management since 1995. INFISH limited 

silvicultural practices to those that are needed to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where 

needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives, and that avoid adverse effects on inland 

native fish. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvests are required to meet the Forest Plan as 

amendment by Amendment 29 and INFISH.

Past timber harvesting required an extensive road network throughout most of the project areas. 

Roads are impervious and have changed runoff flow paths and processes. Roads adjacent to the 

stream likely constrain floodplain processes. Constrained roads may have additional stream 

energy that may erode streambanks and reduce bank stability and over widen the bankfull 

width/depth ratio. Ditch relief culverts in moderately steep roads adjacent to the stream are 

likely connected to the stream, yielding sediment into the water course directly. Roads tend to 

concentrate runoff, resulting in higher peak flows than would occur without roads. Fine 

sediments from road surfaces also enter stream channels at road crossings, increasing turbidity, 

substrate embeddedness and substrate composition. The vast majority of road crossings at 

streams are culverts. Poorly designed culverts can be barriers to juvenile or adult fish passage. 

Since the 1990’s, road impacts have been reduced due to past project activities which have 

included road closure and decommissioning. Approximately 8.0 miles of road in RHCAs were 

closed or decommissioned in the last decade allowing some roads to re-vegetate and stabilize.

Past fires have occurred within the last 30 years in the wilderness and headwater portions of Big 

Creek, Summit Creek, and Bosenberg subwatersheds (Upper Malheur watershed) as well as 

stand replacement fires in Upper Big Creek and Lake Creek subwatersheds (Appendix C 

Cumulative activities considered). These fires resulted in large sediment plumes into lower 

downstream sections of stream, reduction in overstory and shade and likely warmer stream 

temperatures than prior to the fires. Recovery of the riparian hardwoods and herbaceous 

component has occurred in these area and the systems are primarily controlled by downed LWD 

as a result of the fires. However, recruitment of LWD would be delayed due to past fires, 

conifers have yet to reach a height where they provide the shade once present, and streambanks 

have formed, but are composed of erodible organic matter which is highly susceptible to impacts 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 186

from livestock hoof action. The effects of removal of the conifer overstory from fire can be 

expected to recover within 90 years post fire. Recruitment of new LWD may take even longer 

depending on natural disturbances such as windfalls or bug kills. Thus these streams would be 

limited in LWD for the foreseeable future. 

Water withdrawals for irrigation occur on private lands in the Lake Creek subwatershed. Past, 

ongoing and foreseeable water withdrawals would continue and is managed by the State of 

Oregon. Water temperatures heat up on Lake Creek from site 2 to 3 and 4 increase by 17 and 15 

degrees, respectively. This water flows through a series of irrigation ditches that warms the 

water before releasing it back into the creek. Two head gates with fish screens have been 

installed within the last 15 years. 

High Lake above the project area has been stocked with non-native brook trout that now occur in 

some streams. Brook trout are known to compete with native trout for habitat and can interbreed 

resulting in less fit offspring. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were introduced to the Malheur 

Basin in the early 1900's. The distribution of brook trout overlaps all areas occupied by bull 

trout in Lake Creek and most areas in Big Creek and its tributaries (Buckman et al. 1992). 

Hybridization and competitive displacement is possible due to the presence of brook trout. 

Hybridization between bull trout and brook trout in the subbasin has been documented 

(Buckman et al. 1992; L. Schwabe, BPT, personal communication). Brook trout are also a threat 

to bull trout because of their highly aggressive nature. Improvements in riparian vegetation, 

channel characteristics, water temperatures may improve the competitiveness of bull trout within 

the Malheur basin especially for those populations that exhibit migratory behavior and may grow 

to a larger size than local brook trout.

Ongoing Activities

Ongoing actions related to improvements in livestock management and riparian conditions are 

listed in Appendix C. Ongoing actions in the Project Area that are expected to improve the 

condition of riparian and aquatic resources include the following. The 0.3 mile West Fork 

Summit Creek fence and water gap would temporarily exclude livestock in the West Summit 

Recovery Unit on West Fork Summit Reach 1 until the condition improves. A 0.25 mile buck 

and pole exclosure and enlargement of willow cages to 20 foot diameter would improve willow 

height classes and densities in Summit Creek Reach 5 in the Little Logan unit. A 1 mile 

reconstruction of the Lake Creek unit division fence would improve management of livestock. A 

0.2 mile fence and water gap that would provide better livestock management on Big Creek in 

the West Bosenberg Riparian pasture. A 0.2 mile fence that would exclude livestock from Lake 

Creek Reach 2, but would provide a 20 foot water gap in the Cow Camp unit. A 2.1 mile fence 

would fence off Lake Creek Reach 3 into the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture. Development 

of water sources in the Sagehen unit should improve the distribution of livestock amongst the 

unit and would decrease riparian vegetation disturbances except in localized areas. West Fork 

Summit Creek reach 2 would have parallel tree felling that should likely allow expression of 

vegetation and streambanks to heal where livestock do not have access to because of a tree acting 

as a physical barrier. All of these management actions should allow better management control 

of livestock grazing to improve the trend towards the management objectives and desired 

conditions. 

These actions were considered cumulatively in each alternative based on the existing condition

(PFC rating), identified issues and the proposed grazing management for each alternative. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 187

Determinations were made as the whether the actions facilitated movement towards or 

achievement of recovery objectives and desired condition. These ongoing actions are expected to 

expedite recovery to desired conditions in coordination with the proposed actions in each 

alternative and benefit bull trout critical habitat thru improved livestock management and 

distribution within these units.

These ongoing actions are common to all alternatives and the effects from these actions have 

been analyzed previously in other NEPA documents. This document considered the effects of 

these actions cumulatively in conjunctions with proposed actions in each of the alternatives 

within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization DEIS. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a net benefit to livestock management, riparian condition, bull trout critical habitat, and 

water quality within the project area.

Foreseeable Activities

Riparian vegetation utilization from proposed activities would not likely add measurably to a 

downward trend in the existing condition of the streams in the project area because of the 

development of site specific use table standards, minimum rest requirements, adaptive 

management strategy, and changes in infrastructure to more effectively manage livestock and 

development of water sources. PFC Reaches that were identified as functioning at risk with a 

downward trend in 2007 had their use standards adjusted going into the 2008 grazing season. 

Changes in grazing management in response to present or ongoing activities would allow 

riparian vegetation to improve vigor in reaches that have issues. 

Since past livestock grazing has had an effect on the existing condition of riparian vegetation, it 

also has an effect on the channel characteristics and complexity, water quality and aquatic 

dependent species. Of primary interest is the bankfull width/depth ratio is typically higher for 

streams where there is a departure in the existing condition from the desired. As a result, 

sediment transport is negatively influenced and residual pool depths and quality pools typically 

are not in their desired ranges. 

Ongoing and foreseeable timber, road densities, fuels and recreational activities within these 

subwatersheds are expected to meet INFISH Riparian Management Objectives and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines regarding RHCAs and aquatic dependent species. These objectives and 

standards are designed to allow recovery of aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation towards 

desired conditions. Since impacts to aquatic habitat from the proposed actions are limited to 

negligible or not measureable decreases in overall riparian condition, wetland obligate plant 

communities, channel characteristics, water quality and aquatic habitat. It is unlikely that 

retarding of riparian condition and its relationships to aquatic dependent habitat would result in 

cumulative effects from timber, fuels and recreational management activities. 

The Malheur National Forest is currently in the process of analyzing changes in travel 

management. It is foreseeable that cross country travel would be prohibited across 1,337,770 

acres on the Malheur National Forest where it is not already prohibited with the exception of 

cross country travel from designated open routes for the sole purpose of dispersed camping when 

resource damage caused by motor vehicle use can be avoided. The distance that cross country

travel would be allowed from open routes to existing dispersed camp sites would vary by 

alternative considered in the travel management analysis. Existing dispersed sites in a riparian 

area would also have a setback distance from the stream where motorized access would be 

restricted. Foreseeable changes in travel management would have a beneficial cumulative 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 188

impact to riparian areas in the long term. It is expected that there would be a long-term 

reduction in fine sediment production in the project area as roads are decommissioned and revegetated; and cross country travel and dispersed camping that are causing resource damage is 

prohibited. Closing roads would result in a decrease in erosion of road surfaces.

Foreseeable activities of riparian hardwood planting restoration along 1.2 miles of Lake Creek 

and 2.5 miles of Big Creek. These actions should improve the density of riparian shrubs towards 

desired conditions in these areas. 

Continual livestock utilization of riparian shrubs and herbaceous plants and bank alteration 

would have some level of cumulative effects with present dispersed recreation activities, water 

withdrawals and livestock grazing both on private and public lands. The level of these 

cumulative effects with present dispersed recreation activities are not likely to reach a point 

where measureable affects would occur. However, water withdrawals and livestock grazing on 

private lands within the middle of public lands may be influencing water temperatures flowing 

onto the public lands. It is likely that the Cow Camp unit may not achieve water quality 

standards despite Lake Creek being excluded from livestock use because of the water 

withdrawals on private land. Reach 6 of Summit Creek in the Summit Rock unit and Reach 5 in 

the Little Logan show signs of water temperature increases because of water that flows through

the private lands sections. Utilization standards and adaptive management identified in the Cow 

Camp, Summit Rock and Little Logan units would ensure riparian and channel characteristics are 

on an upward trend towards desired condition on National Forest Lands. 

The use of utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, active range riding, 

riparian exclusion fences, minimum rest requirements, and the adaptive management strategy 

would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas and allow recovery towards 

riparian objectives. These components of the Allotment Management Plans would prevent 

measurable cumulative effects at the stream reach or larger spatial scales. 

No detrimental change in aquatic habitat conditions from the proposed grazing regime intensity 

and duration is expected on the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie 

Allotments. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic 

resources determined in the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan EIS.

When past, present and foreseeable activities are considered together, rates of riparian recovery

within the project area would differ because of the existing condition and rates of recovery for 

riparian areas within the project area. While aquatic habitat is expected to improve simply based 

on livestock management the presence of invasive brook trout may limit the recovery of bull 

trout within the project area due to competition. Riparian vegetation is expected to improve to 

some extent in all alternatives however channel characteristics from legacy impacts related to 

timber harvest or road construction may impede recovery to some degree unrelated to livestock 

management. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

McCoy Creek and Corral Basin Units 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 189

The direct and indirect effects of authorizing the McCoy Creek and Corral Basin units as a 

vacant allotment would be no grazing on 6.4 miles of Critical Habitat streams. This would 

facilitate continual improvement and likely improve beyond a minimum rating of PFC and 

achieve desired conditions for vegetative and channel characteristics within the next 10 years. 

Riparian hardwood densities and heights would continue to increase production of shade. 

Stabilizing hydric plant species would continue to increase in vigor and expand. Bankfull 

width/depth would continue to narrow creating undercut banks and deeper pools. Stream 

temperatures would likely cool as a result of the improvements listed above. These areas are a 

current stronghold for Bull Trout in the Upper Malheur River. These areas would continue to 

provide productive habitat. 

McCoy Creek Unit 

The direct and indirect effects of removing 407 acres from McCoy Creek unit and creating 2.5 

miles of new fence would not affect riparian and aquatic resources. The portions of these units 

with riparian resources and critical habitat were vacant and the authorization from this analysis 

would keep it pending future analysis. The design criteria would minimize ground disturbing 

effects of compaction and trampling or removal of vegetation to water quality and critical habitat 

and would only apply to the 2.5 miles of fence.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be 

maintained at current levels to Big Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian 

pasture with the exception that 3 years out of 10 would not have the current levels. 

Indirect effects from authorizing livestock grazing in conjunction with the use levels and 

improvement projects in the unit would slightly improve the shrubs and the channel 

characteristics, maintain the effective shade values and improve the herbaceous plant vigor 

within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. 

Riparian shrub densities and height may be slightly increased with proposed management. 

Annual browse utilization standards of 30-50% with season long rest 3 years out of 10 should 

allow shrubs currently less than three feet to be expressed to a height above the reach of 

livestock in 10 years. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop 

seed and establish the increased density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more 

likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above 

browse line or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely be improved under this management. 

The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently in an adequate condition for PFC

and would likely improve from the required 3 years out of 10 years rest. This condition was 

assessed with a 4 inch stubble height and since the herbaceous plant community is not the largest 

portion, it is not the driver for stream bank stability. The shrub development/recruitment in 

conjunction with large woody debris provides long term channel stability.

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be maintained at current levels for 7 of 

10 grazing seasons within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. The upstream extent of this unit has 

an abundant amount of large wood that has fallen across the channel and provides protection to 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 190

the streambanks and channel stability. Conifers have also encroached up to the streambanks in 

other places making it difficult for livestock to access the creek. The lower extent is more open 

from a conifer overstory and has more of a developed riparian hardwood plant community. 

Braided channels exist across the floodplain that inherently increase the streambank trampling 

that occurs as livestock cross Big Creek. Maintaining current use levels on shrubs may maintain 

to slightly improve increases in shrubs and height classes and may slightly improve stability on 

the channel and the bankfull width/depth ratio. The channel may narrow as a result of increases 

in new shrub root masses. It would not likely cause a change in residual pool depth and 

improved pool quality in the 10 years (Appendix A, part 2).

Maintaining or slightly improving the riparian shrubs and channel characteristics would not 

measurably increase effective shade values in the Big Creek Riparian pasture within 10 years 

(Appendix A, part 2). These reaches represent all 1.7 miles of all life stages for Bull Trout

Critical Habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull 

width/depth would not likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would likely be maintained 

in their current condition. 

The creation of the Big Creek Riparian pasture may result 1.7 miles of critical habitat moving 

towards desired vegetation conditions, but not towards the desired channel characteristics within 

10 years for reaches 1, 2 and 3 of Big Creek. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot height 

classes of shrubs may not likely occur due to the need of having consecutive years of no browse. 

The adaptive management strategy of additional rest or scheduled rest may allow continual 

movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative conditions identified in Appendix A,

part 1. The ground disturbing impacts from removal of 1.2 miles of fencing would not be 

measurable. 

Deardorff Unit

The direct effects of removing 395 acres from a portion of the Horse Unit and a portion of the 

McCoy Creek unit of the Lake allotment would not affect riparian and aquatic dependent species 

because there is no critical habitat within the proposed Deardorff unit. The indirect effect of 

adding this unit would benefit livestock management strategies by developing deferment and rest

options that provide more frequent rest periods in other units in the allotment with riparian 

resources. The ground disturbing impacts of removal of 0.5 miles would not be measurable. 

Any effects from fence construction of 2.5 miles would be minimized through following design 

criteria. 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the West Lake Creek Riparian pastures 

in the Logan Valley allotment would result in a reduction in hoof shearing of streambanks, 

reduction in woody browse use, and an increase in hydric plant vigor within a functioning at risk

stream reach.

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization and 

increasing hydric plant vigor include an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, and an 

increase in shade. It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential 

channel type (F4/C4 towards E4) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat 

within the riparian pasture would likely move towards desired condition (appendix A part 2 

within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 191

pools within Lake Creek reach 3. A result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of 

quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and 

height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in 

improvement of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to 

channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years 

would facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives and desired 

condition. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest if it is determined that sufficient 

recovery has not been achieved following rest of 3-5 years would also facilitate recovery of 

reach 3 within Lake Creek. Reach 3 of Lake Creek was rated as FAR DN and in an early seral 

state. Riparian areas in a mid to late seral state are more resilient to the impacts of livestock 

grazing. Existing annual use levels are not sufficient to improve riparian condition within this 

reach however recovery of the riparian area to a mid/late seral stage (with 3-5 or more years of 

rest) prior to the resumption of grazing may be adequate to not retard the attainment of desired 

conditions. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest if movement towards desired 

condition is not sufficient would facilitate recovery within the West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture. 

These levels would not retard movement towards PFC and desired conditions for vegetation. 

The channel characteristics would likely move towards desired condition, but at a slower rate 

because of the current condition. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest within the 

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture would ensure that sufficient resiliency has been achieved 

within the riparian area to maintain an upward trend in recovery towards desired condition.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Bosenberg Unit

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Bosenberg Unit in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment would result in an increase in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks related to 

livestock grazing, increase in woody browse use (browse utilization), and maintenance of 

herbaceous plant vigor (stubble height). There are approximately 4.4 miles of Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Bosenberg Unit that are not currently being grazed and would have grazing 

reinitiated.

The indirect effects from incorporation of the Bosenberg Unit and rest for 3 out of 10 years 

would alleviate the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, and increase 

hydric plant vigor within reaches 1,2,3,4 and 5 of Summit Creek (Little Logan and Sagehen 

Units). The Bosenberg Unit is currently vacant and contains Bull Trout CH. The addition of the 

Bosenberg Unit and resumption of grazing would introduce impacts from livestock grazing into 

areas that have not been grazed for twenty- two years and are recovering from the effects of fire. 

Required riding would maintain control of the livestock in the Unit and may minimize the time 

livestock spend near riparian areas. The establishment of a representative DMA and critical 

DMA within sensitive riparian areas in Bosenberg Creek may ensure excess bank trampling and 

shearing does not occur that is beyond the natural rate of recovery and facilitates a continual 

upward improvement in riparian condition within Bosenberg Creek. 

Indirect effects from an increase in browse utilization (riparian hardwood) within Bosenberg 

Unit and implementation of 3 years out of 10 rest for the Sagehen and Little Logan Units. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 192

Additional browse utilization would increase within the Bosenberg Unit to levels beyond that of 

wildlife use. Annual use levels for browse would be sufficient to facilitate movement towards or 

maintenance of desired riparian management objectives within Bosenberg Creek. Scheduled rest

of 3 years out of 10 would facilitate continual movement towards or maintenance of riparian 

management objectives within Bosenberg Creek and the Sagehen and Little Logan Units. 

Riparian hardwood densities and height would increase slightly. The percent shade would 

slightly increase as hardwood heights and densities increase. The increase in shade may result in 

cooler water temperatures, increase in terrestrial insect input and an increase in the wetted 

floodplain. 

Indirect effects from an increase in riparian plant utilization (stubble height) within the 

Bosenberg Unit and scheduled rest of 3 years out of 10 may affect riparian plant vigor and but is 

expected to continue to increase at a rate slower than that of Alternative 1 where the Bosenberg 

Unit remains vacant. Riparian plant vigor is expected to increase within the Sagehen and Little 

Logan Units in the Summit Prairie Allotment as a result of the rest for 3 years out of 10 but not 

to the extent as that of Alternative 1 where Sagehen and Little Logan Units become vacant. 

Annual use level would alleviate some of the effects of livestock use of forage within the riparian 

areas but not to the extent as that of No livestock grazing in Alternative 1. 

Indirect effects from an increase in streambank hoof shearing (bank alteration) within the 

Bosenberg Unit and decrease in hoof shearing within the Sagehen and Little Logan Units in the 

Summit Prairie Allotment. The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would increase 

within the Bosenberg Unit but decrease within the Sagehen and Little Logan Units in the Summit 

Prairie Allotment due to initiation of rest for 3 years out of 10. Because of the establishment of a 

reference DMA and critical DMA as well as initial bank alteration levels of 10% and 15% within 

the Bosenberg Unit the formation of undercut banks, decrease in bankfull width, increase in 

residual pool depth, and decrease in greenline to greenline width, decrease in sediment that has 

occurred under vacancy is expected to continue to improve and move towards riparian 

management objects and desired conditions identified in Appendix A part 1.

Five off site water sources and two water gaps are proposed in alternative 2. Of the five off site 

water source developments, three would be stock ponds in the northeast portion of the unit, a 

headwater spring would be developed to a trough 300 feet away from Bosenberg Creek and a 

water withdrawal site would pump water from the creek to a trough approximately 100 feet away 

from the stream. The water gaps would be developed near the 1648 road and Bosenberg Creek. 

The effects related to the livestock developments proposed above for incorporation of the 

Bosenberg unit are analyzed below.

Three stock ponds would be constructed in the far northeastern portion of the unit. These stock 

ponds are in the uplands, a considerable distance from critical habitat streams. The direct and 

indirect effects of constructing 3 stock ponds include ground disturbance from heavy machinery 

and impacts to upland vegetation and soil compaction. Water would be stored in the ponds later 

into the grazing season and may improve the distribution of livestock in the unit. This may result 

in less time livestock spend in riparian areas. 

FS 1648 road parallels Bosenberg Creek in several areas. The hill side slope from Forest Road 

1648 in relatively steep into Bosenberg Creek. The direct and indirect effects from construction 

of water gaps along 1648 would result in additional sediment input into Bosenberg creek from 

the existing road and removal of existing shade. The stream banks along Bosenberg Creek are 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 193

relatively soft and composed of organic matter deposited following fire. The locations for the 

water gaps are adjacent to road crossings, on already disturbed sites and where access for 

livestock is ideal. Design criteria within the ARBO would be adhered to for construction of 

water gaps and would minimize the effects listed above. Utilizing concentrated water points 

would minimize the ground disturbance from livestock accessing the stream to water in other 

portions of the reach. 

The headwater spring proposed for development is within a highly sensitive area on a hill side 

because of the steep gradient. The dominant vegetation is hydric plant species. Soil composition 

is primarily organic and saturated. The spring has not fully recovered from the effects of past 

land management actions and the fire. Areas adjacent to the spring appear to have sloughed 

downhill. The direct and indirect effects of development of the spring would likely result in 

additional damage to the soils and vegetation surrounding the outlet of the spring. Movement of 

groundwater into a trough exposed to solar radiation may result in increased water temperatures 

on water returns to Bosenberg Creek. Bosenberg creek is one of a few creeks within the Upper 

Malheur watershed that likely meets bull trout temperature criteria (mostly groundwater inputs). 

Implementing design criteria for the development of the spring outflow would minimize the 

effects listed above. The trough would have a float that would minimize the amount of water 

withdrawn from the spring outlet. The spring would be fenced off and would reduce grazing

effects to the spring. Wetland obligate vegetation would expand and cold water storage 

functions from the spring would be maximized. 

A water withdrawal location approximately a half mile from the junction of the Forest Service 

road 1648 and 1649 to a trough located approximately 100 feet away. The direct and indirect 

effects from the removal of water from Bosenberg creek would likely result in less cold water 

reaching occupied bull trout CH within the lower portions of Bosenberg Creek and Big Creek. 

Implementing design criteria for the development of the spring outflow would minimize the 

effects listed above. The trough would have a float that would minimize the amount of water

withdrawn from the spring outlet. 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 7 miles of fence within the Bosenberg unit may 

result in minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing the design 

criteria would minimize any effects to riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or 

Columbia spotted Frog within the project area. The short term effects of fence construction are 

expected to result in long term beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the Sagehen 

and Little Logan units in the Summit Prairie allotment. 

The re-initiation of livestock grazing within the Bosenberg Unit with a scheduled rest of 3 years 

out of 10, establishment of two DMA’s, reduction in bank alteration levels, adaptive 

management strategy of additional rest, and a rider would facilitate continual movement towards 

desired conditions identified within (Appendix A, part 2), but at a slower rate than that of 

Alternative 1 where no livestock grazing disturbance occurs. Riparian vegetation within the 

Bosenberg Unit would continue to recover from the historical effects of fire, grazing and road 

related impacts but not likely achieve desired condition within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2) as a 

result of of the slow recovery observed from the effects of fire from 22 years ago. Bull Trout

Critical Habitat within the Bosenberg Unit would likely not achieve desired condition for 

channel characteristics within the scheduled time frame (Appendix A, part 2 10 years). 

Resumption of grazing within the Bosenberg Unit would not retard movements towards or 

achievement of desired condition but would result in a slower rate of recovery than that of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 194

Alternatives 1 within the Bosenberg Unit where no livestock use occurs. The Bosenberg Unit 

would likely be rated as PFC or FAR UP. Fish habitat criteria related to Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat are often achieved beyond a minimum rating of PFC for which the channel 

characteristics identified in Appendix A, part 2 are applicable. Bosenberg Creek is one of the few 

streams within the project area that contains water temperatures suitable for all life stages of Bull 

Trout. The adaptive management strategy of scheduled rest or additional rest if sufficient 

movement towards or maintenance of desired conditions is not achieved within the desired time 

frames (Appendix A, part 2) would ensure that a resilient riparian area develops along Bosenberg 

Creek and riparian management objectives are not retarded to a degree to prevent eventual 

attainment of desired condition and INFISH criteria. 

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Little Logan unit in the Summit 

Prairie allotment would result in a slight decrease in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of 

streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from leaving more residual 

stubble height, and maintaining current riparian hardwoods height classes and densities. 

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be slightly reduced than current levels 

for the next 10 grazing seasons within the Little Logan unit because season long rest would occur 

for 3 out of 10 years. The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing for the Little Logan unit 

include continued maintenance of meeting standards for streambank stability. However, the 

channel is still recovering from legacy grazing affects. Herbaceous plant communities 

expanding towards the channel are transitioning from single plants to a dense plant community. 

This is indicative of a wide channel narrowing and capturing soil from runoff events and 

building banks. This zone of streambank is very tender to livestock effects from hoof shearing 

and hoof shearing may severe roots. PIBO data found the bankfull width/depth ratio and bank 

angles have been on an upward trend and improving. 

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be maintained in their current condition. The 

current condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 4% of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems 

per unit area desired. Annual browse utilization standards of 30-50% with season long rest 3 

years out of 10 would likely maintain the uncaged riparian shrubs stunted at 2 feet. Utilization 

values were approximately 98% for the shrubs that were uncaged and available for livestock 

browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per 

year may not occur until the vigor is improved. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are 

more likely to develop seed and establish the increased density of shrubs. These newly 

established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that 

have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to be improved under this 

management. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward 

trend and would likely improve from the scheduled rest. This condition was assessed with a 4 

inch stubble height. 

Maintaining the riparian shrubs and improving the channel characteristics would not measurably 

increase effective shade values in the Little Logan unit within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). 

These reaches represent 5 miles of all life stages for Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Since the 

condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely improve;

spawning and rearing habitat would likely be slightly improved in their current condition. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 195

Authorization of livestock grazing in the Little Logan unit may result in 5 miles of critical habitat 

moving towards PFC in both 5 and 10 years, maintaining the vegetation existing conditions, and 

move it towards the desired channel characteristics within 10 years. Bull trout critical habitat 

within the riparian pastures would likely move towards, but not likely achieve desired vegetation 

condition within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). This is because Reach 5 was identified as a 

broad valley habitat type that requires a major component of multiple aged riparian shrubs to 

stabilize streambanks, provide shade and cover to fish, and creates a micro climate that reduces 

water temperatures through moderating air temperatures adjacent to the creek. If rest occurs 

only after exceedances of the previous grazing season, the vegetative and channel characteristics 

may retard or at a minimum maintain the current condition. Development of seed sources in the 

0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may not likely occur due to the need of having consecutive 

years of no browse. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest or scheduled rest may 

allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative conditions identified in 

Appendix A part 1. The ground disturbing impacts from removal of 0.7 miles of fencing would 

not be measurable. 

The creation of 0.25 mile exclosure on reach 5 of Summit Creek within the Summit Prairie 

allotment would remove the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, and an 

increase in hydric plant vigor within reach 5 (Little Logan unit) of Summit Creek. Movement 

towards or achievement of desired condition is expected to be at the same rate as the No action 

alternative following removal of livestock. The construction of the exclosure fence may deter 

wildlife use within Summit Creek reach 5 and therefore recovery would be at a slightly faster 

rate than that of the alternative 1 (No Action). Reach 5 of Summit Creek was identified as having 

the greatest potential for willow recovery of all reaches within Summit Creek (CWG 2012). 

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization, and 

increasing hydric plant vigor include an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, resulting in 

an increase in shade within reach 5 of Summit Creek. It would also facilitate movement towards 

or achievement of the potential channel type (C4 to E4/5) by reducing bankfull width to depth. 

Bull trout critical habitat within the exclosure would likely be moving towards or achieve desired 

condition (Appendix A part 2 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, 

and the numbers of quality pools within the exclosure on Summit Creek reach 5. A result of the 

increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, 

increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade would be cooler water 

temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes 

would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water 

temperature are expected within 10 years. Removal of grazing within the newly constructed 

exclosure would facilitate movements towards/or achievement of desired condition at a rate 

similar to alternative 1 (No Action). Summit Creek reach 5 was rated as FAR in 2007 with poor 

plant vigor and less than desirable bank cover of stabilizing plants. Fish habitat related to bull 

trout critical habitat and water quality criteria (temperature) are often achieved beyond a 

minimum rating of PFC. Removal of grazing would facilitate/expedite movement towards or 

achievement of desired condition within the exclosure on Reach 5 of Summit Creek.

North Summit Unit 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in maintenance in existing 

levels of hoof shearing on streambanks, maintenance in woody browse use, and a slight 

improvement in hydric plant vigor within Reach 7 of Summit Creek. This site was rated at PFC
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 196

in 2007 with woody shrub use was identified as an issue. The Carex Working Group identified a 

deficiency in shrub density and particularly height classes. None of the shrubs present were 

greater than 3 feet tall. A DMA exists on Reach 7 to aid in comparing condition in 5 years with 

the developed management objectives. The adaptive management strategy would change 

allowable use if sufficient movement towards or achievement of desired conditions (Appendix 

A, part 1). 

The indirect effects of maintaining livestock effects would likely result in a maintenance of the 

existing conditions. The streambank stability is within the standard error of meeting the long 

term desired condition and would likely continue to meet the standards. The bankfull/width 

depth was observed to be not in balance during the PFC assessments. Bankfull width/depth may 

slightly improve because the herbaceous plant community is approximately 84% of desired. 

However, shrubs are not above the browsing line and may not be developing the seeds to 

increase the density towards desired conditions. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pastures would likely move slightly towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 2 within 10 

years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools. As a 

result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width 

to depth, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water 

temperature as a result of vegetative changes would likely be slightly improved within 10 years. 

The use levels identified in Appendix E for the North Summit unit, monitoring and the adaptive 

management strategy (change allowable use) would ensure movement towards desired 

conditions.

The 0.97 miles reach is identified at PFC in 2007 and is expected to improve beyond a rating of 

PFC within the next 10 years based on the management actions within the North Summit unit. 

Any improvement beyond a rating of PFC is directly related to improvements in bull trout

critical habitat. It is likely that the current annual use levels would facilitate limited 

improvement beyond a rating of PFC within the North Summit unit. This slight improvement is 

due to the herbaceous plant community alone that is currently in a good condition. This 

herbaceous community would likely tighten the channel characteristics slowly over time. 

However, it is not likely that the riparian shrubs would reach the desired condition within the 

time frame identified in Appendix A, part 2. The adaptive management strategy of changing 

allowable use for the North Summit unit if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired 

conditions (Appendix A, part 1) has not been made would benefit the riparian shrubs in this 

reach. This would ensure that movement towards desired is not impeded by land management 

actions. 

Sagehen Unit

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Sagehen unit in the Summit Prairie 

allotment would result in a slight decrease in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a 

continued improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from leaving more residual stubble height, and 

maintenance in the current riparian hardwoods height classes and densities in reach 2 and slightly 

improve reach 4. There are approximately 4.7 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the 

Sagehen unit and represents 22% of the Bull Trout Critical Habitat found in the Summit Creek 

Subwatershed. PFC assessments stratified 4 reaches in Sagehen unit and found 33% of Sagehen 

to be at a PFC rating and 67% to be functioning at risk. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 197

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be slightly reduced than current levels 

for the next 10 grazing seasons within the Sagehen unit because season long rest would occur for 

3 out of 10 years. The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing for the Sagehen unit include a 

slight improvement for streambank stability, primarily in Reaches 2 and 4. These specific 

reaches also have channel form still recovering from legacy grazing effects. These areas are 

prioritized because Reaches 1 and 3 are constrained rocky reaches that are relatively resistant to 

hoof action. Herbaceous plant communities expanding towards the channel are transitioning 

from single plants to a dense plant community. This is indicative of a wide channel narrowing 

and capturing soil from runoff events and building banks. This zone of streambank is very 

tender to livestock effects from hoof shearing and hoof shearing may severe roots. 

The herbaceous component in Sagehen would likely be continually improved in plant vigor and 

expansion of plant communities. The 3 years out of 10 years rest would provide a full growing 

season for plants to expand and improve. 

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be maintained in their current condition for 

Reach 2 with a slight improvement in Reach 4. The current condition for riparian shrubs is near 

desired in Reaches 1 and 3. These are constrained, rocky reaches that are dominated with alders. 

The current condition of riparian shrubs for Reaches 2 and 4 are well below the desired levels. 

Riparian shrubs in Reaches 2 and 4 both have 23% of desired or approximately 45 stems with 

200 stems per unit area. Annual browse utilization standards of 30-50% with season long rest 3 

years out of 10 would likely maintain the uncaged riparian shrubs stunted at 2 feet. Utilization 

values were approximately 98% for the shrubs that were uncaged and available for livestock 

browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per 

year may not occur until the vigor is improved. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are 

more likely to develop seed and establish the increased density of shrubs. These newly 

established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that 

have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Maintaining the riparian shrubs and improving the channel characteristics would not measurably 

increase effective shade values in the Sagehen unit within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). These 

reaches represent 4.7 miles of all life stages for Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Since the condition 

of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely slightly improve;

spawning and rearing habitat would likely be slightly improved in their current condition for 

Reaches 2 and 4. Reaches 1 and 3 are in a good condition and would improve. 

Authorization of livestock grazing in the Sagehen unit would result in movement towards PFC, 

maintaining the vegetation existing conditions, and moving it towards the desired channel 

characteristics. Bull trout critical habitat on Reaches 1, 3 and 4 would likely achieve PFC in 

both 5 and 10 years. Reach 2 would likely move towards FAR UP in both 5 and 10 years, but 

not likely to achieve PFC because of the channel and riparian shrub existing conditions. Reaches 

1, 3, and 4 would likely move towards the desired vegetation condition within 10 years 

(Appendix A, part 2). Reach 4 is adjacent to the road and would allow more efficient 

management of livestock. Reach 2 would likely maintain its existing vegetation condition 

because of the deficiency in riparian shrub, height classes and channel characteristics. Reaches 

1, 3 and 4 would likely move towards desired channel characteristics. Reach 2 would likely 

move towards desired channel characteristics, but at a slow rate. If rest occurs only after 

exceedances of the previous grazing season, the vegetative and channel characteristics may 

retard or at a minimum maintain the current condition. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 198

foot height classes of shrubs may not likely occur due to the need of having consecutive years of 

no browse. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest or scheduled rest may allow 

continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative conditions identified in 

Appendix A, part 1. 

Summit Rock Unit

The Summit Rock unit was rated as PFC in 2007 for reaches 6 and 8 for a total of 3.5miles. 

Livestock grazing would occur annually with no season of rest. Annual use levels would include 

the endpoint indicators of 4 inch stubble height, 30-50 percent browse, and 20 percent bank 

alteration. The adaptive management strategy would include changes in annual use levels 

(Appendix F). Reach 6 is expected to improve slightly beyond PFC or maintain a rating of PFC. 

Annual use levels are sufficient to continue a slight improvement in herbaceous vigor. Bank 

stability would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous plant and woody plants. 

Bank alteration levels are sufficient to maintain the existing condition with a possible increase in 

bank stability due to improvements in vegetation. Reach 6 is likely to maintain a rating of PFC 

and not achieve desired conditions within 10 years. PFC is a minimum and does not equate to 

quality fish habitat until a rating beyond PFC is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected to maintain at PFC with limited improvement in herbaceous vigor, browse 

utilization, and bank alteration within the lower portion of reach identified in 2007. Without rest, 

sufficient improvement in riparian hardwoods and herbaceous plant vigor is unlikely to occur in 

reach 8 under the current proposed levels of use to achieve desired condition in 10 years. 

Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek had channel incision in the reach. The same annual use 

levels apply to reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek. Improvements in channel characteristics are 

unlikely to occur without an improvement in riparian vegetation. Stream reaches that are FAR

DN are highly susceptible to impacts from livestock grazing and improvements in herbaceous, 

hardwood cover are easily set back in this condition (resiliency).

West Fork Summit Recovery Unit

The creation of 0.85 mile temporary exclosure on West Fork Summit Creek within the Summit 

Prairie allotment would remove the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, 

and an increase in hydric plant vigor within reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek. Movement 

towards or achievement of desired condition is expected to be at the same rate as the No action 

alternative. The construction of the exclosure fence may limit wildlife use within Reach 2 and 

therefore recovery would be at a slightly faster rate than that of the alternative 1 (No Action). 

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization, and 

increasing hydric plant vigor for the 0.85 mile temporary exclosure would likely result in an 

increase in herbaceous plant communities, resulting in an increase in shade and improvement in 

channel morphology within reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek. It would also facilitate 

movement towards or maintenance of the potential channel type by reducing bankfull width to 

depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would likely achieve desired 

condition (Appendix A, part 2 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut 

banks, and the number of quality pools within West Fork Summit Creek Reach 1. A result of the 

increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, 

increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water 

temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 199

would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water 

temperature are expected within 10 years. Removal of grazing within the newly constructed 

temporary exclosure would facilitate movements towards/or achievement of desired condition at 

a similar rate to Alternative 1 (No Action) for the first 5 years. However, following the 

immediate rest, movement towards desired conditions would likely be at a slower rate than 

Alternative 1. West Fork Summit Creek reach 1 was rated as FAR DN in 2007 with several 

headcuts and channel incision. Fish habitat related to bull trout critical habitat and water quality 

criteria (temperature) are often achieved beyond a minimum rating of PFC. Minimum rest 

requirements of 3-5 years followed by additional rest if sufficient movement towards desired 

condition has not been achieved would facilitate movement towards desired condition within 

Reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek by increasing the resiliency of the riparian vegetation and 

facilitating advancement in seral state.

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. 

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. 

Rationale

Habitat for Bull Trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water 

temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression and altered stream channels have reduced the 

habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support Bull Trout. Riparian areas 

within the project area are deficient in riparian hardwoods. Some recovery has occurred from 

past activities related to livestock grazing and timber harvest and natural disturbances such as 

fire. However many of the stream reaches are early seral with sensitive stream banks and or have 

not achieved a rating of PFC which is the minimum required to withstand flood events. Many of 

the areas have not achieved a state of resiliency and are susceptible to degradation from 

livestock. The addition of approximately 4.36 miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the 

Bosenberg Unit that is currently vacant and development of cold water spring sources within the 

Unit would result in adverse affects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat due to the early seral state of 

the riparian area within the Unit that is currently recovering from wildfires in 1990 (Snowshoe, 

Corral Basin, and Sheep) and 2002 High Roberts wildfire. The streambanks are composed of soft 

organic material that is easily sheared and compacted from hoof action.While measures such as a 

full time rider, adaptive management strategy of additional rest, establishment of two DMA’s, 

bank alteration standards of 10% and 15% would alleviate the possible impacts the sensitivity of 

the riparian area to disturbance and likelihood that cattle would prefer to congregate within the 

riparian area based on forage availability carries a high degree of uncertainty whether these 

measures would be effective. Forage production within this unit is primarily in the riparian area

with the uplands dominated by Ceanothus and young ponderosa pine. 

Cumulative Effects

Table A-12: Summary of Expected Recovery for PFC Ratings by Unit Based on the Actions 

Proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10 

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

Lake Creek Corral Basin 3.59 >PFC >>PFC Y
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 200

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10 

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

McCoy Creek 6.35 >PFC >>PFC Y

Logan 

Valley

Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture 1.67 >PFC >PFC Y

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y

Flat Field 0.02 >PFC >>PFC Y

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 0.13 >PFC >>PFC Y

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 0.95 N PFC N

McCoy 

Creek

Lake Creek 

Willow Exclosure 0.51 >PFC >>PFC Y

Summit 

Prairie

Bosenberg 4.36 PFC PFC N

Little Logan 5.03 PFC PFC N

North Summit 0.97 PFC PFC N

Sagehen

2.43 N N N

0.32 N N N

1.10 PFC PFC N

0.89 PFC PFC N

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.83 N N N

3.71 >PFC >PFC Y

1.00 >PFC >PFC Y

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 0.39 N PFC N

When cumulative effects common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the Proposed 

Actions from Alternative 2, the result is the fourth fastest rate of recovery or movement towards 

a proper functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Project Area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock 

management strategy for Alternative 2 that largely includes deferment and 3 years out of 10 

years rest for improvement. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to

aquatic resources determined in the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan EIS.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

McCoy Creek and Bosenberg Units

The Bosenberg unit would not be added within this alternative resulting in no impacts from 

livestock grazing related to bull trout CH and water quality. Construction of approximately 7 

miles of new fence subdividing the Bosenberg unit would not occur. Water gaps at the two 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 201

locations where the Forest Service road 1648 crosses Bosenberg Creek and an unnamed tributary 

of Big Creek would not occur. Three stock ponds in the uplands, a spring development with 

approximately 300-400 feet of piping to a trough and an in-stream water withdrawal piped 100 

feet to a trough would not occur. The effects from these actions analyzed in alternative 2 would 

not occur. These actions would occur in alternative 2 and would not occur in alternatives 1 and 

3. Bosenberg creek would continue to recover from past disturbances related to fire and historic 

land management practices and likely achieve recovery objectives within 10 years (Appendix A,

part 1 and 2). 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (407 acres) would not be removed from the Lake 

Creek allotment. This action is unique from alternatives 1 and 2.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased 

on Big Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is because 

the annual use levels are reduced to allow more expression in riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, water temperature and Bull Trout Critical habitat would be similar to Alternative 

2, with the exception of the annual use levels would be reduced, there would be no season long 

rest periods and the adaptive management strategies are different. The annual use levels for 

stubble height would be reduced from 4 to 7 inches, woody browse from 30-50 to 30% use and 

bank alteration from 20-15%. The stubble height increase would improve plant vigor. The 

woody browse would further increase the density and height classes of riparian shrubs across the 

entire reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate movement towards of improvements 

in the bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, it benefits Bull Trout 

critical habitat. Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock use effects 

would likely improve riparian shrubs more than 3 years out of 10 season long rest. Bull trout 

critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition within 10 

years (Appendix A, part 2). The adaptive management strategy of a change in allowable use

levels would allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative and 

channel characteristic conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1. Allowing shrubs to attain a 

height greater than 5ft and reducing the utilization of shrubs less than 5ft would allow movement 

towards a late seral stage. Riparian areas that have a balance of early, mid and late seral stages 

are more resistant to impacts from livestock and are more resilient being able to recover from 

livestock impacts within one year depending on the magnitude of disturbance. 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased 

on Lake Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is 

because the annual use levels are reduced to allow more expression in riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, water temperature and Bull Trout Critical habitat would be similar to Alternative 

2, with the exception of the annual use levels would be reduced. The annual use levels for 

stubble height would be reduced from 6 to 7 inches, woody browse from 30-50 to 30% use and 

bank alteration from 20 to 15%. The stubble height increase would improve plant vigor. The 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 202

woody browse would further increase the density and height classes of riparian shrubs across the 

entire reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate movement towards of improvements 

in the bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, it benefits Bull Trout 

critical habitat. Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock use effects 

would likely improve riparian shrubs in combination with 3 years out of 10 season long rest. 

Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition 

within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). The adaptive management strategy of developing 

additional rest would allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative 

and channel characteristic conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1. This reach would likely 

attain PFC in 5 years. The rate of recovery for Alternative 3 would be greater for the West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture than alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing with the creation of the two new riparian 

pastures in the Little Logan unit in the Summit Prairie allotment would result in a decrease in 

hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant 

vigor from leaving more residual stubble height, and improve current riparian hardwoods height 

classes and densities (browse utilization). There are approximately 5 miles of bull trout critical 

habitat within the Little Logan unit and represents 35% of the Bull Trout Critical Habitat found 

in the Summit Creek Subwatershed.

The effects of hoof shearing from livestock use would be removed for 3-5 years and only resume 

once sufficient progress towards desired condition has been made towards desired conditions. 

Once grazing is resumed streambanks would have developed sufficient root systems to recover 

from bank alterations. 

The indirect effects of removing (3-5 years) and reducing (15%) bank alteration hoof shearing 

for the Little Logan unit include continual achievement of standards for streambank stability. 

The channel is still recovering from legacy grazing affects but would likely meet desired 

conditions (Appendix A part 2). Herbaceous plant communities would likely expand towards the 

channel area transitioning from single plants to a dense plant community. This is indicative of a 

wide channel narrowing and capturing soil from runoff events and building banks. PIBO data 

found the bankfull width/depth ratio and bank angles have been on an upward trend and 

improving. Removing the effects of hoof shearing for 3-5 years would expedite this process 

facilitating development of undercut banks.

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be improved from their current condition. The 

current condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 4% of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems 

per unit area desired. Annual browse utilization standards of 30% with season long rest 3 years 

out of 10 once desired conditions have been achieved would likely result in a release of riparian 

shrubs currently stunted at 2 feet. Utilization values were approximately 98% for the shrubs that 

were uncaged and available for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is 

very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per year would likely occur once the vigor has improved. 

Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the 

increased density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by 

wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line, are caged or 

are mature. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 203

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to improve under this 

management. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward 

trend and would likely improve from the minimum rest requirements and scheduled rest. This 

condition was assessed with a 4 inch stubble height. 

Improving the riparian shrubs and channel characteristics would measurably increase effective 

shade values in the Upper and Lower Riparian pasture within 10 years (Appendix A, Part 2). 

These reaches represent 5 miles of all life stages for Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Since the 

condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely improve;

spawning and rearing habitat would likely be slightly improved in their current condition. 

Quality fish habitat related to bull trout is often achieved beyond a rating of PFC. Reach 5 within 

the Upper and Lower Little Logan riparian pastures would like improve beyond a rating of PFC 

within 5 years. 

The creation of the upper and lower Little Logan riparian pastures in the Summit Prairie 

allotment in Alternative 3 would likely result in an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, 

and an increase in shade. It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the 

potential channel type (C towards E) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical 

habitat within the riparian pastures would likely move towards or achieve desired condition 

(Appendix A, part 2 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the 

number of quality pools within Summit Creek reach 5. A result of the increase in residual pool 

depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian 

hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related 

to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 

years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 

years. Resting for 3-5 years would facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery

objectives and desired condition and a faster rate than that of alternative 2. The more restrictive 

use levels identified in Appendix E for Alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian 

condition 5 years out of recovery trajectory) would ensure movement towards recovery 

objectives following re-initiation of livestock grazing within the upper and lower little Logan 

riparian pastures. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest within the Upper and 

Lower Little Logan riparian pasture would ensure that adequate recovery has been achieved to 

facilitate continual movement towards desired conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1 and 

Appendix A, part 2 and ensure sufficient resiliency has been achieved to resume livestock 

grazing. 

North Summit Riparian Pasture 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in decrease in existing levels 

of hoof shearing on streambanks, reductions in woody browse use, and an improvement hydric 

plant vigor within Reach 7 of Summit Creek. This site was rated at PFC in 2007 with woody 

shrub use was identified as an issue. The Carex Working Group identified a deficiency in shrub 

density and particularly height classes. None of the shrubs present were greater than 3 feet tall. 

A DMA exists on Reach 7 to aid in comparing condition in 5 years with the developed 

management objectives. The adaptive management strategy would change allowable use if 

sufficient movement towards or achievement of desired conditions (Appendix A, part 1). 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 0.8 miles of fence along the boundary of the North 

Summit Riparian pasture may result in minimal ground disturbance from initial fence 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 204

construction. Implementing the design criteria would minimize any effects to riparian areas, the 

viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted Frog within the project area. The short 

term effects of fence construction are expected to result in long term beneficial effects for bull 

trout critical habitat within the North Summit Riparian pasture. 

The indirect effects related to authorizing livestock grazing and creating the North Summit 

Riparian pasture within the Summit Prairie allotment in Alternative 3 would likely result in an 

increase in shrub density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. The streambank stability 

would continue to meet standards and improve. The bankfull/width depth was observed to be 

not in balance during the PFC assessments. Bankfull width/depth would improve from the 

expansion of herbaceous and riparian shrub plant communities. Bull trout critical habitat within 

the riparian pasture would likely move towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 2 within 10 

years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within 

Summit Creek reach 7. Attributes related to quality fish habitat are often achieved beyond a 

riparian rating of PFC. The effects of an increase in residual pool depth, number of quality 

pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and 

increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as 

a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel 

characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would 

facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives and desired condition and a 

faster rate than that of Alternatives 2. The more restrictive use levels identified in Appendix E 

for Alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of recovery trajectory) 

would ensure movement towards recovery objectives following re-initiation of livestock grazing 

within the North Summit riparian pasture. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest

within the North Summit riparian pasture would ensure that adequate recovery has been achieved 

to facilitate continual movement towards desired conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1 and 

part 2. The annual use levels for the North Summit riparian pasture would be similar to 

Alternative 2, with the reduction of woody browse to 30% from 30-50%. This would likely 

improve the riparian shrubs across the unit with the greatest magnitude. The changes in annual 

use for stubble height, browse, and bank alteration for the West Fork Summit Creek within the 

Summit Rock Unit and reach 6 of Summit Creek (Appendix E) would facilitate movement 

towards or achievement of desired conditions outside of the North Summit Riparian pasture.

The 0.97 miles reach is identified at PFC in 2007 and is expected to improve beyond a rating of 

PFC within the next 10 years based on the management actions within the North Summit unit. 

Any improvement beyond a rating of PFC is directly related to improvements in bull trout

critical habitat. The 3-5 years of immediate rest, scheduled rest and allowable use levels would 

improve both the herbaceous plant community and the riparian shrubs. The vegetative and 

channel characteristic desired condition would likely be met (Appendix A, part 1 and 2). The 

adaptive management strategy for the North Summit unit if sufficient progress towards or 

achievement of desired conditions (Appendix A, part 1) has not been made would benefit the 

riparian shrubs in this reach. This would ensure that movement towards desired is not impeded 

by land management actions. 

Sagehen Unit 

The creation of the Sagehen riparian pasture within the Summit Prairie allotment with minimum 

rest requirements of 3-5 years and implementation of the use levels within Appendix E once it is 

determined that recovery objectives have been achieved or are moving toward desired conditions
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 205

would result in a reduction in hoof shearing of streambanks, reduction in woody browse use, and 

an increase in hydric plant vigor within Reach 2 of Summit Creek for the Sagehen riparian 

pastures. 

The creation of the Sagehen riparian exclosure would have the same effect as that of the Sagehen 

riparian pasture with the exception that livestock grazing would not be reinitiated within the 

exclosure and recovery rates are expected to be slightly faster than that of the Sagehen riparian 

pasture towards desired condition. 

The direct and indirect effects from the creation of the Sagehen riparian pasture within the 

Sagehen Unit of the Summit Prairie allotment in alternative three would likely result in an 

increase in shrub density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. It would also facilitate 

maintenance of the potential channel type (C towards E) by reducing bankfull width to depth. 

Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pasture would likely move towards desired condition 

(Appendix A, part 2 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the 

number of quality pools within Summit Creek reach 2. Attributes related to quality fish habitat 

are often achieved beyond a riparian rating of PFC. The effects of an increase in residual pool 

depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian 

hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related 

to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 

years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 

years. Resting for 3-5 years would facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery

objectives and desired condition and a faster rate than that of Alternatives 2 where no rest from

livestock is proposed within Reach 2 of Summit Creek. The more restrictive use levels identified 

in Appendix E for Alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of 

recovery trajectory) would ensure movement towards recovery objectives following re-initiation 

of livestock grazing within the North Summit riparian pasture. The adaptive management 

strategy of addition rest if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired conditions

Appendix A, part 1 has not been made following 3-5 years of rest would facilitate recovery 

towards a more resilient riparian area within the riparian pasture. 

Creation of the Sagehen riparian exclosure would have the same effects as the Sagehen riparian 

pasture with the exception that the rate of recovery within the exclosure is expected be faster 

than that of the riparian pasture due to the absence of livestock grazing (after 3-5 years of rest) 

and limited wildlife use. 

The additional adaptive management strategy for riparian areas outside of the Sagehen Riparian 

pasture and Sagehen Riparian exclosure for changes in allowable use levels would facilitate 

recovery and movement towards desired riparian condition outside of the riparian pastures not 

proposed for 3-5 years of rest. 

Summit Rock Unit 

Reach 6 is expected to improve beyond PFC. Annual use levels for stubble height increase from 

an endpoint indicator of 4 inches to 6 inches that would likely result in an improvement in 

herbaceous vigor. Bank stability would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous 

plant and woody plants. Bank alteration levels are sufficient to maintain the existing condition

with a likely increase in bank stability due to improvements in vegetation. Reach 6 is likely to 

improve beyond a rating of PFC and achieve desired conditions within 10 years (Appendix A,
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 206

part 1). PFC is a minimum and does not equate to quality fish habitat until a rating beyond PFC 

is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected at a minimum to be maintained at PFC or improve beyond PFC due to 

improvement in herbaceous vigor from a reduction in stubble height, browse utilization, and 

bank alteration within the lower portion of reach identified in 2007. Without rest, improvement 

in riparian hardwoods would be limited but herbaceous plant vigor is likely to increase in Reach 

8 under the current proposed levels of use and achieve a rating of greater than PFC in 10 years. 

Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek would have higher endpoint indicator for stubble height 

and lower value for bank alteration. These indicators would likely increase herbaceous riparian 

vigor within reach 2 and allow healing of destabilized stream banks. A portion of reach 2 is 

primarily herbaceous and development of riparian herbaceous vigor in this reach would result in 

improvements in bank stability and channel characteristic but at a slower rate than if rested 

entirely from livestock grazing for a period of time. 

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in 

the short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) in the short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Rationale

Habitat for Bull Trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water 

temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression, reduced herbaceous plant vigor and altered stream 

channels have reduced the habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support 

Bull Trout.

The creation of several riparian pastures on stream reaches identified with the above issues 

containing Bull Trout Critical Habitat combined with minimum rest requirements of 3-5 years, 

an adaptive management strategy of additional rest prior to resumption of grazing, 3 years out of 

10 rest, and changes in annual use level would expedite recovery within these areas similar to 

that of Alternative 1 and likely result in achievement of desired conditions resulting in a long 

term benefit to Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

Table A-13: Summary of Expected Recovery for PFC Ratings by Unit Based on the Actions 

Proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

Lake Creek Bosenberg 8.64 >PFC >>PFC Y

McCoy Creek 5.66 >PFC >>PFC Y

Logan 

Valley

Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture 1.67 >PFC >>PFC Y

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y

Flat Field 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 207

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 0.13 PFC >>PFC Y

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 0.95 PFC >PFC Y

McCoy 

Creek

Lake Creek 

Willow Exclosure 0.51 >PFC >>PFC Y

Summit 

Prairie

Little Logan 0.09 PFC PFC N

Lower Little 

Logan Riparian 

Pasture

4.11 PFC >>PFC Y

North Summit 

Riparian Pasture 0.97 >PFC >>PFC Y

Sagehen

0.04 N N N

0.32 N PFC N

1.10 PFC PFC N

0.89 >PFC >>PFC Y

Sagehen Riparian 

Exclosure 0.76 >PFC >PFC Y

Sagehen Riparian 

Pasture 1.62 PFC >PFC Y

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.83 N PFC N

3.71 >PFC >>PFC Y

1.00 >PFC >>PFC Y

Upper Little 

Logan Riparian 

Pasture

0.83 PFC >>PFC Y

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 0.39 PFC >PFC Y

When cumulative effects common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the Proposed 

Actions from Alternative 3, the result is the second fastest rate of recovery or movement towards 

a proper functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Project Area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock 

management strategy for Alternative 3 that largely includes creation of riparian pastures with 

minimum rest requirements of 3-5 years on 11 miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat, adaptive 

management of additional rest and more conservative allowable use levels. The cumulative 

effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Malheur 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan DEIS.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

The effects to these areas remaining vacant were discussed Alternative 2 (for portions other than 

Bosenberg Creek) and Alternative 3 (including Bosenberg Creek). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 208

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek allotment (407 acres) would be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. This would require the construction of 2.5 miles of new fencing. This 

area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis 

would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. The effects to this action are 

similar to Alternative 2 and are discussed there. This is unique to Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased 

on Big Creek Reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is 

because the annual use levels are reduced and schedule rest would allow more expression in 

riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect positive effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, water temperature and Bull Trout Critical habitat would be from a combination of 

actions between Alternative 2 and 3, with the exception of the annual use levels and season long 

rest periods. Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock use effects 

would likely improve riparian shrubs in concert with scheduled 3 years out of 10 season long 

rest. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired 

condition within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). The adaptive management strategy of scheduled 

rest or develop additional rest would allow continual movement towards or achievement of 

desired vegetative and channel characteristic conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1. The 

rate of recovery for this unit would result in the second fastest movement towards desired 

conditions, behind Alternative 1. 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct and indirect effects for the West Lake Creek unit are the same as Alternative 3. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing with the creation of riparian exclosures and 

cages approximately 10% of the total length in the Little Logan unit would result in a decrease in 

hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant 

vigor from leaving more residual stubble height, and improve current riparian hardwoods height 

classes and lessor for shrub stem densities (browse utilization). There are approximately 5 miles 

of bull trout critical habitat within the Little Logan unit and represents 35% of the Bull Trout

Critical Habitat found in the Summit Creek Subwatershed.

The effects of hoof shearing from livestock use would be partially reduced for the next 10 

grazing seasons because of reduced allowable use standards. The change from 20% bank 

alteration to 15% may not influence the condition of the streambanks because it is already 

consistent with the standards. The larger issue is the riparian shrubs for the Little Logan unit. 

The range rider may not affect the condition of riparian resource. It is more likely the rider 

would influence the number of days the livestock spend in the uplands, not causing streambank

alterations. This would improve the duration of time the livestock can spend in the Little Logan 

unit before the use standards are met. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 209

Riparian height classes would be improved from their current condition and a slight 

improvement would occur in riparian densities where they become established in riparian 

exclosures. Recovery of height classes and densities of riparian shrubs outside of the riparian 

exclosures would be slightly improved. The current condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 

4% of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems per unit area desired. Building riparian exclosures and 

cages around stunted riparian shrubs would likely result in a release of riparian shrub height 

classes. Utilization values were approximately 97% for the shrubs that were uncaged and 

available for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is very low and 

growth rates of 1.2 feet per year would likely occur once the vigor has improved. Shrubs that 

have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the increased 

density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and 

livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to improve under a 7 inch 

stubble height. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward 

trend and would likely continue to improve with the change in allowable use. 

Slight improvement in the riparian shrubs and improve the channel characteristics would

measurably increase effective shade values if the riparian exclosures and cages are placed 

adjacent to the southwest side of the streambank in the Little Logan unit within 10 years 

(Appendix A, part 2). These reaches represent 5 miles of all life stages for Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth 

would likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would likely be slightly improved in their 

current condition. Quality fish habitat related to bull trout is often achieved beyond a rating of 

PFC. Reach 5 within the Upper and Lower Little Logan riparian pastures would likely improve 

beyond a rating of PFC within 10 years. 

It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential channel type (C 

towards E) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pasture would likely move towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 2 within 10 years) by 

increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit 

Creek reaches 1,2,3,4, and 5. Attributes related to quality fish habitat and the PCE’s for bull trout

critical habitat are often achieved beyond a riparian rating of PFC. The effects of an increase in 

residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in 

riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects 

related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected 

within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected 

within 10 years. This would facilitate movement towards or achievement of recovery objectives 

and desired condition at a faster rate than that of Alternatives 2, and the same rate as Alternative 

1 within the exclosures but to a greater lesser extent than Alternative 3. The adaptive 

management strategy of enlarging exclosures if sufficient movement towards or achievement of 

desired condition has not been met within 5 years for areas outside the exclosures. 

Prairie Riparian Pasture 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in maintenance in existing 

levels of hoof shearing on streambanks, a slight reduction in woody browse use, and an 

improvement in the hydric plant vigor within Reach 7 of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit 

Reaches 1 and 2. West Fork Summit Reach 1 would not have any direct effects for immediate 3-
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 210

5 years or until management objectives have been met. Allowable use levels in this Alternative 

would be a general reduction from Alternative 2, with an increase in the height for stubble height 

from 4 inches (Alternative 2) to 6 inches for the Prairie Riparian pasture. The woody browse 

value is also more conservative than Alternative 2, changing from 30-50% to 30% use. Bank 

alteration values are the same across all alternatives. The effects for Summit Reach 7 are the 

same as discussed in the North Summit unit in Alternative 2, because of the use levels and no 

minimum rest requirements. This analysis would only discuss direct and indirect effects 

occurring in the West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2. 

The indirect effects of livestock effects for West Fork Summit Reach 1 would be an 

improvement in vigor and expansion of wetland obligate plant communities, improved stream 

bank stability and ultimately better fish habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pastures would likely achieve desired condition (Appendix A, part 2 within 10 years) by 

increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within West 

Fork Summit Creek Reach 1. A result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality 

pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and 

increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. The vertical stability issues from active 

headcutting may impede improvement until they are addressed through active restoration. 

Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be 

expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are 

expected within 10 years.

The indirect effects of livestock effects for West Fork Summit Reach 2 would result in an 

improvement to the herbaceous plant community and channel characteristics, but maintenance of 

the existing riparian shrub conditions for West Fork Summit Reach 2. The riparian shrub 

conditions are critical for the resource values present in these areas. For example, beaver 

complexes were evident in the PFC assessments for these reaches, however, it is not likely that 

this alternative would provide the dietary conditions needed to support beaver populations or

Bull Trout overwintering habitat. The vertical stability issues from active headcutting may 

impede improvement until they are addressed through active restoration. West Fork Summit 

Reaches 1 and 2 were found to be functioning at risk with a downward trend. Reaches rated 

functioning at risk are not stable or resilient to impacts from frequent flooding or other land 

management actions but a minimum rest requirement of 3-5 years would facilitate recovery.

West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2 are connected to Bull trout critical habitat, but are not on the 

Critical Habitat list. It has potential for Bull Trout and field observations have observed Bull 

Trout individuals likely foraging. These two reaches were evaluated as if they are Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat. 

West Fork Summit Reach 1 would likely move towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 2 

within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality 

pools. As a result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in 

bankfull width to depth, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures are expected. Effects 

related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative and channel changes would 

likely be expected within 10 years. This reach may not likely achieve PFC in 5 years; however, 

it would likely meet in 10 years. The use levels identified in Appendix E for the Prairie Riparian 

pasture and monitoring (review of riparian condition 3-5 years out of recovery trajectory) as well 

as the adaptive management strategy (change allowable use) would ensure movement towards 

desired conditions. West Fork Summit Creek Reach 1 would be incorporated into the Prairie 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 211

riparian pasture and have the same use levels as the Prairie Riparian pasture once grazing is 

resumed. The temporary fence for the West Summit Recovery unit (Reach 1) would be removed 

only after sufficient recovery has been achieved for resilient riparian area that is resistant to the 

impacts of livestock grazing. 

West Fork Summit Reach 2 would likely move towards desired condition (Appendix A, part 1 

and 2 within 5-10 years). An improvement in existing vegetative cover for riparian hardwood 

and herbaceous ground cover would occur, to a greater extant then that of Alternative 3 because 

of the 3-5 years minimum rest, adaptive management strategy of additional rest, and use levels 

that are the same as Alternative 3 once grazing is resumed. Residual pool depth, undercut banks, 

and the number of quality pools are expected to improve under the management proposed in 

Alternative 4. As a result of the improvement in residual pool depth, quality pools, bankfull 

width to depth, and shade change in water temperatures are expected for WF Summit Creek 

Reach 2. The use levels identified in Appendix E for the Prairie Riparian pasture would be 

applied to Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek rated as FAR-DN. Annual use levels for riparian 

hardwoods and bank alteration criteria along with minimum rest requirement are sufficient to 

facilitate achievement of a rating of >PFC within 10 years and acquire adequate resiliency to 

support livestock grazing and continually improve riparian condition within the West Fork 

Summit Creek Reach 2. 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 0.8 miles of fence along the boundary of the North 

Summit Riparian pasture may result in minimal ground disturbance from initial fence 

construction. Implementing the design criteria would minimize any effects to riparian areas, the 

viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted Frog within the project area. The short 

term effects of fence construction are expected to result in long term beneficial effects for bull 

trout critical habitat within the North Summit Riparian pasture. 

Reaches are expected to improve beyond a rating of PFC within the next 10 years based on the 

management actions within the Prairie Riparian pasture. Any improvement beyond a rating of 

PFC is directly related to improvements in bull trout critical habitat. It is likely that the current 

annual use levels would facilitate improvement beyond a rating of PFC. This improvement is 

due to the herbaceous plant community alone that is currently in a good condition for Reach 7. 

This herbaceous community would likely improve the channel characteristics slowly over time. 

However, it is not likely that the riparian shrubs would reach the desired condition within the 

time frame identified in Appendix A, part 2. West Fork Reach 2 needs more ground cover and 

an increase in riparian shrub density and height class diversity. The adaptive management 

strategy for the Prairie Riparian pasture if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired 

conditions (Appendix A, part 1) has not been made would benefit the riparian shrubs in this 

reach. This would ensure that movement towards desired is not impeded by land management 

actions. 

Summit Rock Unit 

In Alternative 4, the West Fork Summit Creek reaches 1 and 2 would be incorporated into the 

Prairie riparian pasture. Reaches 6 and 8 would remain within the Summit rock unit. The Summit 

Rock unit was rated as PFC in 2007 for reaches 6 and 8 for a total of 3.5 miles. Livestock 

grazing would occur annually with no season of rest. Annual use levels would include the 

endpoint indicators of 6 inch stubble height, 30-50% browse, and 15 percent bank alteration. The 

adaptive management strategy would include changes in annual use levels (Appendix E). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 212

Reach 6 is expected to improve slightly beyond PFC or maintain a rating of PFC. Annual use 

endpoint indicators are sufficient to facilitate an improvement in herbaceous vigor. Bank stability 

would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous plant and woody plants. Bank 

alteration levels are 15% which is less than Alternative 2. Reach 6 is likely at a minimum to 

maintain a rating of PFC or improve beyond PFC and achieve desired conditions within 10 years 

(Appendix A, part and 2). PFC is a minimum and does not equate to quality fish habitat until a 

rating beyond PFC is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected to at a minimum maintain a rating of PFC or improve beyond PFC because 

of the improvement in herbaceous vigor, browse utilization, and bank alteration within the lower 

portion of reach identified in 2007. Without rest improvement in riparian hardwoods is unlikely 

to occur. Improvement in herbaceous plant vigor is likely to occur in reach 8 under the current 

proposed levels of use. Thus, a rating of greater than PFC is likely to occur in 10 years. 

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in 

the short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) in the short term. Beneficial Impact (BE) in the long-term.

Rationale

The effects are the same as Alternative 3 with the exception that changes in allowable use levels 

and a full time rider are the primary drivers as to whether recovery objectives are met within the 

Summit Prairie allotment and not rest as proposed in Alternative 3. Enlargement of small 

exclosures in the Sagehen and Little Logan Units to cover a larger percentage of Summit Creek 

are the adaptive management strategy in Alternative 4 for the Summit Prairie Allotment.

Cumulative Effects

Table A-14: Summary of Expected Recovery for PFC Ratings by Unit Based on the Actions 

Proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10 

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

Lake Creek Bosenberg 7.95 >PFC >>PFC Y

McCoy Creek 6.35 >PFC >>PFC Y

Logan 

Valley

Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture 1.67 >PFC >>PFC Y

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y

Flat Field 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 0.13 PFC >>PFC Y

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 0.95 PFC >PFC Y

McCoy 

Creek

Lake Creek 

Willow Exclosure 0.51 PFC >>PFC Y

Summit Little Logan 5.03 PFC PFC N
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 213

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10 

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

Prairie Prairie Riparian 

Pasture 

0.73 PFC >PFC Y

0.97 >PFC >>PFC Y

Sagehen

2.43 N PFC N

0.32 N PFC N

1.10 PFC PFC N

0.89 >PFC >>PFC Y

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.08 N PFC N

0.01 PFC PFC N

3.71 >PFC >>PFC Y

1.00 >PFC >PFC Y

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 0.39 PFC >PFC Y

When cumulative effects common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the Proposed 

Actions from Alternative 4, the result is the third fastest rate of recovery or movement towards a 

proper functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat within the Project Area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock 

management strategy for Alternative 4 that largely includes range riders, creation of riparian 

exclosures and units, adaptive management of enlargement of riparian exclosures and changes in 

allowable use levels with starting allowable use levels similar to Alternative 3. The cumulative 

effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Malheur 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan EIS.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

Executive Order 11990 says that Federal agencies shall avoid management practices that would 

adversely affect wetlands. Wetlands that occur in the Project Area would be maintained or 

expanded in spatial extent with improved functionality. Focusing on riparian vegetation and 

channel condition, it would allow increased water storage in the floodplains and is consistent 

with the Executive Order protecting Wetlands. Establishing allowable use levels and the 

adaptive management actions would prevent adverse effects.

Endangered Species Act

The ESA requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the 

FWS or the NMFS if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed species. 

Preparation of a Biological Assessment for initiation of formal ESA section 7 consultation with 

the FWS and NMFS is expected to occur after completion of the draft Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Aquatic BE. Federally listed fish species and their proposed or 

designated critical habitat in the project area subject to consultation include bull trout and their 

critical habitat. The MNF expects to receive a Letter of Concurrence from FWS regarding effects 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 214

to bull trout and proposed critical habitat. The completed BA and consultations can be found in 

the project file. 

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) 

Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid adverse effects to floodplains or 

minimize potential harm. Floodplains several to a hundreds of feet wide occur in the Project 

Area. The floodplains are primarily contained within RHCAs. Management actions would be 

authorized that manage the amount of streambank alteration and herbivory, defer and/or rest

livestock use that would minimize avoid adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus be consistent 

with Executive Order 11988.

Consistency with the Forest Plan

All alternatives are consistent with Management Area 3A standards, Amendment 29, and 

INFISH. Modifications for shade and their respective stream reaches are proposed for 

Amendment #29 Numberic Values as shown in Table 2-33. The proposed values for shade 

would be changed from the Amendment #29 values to the values identified in the TMDL or data 

collected by the Carex Working Group. The proposed shade values by reach are considered to 

be more site specific and realistic than the value present in Amendment 29. They take into 

consideration more factors that have localized effects on stream shade. 

Clean Water Act

The CWA requires that that the Forest Service manages for the attainment of water quality 

criteria that provides for the most restrictive beneficial use present on a reach of a stream. The 

most restrictive beneficial use that is present in the Project Area is Bull Trout spawning and 

rearing. Many of the streams present in the Project Area were identified as water quality limiting 

for water temperature with supporting data collected continuously at multiple locations. Big 

Creek, Lake Creek and Summit Creek were identified with 303(d) listings that were followed 

with the development of a TMDL. The USFS is responsible for developing a Water Quality 

Recovery Plan (WQRP) that would demonstrate monitoring, management changes based on 

monitoring and provide for a reporting process to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

every 5 years. The desired condition table (Appendix A, part 1) identifies the desired vegetative 

communities and used the effective shade curves or empirically collected reference data to 

identify what the desired effective shade values should be achieved per reach. The monitoring 

plan (see Chapter 2), management objectives (Appendix A, part 2) and adaptive management 

suite (Appendix A, part 3) developed for the Summit Logan Project would provide the 

management framework to ensure that the livestock effects to the Project Area are not adverse 

and that these streams are continuing on an upward trend towards their desired condition. The 

allowable use levels (Appendix I) and the flexibility to adjust these levels would provide for the 

recovery of the wetland obligate vegetation attributes and channel morphology.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The project as described would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the aquatic

resource. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 215

Recreation___________________________________________ 

Introduction

This analysis describes the existing conditions of campgrounds, trails, trailheads, administrative 

and dispersed sites in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area.

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Management Plan 

The National Forest System lands encompassed within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area have been inventoried using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) system to determine what recreation opportunities and settings are available to visitors. 

The project area falls within the Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, Semi-Primitive NonMotorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized class of the ROS. Management direction for 

recreation as outlined in the Forest Plan is to continue to maintain existing ROS settings. The 

Forest Plan Management areas in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area 

are discussed below in relation to the ROS class.

General Forest (MA-1): Manage dispersed recreation for roaded modified conditions. 

Rangeland (MA-2): Mange for dispersed recreation ranging from semi-primitive to roaded 

modified. 

 The analysis area receives low to moderate recreation use, which is spread throughout a 

six month period starting in late May and running through mid-November. There are 76 

established dispersed camp sites within Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project area. Dispersed campsites offer the recreationist a more primitive camping 

experience. Use in fall hunting season is moderate to high. Use is distributed throughout 

archery, deer and elk seasons. Hunter use of the dispersed site varies depending on 

number of hunting tags for a unit and the number of “new” hunters in the area. Use of 

Off Highway Vehicle Use (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. 

Developed Recreation Sites (MA-12): Manage for developed recreation opportunities, 

providing interpretation and enhancement of cultural and natural resources. 

 This Management Area includes Murray, Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-park, Logan Valley 

Interpretive Site and Big Creek Campgrounds, encompassing approximately 8 acres. 

Administrative Sites (MA-19): Provide and maintain sites for facilities necessary for the 

administration of Malheur National Forest lands. 

 This Management Area includes Lake Creek Organization Camp, and encompasses 

approximately 27 acres. 

Analysis Methods 

The analysis area analyzed for recreation impacts includes the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization project area. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 216

The Malheur National Forest uses ROS classes to develop management direction for recreation 

on the forest. This analysis uses the ROS classes assigned during Forest Plan development as the 

basis of this assessment.

The source of the recreation information is the Forest GIS data base that was compiled from the 

recreation inventory information and field visits to the project area.

Affected Environment

Table C1: Management Areas

Management Areas Acres % of Area

12: Developed Recreation 8 <1

Administrative Site 27 <1

TOTAL 35 <1

In 2006 the Malheur National Forest developed a Forest niche, which is a statement of our 

unique role and contribution to recreation offerings in the Pacific Northwest Region. The 

purpose of the niche is to help us identify what makes each Forest special and allow us to narrow 

our focus to the most appropriate recreation opportunities so that we can provide quality 

recreation. Our niche is: 

It should be noted that livestock and livestock grazing are very much an integral part of western 

and local “traditional way of life”. That is to say, it is not an uncommon western experience to 

encounter livestock, or big game, and subsequent herbivore impacts to the environment. 

Experienced western recreationists typically adapt to the presence of livestock either by 

acceptance of the nearby presence, hazing livestock away, or choosing alternate sites removed 

from, or with less obvious presence, of livestock activities.

Recreational use in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area is oriented 

toward enjoyment of the area’s natural and historic resources. People visit the project area to 

view wildlife and birds, to see the spectacular wildflower displays in the spring, to visit the 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness to just enjoy the solitude. Other visitors enjoy hunting 

opportunities in the mountains surrounding the valley, camping in the foothills, horseback riding, 

hiking, and various other outdoor activities. 

A majority of the recreational use of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

area is concentrated around Murray and Big Creek campgrounds, Lake Creek Organization 

Camp and Huddleston Trailhead and Snopark (colloquialism for snow mobile parking and 

unloading recreation sites). Seasonal use varies based on the wildflower bloom in a given year, 

weather, and the availability of upland birds and big game. The highest visitation occurs from 

May through December. The lowest visitation occurs during the winter months, when the 

A Traditional Way of Life

A dispersed recreation destination where local communities share traditions and 

heritage with new generations and with visitors. Recreation visitors enjoy the 

freedom to hunt, drive, camp, and hike in a wild place and enjoy the beauty and 

diversity of forest ecosystems away from major population centers.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 217

temperatures drop and access is limited, nevertheless the grazing allotments are not active past 

mid-October.

Lake Creek Allotment

Developed Recreation Sites

Murray Campground

Murray Campground is located within Logan Valley on Forest Service Road 1600924 (T.16S, 

R.34E, and Section 3). Murray campground is in close proximity to the south side trailheads: 

Lake Creek, Meadow Fork, and Big Creek and one of the major access roads to the high 

elevation trailheads (Road’s End High Lake Overlook), which accesses the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness. The proximity to Logan Valley and the Wilderness make this a popular 

campground for weekends and during hunting seasons. 

The site is used consistently throughout the summer recreation use season, but use is higher 

highest during the big game hunting seasons. Murray campground provides a newer type vault 

toilet, 6 developed campsites with firerings and picnic tables. Fee’s are charged at this site. The 

site can facilitate vehicles with trailers, but has limited sites for motor homes. No Vegetation 

Management plan has been done for this campground. 

The Lake Creek Allotment is currently not active. East of the campground is an adjacent 

allotment that is not in use, thus lessening conflicts for recreating publics. However, livestock 

from a northwestern direction have occasionally entered the campground for the past several 

years As MA12, livestock is prohibited within campgrounds, however the campground has not 

been fenced excluding livestock entry.

Dispersed Sites

There are 30 known dispersed campsites, with the majority within riparian areas that show 

limited evidence of water quality impacts attributed to livestock use. The 30 dispersed campsites 

are scattered throughout the allotment, with eight campsites located in Bosenberg, two in Horse 

Pasture, and 20 in McCoy Creek pastures. Use of these sites varies throughout the year, with the 

majority of sites showing heaviest use during the fall hunting season and no use during the 

winter. Dispersed campsites are characterized by primitive structures such as self-made toilets, 

meat poles, rock fire ring, and log benches built by campers. Campsites are concentrated 

primarily in flat areas off main transportation systems where water can be accessed. Many are 

near springs or creeks. Varied degrees of vegetation and riparian zone damage occur throughout 

the watershed due to vehicles, sanitation practices, and removal of vegetation for various 

purposes. Use of Off Highway Vehicle Use (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. 

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately 16 miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on 

Forest Roads within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is 

generally Decemeber 15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions). 

Bike Trail

Bike trails B-5053, B05045, B-5055 follows on Forest Roads and on Forest Trail 385 for 6 

miles. This is a shared route. These trails have low use during the spring, summer, and fall 

seasons.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 218

Logan Valley Allotment

Administrative Sites

Lake Creek Organization Camp

Located on Forest Service Road 1600924. (T.16S, R.34E, and Section 3). Lake Creek is a private 

business located on Forest Service land. The permitted area is 27 acres and is operated under a 

Special Use permit. The fences have been replaced within the last 3 years and are in good shape 

all the way around the camp. Livestock, including horses, are not allowed within Lake Creek 

Organization Camp.

Developed Recreation Sites

Big Creek Campground

Big Creek is located on Forest Service Road 1600815 along Big Creek, (T.16S., R331/2E., 

Section 14). Big Creek is the most popular campground in this area. The campground has 15 

camp sites with fire rings, picnic tables, and two vault toilets with fees being charged. All 15 

campsites are within the Big Creek RHCA and outside of the active flood plain, with a buck-npole barrier fence along Big Creek. There is approximately 5000 feet of barb wire around the 

campground that is in good shape to keep livestock out of the campground. Livestock is 

prohibited within campgrounds, but cattle have been able to access the campground during 

periods when fence maintenance has been needed. 

Logan Valley Interpretive Site

Logan Valley is located on Forest Service Road 16 (T.16.,R331/2E.,Section 14). Logan Valley is 

a popular site to view wildlife, flowers and Strawberry Mountain in the background. It is a 

pullout with parking for 3 vehicles. 

Dispersed Sites

The 1 dispersed campsite located in the South Big Creek pasture. Dispersed campsites are 

characterized by primitive structures such as self-made toilets, meat poles, rock fire ring, and log 

benches built by campers. Campsites are concentrated primarily in flat areas off main 

transportation systems where water can be accessed. Many are near springs or creeks. Varied 

degrees of vegetation and riparian zone damage occur throughout the watershed due to vehicles, 

sanitation practices, and removal of vegetation for various purposes. Use of Off Highway 

Vehicle Use (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. Recreation use is mostly 

distributed throughout archery, deer and elk seasons and the allotment is not used during the 

winter season.

Special Use Permit

Annually a horse group consisting of 100 with horses, horse trailers, catering trucks and showers 

has been issued a special use permit. The event lasts for 1 week where horses with riders leave 

Horse Pasture to nearby trail system for day rides. Hay brought in for horse use is weed free hay. 

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately 5.1 miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on 

Forest Roads within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is 

generally Decemeber 15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions) when 

the allotment is not in use. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 219

Bike Trail

Bike trails B-5053 and B-5054 follows on Forest Roads for 5 miles. This is a shared route. 

These trails have low use during the spring, summer, and fall seasons and are inaccessible during 

the winter.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Dispersed Sites

There are no known or GIS identified dispersed campsites, bike or snowmobile trails in the 

allotment. Cows are permitted according to Forest Plan Standards and would not be addressed in 

the effects section.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Dispersed Sites

There are 38 known dispersed campsites, with the majority within riparian areas that show 

limited evidence of water quality impacts attributed to livestock use. The 38 dispersed campsites 

are scattered throughout the allotment, with 10 in Crane Rock, 13 in Little Logan, 10 in Sagehen 

and 4 in Summmit Rock patures. Use of these sites varies throughout the year, with the majority 

of sites showing heaviest use during the fall hunting season and no use during the winter when 

the allotment isn’t active. Dispersed campsites are characterized by primitive structures such as 

self-made toilets, meat poles, rock fire ring, and log benches built by campters. Campsites are 

concentrated primarily in flat areas off main transportation systems where water can be accessed. 

Many are near springs or creeks. Vehicle Use (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. 

Varied degrees of vegetationand riparian zone damage occur throughout the watershed due to 

vehicles, sanitatin practices, and removal of vegetation for various prurposes. 

Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-park

Huddleston Trailhead/Snopark is adjacent to County Road 62 and is within the Wilderness Loop 

Visual Corridor a sensitivity Level 1. Huddleston is a multi-purpose trailhead and sno-park in 

the winter and a trailhead in the other seasons. The site is not fenced immediately around the site. 

Livestock are entering the site. 

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately 54 miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on 

Forest Roads within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is 

generally Decemeber 15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions) when 

the allotment is not active. 

Bike Trail

Bike trail B-5053 follows on Forest Road and on Forest Trail 374 for 10 miles. This is a shared 

route. These trails have low use during the spring, summer, and fall seasons and are inaccessible 

during the winter season.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 220

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects from the implementation of Alternative 1 because no 

actions are being proposed. Recreational visits within the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy 

Creek and Summit Prairie allotments would remain at or near the same level as previous years. 

Traditional use patterns and recreational opportunities would not be impacted. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects. Affects to recreation are measured in terms of 

change in the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS). There would be no effect on the ROS 

class for this area.

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

Developed Recreation Sites

Murray Campground

Under both Alternatives 2 and 4 cattle moving from the northwestern direction (not associated 

with this allotment grazing permit) would no longer be able to access Murray Campground 

because of the new fence construction. Livestock impact to recreationists would be less, thus 

reducing visitor complaints of the presence of livestock and their associated smells and 

nuisances.

Alternative 3 would continue to allow livestock to migrate from the north toward Murray 

campground; livestock would continue to be present in the campground and user conflict would 

persist. The occasional visitor complaints would continue about the livestock presence in the 

campground. 

Dispersed Sites

Under all of the action alternatives there is no change is anticipated in the diversity of camping 

style or use patterns in this area. No change in the availability of dispersed camping at the 

existing 30 dispersed campsite is expected for the typical use in spring, summer and fall.

Snowmobile Trails 

Since snowmobile activities occur when the allotment is inactive, under all of the action 

alternatives, there would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. Approximately 16 

miles of existing designated snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of groomed and ungroomed conditions.

Bike Trail 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would affect approximately 6 miles of bike trail tread. The effects from 

cattle use include but are not limited to widening of trails from the existing standard, breaking 

down the edges of trails where construction is benched, kicking out constructed water bars,
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 221

adding to water run-off from the trail, making new trails where cattle trails leave existing trail 

treads, knocking down constructed trail markers, and rubbing and knocking down sign posts. 

Grazing would heighten recreational users encountering increased levels of trampled vegetation, 

creating “dust bowls” along and adjacent to trails where livestock salting areas are located. 

Under Alternative 3, recreationalist would not encounter livestock on the (approximately) 6 

miles of bike trail tread. No livestock grazing would lessen recreational users contending against 

increased levels of trampled vegetation, creating “dust bowls” along and adjacent to trails where 

livestock salting areas are located. Any encounters with livestock would be accidental. 

Other Recreational Activities

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, there is 2.5 miles of fence proposed for construction. The fence 

construction may hinder recreationalist ability to directly access to the steam temporarily until an 

alternative route either around or over the fence is found. The removal of the 1.5 miles of fence 

would allow recreationalist to move freely across the landscape, easily facilitating cross-country 

travel. OHV travel may also be hindered by the newly constructed fences, restricting travel 

routes. 

Alternative 3 would have no effect to recreationalist in this area. There are no improvements or 

structures proposed. 

No adaptive management strategies are proposed for this allotment.

Logan Valley Allotment

Administrative Sites

Lake Creek Organizational Camp

There would be no physical impacts to the Lake Creek Organizational Camp from any of the 

action alternatives. There is a fence surrounding the Lake Creek Organizational Camp limiting 

impacts of livestock grazing activities. The fence is in good condition and has excluded 

livestock from entering the camp. There would be minimal impacts, such as cattle still being 

seen or heard in the vicinity, of the Lake Creek Organizational Camp from either of the action 

alternatives.

Developed Recreation Sites

Big Creek Campground 

There would be no impacts to Big Creek Campground under any of the action alternatives. A 

fence is constructed around the campground and would exclude livestock from the campground, 

except when fence maintenance was needed. However, the presence of livestock outside of the 

campground and their associated smells and sounds would continue which may cause an 

occasional visitor complaint. 

Logan Valley Interpretive Site

Under all of action alternative there would be no change in the Logan Valley Interpretive site use 

patterns.

Dispersed Sites

Under all of the action alternatives there is no change is anticipated in the diversity of camping 

style or use patterns in this area. No change in the availability of dispersed camping at the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 222

existing single dispersed campsite is expected for the typical use in spring, summer and fall and 

no, or extremely minor, dispersed camping use occurs during the winter.

Snowmobile Trail

Under all of the action alternatives the allotments are inactive during the snowmobile season and 

there would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. Approximately 5.1 miles of 

existing designated snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of groomed and un-groomed 

conditions.

Bike Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives approximately 5 miles of bike trail tread would continue to be 

affected by livestock grazing. The effects from cattle use include, but are not limited to, manure, 

widening of trails from the existing standard, breaking down the edges of trails where 

construction is benched, kicking out constructed water bars, adding to water run-off from the 

trail, making new trails where cattle trails leave existing trail treads, knocking down constructed 

trail markers, and rubbing and knocking down sign posts. Grazing would heighten recreational 

users encountering increased levels of trampled vegetation, creating “dust bowls” along and 

adjacent to trails where livestock salting areas are located. 

Special Uses 

Alternative 2 would move the Horse pasture from Lake Creek allotment to Logan Valley 

allotment. Making the Horse pasture an active allotment pasture could have a negative impact 

on the Special Use Permit Horse Group that uses the Horse Pasture for an annual Recreation 

Event. If cows are pastured during the time of the event, the group may not be able to use the 

area at the same capacity as they did in the past. The vacant Horse Pasture is used as a campsite 

for the Horse Group that consist of approximately 100 people with horses, trailers, catering 

trucks and showers. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no impact to the Special Use Permit Horse Group. 

Other Recreational Activities

The construction of a riparian fencing in all of the action alternatives may temporarily hinder 

recreationalist ability to have direct access to the stream until an alternative route either around 

or over the fence is found. Other fence construction may also impact OHV travel, restricting 

travel routes. The removal of fence would allow recreationalist to move freely across the 

landscape, easily facilitating cross-country travel. 

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would further impact recreationalist.

McCoy Creek Allotment

There are no GIS identified recreational use sites in the allotment. Cows are permitted according 

to Forest Plan Standards and will not be addressed in the effects section.

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would not impact recreationist. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Dispersed Sites
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 223

Under all of the action alternatives there is no change is anticipated in the diversity of camping 

style or use patterns in this area. No change in the availability of dispersed camping at the 

existing 38 dispersed campsite is expected for the typical use in spring, summer and fall.

Snowmobile Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives, there would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. 

Approximately 54 miles of existing designated snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of 

groomed and un-groomed conditions.

Bike Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives approximately 10 miles of bike trail tread would be continue 

to be affected by livestock grazing. The effects from cattle use include but are not limited to 

widening of trails from the existing standard, breaking down the edges of trails where 

construction is benched, kicking out constructed water bars, adding to water run-off from the 

trail, making new trails where cattle trails leave existing trail treads, knocking down constructed 

trail markers, and rubbing and knocking down sign posts. Grazing would heighten recreational 

users encountering increased levels of trampled vegetation, creating “dust bowls” along and 

adjacent to trails where livestock salting areas are located. In addition, there would be the sights, 

sounds, smells, and manure that normally accompanying livestock presence. 

Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-Park 

There would be limited impacts to Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-Park under any of the action 

alternatives. The sno-park is not fenced in; allowing cow’s access to this recreational site. The 

presence of livestock their associated smells, sounds, and nuisances near, in, and around this area 

could cause occasional visitor complaints. 

Other Recreational Activities

The construction of the riparian fencing in Alternatives 3 and 4 may hinder recreationalist ability 

to have direct access to the stream. Alternative routes may be made either around or over the 

fence. 

Other fence construction proposed in all action alternatives could increase the difficulty for 

recreationalist to travel cross-county. Other fence construction may also impact OHV travel, 

restricting travel routes. However, in other areas the fence removal in all action alternatives 

would allow recreationalist to move more freely across the landscape, more easily facilitating 

cross-country travel. 

The construction of the three upland ponds for livestock water in Alternative 2 most likely would 

not have an effect on the recreating public. The development of a spring may be used by the 

public while recreating. 

The construction of the loading ramp with an attached catch pen adjacent to Forest Service Road 

1647 in all of the action alternatives would not have an effect on the recreating public.

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would not further impact 

recreationist. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 224

Effects Common to All

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Area lies within the East Beulah, 

Malheur and Murderer’s Creek Big Game Management Units. The area is popular during 

general big game bow seasons and controlled big game hunts. Seasons are in late summer and 

fall. Livestock are removed from the allotment pastures in mid-October, and hence are not 

present during portions of deer season and all of elk rifle season. It is anticipated that Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife would continue to offer hunting opportunities in this area as 

part of their management of big game and upland birds. General bow-hunting, black powder and 

controlled hunts would have similar seasons and numbers of tags. Bow-hunter numbers have 

increased in recent years and this trend may continue. Hunting in the Summit Logan Valley

Grazing Authorization project area is managed and regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. Nothing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization affects the jurisdiction 

of the State of Oregon with respect to wildlife management.

Cumulative Effects

All past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in Appendix C have been 

considered for their cumulative effects on recreation. Although the proposed activities would be 

evident and could have in impact to recreationalist in the short-term, these activities are not 

expected to noticeably impede recreational activities. 

The proposed activities would move towards meeting recreation settings and continued grazing

would in part fit the “Niche” character as identified in the Malheur Recreation Strategy.

The area is consistent with the roaded modified and roaded natural ROS classes under which the 

area is to be managed.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

The project is consistent with the Malheur National Forest Plan, as amended. Proposed activities 

in each of these alternatives are allowed for and meet the direction contained in the Forest Plan 

relative to ROS.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The action alternatives would not create any impacts that would cause irreversible or 

irretrievable damage to recreation resources. 

Visual Quality________________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Visual Quality Report that evaluates the potential effects of livestock 

grazing on the visual quality within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. 

The full specialist report can be found in Appendix F which is available for review by request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

MA 14 Visual Corridors
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 225

Approximately 40,265 acres (60%) of the project area are identified in the Malheur National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1990) as 

Management Area 14 – Visual Corridor (Forest Plan, pg IV-108). 

The Forest Plan designates Forest Service Road 16 also called the Wilderness Loop as 

Sensitivity Level I Corridor as MA 14. 

These Visual corridors consist of the visible and potentially visible landscapes along major travel 

routes where the traveling public has a high-to-medium sensitivity to the scenery. The goal is to 

manage corridor viewsheds with primary consideration to their scenic quality and the growth of 

large diameter trees. Visual quality objectives of retention, partial retention and modification 

would be applied while providing for other uses and resources. 

Standards

 Permit livestock grazing in accordance with Forest-wide Standards (#7, Forest Plan, pg 

IV-108). 

 Design both structural and non-structural improvements to meet visual quality objective 

in Sensitivity Level 1 corridors to result in a natural appearing visual condition (#8, 

Forest Plan, pg IV-109). 

Wild and Scenic River15 (MA-22)

Approximately 15 acres (<1%) of the project is identified in the Malheur National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1990) as Management Areas 

22 – Wild and Scenic River (Forest Plan, pg IV-135). 

Standards

 Commercial livestock grazing is permitted under approved management plans which 

have analyzed compatibility of livestock grazing with other resource values. Design 

range improvements to be compatible with the visual objectives. 

Analysis Methods 

A new scenery element has been developed for use within the USFS Scenery Management 

System Scenic. The existing Scenic Stability analysis for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization area focuses on the single major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its 

ecosystem conditions. 

The mapped boundaries of the visual foreground and middleground areas were computer 

generated using a “seen area” modeling program from selected viewpoints along County Road 

62 and Forest Service Road 16. 

Visual corridors were visited in the field to determine visual quality objectives based on Forest 

Plan direction. 

Affected Environment

Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor (County Road 62 and Forest Service Road 16)

Foreground and Middleground

 15 The Forest Plan was amended by the Wild and Scenic Plan Decision for the Malheur River. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 226

The Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor is the only visual corridor located within the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area. There is 3,912 acres located within the visual 

foreground and 20,366 acres within the visual middleground (see Table V-1 below). 

Table V-1: Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor Foreground and Middleground within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project

Allotment Unit Foreground (acres) Middleground (acres)

Lake Creek

Bosenberg 143 4375

Horse Pasture -- 90

McCoy Creek 32 2237

TOTAL 175 6,702

Logan Valley

Big Field 273 711

Corral Holding 15 --

East Bosenberg 24 83

East Lake Creek -- 450

Flat Field 45 496

Front Field -- 40

Lower Field -- 233

North Big Creek -- 191

South Big Creek 82 46

West Bosenberg 43 200

West Lake Creek -- 305

TOTAL 482 2,755

McCoy Creek 

Cow Camp 4 113

Dry -- 17

Gov’t Flat 13 183

Lake Creek -- 190

North Fork -- 25

Ridge 55 193

Starvation -- 24

TOTAL 72 745

Summit Prairie 

Crane Rock 11 2324

Little Logan 802 1468

North Summit 85 19

Sagehen 50 1067

South Summit 36 --

Summit Rock 2184 5286

West Summit 15 --

TOTAL 3,182 10,164

Overall TOTAL 3,912 20,366

Existing Scenic Stability 

The Summit Logan Valley area encompasses a dramatic expansive landscape that is in a 

relatively undeveloped state. The scenic qualities of most landscape settings in the Logan Valley 

are defined by striking natural features – the vast open vistas across the floor valley, backed by 

stark mountain ridges. Structures from historic and present-day ranching operations are integral 

parts of a pastoral landscape on the valley floor. Seasonal landscape elements include one of 

Logan Valley and Summit Prairie’s most dramatic spring wildflower blooms. Another important 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 227

component of the scenic stability of Logan Valley is Strawberry Mountain Wilderness in the 

background. There are outstanding opportunities for viewing the mountain and interpretive 

overlook into the valley for wildlife sightings. 

Existing Scenic Integrity

Scenic Integrity is measured on the Malheur National Forest through Visual Quality Objective 

levels defined by the USFS Visual Management System. Levels and descriptions (as perceived 

by the public) are described in Table V-2 (below). 

Table V-2: Scenic Integrity

Visual Quality Objectives Scenic Integrity as people perceive it

Preservation Unaltered, visually complete or intact

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial Retention Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum Modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably altered

The existing scenic integrity meets the visual quality objective of the Forest Plan. Within the 

project area there are large areas of natural appearing landscapes. Overall, from foreground, 

middleground and background views there is little evidence of human activities in this project 

area. There are existing wire fences, water troughs, springs, and livestock within the planning 

area. The existing condition meets the Forest Plan objective of “retention and partial retention” 

within the foreground, middleground and background area.

In the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization the valley and the surrounding mountains 

represent a vast dramatic landscape of very high scenic integrity and quality. The Wilderness 

Loop along County Road 62 side of the Summit Logan Valley project area although scenic, is 

more typical of landscapes in other parts of the forest. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct or indirect effects from the implementation of Alternative 1 because no 

action is being proposed. The visual foreground would remain at 3,912 acres and the visual 

middleground would remain at 20,366 acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects to the exiting visual quality within the project 

area. 

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects for All Action Alternatives

Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor (County Road 62 and Forest Service Road 16)

Foreground and Middleground
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 228

Improvements and structures proposed for the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and 

Summit Prairie allotments would vary based on the alternative (see Chapter 2 for further detail). 

Acres within the foreground and middleground would also fluctuate per alternative however all 

proposed activities would be designed to meet the visual quality objectives as directed by the 

Forest Plan. 

The scenic quality condition in within the project area is not expected to diminish under any of 

the action alternatives. 

Adaptive management strategies would also vary based on the alternatives (see Appendix A, part 

3 for further detail) however all of the adaptive management strategies that are proposed would 

have no effect on the visual quality of the foreground and middleground of the Lake Creek, 

Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments. 

Malheur River Wild and Scenic River Corridor

There are no improvements and/or structures proposed within the 15 acres of the project area that 

is located within the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River Corridor. There would be no effect 

to the outstanding remarkable value of unique scenic character to the Malheur River Wild and 

Scenic River Corridor. The outstanding remarkable value would continue to be protected; 

preserving the free flowing conditions of the river. 

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives

Effects from the proposed improvements and structure in combination with the past, ongoing, 

and reasonably foreseeable future activities (as listed in Appendix C) are considered when 

analyzing the cumulative effects of the action alternatives. 

In 2011, 3 Decision Memo’s were signed authorizing projects within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project areas that would enhance livestock management by implementing 

numerous improvements and structures (see Chapter 1 for further detail). These projects 

combined with the structures and improvements proposed under the Action Alternatives would 

have additive but minimal impact on the visual quality of the project area. 

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

The project is consistent with the Malheur National Forest Plan, as amended. Proposed activities 

in each of these alternatives are allowed for and meet the direction contained in the Forest Plan 

relative to Visual Quality Objectives.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The action alternatives would not be expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible 

or irretrievable damage to the scenic integrity. 

Heritage_____________________________________________ 

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of livestock activities proposed within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area on cultural resources. Cultural 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 229

resources are fragile and irreplaceable resources that chronicle the history of people utilizing the 

forested environment. 

Regulatory Framework 

The legal framework that mandates the Forest to consider the effects of its actions on cultural 

resources is wide-ranging. In this case, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation that governs the 

treatment of cultural resources during project planning and implementation. Implementing 

regulations that clarify and expand upon the NHPA include 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic 

Properties), 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), 

and 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources). The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

of the Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Oregon 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), signed a programmatic agreement (PA) regarding the 

management of cultural resources on National Forest system lands in 2004. The 2004 PA 

outlines specific procedures for the identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources 

during activities or projects sponsored by the Forest Service. It also establishes the process that 

the SHPO utilizes to review Forest Service undertakings for NHPA compliance. The Grazing 

Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional 

Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic 

Preservation Act” (Goodman 2006), is the region’s policy for performing heritage reviews of 

grazing permit reauthorizations. This policy has also been approved by Oregon SHPO.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 is also a cultural resource management directive 

as it calls for agencies to analyze the effects of their actions on sociocultural elements of the 

environment. Laws such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred 

Sites) also guide Forest Service decision-making as it relates to Heritage. The American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of 

their projects on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions. 

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990), as amended, tiers to 

the previously mentioned laws and corresponding Forest Service manual direction as it sets forth 

resource management goals, objectives, and standards. Forest-wide management standards that 

are pertinent for this cultural resource effects analysis include:

 Conduct a professionally supervised cultural resource survey on National Forest lands to 

identify cultural resource properties. Use sound survey strategies and the Malheur National 

Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Design (Thomas 1991). 

 Evaluate the significance of sites by applying the criteria for eligibility to the National 

Register of Historic Places.

 Consider the effects of all Forest Service undertakings on cultural resources. Coordinate the 

formulation and evaluation of alternatives with the State cultural resource plan, the State 

Historic Preservation Office and State Archaeologist, other State and Federal agencies, and 

with traditional and religious leaders of Native American Indian groups and tribes with 

historic ties to the project planning area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 230

Consultation with Others

Many of the previously described laws, regulations, and directives instruct the Forest Service to 

consult with American Indian tribes, the state, and other interested parties on cultural resource 

management issues. This consultation has been conducted through the NEPA process and under 

the terms of existing agreements with American Indian Tribes. To date, there have been no 

concerns raised during scoping regarding the effects of grazing activities on cultural resources. 

Documentation of compliance with the NHPA is currently being prepared for referral to the 

Oregon SHPO in accordance with the 2004 PA, and consultation with that agency would be 

completed prior to the publication of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

Final Environmental Analysis.

Tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis is ongoing with the Burns Paiute 

Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs Reservation. At this point in the consultation process no concerns regarding 

the effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project proposal on cultural 

resources have been identified. 

Analysis Methods 

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Planning Area includes all National Forest 

system lands administered by the Prairie City Ranger District that are within the designated 

boundary established for this project. The cultural resources effects analysis, including 

cumulative effects, would focus on cultural properties identified within the project area. The 

proposed action does not have potential to have indirect effects (i.e., visual, auditory, 

atmospheric) on cultural resources that are distant from the project activities.

Affected Environment

Cultural resource identification efforts in the vicinity of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization project area have focused on three primary types of resources: prehistoric 

archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and places that support resources of 

contemporary tribal interest. Cultural resource identification efforts that have been conducted in 

the four allotments of this project include pedestrian cultural resource inventories, literature 

reviews, and consultation with American Indian tribes and other stakeholders that are historically 

associated with the area. In accordance with the Grazing Allotment Review Strategy for Section 

106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006, 

“Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act” (Goodman 2006), 94 

sites of a total 129 sites within the grazing allotments were identified to be monitored; 67 were 

visited. 

Archaeological resources are places where human activities have deposited physical remains or 

measurably altered the earth in some manner. Archaeological sites may be prehistoric or historic 

and are considered valuable if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, scientific or scholarly 

information important in prehistory or history. Complete site avoidance is the preferred form of 

treatment for archaeological resources that have the ability, or may have the ability, to yield 

scientific data (Keyser et al. 1988). Because of the nature of grazing activities, archaeological 

resources cannot always be avoided. If grazing conflicts with cultural resources are identified, 

the adverse effects would be mitigated or eliminated by amending grazing practices authorized in 

the permit (Goodman 2006).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 231

The most frequently encountered archaeological resources in the Summit Logan Grazing 

Authorization project area are scatters of lithic remains that are distributed in variable densities 

and are related to occupations of hunter-gatherers that span over 8,000 years. The prehistoric 

lithic scatters are largely related to hunting and tool finishing. However, several sites are 

associated with natural obsidian sources within the area. Another dominant artifact observed in 

the project area is the hopper mortar; over 180 hopper mortar bases have been found in the 

project area, most of which were found in situ (David 2004). Hopper mortars and pestles are 

stone tools that were used to process root crops, plant products, dried meat and fish, and other 

resources including insects.

Historic archaeological resources may include foundations or structural ruins, or features such as 

privy pits and trash dumps. Sites with historic archaeological components in the project area are 

believed to be associated with Depression era livestock grazing, the Hines Logging Railroad, 

early homesteading, agriculture, and early Forest Service administrative activities. Portions of 

corrals, burnt-out log troughs, historic ditches predating 1928, historic telephone lines and 

associated artifacts (ceramic insulators, telephone lines), railroad beds and associated artifacts 

from the Hines logging railroad activities, and cabins, including a snow survey cabin located at 

John Day Summit, have been recorded throughout the project area. Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC)-era buildings are located at the Lake Creek Organizational Camp which was an early 

Forest Service ranger station. 

The National Environmental Policy Act, and other authorities require that federal agencies 

consider the impact of their actions on cultural uses of the natural environment such as those 

practiced by preset-day communities of American Indians. Resources of contemporary tribal 

interest may include traditional cultural properties (Parker and King 1998), areas important for 

the practice of Indian religion, Indian sacred sites on federal lands, and areas that support cultural 

uses of the natural environment (i.e., subsistence use of plants or animals). Ethnographic sources 

have identified portions of the Summit Logan Grazing project area as important for traditional 

American Indian land-uses (Couture 1978).

Historic Land Use

The project area lies near the boundary between two cultural areas. The ethnographic record 

(Whiting 1950) indicates that members of the Hu’nipwi’tika (Lomatium eaters) band of the 

Northern Paiute Indians were the primary inhabitants of the project area, and that two other 

Paiute bands visited and utilized the areas for subsistence activities. Ethnographic and historic 

accounts indicate that Sahaptin speaking people from the Columbia Plateau also made frequent 

forays into the region. Parties affiliated with Tenino (Warm Springs), Nez Perce, Cayuse, and 

Umatilla periodically visited the project area to gather roots, hunt game, engage in trade, acquire 

information, and to solidify social ties throughout the ethnographic present (Suphan 1974). 

With the headwaters of the Malheur River at the southern end of the planning area, the area 

became one of the major fishing sites for the Burns Paiute. “It represented the scene of a 

prominent annual economic and social event centered on the salmon” (Couture 1996:36). The 

area was also rich with camas, biscuit root, chokecherries, and grasshoppers, which they 

processed with hopper mortars and stored for winter use.

For a brief period (1873 to 1882), the Malheur Indian Reservation encompassed a major portion 

of the project area. In 1873 the Federal Government set aside the reservation comprising of 

nearly two million acres, extending north to Strawberry Mountain, east and west from Castle 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 232

Rock to the Silvies River, and south to Malheur Lake. It is conceivable that some Paiute 

continued to use project areas during this time, but documentation for this is conspicuously 

lacking. By the end of the 1940s Indian use of the project area was primarily limited to a few 

families hunting and gathering traditional cultural plants as delicacies instead of staples. 

Following the decline of eastern Oregon gold rush in the late 19th century, the principal land use 

in the southern Blue Mountains was livestock grazing. By the late 1860s large herds of cattle, 

sheep and horses were grazing these prairies with no limit being placed on the numbers of 

livestock. By 1912, more than 2,000 to 4,500 cattle, 6,000 to 8,000 sheep, and 500 to 1,000 

horses grazed in the planning area and surrounding vicinity (Mosgrove 1980). Until the early 

1900s livestock on the Forest was not managed and high stocking levels, stock driveways, and 

lack of management resulted in degraded upland and riparian conditions.

Grazing practices that started in the 1860s altered the native grasslands in and around the project 

areas, displacing prairie vegetation with annual grasses for livestock forage. For heavily 

overgrazed areas in the project area, non-native grass species were introduced, such as the 

reseeding project in the project area that began in the 1930s. And as early as 1915, historic 

irrigation ditches were being built in the project area by water rights holders with spreader 

ditches being plowed in the valley through the 1950s. The footprint of the ditches is still visible 

and some are still in use.

In the 1870s the Dalles Military Road was opened connecting Boise to The Dalles by way of

Canyon City to service the miners and early settlers. A portion of the military road runs through 

the Summit Prairie allotment. Sheep camps and stock driveways were constructed within the 

planning area to support the administration of grazing. 

Commercial logging began on the Forest in the early 1920s when the Malheur put up for sale 

890 million board feet of timber. The Hines Logging Railroad was constructed from the mill in 

Seneca to Crane Prairie in the eastern portion of the project area to transport the timber. The 

Bear Creek to Summit Prairie section of the railroad system was used to haul timber from the 

project area between the late 1930s to early 1960s. Temporary spurs were constructed along 

creeks and drainage areas in the project area.

Other historic uses of the project area involved the administration of Forest Service lands and 

fire suppression. A fire lookout was in place by 1920 at Crane Point and the Lake Creek Ranger 

Station was constructed prior to 1909. An historic phone line was constructed between 1909 and 

1915 to allow communication between the lookouts and Ranger stations in the project area. This 

telephone system was a critical part of the Forest fire suppression system until 1949. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative would have not have a direct or indirect effect on cultural resources. 

Alternative 1 would virtually eliminate the likelihood of livestock disturbance and damage to 

cultural resources, however, as a consequence of no grazing; fuel loads from an increased 

amount of available forage could increase the risk of archaeological sites and their overall 

physical integrity being affected by wild fires.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 233

Tribal uses would have beneficial consequences under this alternative. The No Action 

Alternative would be beneficial to riparian vegetation and therefore beneficial to tribal uses. 

This alternative would not prevent the continuation of traditional practices.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Livestock activity in areas where cattle tend to congregate (water sources) with a high likelihood 

of containing buried cultural deposits, such as springs, seeps, and terraces, could expose and 

cause damage to cultural materials. Since the Grazing Alternatives would not change the 

intensity of grazing, would continue to disperse livestock across the allotments, and would 

manage use according to the AMPs, no additional impacts to sites within the project area are 

expected. 

Two allotments, Logan Valley and Summit Prairie, would gain acreage with all three 

alternatives, but not livestock numbers. Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant, and McCoy 

Creek Allotment would decrease in size with 23 acres being excluded in a riparian protection 

exclosure in all alternatives.

Any site-specific range developments identified, such as developing upland ponds, constructing 

fences and the loading ramp/catch pen and construction of a spring development would be 

mitigated per stipulation III A. of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement. 

New fence construction (electric, barbed-wire, or buck and pole in Lake Creek Allotment (Alts. 

2 and 4) and Summit Prairie Allotment (Alts 2, 3 & 4) are being proposed along with the 

construction of small willow (buck and pole or wire) exclosures and cages under Alternative 4 in 

the Summit Prairie Allotment. The conversion of 0.3 miles of electric fence to a permanent letdown fence is also being proposed in the Logan Valley Allotment under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

Fence removal in the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments is proposed 

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. These activities would have no or minimal effects to heritage 

resources.

Under all alternatives, permit renewal provides for continued monitoring of grazing practices, 

archaeological review of proposed range projects, and inspections of known or newly identified 

cultural properties in the allotment. The results of this work would trigger adjustments in 

management practices (as appropriate) to ensure that cultural resources are considered. In the 

event that cultural properties could not be avoided or protected, appropriate mitigation measures 

would be undertaken through consultation with the SHPO for the affected cultural resource 

property. Vegetation that has been completely utilized by livestock is an indicator of the surface 

condition and integrity of archaeological sites. Where the basal condition of the grasses is intact 

and protecting the soil integrity, cultural materials are not as likely to be disturbed.

Specific direction concerning continued management of existing developments or activities 

where known cultural sites occur and are monitored would be addressed in annual operating 

plans.

Although these alternatives would not prevent continuation of traditional practices, impacts to 

tribal traditional use areas would continue at existing levels if the alternatives did not contain the 

adaptive management options. Livestock would continue to have direct impacts to riparian 

plants such as chokecherry, willow and red-osier dogwood that are used by local tribes. Other 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 234

plants such as camas, biscuit-root, bitterroot, onion, current, lomatium, yarrow, sagebrush and 

juniper would not be impacted directly by livestock grazing. 

Under the three action alternatives, proposed improvements and adaptive management strategies 

have been proposed that would benefit cultural plants, both upland and riparian. These adaptive 

management strategies include scheduling rest or additional rest within riparian pastures and 

recovery units, changing the allowable use levels, and installing fences to protect sensitive areas 

(i.e. fen area and streams). The effects of implementing the proposed improvement 

options/adaptive management strategies to cultural resources and tribal traditional use areas for 

the gathering of cultural plants (i.e. construction of fences) would be minimal because these site 

specific projects would be mitigated through requirements of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement 

with Oregon SHPO.

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives 

Past and future forest management projects have the potential to impact cultural resources within 

the project area. These projects can cause surface disturbance that affect the integrity of 

historical structures and prehistoric sites. Implementation of the design criteria with all three 

action alternatives should prevent, or at least reduce, impacts that are currently affecting 

archaeological sites within the allotments. However, the cumulative effects of natural elements, 

logging, road building, grazing, surface collecting and/or illegal digging, and natural fuels 

reduction projects could still be reflected in these sites. 

Typical vegetation management activities, such as timber harvest, thinning, fuels management, 

and vegetation reduction, as well as other activities, such as fence repair, culvert replacement and 

stock water enhancement, would occur over the next ten years. Prior to implementation of any 

of these projects a cultural resource survey and report would have to be completed and would 

meet the requirements for the Section 106 consultation process. All projects are designed to 

avoid adverse effects to cultural and historic properties. Also, potential impacts that cultural 

properties might incur from foreseeable future actions, such as pre-commercial thinning and 

hazard tree removal would be mitigated per stipulation III A. of the 2004 Programmatic 

Agreement. 

Under the No Grazing alternative, grazing would not contribute to the cumulative effects to 

cultural resources taking place in the project area. It is possible that additional effects from wild 

fire could occur when cattle do not annually reduce fine fuels, but if this contributed to a return 

to historic fire regimes it may actually reduce the long term effects on sites.

Impacts to tribal traditional use areas would be cumulative with past and future management of 

the vegetation. Future fuels/vegetation projects would have beneficial impacts to tribal use of 

the area because the proposed activities are usually designed to have beneficial impacts to 

vegetation in the long term.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Heritage and Tribal interests are regulated by federal laws that direct and guide the Forest 

Service in identifying, evaluating and protecting heritage resources. All of the alternatives 

would comply with federal laws. The Malheur National Forest Plan tiers to these laws, therefore 

the proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan Standards. With the completion of the 

Heritage inventory under the terms of the 2004 PA with Oregon SHPO, the Grazing Allotment 

Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 235

letter of May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act” 

(Goodman 2006), and by providing the interdisciplinary team with appropriate input as per 

NEPA, all relevant laws and regulations have been met. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that may result from the 

alternatives with respect to cultural resources. Ground disturbing management activities within 

each allotment would avoid all NRHP eligible and potentially eligible (unevaluated) cultural 

properties. 

Social and Economics__________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Social and Economic report that provides an overview of the current 

social and economic conditions found in the assessment area to provide the context of the effects 

analysis that addresses the purpose and need and the issues discussed in Chapter 1. The full 

Socail and Economic report can be found in Appendix F which is available for review by 

request. 

Regulatory Framework 

The Malheur Forest Plan includes forest-wide management goals to:

 Contribute to the social/economic health of communities, which are significantly affected 

by national forest management (IV-3, #42).

 Provide an economic return to the public.

 Forest Service policy sets a minimum level of financial analysis for project planning 

(FSH 1909.17).

 Contribute to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities 

for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range 

resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1(4)).

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government. Minimum specific management requirements are identified in 36 CFR 219.27, to 

accomplish goals and objectives for the National Forest System. 

 The National Environmental Policy Act requires integrated use of the natural and social 

sciences in all planning and decision-making that affects the human environment. The 

human environment includes the natural and physical environment, and the relationship 

of people to the environment (40 CFR 1508.14).

 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations for NEPA (40CFR 1502.23) addresses noncommodity values, stating “For the purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of 

the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary 

cost-benefit analysis, and should not be, when there are qualitative considerations.”

 36 CFR 219.3 – National Forest System Land and Management Planning
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 236

 Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) on Environmental Justice directs federal 

agencies to identify and address agency programs that may have a disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental effects on minority populations, low-income 

populations, or Indian tribes. The order directs federal agencies to focus attention on the 

human health and environment effects to ethnic minorities (American Indians, Hispanics, 

African Americans, and Asian and Pacific-Islander Americans), disabled people, and 

low-income groups.

Analysis Methods 

The economic analysis focuses on two key indicators of change by alternative: 1) Forage 

Available for Livestock, 2) Costs of Improvements.

Affected Environment

Changes in levels of grazing use associated with the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project Management Plan may affect the major social and economic

characteristics of the surrounding geographic area. The affected area or impact zone for the 

Malheur National Forest consists of Grant, Harney and Baker counties in Oregon. Agriculture 

(particularly forage resource products) is an important source of employment and income in this 

region. Grant County has a low level of economic diversity, a high dependence on federal forage, 

and a low resiliency for change. Reliance on forage from federal lands is moderate to high in 

counties in the impact zone (Kohrman 2003). The rate of conversion from wildland range to 

other uses has been less than 1% total between 1986 and 2001 (USDA Forest Service & ODF 

2004). 

Many communities are closely tied to the forest in both work activities and recreation. The local 

communities within an hour or two drive that are anticipated to be directly or indirectly affected 

by the proposed action, alternatives, and their associated economics include: Prairie City 

(population 1,080), Burns/Hines (4,565), Dayville (140), John Day/Canyon City (2,740), Long 

Creek (260), Mount Vernon (650), Monument (150), Seneca (230), Sumpter (175), and Unity 

(145). Larger towns and cities two or more hours away from John Day include: Baker City 

(10,160), LaGrande (12,795), Ontario (10,680), Bend (52,029), and Pendleton (16,915). The 

nearest metropolitan areas are the Tri-Cities area of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland in 

Washington State, and Boise, Idaho. Most of the permittees live in the listed local communities. 

Ranching has played a defining role in the establishment of the western United States. Many 

public land permittees consider the ranching way of life vital to maintaining traditional values 

and their cultural heritage. This unique lifestyle had endured and evolved throughout 

generations. Commitment to remaining in the local communities is very strong. (USDA Forest 

Service RMRS-GTR-113.2003). 

Nationally, regionally, and locally, the social values and demands are changing on the national 

forests. A recent national survey has shown there is wide support for management of public 

lands to provide a diversity of uses, including grazing (Shields et al., 2002). However, the same 

study shows the importance to manage forest and grasslands to provide different types of 

recreational opportunities, including preserving the ability to have a “wilderness experience”. 

The Draft Current Management Situation Report for the Blue Mountains forest plan revision 

also discusses changing social values (Revision Team, 2004). There is also a growing 

dichotomy between rural and urban Oregon (Kaylor, 2003).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 237

Economics 

Financial institutions and the Internal Revenue Service have recognized the economic value of 

federal grazing permits and long-term permittees have been able to capitalize this permit as part 

of total ranch value for loans and property sales. However, the Forest Service does not recognize 

the permit as having additive financial value to an individual’s property because there is no 

guarantee that the permit would remain with current permittee in perpetuity and that the sale of 

the property would automatically give the permit to the new owner. Therefore the Forest Service 

recognizes grazing permits as a privilege and not a right.

A grazing program on portions of the Malheur National Forest has been around since the 

establishment of the forest as part of the Blue Mountain Forest Reserve in 1906 and as a separate 

unit in 1908 (Mosgrove, 1980). The cattle ranching business has been an economic mainstay in 

Grant County along with the forest products industry and government jobs.

Recent Forest Service range management practices, policies and procedures require more active 

involvement by the permittees in the form of planning participation, multiple resource 

management, monitoring active livestock management and cost-share of rangeland improvement 

projects. A special report published in 1992 by the Oregon State University Extension Service 

concluded that: “changes in federal grazing policies and regulations may have led to relative 

asset devaluation in the federal land dependent sector of the western livestock industry in Eastern 

Oregon” (Obermiller, 1992).

The same study found that although grazing fees on private land are considerably higher than 

Forest Service land, overall grazing costs are much higher on Forest Service land. The increased 

expense associated with grazing on public land was attributed to: the cost of taking animals on 

and off of federal land, livestock management, maintenance of range improvements and higher 

death loss (Obermiller, 1992).

The economics of the grazing program has evolved over time. Currently, stock animals, mainly 

cattle, spend the winter and early spring months on lower elevation private lands where they can 

be fed stored hay. In Grant County, the land is usually located along the John Day River and its 

tributaries. Most of these lands are in the ownership of the permittees. The animals are moved 

to higher elevation private lands and public lands as these lands become range ready in the 

spring. It is necessary for the cattle to be moved off their winter pastures so these private lands 

can be irrigated for hay production then stored for the upcoming winter.

This system of moving cattle to other pastures in the spring through fall maximizes the use of 

prime agricultural lands for hay production. The longer cattle are kept off these lands, the 

greater the opportunity to produce two or more hay crops. The more herbage produced, the more 

cattle can be held over the winter, and the rancher/permittee is better able to time the selling of 

their stock to take advantage of market prices. Through history the beef market has been very 

volatile, with great highs and lows in the domestic market.

In the current livestock management systems, most calving is done early. Most of the calves are 

born between October and February. This allows the calves to be born near ranches where they 

can be watched and the birth assisted when necessary by the ranchers thus reducing mortality 

rates. The calves develop to a size by mid-spring to where they can be safely moved to new 

pasturage and are large enough to be protected from most predators.

Lands within the planning area generally became ready for livestock use in mid-May or early 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 238

June depending on the weather, aspect, and amount of snow pack. The cattle remain until late 

summer or until the end of October depending on when use criteria (triggers) are met or when 

the permitted grazing season ends. Annual adjustments in the timing, intensity or duration of 

livestock grazing may be necessary if resource conditions are not trending towards or achieving 

objectives. Flexibility is needed to address resource concerns. Thus, herd numbers may change 

up or down, and pastures may be rested in the following year. Wildfires and prescribed fires 

may cause portions of allotments to be rested for a period of time. Therefore, when mitigating 

for ecological concerns, there are both direct and indirect economic impacts to the permittees and 

the local economies. Economic impacts would have a social impact to rural life styles.

If either the BLM or the FS were to reduce their role in this grazing system, the permittee would 

need to find other private or public lands to hold their cattle while forage is being grown, or they 

would need to reduce their total livestock numbers. Buying and shipping forage from outside 

sources is not considered economical because of the costs. In many cases, reductions in total 

livestock numbers would also make some family-owned businesses uneconomical.

Economic strains intensify as operational costs increase without associated increases in the prices 

received for livestock products. The average 300 cow/calf operation in the western United States 

typically yields a two percent investment return. This return is often too low to support a 

ranching family. Under these conditions, many family members must seek employment outside 

of the ranch to make ends meet (Knight et al. 2002).

Employment

Cattle production and forest products provide a portion of the core employment for Grant and 

Harney counties. Most of the ranches are family run businesses and not corporate owned. In 

2006 13% of the total employment in Grant County was in farm and agricultural services. Local 

government, retail trade, and services employ the most people in Grant and Harney counties 

(Kohrman 2003, The Wilderness Society 2004). 

Ranchers in Baker, Grant and Harney counties, with federal permits in the analysis area, are 

highly dependent on forage from federally managed lands, compared to other counties in the 

region. The value of cattle reared on forage from federally managed lands represents more than 

10% of total agricultural sales in Baker, Grant and Harney counties (Haynes & Horne, 1997). 

Shifts in permitted use of federal grazing allotments change the availability of this forage source. 

The impact these shifts have on the local economy varies according to the adjustments that local 

ranchers have to make within their ranching operation. 

Recreation-based industries, while prevalent elsewhere in the region, have not been a major 

contributor to the local economies. Recent efforts indicate that the volume of business is only 

enough to supplement income, rather than provide a primary source of income (Kohrman 2003). 

The exception is hunting season, which typically draws larger numbers of people into the area. 

Stores that sell sporting goods benefit during this period. Recreation-based employment is 

seasonal and service-oriented, with wages at the lower end of the pay scale (Kohrman 2003). 

Economic activity based on recreation may have limited growth potential for communities in the 

area (Kline, 2001). Seasonal limitations, the dispersed nature of recreation within the counties, 

along with a general lack of large, water-based recreational opportunities, does not create the 

concentrated numbers of recreationists and readily-identifiable recreation destinations necessary 

to support many recreation industries (Kohrman 2003). Recreation based industry had a small 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 239

increase in Grant County between 1990 and 2000 (The Wilderness Society 2004).

Historically, government employment and expenditures has provided a degree of stability in 

rural communities (Kohrman 2003). With reduced Forest Service budgets and work force, and a 

switch to management emphasis that produces generally lower amounts and value of commodity 

products, federal workforce and program expenditures has not buffered economic downturns as 

in the past (Oregon Department of Employment, 2001). This situation, combined with 

fluctuations in the other base industries, has had a significant effect on the economy (Kohrman 

2003).

The communities surrounding the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area 

have a disproportionately high unemployment compared with the Oregon State average of 9.6 

percent. Unemployment in Baker County for January 2012 was 12.8%, Grant County – 17.5%, 

and Harney County – 15.9%. (From Northwest Area Foundation (NAF) Website/ 

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org)

Average Wages

Average annual pay per job provides an indication of the wage contribution of jobs in the 

analysis area. Average income for the affected counties is below the national and state averages: 

United States $45,000, Oregon $43,500, Baker County $31,700, Grant County $32,500, Harney 

County $31,700. (Northwest Area Foundation Website) Wages in Grant and Harney counties 

are lower, primarily due to lower wage rates per hour and a larger number of part-time jobs, 

compared to the state as a whole (Kohrman 2003).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Economics 

Alternative 1 would eliminate authorized livestock use within the planning area, thus possibly 

affecting the economic viability of the associated permittees' operations (magnitude) depending 

on the minimum number of AUMs necessary for the permittees to remain in business. 

Eliminating cattle from the allotments could affect the economic viability of the livestock 

operations for the permittees due to the cumulative costs associated with securing additional 

range or buying supplemental feed to accommodate herd sizes consistent with current permitted 

numbers, fencing and establishing water on the additional range, increased trucking costs, and 

labor costs associated with moving cattle. The intensity of the effects would depend upon the 

available options for the permittee; access and availability of private land, availability of forage 

and the costs associated with those options. Additionally, the intensity of the effects would also 

depend of the size of their total operations, debt structure, business goals and objectives and the 

market for cattle. 

Alternative 1 would prohibit approximately 680 cow/calf pair from the current AUMS (3,945). 

The three term grazing permits associated with this allotment would be cancelled. Permittees 

may choose to graze the displaced livestock on their own properties if there was a large enough 

land base or they may have to find an alternative source for pasture lands. In Grant, Harney and 

Baker Counties, available pasture for grazing is limited to dispersed blocks of pasture at 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 240

approximately $10 to $20 per head month with availability depending on the season. Based on 

the lack of the summer rangeland and the overall shortage within the zone of influence (Grant, 

Harney and Baker Counties), operational costs would dramatically increase for the permittees. 

Costs associated with transportation and travel would increase operational costs. 

The permittee may attempt to maintain their current livestock herds even if they lose their permit 

to graze livestock within the planning area. This may result in adverse environmental effects on 

adjacent privately owned lands. Or the permittee may choose to reduce the heard size which 

may adversely affect the permittee operations. 

If selected, Alternative 1 would result in abandonment of all infrastructures in place. The 

investments made to date into internal pasture fences, allotment boundary fences, spring 

developments and other structures owned by the government would be lost. If subsequent 

decision is made to retain any of these improvements, funding would need to be secured for their 

maintenance or adjacent permittees would be reassigned maintenance responsibility. Assigning 

maintenance responsibility to adjacent permittee would in turn increase their operational costs. 

However, Alternative 1 would eliminates all permittee costs associated with the allotment. In 

addition, a fair market appraisal of improvements may be necessary to determine appropriate 

compensation for investments made on the allotments by the current permittees. The magnitude 

of the direct effects of this alternative is considered to be the three ranching operations currently 

holding permits for the allotments under consideration and the Government.

No grazing fees would be collected from domestic livestock grazing in the project area under 

Alternative 1, therefore the Malheur National Forest would not receive this portion of the grazing 

fees collected annually, for on the ground range improvements (range betterment funds). Neither 

would they be needed. These funds would not be available to assist the local economy by 

purchase of materials for construction of improvements locally or hire local seasonal workers to 

complete projects on the Forest.

Employment 

Grazing reductions (AUMs) could affect employment and income in several ways: (1) direct 

effects attributable to employment associated with the ranches, (2) indirect effects attributable to 

industries that supply materials, equipment, and services to the ranches, and (3) induced effects 

attributable to personal spending by the ranch owners, employees, families, and related industries 

(direct, indirect, and induced effects as defined above constitute the magnitude or area of the 

effect). A reduction of this magnitude in the number of authorized Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 

would be expected to affect the associated ranches' capacity as these grazing permits may 

provide for 50 to 100 percent of the ranches' summer forage.

Selection of this alternative would have an adverse effect upon the permittees and their 

employees. All these livestock operations are family businesses, with the exception of one. As 

many as 6 families (permit holders and employees) would potentially be affected by this 

alternative. This translates to the alternative affecting approximately 18 people. Permit holders 

would struggle to find comparable grazing opportunities within the proximity to their home 

ranches, due to the high demand and high cost for grazing lands in Grant, Harney and Baker 

counties.

Average Wages

This alternative would have no impact on the average wages for zone of influence. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 241

Cumulative Effects

If Alternative 1, No Grazing, were selected there would be a cumulative economic and social 

effect. As the Malheur National Forest and other national forests in the Pacific Northwest 

Region (Oregon and Washington) prepare more allotment management plans, it is anticipated the 

overall amount of cattle utilizing National Forest System lands may be reduced. As family 

ranching becomes less profitable, the number of people employed in and enjoying this life-style 

would decline locally, regionally, and nationally, potentially creating a social minority group.

As agricultural lands are lost to development, communities bear higher costs. Privately owned 

and managed agricultural land generates more in local tax revenues than it costs in services. 

Carefully examining local budgets in cost of community services (COCS) studies shows that 

nationwide farm, forest and open lands more than pay for the municipal services they require, 

while taxes on residential uses consistently fail to cover costs. (Freegood, AFT, 2002).

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

 Lake Creek Allotment boundary fence change requires 2.5 miles of fence construction at 

$27,000.00 per mile for a total of $67,500.00. 

Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $67,500

Logan Valley Allotment

 Removal of 2.3 miles of fence (@ $3,000/mile) $6,900.

 Construction 2.5 miles of fence (@ $27,000/mile) per mile for total $67,500

Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $74,400.

McCoy Creek Allotment

 Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000.

Total cost for this allotment under this alternative is $3,000.

Summit Prairie Allotment

 Removal of .7 miles of fence at $2,100.

 Construction 7 miles of fence (to include Bosenberg) at $27,000 per mile for a total of 

$189,000.

 Upland water sources (springs and troughs) 4 at $7,000 each for a total of $28,000.

 1 catchpen and loading ramp @ $5,000.

Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $224,100.

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of Alternative 2 

would be $593,100.

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and 

should be considered as common to the action alternatives, however annual maintenance costs 

would increase with the addition of structural improvements. Implementation costs associated 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 242

with structural improvements and livestock management are increasing. Operational costs are 

increasing. Depending on the year, permittees may need to increase their active livestock 

management efforts and distribution techniques in order to meet utilization standards.

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected 

annually, for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements 

would be purchased locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the 

Forest, assisting the local economy.

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic

health of communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

The entire allotment would remain vacant with no authorized grazing and no change in the 

allotment boundary. There would be no new costs associated with this alternative.

Logan Valley Allotment

 Removal of 1.5 miles of fence at $3,000.00 per mile for a total of $4,500.00.

 Construction of .3 miles of fence $8,100.

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $12,600.

McCoy Creek Allotment

 Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000.

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $3,000.

Summit Prairie Allotment

 Creation of riparian pastures in the existing Little Logan Pasture would require 7.3 miles 

of fence (@ $27,000/miles) for a total of $197,100.

 Removal of .7 miles of fence to absorb a portion of Logan Valley Allotment (@ $3,000/ 

mile) for a total of $2,100.

 Creation of an exclosure and riparian pasture in existing Sagehen Pasture would require 4 

miles of fence, a cost of $108,000.00.

 Creation of riparian pasture in North Summit would require construction of .8 miles of 

fence for $21,600.

 1 catchpen and loading ramp for $5,000.

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $333,800.

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of Alternative 3 

would be $349,400.

Implementation costs associated with the construction of structural improvements for more 

intense livestock management are increasing. Operational costs (livestock management) may see 

a decrease if the improvements alone are effective in their purpose. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 243

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and 

should be considered as common to the action alternative, however annual maintenance costs 

would increase with the addition of structural improvements.

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected 

annually, for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements 

would be purchased locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the 

Forest, assisting the local economy.

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic

health of communities which are considerably affected by National Forest management.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

 Lake Creek allotment boundary fence change requires 2.5 miles of fence construction at 

$27,000 per mile for a total of $67,500.

Logan Valley Allotment

 Removal of 1.5 miles of fence at $3,000 per mile for a total of $4,500.

 Construction of 2.8 miles of fence for $75,600.

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $80,100

McCoy Creek Allotment

 Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000.

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $3,000.

Summit Prairie Allotment

 New Prairie Riparian fence construction for 3.1 miles for $83,700.

 Removal of .7 miles of fence at $3,000 per mile for a total of $2,100.

 1 catchpen and loading ramp for $5,000.

 Construction of combination buck & pole and wire cages along portions (10%) of 

Summit Creek (1.2 mi @27,000 x 2) $64,800.

Total cost for this allotment under this alternative is $155,600

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of Alternative 4 

would be $306,200

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and 

should be considered as common to the action alternatives, however annual maintenance costs 

would increase with the addition of structural improvements. Implementation costs associated 

with the construction of structural improvements for more efficient livestock management are 

increasing. Operational costs would increase with daily riding requirement. 

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected 

annually, for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 244

would be purchased locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the 

Forest, assisting the local economy.

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic

health of communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management.

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives

Recent Forest Service range management practices, policies and procedures require more active 

involvement by the permittees in the form of planning participation, multiple resource 

management, monitoring, active livestock management and cost-share of rangeland 

improvement projects. A special report published in 1992 by the Oregon State University 

Extension Service concluded that: “changes in federal grazing policies and regulations may have 

led to relative asset devaluation in the federal land dependent sector of the western livestock 

industry in Eastern Oregon” (Obermiller, 1992).

All the action alternatives would add to the permittee cost of doing bussiness, including 

implementation and operational. Fences and other improvements from the 2011 signed Decision 

Memo’s (see Chapter 1 for further detail) would further contribute to costs. Cumultively this 

could effect the viability of the permittees’ operations.

These alternatives could have some minimal cumulative effects on social and economic

resources. It is difficult to project what the cumulative effects would be since it is unknown how 

the permittees would adjust to the new requirements.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations. 

The population of the area is predominately white (96% Grant County, 92% Harney County). 

The region is sparsely populated, and contains low populations of minorities (4% of the Grant 

County population, 8% of Harney County). The largest component in this group is Native 

American. The primary American Indian tribes involved are the Burns Paiute, Umatilla, and 

Warm Springs. The Warm Springs has purchased lands adjacent the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project area. Virtually the entire Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area falls within the ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs. Under the terms of the Treaty of 1855, the Confederated Tribes reserve the rights to 

hunt, fish, gather plant crops, and pasture livestock within these ceded lands. These reserved 

treaty rights are important in the maintenance of traditional economic strategies (Treaty with the 

Tribes of Middle Oregon).

Poverty rates provide some indication of the percentage of the population in surrounding 

communities with low-incomes. Poverty rates for both Grant and Harney counties are 16% and 

14% respectively. The Oregon statewide average rate of persons living below poverty is 13% 

(NAF).

Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the timber, 

mining, ranching, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is unavailable. 

Some firms contracted by the Forest Service for reforestation work have traditionally hired 

Hispanic workers that comprise a migratory workforce in the area. Asian and Pacific Islanders 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 245

uses of the area include commercial mushroom harvesting and developed camping associated 

with this activity. Some contracts are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration, 

although overall contract amounts to these groups has declined since 1998 (Kohrman 2003).

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Selection of any alternative is not anticipated to result in adverse or disproportionate effect upon, 

nor displacement of minorities, or increases in taxes that would constitute an economic hardship. 

There would be no negative effects on public health.

Wildlife_____________________________________________ 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report that 

evaluates the potential effects of livestock grazing on wildlife species and their associated habitat 

within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The full Biological Evaluation 

and Wildlfe Specialist Report can be found in Appendix F which is available for review by 

request.

Regulatory Framework 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable 

populations of all native and desirable non-native wildlife species and conserve all listed 

threatened or endangered species populations (36CFR219.19).

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

ESA requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species and the ecosystem upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with US Fish 

and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of listed species. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

MBTA established an international framework for the protection and conversation of migratory 

birds. This Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, 

purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any mean whatever, receive for 

shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory 

bird...”. 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The principle policy document relevant to wildlife management on the Forest is the 1990 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to as the Forest Plan for 

the remainder of this section. The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for 

management of wildlife species and habitats. Standards and guidelines are presented at the 

Forest level (LRMP, pp. IV-26 to IV-33) or Management Area level (LRMP pp. IV-50, IV-53, 

IV-56 to IV-57, IV-105 to IV-107, and IV-108). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 246

Additional management direction is provided for conservation of migratory landbirds. This 

direction is consolidated in the Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan and further developed 

through the Partners in Flight Program. The Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight Conservation 

Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington 

(Altman 2000) identifies priority bird species and habitats for the Blue Mountains in Oregon.

Analysis Methods 

Effects on wildlife species and habitat were assessed within National Forest System lands in the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, focusing on implementation of actions 

described within each alternative, as well as effects of adaptive management. Some wildlife 

habitats require a detailed analysis and discussion to determine potential effects on a particular 

species. Other habitats may either not be impacted or are impacted at a level which does not 

influence the species or their occurrence.

Effects were analyzed within the context of the project area (40,279 acres), unless otherwise 

noted. For MIS primary cavity excavators the effects boundary was expanded to include 

adjacent subwatersheds in order to discuss nearby post-fire habitat. For wide-ranging carnivores 

such as the gray wolf and wolverine, the effects boundary was expanded to include discussion of 

remote habitat such as the Strawberry Mountain and Monument Rock Wilderness areas, the 

Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area and several roadless areas on the Forest. Cumulative 

effects were analyzed with respect to past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities listed in 

Appendix C.

Species presence/absence determinations were based on habitat presence, review of recorded 

wildlife sightings in District and Forest wildlife databases, the National Resources Information 

System (NRIS) Wildlife database, non-Forest Service databases, Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife reports, as well as notes, maps, and summary reports of wildlife observations made 

during field reconnaissance for several smaller projects in the area in 2011, with some follow-up 

visits early spring 2012. 

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, December 2011, was used to determine TES 

wildlife species discussed in this document. Conservation status, trends, and source habitats for 

these and other species were obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center “Rare, 

Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon” (October 2010), NatureServe Explorer 

(accessed 2012), USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (2008), and viability assessments for 

the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision (USFS, draft 2011).

Elk management objectives (MOs) and estimated population levels were obtained from Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife offices in Hines and John Day, Oregon. 

Old growth habitat was determined using the Forest’s old growth GIS map layer, and 

management activity layers. Aspen habitat was determined using the Forest’s existing 

vegetation and hardwood GIS map layer.

Landbirds, including neotropical migratory birds (NTMB), were analyzed based on priority 

habitats identified in the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight, Northern Rocky 

Mountains Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000). Species lists of birds seen or heard in Logan 

Valley were obtained from District records as well as local birding groups (Grant County Bird 

Club).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 247

The duration of effects on the wildlife resource is described according to the following terms and 

definitions:

 Immediate – Approximately one growing season or several months or less

 Short-term – 0 to 5 years

 Mid-term – 5 to 25 years

 Long-term – 25+ years 

Rather than addressing all wildlife species, the Forest Plan focuses on three categories of 

wildlife: threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species, management indicator species 

(MIS), and featured species. In addition, interest has been raised for landbirds including 

neotropical migratory birds. Categories and wildlife species are summarized below:

 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species: This analysis uses the December 2011 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

 Management Indicator Species: Rocky Mountain elk represent a big game species. 

American (pine) marten, pileated woodpecker, and northern three-toed woodpecker 

represent old growth habitats. Primary cavity excavators (most woodpeckers) represent 

dead wood habitat. Effects to MIS species are discussed in the Big Game Habitat, Old 

Growth Forest, and Primary Cavity Excavator sections respectively.

 Featured Species: The featured species associated with the project area are northern 

goshawk, blue grouse, osprey, and pronghorn antelope. Effects are discussed in the 

Featured Species section. Upland sandpiper and sage grouse are both sensitive and 

featured species, and are addressed in the TES section. In addition, due to their influence 

on riparian habitat, beaver will also be discussed.

 Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds: These species and associated habitats 

are discussed in the Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds section. 

Affected Environment

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Table W-1 describes the TES wildlife species that have suitable habitat within or near the project 

area. There is no suitable habitat present for American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus 

anatum), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 

bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), or Wallowa rosy finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis wallowa). 

These species will not be discussed. 

There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx in the affected 

subwatersheds. Based on the National Lynx Survey, the Malheur National Forest falls under the 

designation of “Unoccupied Mapped Lynx Habitat” (USFWS Memo, 2006). Consequently, 

there is No Effect (NE) to Canada lynx. 

Table W-1: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species Summary

Terrestrial Species Status Species Occurrence Effects Determination16

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Canada Lynx

Lynx canadensis T HN/N NE NE NE NE

 16 See Environmental Consequences section for further discussion on Effects Determination for threatened, 

endangered and sensitive wildlife species. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 248

Terrestrial Species Status Species Occurrence Effects Determination16

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Gray Wolf 

Canis lupus

East of Hwy 395

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle

Hailaeetus leucocephalus S HD/S NI NI NI NI

American Peregrine Falcon

Falco perigrinus anatum S HN/N NI NI NI NI

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus phaios

S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Silver-bordered Fritillary

Boloria selene S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa Rosy Finch 

Leucosticte tephrocotis 

wallowa

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Bobolink

Dolichonyx oryzivorus S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland Sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda S HD/D NI NI NI NI

Tricolored Blackbird

Agelaius tricolor S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

White-headed Woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid Bat 

Antrozous pallidus S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed Myotis 

Myotis thysanodes S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's Hairstreak 

Callophrys johnsoni S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Columbia Clubtail 

Gomphus lynnae S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia Spotted Frog

Rana luteiventris S HD/D See Aquatic Section MIIH MIIH MIIH

Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

Occurrence 

HD Habitat Documented or suspected within project area or near enough to be impacted by project 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 249

activities 

HN Habitat Not within the project area or affected by its activities 

D Species Documented in general vicinity of project activities 

S Species Suspected in general vicinity of project activities 

N Species Not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities 

Effects Determination 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

NE No Effect 

Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trent Toward Federally 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

The National Forest Management Act directs National Forests to designate management 

indicator species and the Forest Service Manual Direction 2621.1 defines the criteria for 

selection of management indicator species. Management activities on the Forest that would 

affect MIS populations and habitat, would also affect populations of other species with similar 

habitat needs. 

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies twelve (12) 

management indicator species. In order to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to 

MIS, three habitat types were selected. Big Game Habitat, Old Growth Habitat, and Primary 

Excavator Habitat (standing dead and downed wood) are discussed.

Table W-2 describes the 12 management indicator species selected for the Malheur National 

Forest. The table also includes associated habitat requirements and whether habitat occurs 

within the project area.

Table W-2: Management Indicator Species Summary (Malheur National Forest)

MIS 

Species Representing Habitat Requirements Habitat Present in Analysis Area

Elk

Commonly 

hunted Biggame Species

Forested Mountains and 

meadows with grasses and forbs

Yes, including known calving 

area within Logan Valley fen and 

vicinity

American 

(Pine) Marten Old Growth

Mature, mesic coniferous forests, 

with high structural diversity in 

the under story

Higher elevation mixed conifer 

stands: designated old growth 

stands, replacement old growth 

stands, late and old structure on 

Lake Creek and Big Creek.

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Extensive areas of dense 

coniferous forests with tall closed 

canopy, high basal area and large 

diameter snags

Yes, mixed conifer stands, 

drainages, designated old growth 

stands, replacement old growth 

stands, late and old structure on 

Lake Creek and Big Creek.

Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

Higher elevation (above 4,500ft) 

lodgepole pine and mixed conifer

forests with a lodgepole 

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat 

within the project area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 250

MIS 

Species Representing Habitat Requirements Habitat Present in Analysis Area

and Down 

Wood

component

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open forests and nests in large 

snags in cavities created by other 

cavity nesters or in very soft 

snags

Yes, have been documented 

nesting in aspen within the 

project area.

Red-naped 

Sapsucker*

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian habitats 

consisting of a mixture of grasses 

shrubs and hard woods

Yes, associated with aspen stands

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Mature higher-elevation 

coniferous forests for nesting and 

feeding

Yes, associated with aspen 

stands, associated with larger 

conifer.

Downy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian habitats 

consisting of a mixture of grasses 

shrubs and hard woods

Yes, Big Creek, Lake Creek, 

portions of Summit Creek 

provide the most suitable habitat, 

as well as aspen habitat in 

riparian areas

Hairy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that prefer 

large trees Yes

White-headed 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open ponderosa pine forests with 

large trees and snags in large 

patches

Yes, dry forest, large tree and 

open-canopied habitat. 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Forests with dead, insect-infested 

trees associated with large-scale 

disturbances such as fire or wind 

throw

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat 

within the project area.

Northern 

Flicker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that prefer 

large trees stands near meadows Yes

* Red-naped sapsuckers represent the east version of red-breasted and yellow-bellied sap suckers originally listed in 

the Forest Plan. 

Featured Species 

Featured species are those identified in the Malheur Forest Plan as wildlife species of high public 

interest or demand. The Forest Plan (IV-30 and IV-31) provides direction (standards 50-55) for 

the protection of habitat for these species.

Table W-3 lists the seven featured species currently on the Malheur National Forest. The table 

also includes what their habitat requirements are and whether or not their habitat occurs in or 

near the project area. There is no potential effect to bighorn sheep or their habitat from the 

proposed action. This species will not be discussed further. Sage grouse and upland sandpiper, 

both sensitive species, are addressed in the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife 

Species section.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 251

In addition to Featured Species listed within the Malheur Forest Plan, American beaver are 

discussed, in response to public interest and comments generated by the proposed action.

Table W-3: Featured Species Habitat

Featured 

Species Habitat Requirements Habitat Present In or near Analysis Area

Northern 

Goshawk

Mature, multi-storied ponderosa pine 

stands, or mixed conifer stands that are 

dominated by ponderosa pine

Yes, documented within or near vicinity 

of the project area

Blue Grouse Clumps of mistletoe infected Douglas-fir 

on tops or upper slopes of ridges

Yes, upper elevations within project area

Sage Grouse Open sagebrush plains from 4000-9000 ft 

in elevation.

Yes, incidental observations, Logan 

Valley. See TES section.

Osprey Large dead trees suitable for nesting 

(30”dbh greater than60’ in height) 

adjacent to or near large rivers or lakes

Yes, active nests documented on Big 

Creek in Logan Valley, and near Summit 

Prairie

Pronghorn 

Antelope

Open grasslands, with low sagebrush 

being an important component

Yes, animals use area in vicinity of fen as 

fawning area; also observed along 

Summit Creek

California 

Bighorn Sheep

Alpine-desert grasslands associated with 

mountains, cliffs, foot-hills, and river 

canyons

No, the project area does not fall with 

suitable habitat for Bighorn sheep

Upland Sandpiper Large open mountane meadows and 

grasslands 

Yes, potential habitat; historically nested 

in project area. See TES section.

American Beaver* Lower gradient perennial streams with 

riparian vegetation

Yes, present in several stream reaches

* American beaver are discussed, in response to public interest and comments generated by the proposed action.

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds (NTMB) breed in temperate North America and spend the winter 

primarily south of the United States-Mexico border. Of the 225 neotropical migrants that are 

known to occur in the western hemisphere, about 102 are known to breed in Oregon and about 

82 are known to breed on the Malheur National Forest. They include a large group of species, 

including many raptors, cavity excavators, warblers and other songbirds, with diverse habitat 

needs spanning nearly all plant community types and successional stages. Long-term population 

data on many of these birds indicate downward population trends although not all species 

populations are declining (Sharp 1996, Saab and Rich 1997, Altman 2000, USFWS 2008). 

Habitat loss is considered the primary factor in decline of neotropical migratory birds.

In 2000, the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight published its Northern Rocky 

Mountains Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000, also referred to as the Plan). The Plan 

provides conservation recommendations for the various species of landbirds that occupy the 

Oregon and Washington portions of the Interior Columbia Basin. The Plan identified the 

following priority habitats for landbird conservation: old-growth dry forest, old-growth moist 

forest, riparian woodland and shrubland, and unique habitats including alpine and subalpine 

forests, shrub-steppe, montane meadow and aspen habitats. The Plan also identified burned old 

forest as a limited habitat due to fire suppression. 

Table W-4 lists priority habitats within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

area which could be affected by project implementation. The table describes habitat type, habitat 

features, and associated focal species. Existing condition and effects discussions will focus on 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 252

changes to priority habitats rather than the individual species that use these habitats. Alpine, 

subalpine, mesic mixed conifer old growth, and post-fire habitats are either not in the project 

area, or are not affected by this project. Short-term, mid-term and long-term definitions are 

defined at the beginning of the wildlife specialist report. 

Table W-4: Neotropical Migratory Birds – Priority Habitat Features & Associated Focal 

Landbirds Species within Project Area

Habitat Type Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal Species Potential Grazing 

Effects

Dry Forest Old 

Forest

Large patches of old forest with large trees 

and snags

White-headed

woodpecker

No impacts for 

conifer habitat 

impacts, associated 

with aspen habitat

Old forest with interspersion of grassy 

openings and dense thickets Flammulated Owl Yes

Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow Yes

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker

No impacts to 

confier habitat, 

impacts associated 

with aspen habitat

Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Old 

Forest

Large snags Vaux’s swift No

Overstory canopy closure Townsend’s warbler No

Structurally diverse; multi-layered Varied thrush No

Dense shrub layer in forest openings and 

understory

McGillivray’s 

warbler Yes

Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided 

flycatcher No

Montane 

Meadow Wet or dry open tracts of short grasslands Upland sandpiper

No impacts for 

upland sandpiper, 

contigent on 

monitoring (see 

Design Elements)

Shrub Steppe Juniper, sage brush with small openings Vesper sparrow Yes

Riparian Shrub Willow/alder shrub patches Willow flycatcher Yes

Aspen Aspen stands Red-naped sapsucker Yes

Many of the avian species/habitats identified in the Northern Rocky Mountains Bird 

Conservation Plan are also addressed in the USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 

2008). BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, encompasses the Blue Mountains. Table W-6 lists 

species status as present or absent from the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

area, and where each species is addressed in this report. 

Table W-6: BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, USFS Birds of Conservation Concern –

2008

Species Presence / Absence Present & Absent Species and Reasoning

Bald Eagle Present See TES section

Swainson’s Hawk Suspected See Landbird Discussion

Ferruginous Hawk Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Peregrine Falcon Nesting Habitat Absent No Suitable Nesting Habitat in project area, one 

incidental sighting of bird flying over area is recorded
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 253

Species Presence / Absence Present & Absent Species and Reasoning

Upland Sandpiper Historically Present TES section, historically present, current status 

unknown

Long-Billed Curlew Present See Landbird Discussion

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Present Documented infrequently in Logan Valley, see 

Landbird Discussion

Flammulated Owl Present See Landbird Discussion

Black Swift Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Lewis’ Woodpecker Present See TES section

Williamson’s

Sapsucker Present MIS - Primary Cavity Excavator Discussion, see Landbird Discussion 

White-Headed 

Woodpecker Present See TES section

Olive-sided Flycatcher Present See Landbird Discussion

Willow Flycatcher Suspected See Landbird Discussion

Loggerhead Shrike Suspected See Landbird Discussion

Sage Thrasher Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Brewer’s Sparrow Present See Landbird Discussion

Sage Sparrow Absent Outside Range of Project Area

McCown’s Longspur Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Black Rosy-Finch Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Cassin’s Finch Present See Landbird Discussion

The District has not conducted official neotropical migratory bird surveys in all habitat types 

within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. Informal bird surveys have 

been conducted by Grant County Bird Club volunteers in vicinity of the fen, and during past 

upland sandpiper surveys. These species lists, as well as District records were reviewed for this 

project. During a period from 1991 through 2012, approximately 105 bird species have been 

documented within Logan Valley, within the project area. This diversity of species is reflective 

of the diversity of habitat available in this area of the project, including grassland, shrub-steppe, 

aspen, fen/wetland, riparian, and both ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest habitat.

In addition, the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas (Adamus et al. 2001) includes observations for this 

area. Much of the data for the Breeding Bird Atlas for the Malheur National Forest was obtained 

from local biologists and ornithologists. Most NTMB species that are expected in the project 

area were recorded within the atlas’ hexagons for the area. There is a high confidence level that 

most species discussed in this report are currently present in the area.

Environmental Consequences

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic 

livestock would be eliminated. Lack of competition for forage from cattle could be beneficial for 

big game species. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects from management 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 254

activities to threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species or their habitat, there would be 

no additive cumulative effects. 

Determination

Due to the nature of the No Action alternative, there would be No Impact (NI), to threatened, 

endangered or sensitive wildlife species or their habitat.

Gray Wolf:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Wolves are limited by prey availability and are threatened by negative interactions with humans. 

Generally, land management activities are compatible with wolf protection and recovery, 

especially actions that maintain ungulate populations. Elk populations on the Malheur National 

Forest are stable; within the project area, elk populations are at or slightly above management 

objectives set by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW 2010). 

Due to the project’s proximity to FS road 16, Lake Creek Youth Camp, Big Creek and Murray 

Campgrounds, Burns Paiute Tribe work center, as well as winter snowmobile and cross-country 

ski activities, it is unlikely that wolves would use the project area for home range, denning, or 

rendezvous sites. The area is easily accessed and regularly used by local residents, 

recreationists, and hunters during spring, summer, and fall months, and to a lesser extent during 

winter months. The project area may be used by animals as dispersal habitat.

Distribution of large game may shift, depending on areas used by cattle in any given year, 

however prey species such as elk are not limiting, and are not expected to decline as a result of 

the alternatives proposed. Actions including adaptive mamangement strategies aimed at 

improving riparian conditions would benefit big game in the long run.

Determination

No wolf populations currently occupy the Malheur National Forest. No denning or rendezvous 

sites have been identified on the Malheur National Forest. There is an abundance of prey 

available for gray wolves on the Forest. Prey distribution may be influenced, depending on the 

alternative chosen for implementation, however, big game populations are not expected to 

decline. Wolves would be able to avoid any activities occurring within the allotments. 

Consequently, there would be No Impact (NI) to gray wolves or their habitat as a result of the 

proposed actions.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on gray wolves. 

Vehicle traffic, hunting, firewood cutting, camping and snowmobiling are expected to continue. 

Snowmobile routes are used during the winter months. Consequently human disturbance in parts 

of the area continues year round, limiting the area’s capacity to provide remote and undisturbed 

habitat preferred by gray wolves. 

Currently off-road vehicle travel is allowed; OHV use has the potential to disturb wildlife and 

reduce security for elk and deer, prey species of gray wolves, as well as dispersing gray wolves. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 255

The Malheur National Forest is in the process of analyzing changes in its travel management 

plan. It is foreseeable that cross country travel would be prohibited on the Malheur National 

Forest (where it is not already prohibited), with the exception of accessing dispersed camping 

sites from open roads. Foreseeable changes in travel management would have a beneficial 

cumulative impact to big game (wolf prey species) in the long term, providing increased security 

and reducing disturbance. Open road densities would still likely limit the area as remote wolf 

habitat. 

Fire suppression, beginning in the 1950’s, eliminated or reduced most fires occurring within the 

drier forest types, and allowed for ingrowth of more shade tolerant conifer species. Overstocking 

in some stands has shaded out forage and shrub species. However, commercial and 

precommercial thinning activities have also occurred in the area, reducing overstocked stands. 

Thinning for meadow restoration (ongoing) and recent prescribed burning in the Merit Project 

area have potential to improve meadow habitat, and improve understory forage. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect prey populations that gray wolves depend on, or gray wolves themselves.

Bald Eagle:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roosting or nest habitat for bald eagles would not be affected by levels of cattle grazing

proposed in any of the alternatives. Should an occupied bald eagle nest be discovered during 

layout or construction of fences or water developments, design elements to avoid disturbance to 

nesting birds would be implemented. Prey species would not be negatively impacted. In the 

long term, actions including adaptive management strategies resulting in improvements in 

riparian habitat would result in beneficial impacts for fish species, prey for bald eagles.

Determination

The determination of effects for bald eagles and their habitat is No Impact (NI).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on bald eagles and potential habitat. 

Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire 

have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. The combined effects of the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project with the effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect populations or 

viability of bald eagles within the project area or at the Forest level. 

California Wolverine:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Suitable denning habitat for wolverines does not exist within the project area. However, potential 

dispersal habitat may exist. Due to the wolverine’s high sensitivity to human disturbance, any 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 256

dispersing individuals would most likely minimize use of the area. The project’s proximity to FS 

road 16, Lake Creek Youth Camp, Big Creek and Murray Campgrounds, Burns Paiute Tribe 

work center, as well as winter snowmobile and cross-country ski activities limits its potential for 

use by wolverines. 

Distribution of large game may shift, depending on areas used by cattle in any given year, 

however prey species such as elk are not limiting, and are not expected to decline as a result of 

the alternatives proposed. Use levels aimed at improving riparian conditions, would benefit big 

game in the long run.

Determination

No source habitat for wolverine exists within the project area, existing human activity and use of 

the area is relatively high during the spring, summer, and fall months, prey species would not be 

a limiting factor. 

Because of limited potential use of the area by wolverines, no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects are anticipated from the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The 

determination would be No Impact (NI) for wolverine populations and habitat as a result of the 

proposed action. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on wolverines. Vehicle traffic along 

roads, campers, hikers, hunters, firewood cutting, and other human activities would be the 

greatest deterrent for wolverine use of the area. However, the combined effects of the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect wolverines utilizing the 

area as dispersal habitat.

Greater Sage-Grouse:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No documented leks of greater sage-grouse males, hens, or hens with broods have been recorded 

within the project area. Incidental sightings of sage-grouse have occurred in vicinity of Flat 

Field, within the Logan Valley allotment. This area may have some of the higher potential for 

sage grouse use, given its lack of conifer encroachment and open grass and sagebrush habitat.

Impacts to greater sage-grouse would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

animals. Water developments would be placed to limit impact to native vegetation. Because of 

variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a 

given grazing season. Anticipated use by sage-grouse would be from May through October. 

Early season grazing has the highest potential for nest trampling. Grazing may also reduce forbs 

used by young birds. 

Monitoring for upland sandpipers in within the Big Field or Flat Field pastures would allow for 

concurrent monitoring of greater sage-grouse in years when either of those pastures was 

scheduled for early season use. Once eggs are hatched, young sage-grouse are mobile and would 

more readily avoid cattle or other large ungulates.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 257

Monitoring use levels for upland vegetation as well as riparian vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, reduced numbers in 

cattle or additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit grassland habitat. 

Determination

Because there is potential for some direct impacts to sage-grouse habitat within the project area, 

the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse or their habitat. 

Cumulatively, livestock grazing earlier in the century may have impacted shrub, grass, and forb 

composition within potential greater sage-grouse habitat in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project. Introduction of non-native grasses, introduction of invasive weedy 

species, changes to habitat due to agricultural development and conversion of sagebrush to 

hayfields and pastures, fire suppression and resulting succession of lodgepole pine in some areas 

may have also impacted greater sage-grouse habitat within the project area. Over time, and with 

changes in grazing management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed 

use levels for all alternatives would continue an upward trend in riparian and upland habitat.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of greater sage-grouse on the Forest.

Silver-bordered Fritillary:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to silver-bordered fritillary caterpillars or habitat would depend on timing of cattle 

grazing, and concentration of animals within pastures containing preferred meadow habitat. 

Grazing may impact butterfly eggs, young, or food plants. Because of variations in dates of turnout, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season. 

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit meadow habitat.

Determination

Silver-bordered fritillary have not been documented within the project area. However, because 

caterpillar and butterfly food plants and meadow habitat exist within all of the allotments, there 

is potential for impacts to habitat from cattle utilizing vegetation. Not all habitat would be 

impacted concurrently throughout the project area, providing areas where food plants would 

persist for this butterfly and its larvae. The proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 258

Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss 

of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on silver-bordered fritillary or its 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted meadow habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, 

habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in meadow habitat.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of silver-bordered fritillary on the Forest.

Bobolink:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to bobolink or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

animals within pastures containing preferred meadow habitat. Early season grazing may have 

the greatest impact to bobolink by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing 

and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of 

potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit meadow habitat.

Determination

Bobolink have not been documented within the project area. However, because meadow or 

grassland habitat exists within all of the allotments, there is potential for direct impacts from 

cattle grazing. However, not all habitat would be impacted concurrently throughout the project 

area, providing nesting and foraging habitat for bobolink. The proposed alternatives May 

Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on bobolinks or their habitat.

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted meadow habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, 

habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in meadow habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 259

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of bobolink on the Forest.

Grasshopper Sparrow:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to grasshopper sparrow or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of animals within pastures containing preferred grassland habitat. Early season 

grazing may have the greatest impact to grasshopper sparrow by cattle trampling eggs, or by 

reducing cover through grazing and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of variations in 

dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing 

season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit grassland habitat.

Determination

Grasshopper sparrow have not been documented within the project area. However, because 

meadow or grassland habitat exists within all of the allotments, there is potential for direct 

impacts to habitat from cattle grazing. However, not all habitat would be impacted concurrently 

throughout the project area, providing nesting and foraging habitat for grasshopper sparrow. The 

proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on grasshopper sparrows or their 

habitat.

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, 

habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in grassland habitat.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of grasshopper sparrow on the Forest.

Upland Sandpiper:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to upland sandpipers or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of animals within grassland or meadow habitat. Early season grazing may have 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 260

the greatest impact to upland sandpipers by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through 

grazing and increasing the exposure of nests. “In grazed pastures cattle should optimally be 

restricted from nesting fields during the egg-laying and incubation periods” (NatureServe 2011). 

In Logan Valley, this has typically been late May, June, into mid-July (Akenson 1993). Because 

upland sandpipers show a degree of nest site fidelity, monitoring of the historic nesting and use 

areas within Big Field and Flat Field would be required for any early season (prior to August 1) 

grazing proposed for these two pastures (See Design Elements). To avoid impacting habitat 

north and south of Forest Service road 16, both of these pastures would not be grazed at the same 

time (See Design Elements).

In addition, monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation 

would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement. Monitoring requirements and 5 

and 10 year Management Objectives are found in Chapter 2 and Appendix A (part 2) 

respectively. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time spent in any given pasture, or reduced 

numbers of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude cattle use would all benefit meadow 

habitat. The adaptive strategy that includes fencing of the fen within the Big Field pasture, could 

impact upland sandpiper nesting habitat by concentrating cattle in vicinity of historic nest areas. 

Because upland sandpipers exhibit nest site fidelity, maintaining historically used areas is

important. To avoid impacting these upland sandpiper nesting areas, the location of the fence 

would be determined by the district wildlife biologist working with the forest botanist, and range 

specialist.

Determination

No recent sightings of upland sandpiper have been documented within the project area. Because 

of the very low numbers of birds that may potentially be present in Logan Valley, any impact to 

a nest by trampling, or increased predation by crows or coyotes due to nest exposure as a result 

of grazing would be detrimental to the Forest population. Because young birds are precocial and 

mobile once hatched, later season light to moderate grazing would have minimal impacts to 

upland sandpipers or their young (NatureServe 2012). 

Because upland sandpipers show strong site fidelity to their nesting areas (Nature Serve 2012), 

Design Elements requiring monitoring for the birds within known historic nesting/use areas of 

upland sandpipers would occur prior to any early season grazing of Big Field. If the upland 

sandpipers are documented during surveys, cattle turnout into these fields would be postponed 

until later in the season. Early season grazing of both Big Field and Flandt Field at the same 

time would not occur, providing habitat in one pasture or the other. 

Should monitoring of the fen indicate a need for protection via fencing, layout of any fence 

would be determined by consulting with the district wildlife biologist, in order to avoid 

concentrating cattle near historic upland sandpiper nesting areas.

Late season grazing (after August 1) of Big Field would result in No Impact (NI) to upland 

sandpipers as the birds readily move and would avoid cattle. If no upland sandpipers are 

documented during May and June monitoring, early season grazing of Big Field would also 

result in No Impact (NI) to upland sandpiper populations. Monitoring would be required for any 

grazing of Big Field for early season turnout of cattle (see Design Elements and Monitoring Plan, 

Chapter 2). If upland sandpipers are documented during these surveys, turnout would be 

postponed in order to allow nesting and incubation of upland sandpipers to occur without risk of 

trampling or disturbance. Foraging habitat is available in several pastures within Logan Valley. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 261

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on upland sandpiper or its habitat. 

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and meadow habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time and with changes in grazing 

management, this habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in meadow habitat. Ongoing thinning and proposed 

future burning projects would also have the potential for restoring meadow and grassland habitat 

important for upland sandpipers. Design elements associated with the proposed activities within 

historic sandpiper use areas would require fall burning and timming for thinning operations to 

eliminate disturbance to breeding and nesting upland sandpipers. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of upland sandpipers.

Lewis’s Woodpecker:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Within open ponderosa pine, or post fire habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for Lewis’s 

woodpecker would not be affected by cattle grazing or associated activities. 

Cattle grazing within aspen stands continues to impact recruitment of sapling and young aspen 

that would allow stands to persist as older mature trees die. While mature trees currently exist in 

many stands, over time there would be a reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags, due to 

this lack of replacement. Other factors impacting aspen stands include conifer encroachment and 

browsing by wildlife.

Determination

Cattle grazing would not generally impact snag habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers within conifer 

stands. However, cattle grazing has the potential to adversely affect the recruitment of young 

aspen in stands where old mature trees are dying and falling to the ground. In the mid- to longterm, a loss of aspen habitat, especially larger diameter trees and snags, may reduce nesting

habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker. Ongoing restoration projects including conifer removal within 

aspen stands, and protection for aspen in this area may lessen the impact.

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species.

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to 

include post-fire habitat. All of the activities in Appendix C have been considered for their 

cumulative effects on Lewis’s woodpecker.

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all 

impacted the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. 

The High Roberts Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 262

Authorization Project area, may currently provide nesting habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers. 

Prescribed underburning in the Merit Timber Sale area may also provide some post-fire habitat. 

Cattle grazing would not cumulatively impact existing snag habitat within green or burned 

conifer stands. 

Large diameter aspen and snags within the project area also provide Lewis’s woodpecker nesting 

and foraging habitat. Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, 

continues to degrade aspen stands and in the mid- to long-term may result in loss of habitat for 

Lewis’s woodpecker. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, and would

persist in the short- to mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size replacement 

trees, some small stands may die out. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which includes conifer removal and protection) are

expected to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess 

the continued long-term impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective 

management strategies to lessen these impacts. 

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is 

foreseeable that the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan (ATMP) would prohibit 

cross country travel on the Malheur National Forest with the exception of travel from designated 

open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is expected that with the implementation of the ATMP 

there would be reduced access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter 

snags. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of Lewis’s woodpecker on the Forest.

White-headed Woodpecker:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Within open ponderosa pine, or post-fire habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for white-headed 

woodpeckers would not be affected by cattle grazing or associated activities. Cattle and wildlife 

use of shrub species in the understory of ponderosa pine may impact hiding cover and foraging 

habitat for small mammals, reducing potential predation of white-headed woodpecker nests. 

While not considered typical, large diameter aspen snags within the project area may provide 

white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat. Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by 

domestic and wild ungulates, continues to degrade aspen stands and in the mid- to long-term may 

result in some loss of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Larger aspen stands within the 

project area are more resilient, and would persist in the short- to mid-term. Without successful 

recruitment of sapling size replacement trees, some small stands may die out. Ongoing aspen 

restoration projects have protected some aspen within the project area by fencing or slash 

barriers.

Determination

Cattle grazing and the associated activities from all alternatives would not impact snag habitat 

for white-headed woodpeckers within ponderosa pine stands, or foraging habitat associated with 

open large ponderosa pine, or mixed conifer stands where ponderosa pine is dominant.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 263

Cattle grazing has the potential to adversely affect the recruitment of young aspen in stands 

where old mature trees are dying and falling to the ground. Although not used to the extent that 

other woodpeckers use aspen stands, white-headed woodpeckers have been observed using aspen 

snags as nest sites (Kranich, personal observation). In the mid- to long-term, a loss of aspen 

habitat, especially larger diameter trees and snags, may reduce some potential nesting habitat for 

white-headed woodpeckers. Ongoing restoration projects including conifer removal and 

protection for aspen in this area may lessen the impact.

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species.

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to 

include post-fire habitat. All of the activities in Appendix C have been considered for their 

cumulative effects on white-headed woodpeckers.

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all 

impacted the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. 

The High Roberts Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area, may currently provide nesting habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. 

Prescribed underburning in the Merit Timber Sale area may also provide some post-fire habitat. 

Cattle grazing would not cumulatively impact existing snag habitat within green or burned 

ponderosa pine stands.

Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, continues to degrade 

aspen stands and in the mid- to long-term may result in an incidental loss of nesting habitat for 

white-headed woodpeckers. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, and 

would persist in the short- to mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size 

replacement trees, some small stands may die out. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which includes conifer removal and protection) are

expected to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess 

the continued long-term impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective 

management strategies to lessen these impacts. 

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is 

foreseeable that the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan (ATMP) would prohibit 

cross country travel on the Malheur National Forest with the exception of travel from designated 

open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is expected that with the implementation of the ATMP 

there would be reduced access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter 

snags.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of white-headed woodpecker on the Forest.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 264

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock crevices, snags, old buildings, caves) are expected from 

cattle grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance may be 

impacted by grazing of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and duration 

of grazing. Use levels and move triggers that result in improvements to riparian vegetation

would benefit diversity and abundance of insect prey species and ultimately bat species. 

Improvements and increases in riparian vegetation resulting in beaver recolonization of stream 

reaches, and resulting beaver ponds, would also increase riparian vegetation diversity, and alter 

insect prey diversity and abundance (Keinath 2004). Although aspen stands would continue to 

exist in the short to mid-term, continued impact of ungulate grazing on aspen stands, as well as 

conifer shading, may result in loss of smaller stands, and reduced diversity of habitat, impacting 

insect prey species used by Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian vegetation as well as aspen habitat would 

be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit foraging habitat. 

Depending on placement, barb-wire fencing in riparian areas may negatively impact individual 

bats if animals become impaled on wire. Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be 

visible to bats and birds to allow animals to avoid wires. Pond construction or spring 

developments may provide water sources for bats. Design elements require wildlife escape 

ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small mammals, bats and birds (See Design Elements, 

chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, trampling, muddy water and manure may make 

ponds less palatable or useful for bats as drinking sources late season.

Determination

No surveys for Townsend’s big-eared bat have occurred within the project area, however 

potential roost and foraging habitat does exist. Improvements to riparian vegetation would 

benefit Townsend’s big-eared bat prey species. Lack of sapling recruitment within aspen stands 

continues to be an adverse impact from ungulate grazing. Conifer shading and competition with 

aspen compounds this problem. Depending on placement, wire fencing has potential to impale 

bats, directly impacting individuals. Direct impacts from fences could be minimized by making 

fences more visible (see Design Elements). 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on Townsend’s big-eared bat or their 

habitat.

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 265

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in meadow and riparian habitat. As a result, 

diversity and abundance of insect prey species for Townsend’s big-eared bat would be 

maintained, or expected to improve. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which includes conifer removal and protection) are

expected to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess 

the continued long-term impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective 

management strategies to lessen these impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Forest.

Pallid Bat: 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock outcrops, rock crevices, hollow trees, old buildings) are 

expected from cattle grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance 

may be impacted by grazing of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and 

duration of grazing. Use levels and move triggers that maintain adequate cover and diversity of 

plant species would provide for the prey species required by pallid bats. Monitoring use levels 

and assessing impact to upland vegetation would be critical for determining trends in habitat.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, would benefit foraging habitat. Depending on placement, barb-wire fencing in vicinity 

of rock outcrops and potential roost areas may negatively impact individual bats if animals 

become impaled on wire. 

Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be visible to bats and birds to allow animals to 

avoid wires. Pond construction or spring developments may provide water sources for bats. 

Design elements require wildlife escape ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small 

mammals, bats and birds (See Design Elements, chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, 

trampling, muddy water, manure may make ponds less palatable or useful for bats as drinking 

sources late season.

Determination

No surveys for pallid bat have occurred within the project area, however roost and foraging 

habitat does exist. Use levels and move triggers to retain adequate upland vegetation for other 

wildlife would also benefit prey species that pallid bats depend on. Depending on placement, 

barb-wire fencing has potential to impale bats, directly impacting individuals. Direct impacts 

from fences could be minimized by making fences more visible (see Design Elements). 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on pallid bats or their habitat. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 266

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland as well as riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, 

diversity and abundance of insect prey species for pallid bat would be expected to be maintained 

or improved. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of pallid bats on the Forest.

Fringed Myotis:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock crevices, snags, old buildings, caves) are expected from 

cattle grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance may be 

impacted by grazing of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and duration 

of grazing. Use levels and move triggers that result in improvements to riparian vegetation

would benefit diversity and abundance of insect prey species and ultimately bat species. 

Improvements and increases in riparian vegetation resulting in beaver recolonization of stream 

reaches, and resulting beaver ponds, would also increase riparian vegetation diversity, and alter 

insect prey diversity and abundance (Keinath 2004). Although aspen stands continue to exist in 

the short to mid-term, continued impact of ungulate grazing on aspen stands, as well as conifer 

shading, may result in loss of smaller stands, and reduced diversity of habitat, impacting insect 

prey species.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian vegetation as well as aspen habitat would 

be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit foraging habitat. 

Depending on placement, barb-wire fencing in riparian areas may negatively impact individual 

bats if animals become impaled on wire. Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be 

visible to bats and birds to allow animals to avoid wires. Pond construction or spring 

developments may provide water sources for bats. Design elements require wildlife escape 

ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small mammals, bats and birds (See Design Elements, 

chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, trampling, muddy water, manure may make ponds 

less palatable or useful for bats as drinking sources late season.

Determination

No surveys for fringed myotis have occurred within the project area, however roost and foraging 

habitat does exist. Improvements to riparian vegetation would benefit fringed myotis prey 

species. Lack of sapling recruitment within aspen stands continues to be an adverse impact from 

ungulate grazing. Conifer shading and competition compounds this problem. Depending on 

placement, wire fencing has potential to impale bats, directly impacting individuals. Direct 

impacts from fences could be minimized by making fences more visible (see Design Elements). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 267

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on fringed myotiss or their habitat.

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, 

diversity and abundance of insect prey species for fringed myotis would be expected to improve. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which includes conifer removal and protection) are

expected to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess 

the continued long-term impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective 

management strategies to lessen these impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of fringed myotis on the Forest.

Columbia Clubtail:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No documented occurrences of Columbia clubtail have been recorded within the project area. 

However, habitat suitable for Columbia clubtail may exist along the Malheur River within the 

Logan Valley Allotment. Impacts to this dragonfly or habitat would depend on timing of cattle 

grazing, and concentration of animals within pastures containing riparian habitat. Because of 

variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a 

given grazing season.

Use levels and move triggers scheduled for all allotments within their respective riparian habitat 

conservation areas (RHCAs) are designed to restore riparian vegetation and shrub habitat, 

improving habitat for Columbia clubtails.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian habitat and native vegetation would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit riparian habitat.

Determination

Columbia clubtail dragonflies have not been documented within the project area. However, 

because potential habitat may exist along the Malheur River within the project area, there is 

potential for some direct impacts from cattle utilizing vegetation. Not all habitat would be 

impacted concurrently within the project area. The proposed alternatives May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 268

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on Columbia clubtail or its habitat. 

Cumulatively, livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, riparian habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels 

for all alternatives would continue an upward trend in bank stability, shrub recruitment, and 

herbaceous vegetation important for Columiba Clubtail.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of Columbia clubtail drangonflies.

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

No documented occurrences of Johnson’s hairstreak have been recorded within the project area, 

however, suitable habitat does exist. Dwarf mistletoe supporting caterpillar larvae occurs within 

mixed conifer stands found within and adjacent to the allotments. Nectar plants used by adult 

butterflies are generally widespread and common. Many, such as Ceanothus, are not usually 

impacted by cattle grazing. 

Determination

Because dwarf mistletoe supporting Johnson’s hairstreak larvae would not be impacted by cattle 

grazing, and because nectar plants used by adults are common, found throughout the project 

area, and often not utilized by cattle, there would be No Impact (NI) to Johnson’s hairstreak 

populations or habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level and adjacent subwatersheds (post-fire 

habitat containing Ceanothus). All of the activities listed in Appendix C were considered for 

their cumulative effects on Johnson’s hairstreak and potential habitat. Past activities such as 

timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined to create 

the current condition in the analysis area. The combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization project with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities would not be expected to adversely affect populations or viability of Johnson’s 

hairstreak butterfly within the project area or at the Forest level. 

Management Indicator Species 

Big Game Habitat (Elk):

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 269

livestock would be eliminated. Lack of displacement or competition for forage from cattle, 

especially in meadow and riparian systems, could be beneficial for big game species. 

Competition between cattle and big game in and around water sources, both developed and 

undeveloped, would be eliminated. If interior fences are not removed, lack of maintenance of 

those fences could be detrimental if loose wire resulted in entrapped or injured animals. 

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects from management activities to big game 

species or their habitat, there would be no additive cumulative effects.

Determination

Due to the nature of the No Action alternative, there would be No Impact (NI), to big game 

species or their habitat.

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forage

While forage is not considered a limiting factor in summer range (all of the project area), 

competition between elk and cattle for forage resources has the potential to occur in both riparian 

and upland areas. Cattle have grass-dominated diets but would consume forbs and shrubs if grass 

species have cured and thus provide less available protein and other nutrients by late summer. 

Likewise, elk, who normally avoid areas of cattle use during spring and early summer, may 

change this pattern and completely overlap with cattle in prime use areas late season, when 

upland forage species are dry and less palatable (Coe et al. 2005).

In several studies at the Starkey Experimental Station near La Grande, Oregon, it was shown that 

elk avoid cattle during the spring and summer. When cattle are moved into an area, elk move to 

higher elevations and steeper ground. Because optimum forage may exist within riparian and 

large wet meadows within the project area, elk may be negatively impacted by this displacement 

(Coe et al. 2005).

Forage and subsequent nutritional effects may have a substantial impact on individual animal 

performance. While fitness of elk and mule deer may not be affected during the summer, their 

ability to survive severe winters and reproduce may be negatively affected by poor summer 

nutrition (Cook et al. 2004).

Currently elk may move into the vacant Lake Creek Allotment when cattle are moved into the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area. Patterns of distribution are not 

known, however, and the various configurations of use, non-use, deferred use make it difficult to 

predict how elk may react to each of the alternatives proposed. 

Impacting a larger landbase (Alternatives 2 and 4) may displace elk to higher elevations and less 

optimum forage; however, improving overall conditions for upland and riparian habitat within all 

of the allotments would benefit big game as well as cattle. Reducing the landbase for the McCoy 

Creek Allotment (all alternatives) would require monitoring to promptly move cattle, based on 

use and move triggers, to allow adequate residual forage for wildlife at the end of the grazing

season. 

If recovery objects are not met within the defined timeframes (see Appendix A, part 2) for any 

allotment, adaptive strategies may be implemented further reducing cattle numbers, or season of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 270

use, or excluding additional riparian acres from grazing resulting in beneficial impacts to habitat 

and ultimately big game forage.

Aspen within riparian areas may benefit from use levels and move triggers, or riparian fencing, 

designed to improve all riparian hardwood species. Aspen is a favorite browse species. Aspen 

located in upland areas, or in vicinity of the fen, continue to be negatively impacted by conifer 

succession, and overgrazing by both domestic and wild ungulates. Mature aspen trees continue 

to decline and regeneration of sapling-sized replacement trees is low to non-existent. Several of 

the smaller, older, and more decadent unprotected sites may die out within the next few years. 

This has occurred on other areas of the forest (personal observation, Kranich, 2012). 

Aspen restoration in the Merit Timber Sale, and as part of the Logan Valley Meadow and Aspen 

Restoration project have positively impacted several aspen within the project area, by protecting 

stands with fencing, and within the Logan Valley project, by removing competing conifers. 

Additional conifer removal is needed within aspen stands fenced within the Merit Timber Sale 

project. 

Fawning/Calving Habitat

Restoration and expansion of wet meadow habitat, whether within vicinity of the fen in Logan 

Valley, or riparian meadows along major stream reaches within all of the allotments would 

improve potential calving and fawning habitat. Displacement of elk or mule deer by cattle could 

negatively impact adults and their young. However, the overlap of cattle and big game during 

the calving/fawning season is generally the last two weeks of June and does not occur in May or 

early June, allowing big game to take advantage of these meadow systems during that time. 

Antelope fawns were seen in Logan Valley in early June 2012. The first observation of a mule 

deer fawn was mid-June 2012. No reports of elk fawns were obtained within the project area 

during this time, although animals with young were observed in adjacent subwatersheds, midJune (OHA Volunteers, personal communication 2012).

Security

Existing road densities would remain the same within the project area for all alternatives. 

Consequently there would be no overall impact or change in security from the existing condition. 

Improvement and expansion of riparian habitat may provide additional potential forage and 

calving/fawning areas for big game, but disturbance from vehicle traffic may limit its effective 

use by elk and other wildlife. Mule deer are less disturbed by roads and consequently may 

benefit as riparian conditions improve.

Fences, water developments

While fences are generally easily negotiated by big game species, they can negatively impact 

animal movement during late season snow, when poorly placed on hillsides, or when animals are 

panicked by predators or humans. Spooked herds of elk may tear completely through a fence 

rather than go over it. Antelope panicked along roadways may hit a fence multiple times before 

finally locating a hole to squeeze through (Kranich, personal observation). Pregnant elk or deer 

may not navigate fences well. Poorly placed fences mid-slope, or near the top of cut-banks have 

the ability to entrap animals at any time. Poorly maintained fences and loose wire also become 

hazards for big game animals (Paige, 2008).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 271

Fences impact non-game wildlife; bats, song birds, and flying squirrels can become impaled on 

barbs. Raptors, in particular owls, can fly into fences while pursuing prey species (Paige, 2008). 

Although likely incidental, these interactions have potential to cripple or kill individual animals.

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, Design Elements are in place requiring a smooth 

bottom wire at least 16 inches above the ground to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum 

top wire height of 42 inches, and spacing of 10 inches between the top and next lower wire to 

reduce the potential of back legs being caught when animals jump the fence. Properly 

maintained fences also minimize the possibility of animals becoming caught in loose or tangled 

wires. Let-down fences used in areas of heavy snow-pack benefit wildlife because they are laid 

flat on the ground during the non-grazing season, removing the barrier to movement by big game 

and non-game species. Several other modifications to fences that reduce impacts to wildlife are 

illustrated in “A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence with 

Wildlife in Mind” (Paige 2008).

Water developments in the form of troughs or stock ponds provide additional water for big game 

and non-game wildlife use. Elk may use these developments early spring or late season, but 

generally avoid them when cattle are present. Evaporation and lowered water tables of late 

summer, trampling, and manure make some ponds less useable by wildlife. Generally, lack of 

vegetation makes these ponds less attractive to amphibian species as breeding sites. However, 

Pacific chorus frog egg masses were seen in May 2012 in existing ponds in the Sage Hen unit. 

Tadpoles and young frogs can generally maneuver to avoid cattle at stock ponds (Bull et al

2001). However, early season turnout of livestock, when amphibian eggs are present and 

anchored to twigs and vegetation within 15 to 20 inches of the pond edge, may result in 

trampling of egg masses by cattle. 

Troughs are required to have wildlife escape ramps to avoid drowning small mammals and birds. 

Springs providing water to troughs would have sufficient flow to maintain the existing riparian 

vegetation on site (see Design Elements, chapter 2). Pond clean-out or resealing would need to 

occur late season to avoid impacting amphibian egg masses, or tadpoles. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level as well as the areas encompassed by 

the Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units. All of the activities 

listed in Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on big game (elk) and potential 

habitat. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and 

wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Past historic grazing practices heavily impacted big game habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Changes in livestock management have improved habitat 

conditions over time. Ongoing CE projects within the project area (Logan Valley Apsen and 

Meadow Restoration project and previous underburning within the Merit Timbersale projects) in 

addition to the proposed alternatives are designed to further restore existing aspen meadow and 

riparian habitat important for big game, and would provide sufficient forage to support both wild 

and domestic ungulate use within the project area. 

The Malheur National Forest has analyzed changes in its travel management plan. It is 

foreseeable that cross country travel would be prohibited on the Malheur National Forest (where 

it is not already prohibited), with the exception of accessing dispersed camping sites from open 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 272

roads. This may increase security for elk and allow access to forage habitat not previously 

utilized because of disturbance from cross-country vehicle travel. 

Conclusion 

The Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units are sufficiently large to 

provide for existing populations of big game. Elk populations have remained stable, meeting or 

exceeding ODFW management objectives. Elk distribution may shift depending on various 

configurations of the allotments and where cattle are grazing at any given time and place within 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. However, the proposed 

alternatives would not be expected to affect elk population numbers or viability at the Forest 

level. 

Old Growth Habitat 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic 

livestock would be eliminated. Current dedicated old growth, replacement old growth, and 

pileated woodpecker feeding areas would be maintained. Increased growth of riparian shrubs, 

herbaceous cover, and aspen stands could benefit small mammal species preyed upon by 

American marten.

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to old growth habitat, and the MIS species 

associated with this habitat, there would be no additive cumulative effects.

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to Old Growth Habitat and associated MIS pileated 

woodpecker, American marten, and three-toed woodpecker. Because of overstory shading, 

existing DOGs provide limited understory forage for livestock. Large or extensive down logs 

can impede cattle movement and access. Grazing would not alter the character of such habitat. 

Changes in allotment boundaries would not change DOG, ROG, or PWFA acres or boundaries. 

Fence construction, water developments, riders would not be expected to impact these habitats. 

Because proposed allowable use levels and move triggers are designed to improve riparian 

vegetation in the mid- to long-term, improvements in habitat for American marten prey species 

may occur. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on Old Growth MIS species and 

habitat. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and 

wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

There are little to no impacts expected for Old Growth Habitat from cattle grazing within the 

project area. Consequently, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization project with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 273

activities would not be expected to adversely affect populations or viability of pileated 

woodpecker, American marten, or three-toed woodpecker. 

Conclusion 

The Forest’s network of Dedicated Old Growth (DOGs) and Replacement Old Growth (ROGs) 

would continue to maintain habitat for pileated woodpecker, American marten and three-toed 

woodpeckers. No loss of viability for populations of these old growth MIS would be expected 

from implementation of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project.

Primary Cavity Excavators 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to understory vegetation from domestic livestock would 

be eliminated. Conifer shading and wildlife use of aspen stands would continue, impact to 

existing aspen stands would depend on stand vigor, and extent of conifer succession, and extent 

of wildlife browsing. Some species of woodpecker could be negatively impacted if aspen 

continued to decline. 

However, since there would be no activities occurring with this alternative, there would be no 

direct or indirect, or cumulative effects to the primary cavity excavators or their habitat. 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Current Forest Plan direction, as amended, is to maintain snag and down log levels at 100% of 

the potential population of all woodpecker species that exist on the Forest. This means that 

availability of snags and down logs would not limit the numbers of woodpeckers that could live 

in an area.

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to snag and down wood habitat in ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine, or mixed conifer stands. Grazing would not alter the character of such habitat. 

Consequently, for woodpeckers utilizing these habitats for nesting or foraging, the proposed 

alternatives would have little to no impact. Fence clearing and construction, or placement of 

water developments may impact snag or down wood habitat. Avoiding snags during layout 

would minimize these impacts (see Design Elements).

Use levels and move triggers designed to improve riparian shrub recruitment and growth would 

benefit woodpecker species dependent on that habitat (primarily downy woodpeckers, and rednaped sapsuckers). Aspen stands found within riparian areas, or protected by proposed 

exclosures or riparian pastures would also receive some measure of protection and monitoring. 

However, unprotected aspen stands may continue decline. Conifer shading and competition, 

along with grazing pressure from cattle as well as wildlife are adversely impacting these stands. 

Currently aspen snags and large mature aspen exist within the project area, but as these stands 

continue to age, lack of replacement trees would result in a reduction and eventual loss of aspen 

stands in the long-term. This would directly impact downy woodpeckers, and red-naped 

sapsuckers, species which use aspen stands extensively for nesting and foraging. Other primary 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 274

cavity excavators using aspen habitat include Lewis’s and white-headed woodpeckers, 

Williamson’s sapsucker, northern flicker, and hairy woodpecker. Secondary cavity nesters 

would be impacted by loss of aspen stands. Approximately 71 bird species have been recorded 

within these stands1(Cobb 1997). Aspen restoration projects (Logan Valley Meadow and Aspen 

Restoration project, and Merit Timbersale project) have protected some aspen within the project 

area by removing conifers, and fencing or creating slash barriers around the stands. The Logan 

Valley project is ongoing. Several aspen stands have received some measure of conifer removal 

or protection and would maintain aspen within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to 

include post-fire habitat. All of the activities in Appendix C have been considered for their 

cumulative effects on primary cavity excavators.

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all 

impacted the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. 

The High Roberts Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area, may currently provide nesting habitat for several primary cavity 

excavators. Prescribed underburning in the Merit Timber Sale area may also provide some postfire habitat. Cattle grazing would not add cumulatively to existing snag habitat within green or 

burned conifer stands. 

Large diameter aspen and snags within the project area also provide nesting and foraging habitat 

for woodpeckers, specifically downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers. Conifer 

encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, continues to degrade aspen 

stands and in the long-term may result in loss of habitat for these species. Larger aspen stands 

within the project area are more resilient, and would persist in the short- to mid-term. Without 

successful recruitment of sapling size replacement trees, some small stands may die out. 

Ongoing aspen restoration projects have protected some aspen within the project area by fencing 

or slash barriers.

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is 

foreseeable that the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan (ATMP) would prohibit 

cross country travel on the Malheur National Forest with the exception of travel from designated 

open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is expected that with the implementation of the ATMP 

there would be reduced access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter 

snags. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of primary cavity excavators on the Forest.

Conclusion 

While there may be impacts to individuals or habitat, populations of primary cavity excavators 

and other species associated with dead wood habitats within conifer stands would be expected to 

be maintained at the Forest level. 

Nesting habitat associated with aspen stands (live trees as well as snags) may continue to be 

adversely impacted in the long term, possibly impacting individual downy woodpeckers or red-
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 275

naped sapsuckers, and other woodpeckers. Retention of aspen by fencing or creating slash 

barriers as part of ongoing and future restoration projects would maintain a level of aspen stands 

within the project area. 

Featured Species 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic 

livestock would be eliminated. Depending on wildlife browse and use, the potential for riparian 

recovery could be faster with this alternative. Lack of competition for forage from cattle could 

be beneficial for featured species such as pronghorn antelope and beaver. Re-establishment of 

beaver along more stream reaches within the project area could accelerate riparian recovery (see 

discussion below). Improvements in riparian habitat may benefit foraging for blue grouse, as 

well as improve the prey base of small mammals for northern goshawk, or fish abundance for 

osprey. 

Since there would be no activities occurring with this alternative there would be no direct or 

indirect, or cumulative effects to featured species or their habitat. 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to featured species or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of animals within pastures containing riparian habitat. Because of variations in 

dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing 

season. Use levels and move triggers scheduled for all allotments within their respective riparian 

habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) are designed to restore riparian vegetation and shrub habitat. 

There would be no impacts to goshawk nesting habitat, osprey nesting habitat (snags), or blue 

grouse winter roosts. Impacts for these species would stem from impacts to their respective prey 

base or foraging areas. Improvements in riparian shrub density and age classes, as well as 

herbaceous cover, would improve habitat for small mammals, birds (northern goshawk prey), 

fisheries (osprey prey), or blue grouse foraging areas.

Cattle grazing may displace female pronghorns. Because turn-out dates would be in mid- June 

or later, this would not impact newly born fawns. Most antelope have had their young by June. 

Because these animals are mobile, they may simply move to other areas along the forest edge to 

avoid competition and disturbance. Pond construction or spring development may provide water 

sources for pronghorn. Depending on number of cattle trampling, mudding water and manure 

may make ponds less palatable as drinking sources late season. 

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to upland, meadow habitat, riparian habitat and 

native vegetation would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit riparian habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 276

During project operations (fence maintenance, new fence or catch-pen construction, water 

developments) a degree of disturbance and displacement of wildlife are likely. 

Goshawks are highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. Seasonal restrictions 

on activities occurring within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nests have been regularly used to reduce 

impacts to nesting birds. If a new northern goshawk nest were discovered during fence or water 

development layout, these timing and distance restrictions would be implemented (See Design 

Elements, chapter 2). 

There may be some incidental loss of smaller snags during layout and construction of proposed 

fences, catch pen, or water developments. Any layout design should avoid impacting large snags 

potentially used by osprey, particularly if within 1/2 mile of the Malheur River, Summit Creek, 

Big Creek or Lake Creek, or in vicinity of known nests. (LRMP #54, IV-31).

In addition, the District wildlife biologist would be contacted if new raptor nests or roost trees 

are discovered during project layout of fences or water developments. Appropriate buffers and 

timing restrictions would be implemented (See Design Elements, chapter 2).

Timing restrictions limiting motorized vehicle use in calving and fawning areas would minimize 

disturbance to antelope using meadow and open ponderosa pine areas within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. Fences may impact pronghorn antelope. Fence 

designs with minimum lower wire height and smooth bottom wire would help facilitate antelope 

movement (See Design Elements, chapter 2).

Beaver

Grazing management that allows for recovery of herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods

could increase the expansion of beaver within the project area. Even if riparian hardwoods are 

not fully reestablished, beaver may expand their range by using herbaceous vegetation for 

summer forage, and conifers and other materials for dam construction (Kranich, personal 

observation).

Beaver dams have the potential to raise water tables, store water for late season flow, trap 

sediment, reduce channel erosion, enhance and expand establishment and production of aquatic 

herbaceous vegetation, as well as expand willow and other riparian hardwoods at the edges or 

along suitable substrate within these saturated wetlands (Baker 2003, Carex Working Group

2012). Saturated soils often deter cattle and wild ungulates, providing some protection for 

riparian hardwoods within these sites. Even when dams deteriorate or fail, either due to flood 

events, or loss of beaver by predation, trapping, or movement to other areas, downstream 

deposition of material from behind the dams may provide sites for willow and other riparian 

hardwood establishment (Hall 2005, Demmer and Beschta 2008). 

Increased abundance and diversity of herbaceous as well as riparian hardwood species could 

increase overall species richness of insect populations, as well as that of small mammal, bird, and 

bat species. 

Once beaver become established in an area, grazing management may become more critical. 

Beaver cut willows at the base, which stimulates suckering and growth, while tip browsing by 

both wild and domestic animals can arrest growth (Kindschy 1985). Heavy browsing by 

ungulates, in addition to riparian hardwood use by beaver, can be detrimental for shrub recovery

(Baker 2003). However, beaver currently exist on both Lake Creek and Big Creek within Logan 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 277

Valley, and their activities appear to be compatible with some level of cattle grazing. Willows 

and other hardwoods are present in both areas. 

Alder and willow within the exclosure on Summit Creek also appear to be healthy. This 

exclosure has existed since the 1980’s and photo points have documented shrub development 

since the area was fenced (District Range Photo points, 1986 to 2010). Elk and deer are able to 

negotiate the fence to access this exclosure, the fence only restricts cattle access. Freshly cut 

lodgepole pine and peeled sticks from beaver activity were noted in the exclosure in May 2012 

(Kranich, personal observation). 

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects to featured species and their habitat is the project 

area. All of the activities in Appendix C have been considered for their cumulative effects on 

these species. Past activities, actions, and events in the analysis area have contributed to create 

the existing condition in the project area.

Past historic grazing practices heavily impacted big game habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Changes in livestock management have improved habitat 

conditions over time. Livestock grazing is expected to continue. Livestock turned out later in the 

spring are not expected to conflict with antelope fawning periods. Forest Plan grazing standards 

are established to provide sufficient forage to support both wildlife and domestic ungulates. 

Improvements to riparian habitat would benefit all of the above featured species, either directly, 

or indirectly by improving forage for their prey species. Upland water developments may 

provide sources of water for big game depending on season of use, number of cattle and their 

impacts to the water source. 

Past commercial harvest and thinning, fire suppression, wildfire, and personal use firewood 

cutting have affected the quality and quantity of large nest tree habitat, snag habitat, and winter 

roost habitat. There may be some incidental loss of smaller snags during layout and construction 

of proposed fences, catch pen, or water developments. Design Elements are in place to limit 

losses of larger snags.

Conclusion 

Cumulatively, and with Design Elements in place, any impacts to featured species or their habitat 

from the action alternatives is expected to be minimal. Although individual animals may be 

disturbed, any of the above activities would not be expected to adversely impact featured species 

populations. 

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would 

occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic 

livestock would be eliminated. 

Habitats and associated species that would benefit from no grazing include Riparian Shrub, 

Steppe Shrubland, Montane Meadow, and Aspen. Habitats and associated species less impacted 

by the No Action Alternative include Dry Forest Old Growth and Mesic Mixed Conifer. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 278

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to neotropical migratory birds, landbirds, or their 

habitat, as a result of No Action, there would be no additive cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Dry Forest Old Growth Habitat and Dependent Species and Mesic Mixed Conifer Old Forest and 

Dependent Species

Depending on canopy cover and overstory shading, Dry Forest Old Growth and Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Old Forest habitat may have less available forage, or less palatable forage, and 

consequently may be less impacted by cattle grazing. Depending on season of use, some ground 

nesting birds within this habitat could be impacted by trampling or loss of cover and exposure of 

nests. Early season grazing would have the greatest impact. Not all areas of potential habitat 

would be affected by cattle in a given grazing season.

Montane Meadow, Shrub Steppe Habitats

Impacts to montane meadow or shrub steppe habitats would depend on timing of cattle grazing, 

and concentration of livestock within these pastures. Early season grazing may have the greatest 

impact to ground nesting birds by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing 

and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of 

potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to native vegetation with these grassland, meadow, 

and shrub steppe habitats would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit these habitats.

Primary species to benefit from montane meadow include savannah sparrow, long-billed curlew, 

Wilson’s phalarope, Wilson’s snipe (common snipe), and sandhill crane (Altman 2000). All of 

these species have been documented in the project area.

Primary species to benefit from shrub steppe habitat include vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, 

lark sparrow and long-billed curlew (Altman 2000). All of these species have been documented 

in the project area.

Riparian Shrublands

Impacts to riparian shrublands would also depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration 

of livestock within these pastures. Use levels and move triggers designed to improve riparian 

conditions for fisheries would also improve these areas for neotropical migratory birds. 

Early season grazing may have the greatest impact to ground nesting birds by cattle trampling 

eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of 

variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a 

given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to native vegetation within these riparian habitats 

would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers 

of cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit these habitats.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 279

Fences, especially those in riparian areas, may impact non-game wildlife; bats, song birds, and 

flying squirrels can become impaled on barbs. Raptors, in particular owls, can fly into fences 

while pursuing prey species (Paige, 2008). Although likely incidental, these interactions have 

potential to cripple or kill individual animals.

Properly maintained fences minimize the possibility of animals becoming caught in loose or 

tangled wires. Let-down fences used in areas of heavy snow-pack benefit wildlife because they 

are laid flat on the ground during the non-grazing season, removing the barrier. Several other 

modifications to fences that reduce impacts to wildlife are illustrated in “A Landowner’s Guide 

to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence with Wildlife in Mind” (Paige 2008). Water 

developments such as troughs are required to have wildlife escape ramps installed to prevent 

drowning of small mammals or birds.

Aspen

Where aspen occur within riparian areas, use levels and move triggers designed to improve 

riparian shrub recruitment and growth may also provide a level of protection and monitoring for 

those stands.

However, unprotected aspen stands may continue decline. Conifer shading and competition, 

along with grazing pressure from cattle as well as wildlife are adversely impacting these stands. 

Currently aspen snags and large mature aspen exist within the project area. As these stands 

continue to age, lack of saplings as replacements for older trees would result in a reduction and 

eventual loss of aspen stands in the long-term. This would directly impact downy woodpeckers, 

and red-naped sapsuckers, species which use aspen stands extensively for nesting and foraging. 

Other primary cavity excavators using aspen habitat include Lewis’s and white-headed 

woodpeckers, Williamson’s sapsucker, northern flicker, and hairy woodpecker. Numerous 

secondary cavity nesters as well as small mammals and bats would be impacted by loss of aspen 

stands. 

Aspen restoration projects (Logan Valley Meadow and Aspen Restoration project, and Merit 

Timbersale project) have protected some aspen within the project area by removing conifers, and 

fencing or creating slash barriers around the stands. The Logan Valley project is ongoing. 

Stands that have received some measure of conifer removal or protection would maintain aspen 

within the project area. Monitoring would determine if appropriate use levels by cattel are 

allowing aspen suckers to develop the sapling stage (see Chapter 2 Monitoring). 

Effects Common to All (above listed landbird habitat)

During project implementation (cattle off-loading, cattle grazing, fence maintenance, fence 

construction, water development construction) a degree of disturbance and displacement of 

wildlife is likely. Disturbance and displacement of wildlife depends on the season of the year 

and the tolerance of the species and individuals. Overall, disturbance from activities would be 

limited in time and place, and therefore, would not be expected to impact populations of species 

at the landscape level. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on neotropical migratory birds or their 

habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 280

Livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, 

diversity and abundance of prey species for neotropical migratory birds and landbirds would be 

expected to improve. 

Ongoing aspen restoration (which includes conifer removal and protection) is expected to hold a 

percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued longterm impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to 

lessen these impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect populations of neotropical migratory birds (NTMB) and landbirds on the Forest.

Conclusion 

Overall, while there may some impacts to individuals or habitat, the proposed actions are not 

expected to adversely impact NTMB species and landbird populations at the Forest level.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

A Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report has been prepared and evaluates the 

potential effects of livestock grazing on wildlife species and their associated habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The Proposed Action is consistent with the 

Endangered Species Act. The proposed action would be expected to have No Effect (NE) to 

threatened Canada lynx and No Impact (NI) to the sensitive gray wolf, bald eagle, California 

wolverine, and Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly. Contingent on monitoring, there would be No 

Impact (NI) to upland sandpipers. 

The proposed action May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH) of sensitive greater sagegrouse, silver-bordered fritillary, bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, Lewis’s woodpecker, whiteheaded woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, fringed myotis, Columbia clubtail 

dragonfly, and Columbia spotted frog, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal 

listing.

Old Growth

Management Area 13 – Old Growth – The goals of this management area are to provide 

“suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and 

preservation of aesthetic qualities. Within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project area, the acres mapped as MA-13 would stay the same.

Connectivity

For all alternatives, existing connectivity is expected to remain the same.

Summer Range Cover 

For all alternatives, summer range cover is expected to remain the same.

Snags and Down Logs
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 281

For all alternatives, snags and down logs are not targeted for removal. Cattle grazing would not 

impact these structures. Overall snag and down log quantities are expected to stay about the 

same, with only incidental impacts to this habitat from clearing right-of-way for new fence 

construction, or water developments.

Featured Species

Goshawk

If nest sites are active, management activities would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the nest sites 

from April 1 to September 30 to avoid disturbing goshawks during the breeding season. 

Blue Grouse

For blue grouse, the action alternatives are not expected to impact winter roost habitat. 

Osprey

The action alternatives include Design Elements to maintain osprey nest trees and snags on the 

landscape and minimize disturbance to nesting birds. These measures meet Forest Plan 

direction.

Antelope

Design elements including timing restrictions in fawning areas and fence designs to facilitate 

antelope movement, would minimize disturbance to antelope using meadow and open ponderosa 

pine areas within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. These measures 

meet Forest Plan direction. 

Landbirds

The Proposed Action is consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the 

Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186. The Proposed Action was designed under current Forest 

Service policy for landbirds. The Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 

2000) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) 

were reviewed for effects disclosure. The Proposed Action alternative was designed to protect or 

enhance priority habitats for landbird species, including neotropical migratory species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

The project as described would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the wildlife 

resource. The project moves habitat conditions towards the historic condition. Therefore there 

are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments.

Other Laws, Regulations and Policies_____________________

National Historic Preservation, Treaty Rights, Executive Order 12875, Executive Order 

13287 and American Antiquities Act of 1906

See Heritage under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898

See Social and Economic Effects Section under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 282

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

See Wildlife Effects Section under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Clean Water Act

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Endangered Species Act

See Wildlife, Hydrology and Aquatics, and Botany Sections.

Climate Change

The effects of proposed livestock grazing on climate change, aren't measurable and are likely 

insignificant at the global scale.

National Forest management Act (NFMA)

The analysis and proposed activities are consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan. The 

Forest Plan was developed and amended per guidance from NFMA.

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

The four alternatives considered in detail meet the intent of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 

Act. They ensure that recreation, fish and wildlife, water, timber resources are available for 

current and future generations, however only the three action alternatives ensure that grazing

resources are available for both current and future generations in the project area.

Municipal Watersheds

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the Summit Logan Analysis area.

Consumers, Civil rights, Women, and Minorities

Consumers, the civil rights of individuals and groups, including minorities and women, and the 

rights of American Indians indentified by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

would not be adversely affected by implementation of any alternative under consideration. 

Indirect affects on these groups my result from job opportunities created or maintained by 

authorizing grazing on allotments and pastures in the projected area with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Such employment opportunities would not be provided with implementation of Alternative 1 (No 

Grazing). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 3 Page 283

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

There would be no unavoidable adverse effects to resources with implementation of the Grazing 

Alternatives under consideration. Implementation of Alternative 1 (No Grazing) would have an 

adverse economic effect upon permittees and their employees.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 4 Page 284

Chapter 4

Consultation and Coordination 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, tribes, Federal, state and local agencies, 

and non-forest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement:

List of Preparers 

Interdisciplinary Team 

Name Expertise Years Education

Shannon Britt Rangeland Vegetation & 

Invasive Species 24 years

Bachelor of Science,

Rangeland Resource 

Management

Joseph Rausch Botany/Ecology 11 years Doctor of Philosophy, Botany

Robert “Hersh” McNeil Soil Science 22 years Doctor of Philosophy, 

Forestry

Bob Hassmiller Hydrology 5 years Bachelor of Science, 

Resource Conservation

Dan Armichardy Fisheries 6 years Masters of Science, Biology 

(emphasis on Fish Migration)

Shannon Winegar Recreation & Visual Quality 27 years Bachelor of Nursing 

Mary Robertson Archaeology 20 years Masters of Science (emphasis 

on Archaeology)

Susan Burton Social & Economics 30 years Bachelor of Science, 

Rangeland Management 

Cindy Kranich Wildlife Biology 29 years Bachelor of Science, Wildlife 

Biology

Ryan Falk Environmental Coordinator 28 years Bachelor of Science, Forest 

Management

Lisa Weigum Writer/Editor 9 years

Bachelor of Social Science,

Philosophy, Politics & 

Economics (emphasis on 

Public Administration) 

Contributors 

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Burns Paiute Tribe 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 4 Page 285

Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), John Day 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Grant County Court 

Persons who Responded During the Scoping Process

Linda Driskill 

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project 

Oregon Wild 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 286

Chapter 5

References Cited 

The following documents were cited by specialist in this Environmental Impact Statement. 

Additional documents used in analysis, but not cited in this EIS are listed in the Specialists’ 

Reports in the Project Record. 

General

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Malheur National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Malheur National Forest. 

Monitoring

Harrelson, Cheryl C., C.L. Rawlins, & John P. Potyondy, 1994. Stream channel reference sites: 

an illustrated guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experiment 

Station, 61p.

FSH 2209.21 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook

Rangeland Vegetation and Invasive Species 

Abt, S.R. 1994. Sediment deposition and entrapment in vegetated streambeds. 

Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal, 1997. “Effect of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and 

Soils of upland forests on the Interior West”. Conservation Biology 11:314-327.

Bengeyfield P. 2006. Managing streams with cows in mind. 

Borman, Michael M. 2004. “Forest Stand Dynamics and Livestock Grazing in Historical 

Context; Conservation Biology.

Boyd C. and Svejcar T., 2004. Regrowth and production of herbaceous riparian vegetation

following defoliation.

Burkhardt J.W., 1997. Grazing Utilization Limits: An Ineffective Management Tool

Burton T.A and Cowley E.R. 2010. Multiple Indicator Monitoring Report for: Prairie City 

Ranger District

Carlson, G. 1974. Malheur National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. John Day, OR.

Chaney, Ed, Wayne Elmore, and William S, Platts.1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian 

areas. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 287

Chew, M.K. 1991 Bank Balance: Managing Colorado’s Riparian Areas. Colorado State 

University Cooperative Extension Bulletin 553b, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Clary W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the Intermountain 

Region. Gen. Tech. Report Int.-263. USDA Forest Service, Ogden. UT.

Clary W.P. and Kinney J., 2002. Streambank and Vegetation Response to Simulated Cattle 

Grazing.

Clary W.P., 1999. Stream Channel and Vegetation Responses to Late Spring Cattle Grazing.

Clary W.P. and Leininger W.C., 2000. Stubble Height as a Tool for Management of Riparian 

Areas

Clary W.P and Webster B.F, 1990. Riparian Grazing Guidelines for the Intermountain Region

Clary W.P., 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows.

Clary W. P. 1996. Riparian Plant Regrowth-Maybe Not as Much as You Think!

Cowley E.R. 2002. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration

Full Stream Consulting, Wayne Elmore. 2007 Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Report, 

USFA Contract #AG04KKC050019 for the Malheur National Forest.

Hall F.C., Bryant L., 1995 Herbaceous Stubble Height as a Warning of Impending Riparian 

Areas.

Heitschmkdt R., Sanders K.D., Smith E. L., Laycock W. A., Rasmussen G.A., Skinner Q.D., 

Hall F.C., Lindenmuth R., Van Tassell L.W., Richardson J.W., Fletcher R.R., Borden 

G.W., Harris T.R., Taylor D.T., Moline B.R., and Krueger W.C., 1998. Stubble Height 

and Utilization Measurements: Uses and Misuses.

Hook P. B. 2003. Sediment Retention in Rangeland Riparian buffer.

Lucas et. al., 2004. Riparian vegetation response to different intensities and seasons of grazing

Mosley F., Cook P., Griffis A., and O’Laughlin 1997. Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in 

Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best Management 

Practices Policy.

Pearce, R.A. 1998. a. Sediment filtration in a montane riparian zone under simulated rainfall. 

Pearce, R.A. 1998. b. Sediment movement through riparian vegetation under simulated rainfall 

and overland flow. 

Report on the Proposed Blue Mountain Forest Reserve 1906

Smith L et al., 2007. Principle of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Rangelands

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Record of Decision for Managing Competing and Unwanted 

Vegetation (1988 ROD) and the 1989 Mediated Agreement.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 288

USDA Forest Service, 1992. Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains, Charles G. 

Johnson Jr., Roderick R. Clausnitzer. R6-ERW-TP-036-92.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993, “Riparian Area Management Process for Assessing 

Proper Functioning Condition.” Technical Reference 1737-9.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, 1994. Rangeland Reform Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Mid-Montane Westland Plant Associations of the Malheur, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Elizabeth A. Crowe and Roderick R. 

Clausnitzer. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Post Fire Interim Grazing Guidelines, Malheur National Forest. 

Unpublished Report. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. December 2, 2003.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Invasive Plant Program.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Bunchgrass Plant Communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountain: 

A Guide for Mangers. Charles G. Johnson Jr. and David K. Swanson. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTF-641.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2008. Monitoring Stream 

Channels and Riparian Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin 

Version 5.0.

Botany

Ahlenslager, K., and L. Potash. 2007. Conservation Assessment for 13 Species of Moonworts 

(Botrychium Swartz Subgenus Botrychium). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

Bakker, J.D., F. Rudebusch, M.M. Moore. 2010. Effects of long-term livestock grazing and 

habitat on understory vegetation. Western North American Naturalist 70: 334-344.

Brooks, P.J., K. Urban, E. Yates, C.G. Johnson. 1991. Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, 

Umatilla, and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. R6-WAW-TP-027-91, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Carex Working Group. 2012. Summit Creek Ecological Inventory. Final unpublished report 

submitted to USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. USDA FS 

Agreement #11-CS-11060404-016. 32 p.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. United States Government Printing Office.

Farrar D. and C. Johnson-Groh. 2004. Moonwort (Botrychium) Workshop Handbook, with 

Special Emphasis on the ESA Candidate, Slender Moonwort (Botrychium lineare). US 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Sawtooth National Forest. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 289

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2007. Flora of North America, Volumes 1-

28 (published). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Forest Service Manual (FSM). 2012. USDA Forest Service. 

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Hurd, E.G. et al. 1998. Field Guide to Intermountain Sedges. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-10, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 2012. Species conservation 

documents and fact sheets [http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/], accessed March 2012. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region and USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Washington and Oregon.

Malheur National Forest. 2009. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment of the Logan Valley 

Fen between Lake Creek Road and Big Creek Campground Road (Big Field Unit). 

Prairie City Ranger District.

Mellmann-Brown, S., and J.H. Rausch. 2010. Inventory and Monitoring Report of the Logan 

Valley Fen Complex, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. 

Implementation of the Inventory and Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent 

Wetlands. USDA Forest Service.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, fourth edition. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, 

New Jersey.

Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). 2012. Database for Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plant (TESP) species. USDA Forest Service. Queried January 2012, J.H. 

Rausch.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer 

(Accessed: June 5, 2012 ). 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2010. Rare, Threatened and Endangered 

Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, 

Oregon. 105 pp.

Rausch, J.H. 2009. Background Information on the Logan Valley Fen Complex, and Comments 

and Concerns Regarding the Logan Valley Fen / Wetland Complex. Unpublished reports 

submitted to the Prairie City District Ranger.

Rausch, Joseph H. 2012. Addendum to Summit Creek Ecological Inventory: Synthesis and 

Summary of Findings. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Malheur National 

Forest, John Day, OR.

Vitt, D.H., and R.K. Wieder. 2008. The structure and function of bryophyte-dominated 

peatlands. In Bryophyte Biology, second edition (B. Goffinet and A.J. Shaw, eds.), 

Cambridge University Press, New York.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 290

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sensitive Plants of the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), version 2.0 at FSNITC, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP) and Invasive Species 

Applications, training workbook.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Inventory and Monitoring Protocols For Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level 1 Inventory Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent 

Wetlands. Draft.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Inventory and Monitoring Protocols For Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent 

Wetlands. Draft.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Regional Forester’s transmittal letter to Forest Supervisors; Update 

of the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester's Special Status Species List; File Code 2670; 

December 9, 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level I Inventory Field 

Guide, Inventory Methods for Assessment and Planning. General Technical Report WO86a, March 2012.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level II Inventory Field 

Guide, Inventory Methods for Project Design and Analysis. General Technical Report 

WO-86b, March 2012.

Weixelman, D.A., and D.J. Cooper. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen 

Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California. USDA Forest 

Service R5-TP-028. 52p. 

Wilson, B.L., R. Brainerd, D. Lytjen, B. Newhouse, and N. Otting. 2008. Field Guide to the 

Sedges of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oregon Press. Corvallis, OR.

Soils 

Belnap, J.; Kaltenecker, J.H.; Rosentreter, R.; Williams, J.; Leonard, S.; & Eldridge, D. 2001. 

Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, Printed Materials Distribution Center, BC-650-B, Box 

25047, Denver, CO 80225-0047. (www.soilcrust.org/crust.pdf)

Carlson, G. 1974. Malheur National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. John Day, OR.

Hansen, D.J.; Ostler, W.K; & Hall, D.B. 1999. The transition from Mohave Desert to Great 

Basin Desert on the Nevada Test Site. Proc. RMRS-P-11, pp.148-158. USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mtn. Research Sta., Ogden, UT

Kaltenecker, J.H.; Wicklow-Howard, M.C.; & Rosentreter, R. 1999. Biological soil crusts in 

three sagebrush communities recovering from a century of livestock trampling. Proc. 

RMRS-P-11, pp.222-226. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Research Sta., Ogden, UT

Kauffman, J.B.; Bayley, P.; Li, H.; McDowell, P.; & Beschta, R.L. 2002. Final Report, 

Research/Evaluate Restoration of NE Oregon Streams: Effects of livestock exclosures 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 291

(corridor fencing) on riparian vegetation, stream geomorphic features, and fish 

populations. Report submitted from Oregon State Univ. and Univ. of Oregon to 

Bonneville Power Administration in fulfillment of contract nos. 000 00 122 & 000 00 

121-00001; project nos. 2000-051-00 & 2000-051-01

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.

Hydrology and Aquatics 

Anderson PD, Larson DJ, Chan SS. 2007. Riparian buffer and density management influences on 

microclimate of you headwater forests of Western Oregon. Forest Science 53(2):254-269

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, and W. C. Saunders. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of 

invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50:201-220.

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

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

54:419-431.

Bengeyfield, P. 2006. Managing cows with streams in mind. Rangelands 29(1):3-6.

Bengeyfield, P. and D. Svoboda.1989 .Determining allowable use levels for livestock movement

in riparian areas. Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources.

Proceeding. American Water Resources Association. Reno, NV.Bowers, W., P. Dupee’, 

M.L. Hanson, and R. Perkins. 1993. Bull Trout population summary Malheur River 

Basin. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon.

Bowers, W., P. Dupee’, M.L. Hanson, and R. Perkins. 1993. Bull Trout population summary

Malheur River Basin. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife,Hines, Oregon.

Boyd, C.S, and T.J. Svejcar. 2004. Regrowth and production of herbaceous riparian vegetation

following defoliation. Journal of Range Management. 57:448-454.

Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator 

monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 

1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp. 

Carex Working Group Botanical Services and Ecological Assessments Summit Creek Ecological 

Inventory Final Report January 2012 

Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow TR, Naiman RJ, Brosfske KD, Mroz GD, Brookshire BL, Franklin 

JF. 1999. Microclimate in Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Ecology. BioScience 

49(4):288-297.

Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. Journal 

of Range Management 52(3):218-227. 

Clary, W.P and C. I. Thorton. and S.R. Abt. 1996. Riparian stubble height and recovery of 

degraded streambanks. Rangelands. 18(4). 4p.

Clary, W.P and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. 

Journal of Range Management. 53 (6): 563-573.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 292

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain 

Region. General Technical Report INT-263. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Corenblit, D. E. Tabacchi, J. Steiger, and A. M. Gurnell 2007. Reciprocal interactions and

adjustnebts between fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: a 

review of complementary approaches Earth Science Reviews 84:56-86

Cowley E.R. 2002. Guidelines for establishing allowable levels of streambank alteration. Bureau 

of Land Management, Idaho State Office. March. 12 p.

Dunham, Jason B.; Rieman, Bruce;Chandler; Gwyenne 2001. Development of field- based 

models of suitable thermal regimes for interior Columbia Basin salmonids. Boise,ID: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Final 

Report RMRS-00-IA-11222014-527. 79p.

Ebersole, J. L., W. J. Liss, and C. A. Frissel 2001. Relationship between stream temperature, 

thermal refugia and rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams 

in the northwestern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10:1-10

Elmore, Wayne 2007 PFC Report Malheur National Forest Prairie City Ranger District

Hall, C.H. and L. Bryant. 1995. Herbaceous stubble height as a warning sign of impending cattle 

grazing damage to riparian areas. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNWGTR-362. 10 p.

Heitke, J.D., R.C. Henderson, B.B. Roper, and E.K. Archer. 2008. Evaluating livestock grazing

use with streambank alteration protocols: Challenges and solutions. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management 61:647-655. 

Hupp, C., and W. Osterkamp. 1996. Riparian Vegetation and fluvial geomorphology processes. 

Geomorphology 14:277-295

Michael J. Jakober, Thomas E. McMahon, Russell F. Thurow & Christopher G. Clancy (1998): 

Role of Stream Ice on Fall and Winter Movements and Habitat Use by Bull Trout and 

Cutthroat Trout in Montana Headwater Streams, Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, 127:2, 223-235

Jakober, M. J. 1995. Autumn and winter movement and habitat use of resident Bull Trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout in Montana. Master’s thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

Kaufman, J. B; P. Bayley; H.Li; P. Mc Dowell; R.L. Beschta. 2002. Research/Evaluate 

Restoration of NE Oregon Streams: Effects of livestock exclosures (corridor fencing) on 

riparian vegetation, stream geomorphic features, and fish populations. Project Number 

2000-05100. BPA Report DOE/BP 00006210-1. U.S. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon, USA.

Kawaguchi, Y., and S. Nakano. 2001. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to the annual 

resource budget for salmonids in forest and grassland reaches of a headwater stream. 

Freshwater Biology 46:303-316.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in Stream Channel Adjustment to Livestock Exclosure, White

Mountains, California. Restoration Ecology, Dec. 1993, p. 226 - 230.

Lennox, S., M., David J. Lewis, Randall D. Jackson, John Harper, Stephanie Larson, and 

Kenneth W. Tate Development of Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat in Restored Riparian 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 293

Sites of California’s North Coast Rangelands 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration 

International

Magilligan, FJ and PF McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustment following the elimination of 

cattle grazing. JAWRA, 33(4): 867 – 878. 

Malheur National Forest (MNF). 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan.

Malheur National Forest (MNF). 2004. Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report. 

Nakano, Shigeru, and M. Murakami. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence 

between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2001 January 2; 

98 (1) 166-170.

Nedeau, Ethan J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific 

Northwest, 2nd edition. The Xerces Society. Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2010. John Day River Basin Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). 

November 2010.

ODFW 2005. 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status Report. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Fish Division. 3406 Cherry Avenue N.E. Salem, OR. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/. Accessed March 12, 2012.

Opperman, J. J., and A. M Merenlender. 2004. The effectiveness of riparian restoration for 

improving instream fish habitat in four hardwood dominated California streams. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:822-834

Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Columbia Basins. US Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service , Pacific Northwest Research Station (Portland, OR) 1991 

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leopnard, B. Mitchell, 

and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management TR 1737-15. A User Guide to Assessing 

Proper Functioning Condition Under the Supporting Sciences for Lotic Areas. National 

Business Center, BC-650B, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, Colorado.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Saunders, W. C. 2006. Improved grazing management increases terrestrial invertebrate inputs 

that feed trout in Wyoming rangeland streams. M.S. Thesis. Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Saunders, W. C., and K. D. Fausch. 2007b. Improved Grazing Management Increases Terrestrial 

Invertebrate Inputs that Feed Trout in Wyoming Rangeland Streams. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 136:1216-1230.

Skinner, Q.D. 1998. Stubble height and function of riparian communities. In: Stubble Height and 

Utilization Measurements: Uses and Misuses. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon 

State University. Station Bulletin 682. 72 p.

Stagliano, David M., George M. Stephens, and William R. Bosworth 2007. Aquatic 

Invertebrate Species of Concern on USFS Northern Region Lands. Prepared for: USDA 

Forest Service Northern Region By: Montana Natural Heritage Program Natural 

Resource Information System Montana State Library and Idaho Conservation Data 

Center Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 294

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2008. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to yearly brook 

trout prey consumption and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

137:224-235.

University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team. 2004. University of Idaho stubble height 

study report. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, 

Moscow, ID. 26 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 2010 Implementation Monitoring for PACFIS/INFISH and the 

1998 Biological Opinions for Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. Adapted from an 

annual Regional Direction Letter, September 2010 (five enclosures). Region 6, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy: Interim strategies for managing fishproducing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and 

portions of Nevada (INFS).

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact and Forest Plan 

Amendment [29] for Incorporation of the Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish

Habitat Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Malheur National Forest 

Land and resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon.

USFW. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 50 CFR 17, Rules and Regulations, Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 

14, 2010. Fed. Reg. 75:2270-2431.

_____. 2008. Bull Trout 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.

_____. 2007. Letter of concurrence for grazing activities on the Bear, Camp Creek, Deardorff, 

Dollar Basin/Star Glade, Flag Prairie, Hot Springs, Logan Valley Lower Middle Fork, 

McCoy Creek, North Fork, Ott Rail Creek, Spring Creek, Summit Prairie, and Upper 

Middle Fork Allotments (TAILS: 13420-2007-I-0098). USFWS La Grande Field Office. 

La Grande, OR. May 14, 2007. 58 pp.

_____. 2005. Bull Trout Core Are Templates (Complete Core Area by Core Area Analysis). 

Compiled by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter 14 – Malheur River Management 

Unit. Primary Editors: Wade Fredenberg and Jeff Chan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Portland, OR. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/References/BTTemplatesFinal.pdf. 

Accessed 03/13/2012.

_____. 2002. Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Roads - A Synthesis of Scientific Information. General 

Technical Report GTR-509. May 2001.

USDI, Bureau of land Management. 1996b. Utilization studies and residual measurements. 

Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3. BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730. Denver, CO. 165 

pp.

Utz, R. M., B. C. Ratcliffe, B. T. Moore, and K. J. Hartman. 2007. Disproportionate relative 

importance of a terrestrial beetle family (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) as a prey source for 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 295

central Appalachian brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

136:177-184.

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-46. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 49 pp. 

Recreation 

Final Pub June 2004. National Visitor Use Monitoring Project.

January 2009. National Visitor Use Monitoring Project.

USDA. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide.

Visual Quality 

Norman H. Steggell, Malheur National Forest June 1985 revised 1988 Cultural Resource 

Management: A Handbook.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Agricultural Handbook Number 701, Landscape Aesthetics, a 

Handbook for Scenery Management.

USDA. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide

Heritage 

Broadhead, Wade H. 1999 Cattle, Control, and Conservation. CRM Online, Vol. 22, No. 9.

http://crm.cr.nps.gov/issue.cfm?volume=22&number-09.

Couture, Marilyn. 1978 Recent and Contemporary Foraging Practicies of Harney Valley Pauite. 

M.A. Thesis, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Couture, Marilyn. 1996 Ethnographic Survey of the Burns Paiute, Volume I. Report on file at 

the Malheur National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, John Day, OR.

David, Robert. 2004 Logan Valley Spring Development CRIS MNF646-04/166. Report on file at

Malheur National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, John Day, OR.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and J. Haggarty. 1979 Trampling as an Agent in the Formation of Edge 

Damage: An Experiment in Lithic Technology. Northwest Anthropological Research 

Notes, 13, 208-214.

Goodman, Linda. 2006 Grazing Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which 

implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit 

Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act”. MS on file at Malheur National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office, John Day, Oregon.

Horne, Stephen and Janine McFarland. 1993 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Cultural 

Resources. USDA Forest Serivce Heritage Resources Projgram, Los Padres National 

Forest, Santa Barbara, CA.

Keyser, James D., Thomas L. Burge, and Dorothy M. Fleming. 1988 Management Strategy For 

Treatment of Lithic Scatter Sites. Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 7. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 296

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon and Washington. 

Logsdon, Robert L.1976 Flake Damage and Dispersion Produced by Cattle: A Report of a 

Field Experiment. Unpublished Paper, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 

Western Washinton State Collge.

Mosgrove, Jerry L. 1980. The Malheur National Forest: An Ethnographic History. USDA, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Osborn, Alan, Susan Vetter, Ralph Hartley, Laurie Walsh and Hesslyn Brown. 1987 Impacts of 

Domestic Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National 

Park, Utah. Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 20.

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, 

National Register of Historic Places, Washington D.C.

Reid, Kenneth C., John A. Draper and Peter E,. Wigand. 1989 Prehissotry and 

Paleoenvironments of the Silvies Plteau, Harney Basin, Southwestern Oregon. Pullman, 

WA: Center for Northwestern Antrhopology, Washington State University.

Roberson, Emily. 1996 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Soils and Recommendations for 

Management. California Native Plant Society.

http://www.cnps.org/archives/letters/soils.pdf

Roney, John. 1977 Livestock and Lithics: The Effects of Trampling on a Lithic Scatter. 

Winnemucca District,United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management.

Suphan, Robert J. 1974 Ethnological Report on the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse Indians. 

In Oregon Indians II, pp. 88-182. Garland, New York and London.

Thomas, Suzanne. 1991 Malheur National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan. USDA, 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon.

Trimble, Stanley W. and Alexandra C. Mendel. 1995 The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent – A 

Critical Review. Geomorphology 13, 233-253.

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/floodplain_ecology/pdf%20files/papers/Trible%20&%20Men

del_1995.pdf

Whiting, Beatrice B. 1950 Paiute Sorcery. New York: Viking Fund Publication in 

Anthropology #15.

Social and Economics

Bradford, D., F. Reed, R. Baird LeValley, C. Cambell, S. Kossler. 2002. Livestock Grazing on 

the National Forests-Why continue to do it? Rangelands V. 24, No.2. Pp 2-11, Moffitt, 

Christine M. 2000

Northwest Area Foundation website: 

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=14&FIPS=41023
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 297

Obermiller, F.W. 1992. Special Report 903. Costs Incurred by Permittees in Grazing Cattle on 

Public and Private Rangelands and Pastures in Eastern Oregon. Oregon State University 

Extension Service. Pp.9-17.

Raish, C., A.M. McSweeney. 2003. Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock 

Ranching on the Espanola and the Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson 

National Forests: A Pilot Study. USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. Pp 1.

Thompson, T.L., Deputy Chief Letter to: Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, 

IITF Director, and WO Staff. Subject: Grazing Allotment National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Analysis. May 6, 2004.

US Congress 1855: Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Treaty and Treaty with the Tribes of 

Middle Oregon

Wildlife

Adamus, P.R., K. Larsen, G.Gillson, and C.R. Miller. 2001. Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas. Oregon 

Field Ornithologiesist, P.O. Box 10373, Eugene, OR 97440. CD-ROM.

Akenson, H. A. and T. Schommer. 1992. Upland sandpiper survey protocol for the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report to Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, Baker City, Oregon. 34 pp.

Akenson, H. A. 1993. Upland Sandpiper Habitat Use and Breeding Biology at Logan Valley and 

Marley Creek, Oregon. Progress Report. Unpublished report to Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. 12 pp.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of 

Eastern Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy and Oregon-Washington 

Partners in Flight [Available online at 

http://community.gorge.net/natres/pif/con_plans/north_rocky/north_rocky_page1.htm

Baker, B. W. and E. P. Hill. 2003. Beaver (Castor Canadensis). Pages 288-310 in G. A. 

Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, editors. Wild Mammals of North 

America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. Second Edition. The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Bock, C. D. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). 

University of California, Berkeley Publications in Zoology 92:1-100

Beier, P.,and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest Structure and Prey Abundance in Foraging Areas of 

Northern Goshawks. Ecological Applications 7: 564-571.

Bull, E. L. 1987. Ecology of the Pileated Woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 51:472-481.

Bull E.L., and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat Use and Management of Pileated Woodpeckers in 

Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 298

Bull, Evelyn L.; Deal, Jerry W.; Hohmann, Janet E. 2001. Avian and amphibian use of fenced 

and unfenced stock ponds in northeastern Oregon forests. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-539. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, 

Oregon 9 pages

Bull, Evelyn L., Nicole Neilsen-Pincus, Barbara C. Wales, and Jane L. Hayes. 2007. The 

influence of disturbance vents on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest 

Ecology and Management 243:320-329.

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 

283–296 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. 

Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 

New York.

Campbell, Thomas M., III. 1979. Short-term effects of timber harvests on Pine Marten Ecology. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. M. S. Thesis. 71 pp.

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, K. M. Stewart, and J. G. Kie. 2005. Spatial and Temporal 

Interactions of Elk, Mule Deer, and Cattle. In Wisdom, M. J. technical editor, The 

Starkey Project: A Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer. Reprinted 

from the Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. 

Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence, Kansas. USA

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. L. Erwin. 

2004. Effects of Summer-Autumn Nutrition and Parturition Date on Reproduction and 

Survival of Elk. Wildlife Monograph 155:1-61.

Csuti B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 

1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife, Distribution, Habitat and Natural History. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Davis, R. J. 2010. Johnson’s hairstreak surveys in Oregon and Washington (2009). Unpublished 

report. On file with Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 

USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washinton. 

Available Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/faunainvertebrates.shtml

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

R. Euliss. 1998 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: 

Grasshopper Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 28 

pages.

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

B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Bobolink. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 299

Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/bobo/bobo.htm

DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. 

Forest and rangeland birds of the United States natural history and habitat use. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/forest/index.htm. (Version 03NOV98).

Dixon, Rita D. 1995. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. 

M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 148 pp.

Drut, M., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Technical Note: Diets and Food Selection of 

Sage Grouse Chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:90-93

Dudley, Jonathan G. 2005. Home range size and foraging habitat of black-backed woodpeckers. 

MS Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID. 88 pp.

Dudley, J. G. and V. A. Saab. 2007. Home range size of Black-backed Woodpeckers in burned 

forests of southwestern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 67(4), 593-600.

Ferguson, H. and J. M. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid Bat – Antrozous pallidus. Volume V: Mammals. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, USA.

Findholt, S. L., B. K. Johnson, D. Damiran, T. Delcurto, and J. G. Kie. 2005. Diet Composition, 

Dry Matter Intake, and Diet Overlap of Mule Deer, Elk, and Cattle. In Wisdom, M. J. 

technical editor, The Starkey Project: A Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule 

Deer. Reprinted from the Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resource Conference. Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence, Kansas. USA

Freel, M. 1991. A Literature Review for Management of the Marten and the Fisher in 

California: Unpublished Document, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Frenzel, R.W. 2004. Nest-site occupancy, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed 

woodpeckers in the Oregon Cascade Mountains in 2004. Audubon Society of Portland, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest 

Service, Portland, OR. Unpubl. Rept. 35 pp.

Galen, C. 1989. A preliminary assessment of the status of the Lewis' Woodpecker in Wasco 

County, Oregon. Tech. Rep. 88-3-01. Oregon Dep. Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife 

Program. 22 p. 

Goggans, Rebecca, Rita D. Dixon, L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and blackbacked woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Rpt. 87-3-02. 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR. 49 pp.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 300

Goggans, R. 1986. A Preliminary Assessment of the Ecology of Three-Toed Woodpeckers 

During A Breeding Season, East Slope Cascade Mountain Range, Oregon. Nongame 

Project Number 86-3-05, ODFW.

Goggans, R., R. D. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1987. Habitat use by Three-toed and Blackbacked Woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Unpublished Report, ODWF, 

Nongame Project Number 87-3-02.

Hall, F. C. 2005. Emigrant Creek Cattle Allotment: Lessons from 30 Years of Photomonitoring. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-639. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 37 pages.

Hawley, V.D. and F.E. Newbry. 1957. Marten Home Ranges and Fluctuations in Montana. 

Journal of Mammalogy 38: 174-184.

Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A 

Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. USA.

Henjum et al. 1994. Interim Protection for Late Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds: 

National Forests East Of The Cascades Crest, Oregon and Washington In: Marshall, 

D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (editors). 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general 

reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768pp.

Hoffman Black, S., and L. Lauvray. 2005. Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly (Callophrys johnsoni) 

Species Fact Sheet. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) 

webpage. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and 

Washinton. Available Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/faunainvertebrates.shtml

Hutto, R. L. 1998. Using landbirds as an indicator species group. Pp. 75-92 in Marzluff, J. M., 

and R. Sallabanks (eds.), Avian conservation: Research and Management. Island Press, 

Covelo, CA. 

Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Karhu, R. 2004 (revised). Fencing Guidelines for Wildlife. Habitat Extension Services, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Habitat Extension Bulletin No. 53. 12 pages.

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [accessed June 2012] 

Kranich, Cynthia. 2012. Wildlife Biologist, Malheur National Forest. John Day, Oregon

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (editors). 2003, 2006. Birds of Oregon: a 

general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768pp.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 301

Mellen-McLean, Kim. 2011. MIS information sheets: American Marten; Pileated Woodpecker; 

Cavity Nesters. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Miller, J. C., and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of Pacific Northwest Forests 

and Woodlands: Rare, Endangered, and Management-Sensitive Species. Forest Health 

Technology Enterprise Team. FHTET-2006-07. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 234 p.

Montana Field Guide: Pallid Bat – Antrozous pallidus. Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish, Wildllife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC10010.aspx

Montana Field Guide: Fringed Myotis – Myotis thysanodes. Montana Natural Heritage Program 

and Montana Fish, Wildllife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC01090.aspx

Montana Field Guide: Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii. Montana Natural 

Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildllife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC08010.aspx

NatureServe. 2010, 2011, 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life {web 

application}. Accessed several species. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

OHA, 2012. Oregon Hunter Association volunteers, personal communication. Capital Chapter, 

Salem Oregon.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of 

Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 

105 pages.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003. OREGON’S ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Portland, Oregon. February 2003 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/PDFs/Elk%20Planfinal.PDF

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011, 2012. Personal communication with biologists 

R. Torland, G. Jackle, John Day, Oregon. 

Paige, C. 2008. A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence with 

Wildlife in Mind. Landowner/Wildlife Resource Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks. Helena, Montana. 44 pages. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech, Rep. RM-217. Ft. 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 90 pp. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 302

Rose, C.L., Marcot, B.G., Mellen, T.K., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K.L., Lindley, D.L., and B. 

Schreiber. 2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for 

Habitat Management, Chapter 24, in Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and 

Washington (Johnson, DH, and TA O’Neil. 2001. OSU Press). 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific 

Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine 

in the Western United States. GTR RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Saab, V.A., and T.D. Rich. 1997. Large Scale Conservation Assessment for Neotropical 

Migratory Land Birds in the Interior Columbia River Basin. GTR PNW-GTR-399, 

USDA Forest Service, PNW Station, Portland, OR, (Quigley, T.M., ed. Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Laurel, MD

Scheuering, E. 2006. Columbia Clubtail Dragonfly (Gomphus lynnae) Species Fact Sheet. 

Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) webpage. USDA Forest 

Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washinton. Available Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Schommer, T. and B. Johnson. 2003. Analysis of Elk Statistics 1965-2001. Wallowa, WenahaSnake, and Umatilla-Whitman Provinces. 

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Avian Population Trends in the Pacifc Northwest. Bird Populations 3:26-45.

Swanson, D. K., C. L. Schmitt, D. M. Shirley, V. Erickson, K. J. Schuetz, M. L. Tatum, D. C. 

Powell. 2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and Management in the Blue

Mountains. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-806. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 117 pages.

Thomas, J.W., Tech. Ed. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest of the Blue Mountains of 

Oregon and Washington. Ag. Handbook No. 553, USDA, in cooperation with: Wildlife 

Management Institute, USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Thurber, J. M., R. O. Peterson, T. D. Drummer and S. A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray Wolf 

Response to Refuge Boundaries and Roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 22, 

No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 61-68 

USDA. Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

USDA. Forest Service. 1995. Regional Foresters Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2. Pacific 

Northwest Region.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 303

USDA. Forest Service. 2010. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Model 

Application and Assessment Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest 

Plan Revision, PNW Research Lab, La Grande, Oregon.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Model Application 

and Assessment of Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest Plan 

Revision, PNW Research Lab, La Grande, Oregon.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. American Marten (Martes americana) Model Application and 

Assessment of Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, 

PNW Research Lab, La Grande, Oregon.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: American Marten (Martes americana) 

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Northwest 

Region. Portland, Oregon.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: Primary Cavity Excavators. Prepared by 

Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, 

Oregon.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus) Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at 

<http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 160 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service. 2006. Recovery Outline. Contiguous 

United States Distinct Population of the Canada Lynx. USFWS Montana Field Office. 

Helena, Montana. 21 pgs.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. July 9 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 130. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. May 5 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Reissuance of final rule to identify the northern Rocky Mountain population of Gray 

Wolf as a distinct population segment and to revise the list of endangered and threatened 

wildlife. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 87. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 23 pp.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 304

Verts, B.J. and L. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, 

Berkley, CA. 668 pp.

Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of Washington: status and 

distribution. Corvallis, OR, U.S.A Oregon State Univ. Press. 436 pp.

Wales, B. C. 2009. Evaluation of the current amounts and projected departure for selected focal 

species in the Malheur Fire Learning Network area. Unpublished report. The Nature 

Conservancy, Portland, OR. 

Wenick, J., D. Gonzalez, B. Coahran, A. First Raised III. 2002. Logan Valley Wildlife 

Mitigation Plan. Burns Paiute Tribe Fish and Wildlife Department. Report for United 

States Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Burns, Oregon. 37 

pages.

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. Hann, T. 

D. Rich, M. M. Rolland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for 

Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and 

Management Implications. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-485 (CD-ROM, Draft Version, 

March 2000). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, 2005. The Starkey Project: a Synthesis of Long-term Studies of 

Elk and Mule Deer. Alliance Communications Group. Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Woodruff, K., and H. Ferguson, H. 2005. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus 

townsendii. Volume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Olympia, Washington, USA.

Index 

A

Allowable Use: 4, 10, 15, 14, 29, 33, 46, 48, 49, 50, 

51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 76, 78, 93, 98, 99, 

105, 120, 140, 141, 143, 179, 196, 201, 203, 204, 

205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 234, 272, 

290, 330, 331, 379

Anadromous Fish: 23, 25, 143, 293, 319

Animal Unit Months (AUMs): 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 

37, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 60, 62, 66, 

67, 68, 69, 85, 99, 101, 102, 110, 114, 239, 240, 

365

Aquatic Habitat: 1, 8, 9, 10, 23, 30, 31, 35, 40, 43, 

44, 45, 48, 57, 59, 104, 108, 111, 153, 156, 166, 

169, 177, 179, 180, 184, 187, 188

B

Bull Trout, 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 

30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 

53, 57, 58, 60, 76, 83, 85, 97, 98, 99, 102, 112, 

143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 155, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

174, 175, 177, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 

190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 

202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 

213, 214, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 335

C

Capability: 40, 79, 94, 95, 99, 100, 142, 143, 174, 

199, 206, 375, 376

Carex Working Group: 5, 6, 7, 62, 63, 64, 65, 80, 

149, 150, 151, 153, 165, 166, 169, 171, 196, 203, 

214, 276, 288, 291, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 

314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 

326, 328

D

Dedicated Old Growth: 25, 273, 366
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 305

Deferment: 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 32, 33, 43, 45, 46, 47, 

48, 50, 59, 60, 66, 69, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 108, 109, 

110, 113, 114, 190, 200, 366

Deferred Rotation : 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 33, 44, 47, 48, 

51, 54, 56, 57, 62, 68, 86, 88, 89, 106, 107, 109, 

110, 113, 114, 366

Designated Critical Habitat: 10, 25, 51, 213

Desired Conditions: 2, 30, 31, 39, 40, 78, 79, 120, 

125, 144, 145, 151, 153, 169, 172, 173, 175, 177, 

178, 179, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 

196, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210, 

211, 212, 379

Downward Trend: 26, 171, 187, 210, 376

E

Economic: 1, 31, 34, 36, 40, 100, 115, 116, 120, 150, 

231, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 

245, 283, 373, 376

Endpoint Indicators: 4, 33, 46, 48, 50, 53, 56, 60, 62, 

177, 198, 211, 212

Existing Condition: 10, 30, 40, 51, 57, 129, 133, 149, 

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 165, 166, 169, 171, 

175, 176, 177, 179, 184, 186, 187, 188, 198, 205, 

227, 270, 277

F

Functioning-at-Risk (FAR): 2, 8, 26, 30, 31, 37, 41, 

151, 154, 155, 168, 171, 172, 179, 187, 190, 191, 

194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 210, 211, 307, 308, 

312, 313, 314, 368

Fence Maintenance: 8, 37, 110, 111, 112, 218, 221, 

276, 279

Forage Production: 40, 93, 95, 101, 116, 119, 365, 

366, 368, 371, 376, 380

G

Grazing: iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 14, 15, 19, 21, 

23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 

40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 73, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 

93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 

106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 130, 131, 

132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 

145, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 155, 161, 162, 165, 

166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179,

180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 

190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 211, 

216, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 229, 230, 

231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 

243, 244, 245, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 

261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 

271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 

281, 282, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 332, 

360, 361, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 

372, 374, 376, 377, 379, 380

Grazing System: 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 31, 32, 33, 

44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 

62, 66, 68, 69, 107, 110

I

INFISH: 1, 2, 18, 23, 24, 25, 31, 78, 79, 144, 149, 

151, 153, 157, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 174, 185, 

187, 194, 214, 293, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 320

M

Monitoring: 9, 15, 22, 29, 35, 41, 42, 45, 49, 73, 75, 

77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 94, 95, 97, 106, 108, 128, 

146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 165, 166, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 171, 178, 179, 183, 196, 203, 204, 

205, 210, 214, 233, 237, 244, 252, 256, 257, 258, 

259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 273,

275, 278, 279, 280, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291,

293, 294, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 

327, 328, 335, 365, 366, 367, 379

Move Triggers: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 33, 38, 46, 

48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 60, 62, 84, 86, 88, 89, 

99, 108, 111, 117, 120, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 

270, 272, 273, 275, 278, 279, 379, 380

P

Proper Function Condition (PFC): 6, 9, 16, 26, 30, 

37, 40, 43, 65, 78, 81, 83, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 

176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 

191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 

204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 286, 

287, 288, 289, 291, 293, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 325, 326, 

327, 328, 329, 332, 333, 372

R

Recovery: v, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 28, 29, 

31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 

55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 69, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 88, 89, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 

121, 125, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 

147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 160, 161, 

165, 166, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 183, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200, 

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210,

211, 212, 213, 214, 234, 245, 254, 269, 275, 276, 

291, 294, 303, 312, 325, 332, 379, 380, 381, 382, 

383

Replacement Old Growth: 25, 273, 373
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS 

Chapter 5 Page 306

Rest: 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 

45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 

61, 62, 63, 66, 69, 83, 86, 87, 89, 106, 108, 109, 

111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 133, 

136, 139, 140, 141, 148, 154, 156, 163, 177, 183, 

187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 

198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 234, 330, 331, 332, 333, 

374, 380

Riparian Areas: 2, 8, 9, 10, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 

51, 57, 71, 78,79, 80, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 

110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 128, 

129, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 

147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 159, 171, 

177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 

199, 200, 204, 205, 207, 211, 213, 217, 219, 250, 

264, 266, 270, 273, 279, 286, 290, 291, 294, 360, 

361, 363, 364, 366, 375, 380

Riparian Exclosures: 8, 9, 16, 37, 54, 61, 83, 118, 

172

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs): 24, 

25, 145, 157, 185, 187, 214, 267, 275, 361 373

Riparian Management Objectives: 1, 2, 25, 31, 78, 

185, 187, 192, 194

Riparian Pastures: 8, 17, 37, 40, 43, 54, 108, 109, 

111, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 141, 147, 162, 

182, 183, 195, 196, 198, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 

207, 208, 209, 210, 234, 242, 273, 330

Riparian Vegetation: 1, 9, 10, 30, 31, 34, 43, 51, 58, 

75, 80, 104, 106, 107, 109, 117, 121, 142, 143, 

146, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 163, 175, 177, 180, 

181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 198, 199, 201, 208, 

213, 233, 251, 257, 264, 266, 267, 271, 272, 275,

286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 373, 375

S

Suitability: 40, 95, 99, 100

T

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): 5, 63, 146, 

292, 320

U

Uplands: 4, 10, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 43, 50, 56, 58, 

61, 62, 69, 81, 93, 96, 99, 103, 104, 107, 110, 111, 

113, 114, 117, 120, 121, 137, 139, 141, 148, 192, 

199, 201, 208, 363, 373

Uard Trend: 2, 31, 42, 104, 143, 188, 191, 194, 202, 

203, 209, 214, 257, 258, 259, 261, 265, 266, 267, 

268, 280, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325

V

Visual Corridors: 24, 25, 224

W

Water Temperature: 1, 30, 31, 144, 146, 149, 154, 

165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 191, 195, 196, 198, 201, 

203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 214

Wild and Scenic River: 19, 24, 25, 225, 228

 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 307

Appendix A 

Part 1: Existing and Desired Condition 

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Summit Creek

Reach 1

 Functional 

At Risk 

(FAR), No 

Apparent 

Trend 

(2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit 

Constrained, rocky reached that 

are dominated by alder thickets 

and conifers with occasional 

scattered willows (Carex 

Working Group 2012, PFC

2007). 

Stream Shade: Ranges from 23% (Wall 

2009) to 45% (Carex Working Group 2012). 

Increase hardwood shade component. Shade 

65% or greater (TMDL 2010). 

Shrub Development: The vast majority of 

shrubs are alders less that 6 ft. tall (average 

height of 3 ft.) and are moderately browsed 

with an average utilization of 55%; shrub 

density is 63 shrubs per 100 m of streambank

(Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Increase shrub development: ≤ 30% shrub 

utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of 

shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working Group

2012); ≥ 80 shrubs per 100 m of streambank

(Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because of the 

type of vegetation does not develop a root mass and the scour line width will be wider than a 

herbaceous site, the streambank soil texture and stream gradient attributes are also not 

conducive towards developing these features. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated at 60% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000, PFC 2007).

Stable Banks: N/D

Summit Creek 

Reach 2 

 FAR, 

Downward, 

No 

Apparent 

Trend (PFC

2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a mosaic 

of extensive willow thickets, 

alder, grasslands, and sedge 

wetlands in old meanders; 

occasional areas of sedgedominated wetlands where 

lateral flows promote deep 

anoxic soils; also potential 

habitat for aspen and cottonwood 

groves (Carex Working Group

2012, PFC 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 6-45% with an 

average of 24%; shade in sedge dominated 

portion is 8% (Carex Working Group 2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 60% (CWG 2012) or ≥ 25% native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: Alders and willows 

are the dominant shrubs, the majority of 

which are less than 3 ft. tall; all shrubs less 

than 6 ft. are heavily browsed with an 

average utilization 78%; floodplain shrub 

density is 81 shrubs per acre; shrub density 

of the > 6 ft. height class is 13 shrubs per 

acre (Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 

2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% 

shrub utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of 

shrubs > 6 ft. tall (CWG 2012); ≥ 200 shrubs 

per acre of floodplain (Carex Working Group

2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 308

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species 

present have a greenline stability rating of 

Mid (4.4), ecological status rating of Early 

Seral (35) and hydric plants at 49% (DMA 

2010).

Greater than High (8.0 to 9.5) greenline 

stability rating (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 60% 

stable banks (DMA 2010).

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek

Reach 3

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit 

Constrained, rocky reaches that 

are dominated by alder thickets, 

with occasional scattered 

willows (Carex Working Group

2012, PFC 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 43% (Wall 

2009) to 98% (Carex Working Group 2012). 

Increased hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% (Amendment #29, TMDL 2011).

Shrub Development: Alders are the 

dominant shrub with some willows also 

present; the vast majority of shrubs are 

greater than 6 ft. tall and shrubs less than 6 ft. 

are either not browsed or lightly browsed 

with average utilization less than 25%; shrub 

density is 97 shrubs per 100 m of streambank

(Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Maintain shrub development: continue shrub 

utilization ≤ 25% (INFISH 1995); maintain 

abundance of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (CWG 2012); 

maintain existing density of shrubs at ≥ 80 

shrubs per 100 m of streambank (Carex 

Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because the 

type of vegetation does not develop a root mass and the scour line width will be wider than a 

herbaceous site, the streambank soil texture and stream gradient attributes are also not 

conducive towards developing these features. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated at 70% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 4

 FAR, 

Upward 

Trend 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a mosaic 

of extensive willow thickets, 

aspen, alder, grasslands, and 

sedge wetlands in old meanders; 

Stream Shade: Ranges from 10-57% with 

an average of 32% (Wall 2009, Carex 

Working Group 2012). 

Increased hardwood shade component: shade 

≥ 60% (Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Shrub Development: The vast majority of Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 309

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

(2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit 

occasional areas of sedgedominated wetlands where 

lateral flows promote deep 

anoxic soils; there is also 

potential habitat for cottonwood 

groves (Carex Working Group

2012, PFC 2007).

shrubs are willows with a fairly even 

distribution of shrub height classes; willows 

under 6 ft. are moderately browsed with an 

average utilization of 26%; however some 

areas within upper portions of the reach are 

primarily composed of willows less than 2 ft. 

tall with utilization that approaches 90%; 

overall floodplain shrub density is 49 shrubs 

per acre; shrub density of the > 6 ft. height 

class is 5 shrubs per acre (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

shrub utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of 

shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working Group

2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain 

(Carex Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 22% (Wall 2009). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated at 75% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 5

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Summit 

Creek 

allotment 

 Little Logan 

unit

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a mosaic 

of extensive willow thickets, 

aspen, grasslands, and sedge 

wetlands in old meanders; 

occasional areas of sedgedominated wetlands where 

lateral flows promote deep 

anoxic soils; there is also 

potential habitat for cottonwood 

groves (Carex Working Group

2012, PFC 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 8-51% with an 

average of 23% (Wall 2009, Carex Working 

Group 2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 60% (Carex Working Group 2012).

Shrub Development: The vast majority of 

shrubs are willows; no alders are present; 

willows are either over 6 ft. tall and caged or 

less than 2 ft. tall and heavily browsed with 

an average utilization of 97%; floodplain 

shrub density is 8 shrubs per acre; shrub 

density of the 3-6 ft. height class is 0.3 

shrubs per acre (Carex Working Group 2012, 

Rausch 2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% 

shrub utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of 

shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working Group

2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain 

(Carex Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Present undercut bank was 

measured at 31% (site id: 952, PIBO 2011) 

and 29% (site id: 954, PIBO 2011). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 310

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 55-60% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 96% 

stable banks (site id: 952, PIBO 2011) and 

100% stable banks (site id: 954, PIBO 2011).

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 6

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Summit 

Rock unit

Sedge-dominated meadows and 

wetlands with lateral flow and 

deep anoxic soils, willows or 

alders along the stream bank 

(Carex Working Group 2012, 

PFC 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 5-32% with an 

average of 18% (Wall 2009, Carex Working 

Group 2012).

≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Shrub Development: The majority of the 

reach is composed of sedge wetlands with 

occasional shrubs; the majority of shrubs are 

less than 2 ft. tall, and all shrubs are heavily 

browsed with average utilization greater than 

90%; shrub density is 5 shrubs per 100 

meters of streambank; shrub density of the > 

3 ft. height class is 0.8 shrubs per 100 meters 

of streambank (Carex Working Group 2012, 

Rausch 2012).

Increase shrub development along 

streambank: ≤ 30% shrub utilization 

(INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall 

(Carex Working Group 2012); ≥ 25 shrubs 

per 100 m of streambank (Carex Working 

Group 2012; Rausch 2012)

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 10% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 77% (PFC 2007) 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 7

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a mosaic 

of extensive willow and alder 

thickets, aspen groves, 

grasslands, and sedge wetlands 

in old meanders; occasional 

areas of sedge-dominated 

Stream Shade: Ranges from 51-84% with 

an average of 64% (Carex Working Group

2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% for mixed shrub 

areas (Carex Working Group 2012), or ≥ 

25% native floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: Primarily a mixed 

shrub community; the majority of willows 

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% 

shrub utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 311

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 North 

Summit unit

wetlands where lateral flows 

promote peat formation and deep 

anoxic soils; there is also 

potential habitat for cottonwood 

groves (Carex Working Group

2012, PFC 2007).

and alders are less that 3 ft. tall; Alders under 

6 ft. are lightly browsed and willows under 6 

ft. are heavily browsed with average 

utilizations of 26% and 100%, respectively; 

floodplain shrub density is 190 shrubs per 

acre; shrub density of the > 6 ft. height class 

is 9 shrubs per acre (Carex Work Group 

2012, Rausch 2012).

shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Work Group 2012); 

≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain (Carex 

Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species 

present have a greenline stability rating of 

High (6.7), ecological status rating of Later 

Seral (77) and hydric plants at 71% (DMA 

2009). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline 

stability rating (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 89% 

stable banks (DMA 2009). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 8

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Summit 

Rock unit

Headwater reaches dominated by 

conifers, alder, and aspen that 

also support shade-tolerant 

vegetation (Carex Working 

Group 2012, PFC 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 55-83% with 

an average of 70% (Carex Working Group

2012). 

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% (Amendment #29).

Shrub Development: The vast majority of 

shrubs are alders with a fairly even 

distribution of height classes; alders under 6 

ft. are lightly browsed with an average 

utilization of 24%, shrub density is 35 alder 

per 100 m of streambank; small aspen shoots 

are also present in some locations (Carex 

Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012) 

Maintain and/or increase shrub development: 

continue shrub utilization ≤ 25% (INFISH

1995); increase proportion of shrubs > 6 ft. 

tall (Cared Working Group 2012); increase 

alder density to ≥ 80 shrubs per 100 m of 

streambank (Carex Working Group 2012; 

Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because the 

vegetation type does not develop root mass. The scour line width will be wider than a 

herbaceous site, steambank soil texture and stream gradient attributes are not conductive 

towards developing these features. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 312

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 75% (PFC 2007)

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1

 FAR, 

Downward 

Trend 

(2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 West 

Summit 

Recovery

unit

Vegetation potential is 

sedge/rush/grass with some alder 

There still are many of those 

plants present but Kentucky 

bluegrass is dominant and the 

site continues to dry out due to a 

lowering water table (PFC

2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Shrub Development: The reach is primarily 

a sedge/rush grass meadow. A small areas of 

alder is present at the upper end of the reach 

(PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 20% (PFC 2007)

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2

 FAR, 

Downw

ard 

Trend 

(2007)

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotme

nt 

 Summit 

Rock 

unit

Potential vegetation is 

sedge/rush/grass with alder. 

Potential vegetation in the upper 

end is conifer story with an alder 

overstory (PFC 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment #29), ≥ 60% for mixed shrub 

areas (Carex Working Group 2012), or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Shrub Development: The reach currently 

contains 20% seedlings and young age class 

shrubs (alder). Present mature age class is 

80% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species 

present have a greenline stability rating of 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline 

stability rating (Winward 2000). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 313

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Mid (5.2), ecological status rating of Early 

Seral (30.5) and hydric plants at 31% (DMA 

2008). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 47% 

stable banks (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Crooked 

Creek 

Reach 1

 FAR, 

Downward 

Trend 

(2007)

 McCoy 

Creek 

allotment 

 Starvation 

unit

Vegetation potential is 

sedge/rush with some willows 

(PFC 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010)

Shrub Development: Some willows are 

present but are not a dominate part of the 

reach. Three willow species were noted. 

Woody plants are released older plants (PFC

2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 73% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 75% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 97% 

stable banks (Stream Survey 1999). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek 

Reach 1

 FAR, 

Upward 

Trend 

(2007)

 McCoy 

Creek 

allotment 

 Starvation 

unit

Vegetation is dominated by 

sedge/rush/grass with willows 

(PFC 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 60% (CWG 2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 20 10).

Shrub Development: Two willow species 

were noted. Due to recent changes in 

management, willows are more prevalent and 

vigorous. As the reach continues to recover 

there will be an increase in willow cover. 

Diverse age-class distribution of riparianwetland vegetation is present (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 85% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 314

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 60% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: This reach currently has 91% 

stable banks (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29 % USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek 

Reach 2

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 McCoy 

Creek 

allotment 

 Cow Camp 

unit

Potential vegetation is willow, 

sedge/rush communities (PFC

2007). 

Stream Shade: Increased hardwood shade component: shade 

≥ 60% (Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (TMDL 

2010).

Shrub Development: Several willow species 

and mountain alder present. Diverse ageclass distribution of riparian-wetland 

vegetation is present. Beaver colony activity 

present (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 16% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 80% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek 

Reach 3

 FAR, 

Downward 

Trend 

(2007)

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

Primary potential vegetation 

being conifer overstory with 

alder, willow and mesic 

Graminiods in the open areas 

while the lower end of the reach 

has little or no conifer overstory 

(PFC 2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 39% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer 

(Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: The reach currently 

contains 15% seedlings and young age class 

shrubs (alder with some willows). Present 

mature age class is 83% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Present undercut banks 

was measured at different sites along the 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 315

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

 West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

reach. PIBO site ID 1884 was 37% and site 

ID 2037 was 43% (PIBO 2011). 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species 

presently have a greenline stability rating of 

Mid (4.4), ecological status rating of Very 

Early Seral (13.6) and hydric plants at 50% 

(DMA 2008). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline 

stability rating (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 55% 

stable banks (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek 

(No PFC

Assessment) 

 Lake Creek 

allotment 

 McCoy 

Creek unit

Primary potential vegetation 

being conifer overstory alder 

(IDT Review 2012) 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 70% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 25% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek 

(No PFC

Assessment, s. 

side of FS rd 

16 for 0.15 

miles.) 

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment

Potential vegetation is willow, 

sedge/rush communities (IDT 

Review 2012) 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 7% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 62% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 316

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

 West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

Pasture

(Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek 

Reach 1

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 South Big 

Creek unit

Potential vegetation is a conifer 

overstory with willow and alder 

and mesic Graminoids (PFC

2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer 

(Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: Several willow species 

present. Beaver activity on main and side 

channels. Several age classes for herbaceous 

and woody species present. Young willow is 

heavily browsed (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 36% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant 

cover is estimated to be 75% (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek 

Reach 2

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 North Big 

Creek unit

Potential vegetation in the upper 

end is a conifer overstory with a 

mesic Graminiod understory. 

The lower 1/3 transitions to an 

alder, willow, mesic Graminoid 

(PFC 2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer 

(Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: Several willow species 

present. Young willows are heavily 

browsed, like by deer, elk and some 

livestock. Diverse age-class distribution of 

riparian-wetland vegetation is present. 

Willow and alder provide a bigger role in the 

lower part of the reach (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 36% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 317

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

cover is estimated to be 75% (PFC 2007). (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek 

Reach 3

 At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(PFC 2007)

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 East Lake 

Creek unit

Potential vegetation is conifer 

with alder with mesic Graminoid 

(IDT Review 2012). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer 

(Carex Working Group 2012).

Shrub Development: The reach currently 

contains 17% seedlings and young age class 

shrubs (alder). Present mature age class is 

83% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 36% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species 

present have a greenline stability rating of 

Low (2.8), ecological status rating of Mid 

Serial (41) and hydric plants at 8% (DMA 

2011). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) stability rating 

(Winward 2000). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 98% 

stable banks (DMA 2011). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek 

(No PFC

Assessment) 

 Lake Creek 

allotment 

 Big Creek 

unit (above 

FS rd 1648) 

Potential vegetation is a conifer 

overstory with willow and alder 

and mesic Graminoids (IDT 

Review 2012)

Stream Shade: Shade average is 20% (Wall 

2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer 

(Carex Working Group 2012).

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be 42% (Wall 2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek Primary potential vegetation Stream Shade: Shade average is 7% (Wall Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 318

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

(No PFC

Assessment) 

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment

 West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

Pasture

being conifer overstory with 

alder, willow and mesic 

Graminiods in the open areas 

(IDT Review 2012) 

2009) Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native 

floodplain grasses (TMDL 2010).

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs 

(Winward 2000, UI Stubble Height Study 

Results 2004).

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is 

estimated to be at 62% (Wall 2009). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% 

for non-forested systems.

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover 

(Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 95% 

stable banks (Stream Survey 1998).

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 

29, USFWS Properly Functioning criteria).

Logan Valley 

Fen Complex 

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 Big Field 

unit and 

associated 

components 

of West 

Lake 

Creek, 

North Big 

Creek & 

South Big 

Creek units

The fen complex can be 

described as a broad helocrene 

spring system with a mosaic of 

peatlands (= fen), fen pools, wet 

and moist meadows, mesic 

shrublands, aspen stands, 

lodgpole pine swamps, and 

occasional mixed conifer stands. 

Fen and wetland systems are 

primarily dominated by wetland 

moss, graminoid, and willow 

species. (FPFC 2009, Rausch 

2009, GDE 2010).

Hydrologic Function: Overall, hydrologic 

processes are in proper functioning 

condition. Natural surface or subsurface flow 

patterns are largely unaltered and hydrologic 

alterations are not substantially contributing 

to degradation. However, some livestock 

trails are diverting early season flow patterns 

in isolated areas (FPFC 2009, Rausch 2009, 

GDE 2010).

Livestock trails are not diverting flow 

patterns anywhere in the fen complex 

(Weixelman & Cooper 2007).

Peat Development: The majority of 

peatlands have exposed peat ≤ 10%; 

however, there are specific areas where 

exposed peat is 40% (FPFC 2009, GDE 

2010). On average, 96% of plant species are 

peat forming, 91% are wetland obligates, and 

3% are non-native.

Exposed peat is ≤ 10% throughout the entire 

fen complex (FPFC 2009, Weixelman & 

Cooper 2007). The proportion of peat 

forming species and obligate wetland species 

are maintained at 96% and 91% or greater, 

respectively. Non-native species are absent 

or are not expanding (FSM 2900).

Sensitive Animals: The Columbia spotted 

frog occurs in three different locations (FPFC 

2009, Rausch 2009); these fen pools serve as 

spawning, rearing and over-wintering 

grounds (Bull 2005, USFWS 2011). At least 

Expansion of sensitive animal populations 

and/or their respective habitats (FSM 2670).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 319

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

one other location has potential habitat, but 

the current condition is not suitable for 

occupation (FPFC 2009, GDE 2010).

Sensitive Plants: Five sensitive plant species 

are documented in various locations 

throughout the fen complex (NRIS 2012), 

and unoccupied habitat exists for numerous 

other sensitive plants (ISSSSP 2012). 

Isolated areas (where exposed peat is >10%) 

have the potential for sensitive species 

habitat, but the current condition is not 

suitable.

Expansion of sensitive plant populations 

and/or their respective habitats (FSM 2670).

NOTE: All surveys only include portions of reaches located on National Forest lands. Private land pieces are not included in the summary. 

N/D: Existing Condition information not available. MIM DMA has greenline stability and ecological status indicators that are ratings. The rating system for 

greenline stability rating is as follows: <4 is Low, 4-6 is Mid and >6 is High. The ecological status rating system is as follows: 0-15 is Very Early Seral, 16-40 is 

Early Seral, 41-60 is Mid Serial, 61-85 is Late Seral and 86-100 is Potential natural community. 

References: 

Amendment 29: United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service. 1994. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact and Forest Plan 

Amendment [29] for Incorporation of the Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Malheur 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon.

Bull 2005: Bull, E.L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-640. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46p.

Carex Working Group 2012: Carex Working Group. 2012. Summit Creek Ecological Inventory. Final unpublished report submitted to USDA Forest Service, 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. USDA FS Agreement #11-CS-11060404-016. 32 p.

DMA 2008-2011: Multiple Indicator Monitoring conduced at Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) between 2004-2011. 

FPFC 2009: Proper Functioning Condition Assessment of the Logan Valley Fen between Lake Creek Road and Big Creek Campground Road (Big Field Unit).

FSM 2670: Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management: Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants 

and Animals. USDA Forest Service.

FSM 2900: Forest Service Manual 2900 – Invasive Species Management. USDA Forest Service.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 1: Desired and Exiting Condition Page 320

GDE 2010: Inventory and Monitoring Report of the Logan Valley Fen Complex, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. Implementation of the 

Inventory and Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent Wetlands. 

USDA Forest Service.

INFISH 2005: United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy; Interim 

Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. Portland, OR.

ISSSSP 2012: Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). Accessed March 2012. Species conservation documents and fact sheets 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region and USDI Bureau of Land Management Washington and 

Oregon.

NRIS 2012: Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) Database for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant (TESP) species. USDA Forest Service. 

Queried January 2012, J.H. Rausch.

PFC 2007: Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Report. 2007. Malheur National Forest (Summit Creek, West Fork Summit Creek, Big Creek, Lake 

Creek, and Crooked Creek). Full Stream Consulting.

Rausch 2009: Rausch, J.H. 2009. Background information on the Logan Valley Fen Complex, and Comments and concerns regarding the Logan Valley Fen / 

Wetland Complex. Unpublished reports submitted to the Prairie City District Ranger.

Rausch 2012: Rausch, Joseph H. 2012. Addendum to Summit Creek Ecological Inventory: Synthesis and Summary of Findings. Unpublished report, USDA 

Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

TMDL 2010: Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). September 2010. State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

USFWS 2011: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Rana luteiventris (Columbia 

Spotted Frog).

Wall 2009: Wall, William. 2009. USDA Forest Service Stream Surveys. 

Weixelman & Cooper 2007: Weixelman, D.A., and D.J. Cooper. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas in the Sierra Nevada and 

Southern Cascade Ranges in California. USDA Forest Service R5-TP-028. 52p. 

Winward 2000: Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-47. USDA Forest 

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 321

Appendix A 

Part 2: Management Objective 

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Summit Creek 

Reach 2

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit

Note: Reaches 2 

and 4 would be 

used as 

representive 

reaches for the 

Sagehen unit as a 

whole. 

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Greenling to 

Greenline Width 5 year

Greenline to greenline 

width would decrease by 

25% from 12.7 to 9.5 feet.

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Greenline Stability 

Rating 5 year

Increase greenline stability 

rating from Mid (4.4) to 

high (6.3).

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Stable Banks 5 year Increase bank stability from 

60 % to 80%.

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Shrub Development Shrub Density and 

Height Class 5 year

Expand alder and willow 

species shrub density of the 

> 6 ft. height class from 13 

shrubs per acre to 32 shrubs 

per acre of floodplain 

(average across the reach).

Monitoring at Carex 

Working Group plots

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years 

Decrease in average 

bankfull width on an 

upward trend towards 

exclosure reference 

condition (establish cross 

section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average 

bankfull W/D on upward 

trend towards exclosure 

reference conditions 

(establish cross section in 

exclosure).

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year 

Increase residual pool depth 

from 0.63 ft to an upward 

trend towards exclosure 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 322

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

reference condition 

(establish cross section in 

exclosure).

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of 

pools > 3.3 ft depth on 

upward trend towards 

exclosure reference 

condition (establish cross 

section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site 

Water Temperate, 

Shade, Shade 

Development and 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase shade at DMA 

towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood 

areas and 25% for native 

floodplain grass sites 

(Carex Working Group

2012, TMLD 2010). 

SolarPathfinder at DMA

Summit Creek 

Reach 4 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

unit

Note: Reaches 2 

and 4 would be 

used as 

representive 

reaches for the 

Sagehen unit as a 

whole.

Shrub Development 

and Shade 

Shrub Density and 

Height Class 5 year

Expand alder and willow 

species shrub density of the 

> 6 ft. height class from 5 

shrubs per acre to 29 shrubs 

per acre of the floodplain 

(average across the reach).

Monitor at Carex Working 

Group plots 

Summit Creek Undercut Banks, Greenline Wetland 5 year Increase the greenline PIBO monitoring at DMA 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 323

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Reach 5

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Little Logan 

unit

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Rating wetland rating value by 10 

percent from 73.9 to 81.3 

(PIBO site id 952) and from 

76 to 83.6 (PIBO site id 954).

sites 

Cross Section 

Vegetative Wetland 

Rating 

5 year

Increase the cross section 

wetland rating value by 10 

percent from 57.9 to 63.7 

(PIBO site id 952) and from 

62.3 to 68.5 (PIBO site id 

954).

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Shrub Development 

and Shade 

Shrub Density and 

Height Class 5 year

Expand willow species shrub 

density of the 3-6 ft. height 

class from 0.3 shrubs per 

acre to 4 shrubs per acre of 

floodplain (average across 

the reach).

Monitoring at Carex 

Working Group plots 

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull 

width on an upward trend

towards exclosure reference 

condition (establish cross 

section in 1⁄4 miles buck-npole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites. Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site in 1⁄4 

mile new exclosure

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull 

W/D on upward trend

towards exclosure reference 

conditions (establish cross 

section in 1⁄4 miles buck-npole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites. Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site in 1⁄4 

mile new exclosure

Residual Pool Depth 10 year 

Increase residual pool depth 

from 0.63 ft to an upward 

trend towards exclosure 

reference condition (establish 

cross section in 1⁄4 miles 

buck-n-pole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites. Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site in 1⁄4 

mile new exclosure
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 324

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of pools 

> 3.3 ft depth on upward 

trend towards exclosure 

reference condition (establish 

cross section in 1⁄4 miles 

buck-n-pole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites. Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site in 1⁄4 

mile new exclosure

Water Temperate, 

Shade, Shade 

Development and 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at 

DMA towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group

2012).

SolarPathfinder at DMA 

Shrub Development 

and Water Quality Macroinvertebrate 10 years 

Increased abundance of 

species in the shredder 

function group. Decreased 

number of intolerant taxa and 

taxa richness. 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Summit Creek 

Reach 6 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Summit 

Rock unit

Shrub Development 

and Shade 

Shrub Density and 

Height Class 

5 years

Expand willow species shrub 

density of the > 3 ft. height 

class from 0.8 shrubs per 100 

meters of streambank to 6 

shrubs per 100 meters of 

streambank (average across 

the reach).

Monitoring at Carex 

Working Group plots 

Summit Creek 

Reach 7 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 North 

Summit unit

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability 

Greenline to 

Greenline Width 5 years

Greenline to greenline width 

would decrease by 25% from 

4 to 3 feet.

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site

Shrub Development 

and Shade 

Shrub Density and 

Height Class 5 years

Expand alder and willow 

species shrub density of the > 

6 ft. height class from 9 

shrubs per acre to 40 shrubs 

per acre of floodplain 

(average across the reach).

Monitoring at Carex 

Working Group plots 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 325

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull 

W/D toward a Rosgen E 

channel type of 12 (PFC

2007). 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of pools 

> 3.3 ft depth on upward 

trend towards exclosure 

reference condition.

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at DMA site

Water temperate Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at 

DMA towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group

2012). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA 

site 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 West 

Summit 

Recovery

Unit

Stabilizing Plant 

Cover Photopoint 5 years Expand wetland obligate plant communities. 

Establish photo monitoring at 

DMA site 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2

 Summit 

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Greenline Stability 

Rating 5 years

Increase greenline stability 

rating from Mid (5.2) to High 

(6.5).

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

Stable Banks 5 years Increase bank stability from 

47% to 80%.

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 326

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Prairie 

allotment 

 Summit 

Rock unit

Shrub Development 

and Shade 

Shrub Density and 

Height Class 5 years

Expand alder shrub density 

along greenline (3 to 6 foot 

height class) by 10%.

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

Lake Creek 

Reach 3 

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

Pasture 

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities, 

and Shrub 

Development 

Greenline to 

Greenline Width 5 years

Greenline to greenline width 

would decrease by 25% from 

24.8 to 18.6 feet.

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

Greenline Stability 

Rating 5 years

Increase greenline stability 

rating from Mid (4.4) to High 

(6.3).

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

Stable Banks 5 years Increase bank stability from 

55% to 80%.

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

BankfullWidth/Depth 5 years

Decrease the bankfull 

width/depth ratio at riffles by 

15 percent from 23.8 to 27.4 

(PIBO site id 1884) and 33.8 

to 38.9 (PIBO site id 2037). 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease the bankfull W/D 

ratio at riffles by 15% (from 

23.8 to 18.8) towards a 

Rosgen E channel type of 12 

(PIBO Site ID 1884, PFC

2007). 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years Increase number of pools > 3.3 ft depth 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Water Temperature Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at 

DMA towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 80% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group

SolarPathfinder at new DMA 

site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 327

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

2012). 

Shrub Development 

and Water Quality Macroinvertebrate 10 years 

Increased abundance of 

species in the shredder 

function group. Decreased 

number of intolerant taxa and 

taxa richness. 

PIBO monitoring at DMA 

sites 

Big Creek (No 

PFC, S. side of 

FS rd 1600 for 

0.15 miles) 

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Shrub Development 

and Stabilizing Plant 

Cover 

Photopoint 5 years 

Increase of shrubs and 

wetland obligate plant 

communities. 

Establish photo monitoring at 

DMA stie 

Big Creek 

Reaches 1, 2 & 

3

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 South Big 

Creek unit 

(reach 1) 

 North Big 

Creek unit 

(reach 2) 

 East Big 

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Pant Communities,

and Shrub 

Development 

Site Visits 5 years 

Continued maintenance and 

improvements in riparian 

conditions. 

Muliple indicator monitoring

at DMA site 

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years Decrease the bankfull W/D ratio at riffles 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years Increase number of pools >3.3 ft depth 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 328

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

Creek unit 

(reach 3) Water Temperate, 

Shade, Shade 

Development and 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at 

DMA towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood 

areas and 25% for native 

floodplain grass site (Carex 

Working Group, 2012, 

TMDL 2010). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA 

site 

Bosenberg 

Creek (No PFC

Assessment) 

 Lake Creek 

allotment 

 Bosenberg 

unit (above 

FS rd 1648)

Undercut Banks, 

Shade and Bank 

Stability, Stabilizing 

Pant Communities, 

and Shrub 

Development 

MIM Attributes 5 years 

Establish a designated 

monitoring area and collect 

baseline information 

immediately. Follow up five 

years post implementation of 

boundary changes with 

repeat monitoring. 

Establish multiple indicator 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Channel 

Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull 

Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfullwidth 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years Decrease the bankfullW/D ratio at riffles 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Pool Quality (# of 

pools > 3.3 ft) 10 years Increase number of pools >3.3 ft depth 

Channel characteristics 

monitoring at new DMA site 

Water Temperate, 

Shade, Shade 

Development and 

Channel 

Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at 

DMA towards reference 

condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood 

areas and 25% for native 

floodplain grass sites (Carex 

Working Group 2012, 

TMDL 2012). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA 

site

Fen Area

 Logan 

Valley 

Hydrologic Function Early Season Flow 

Diversion 

5 years Livestock trails are 

revegetating and are 

diverting less flow 

Fen PFC, GDE Level 2 and 

photopoints 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 2: Management Objectives Page 329

Stream/Reach

Indicator (Measure 

of Appendix A, 

Part 1)

Indicator

Target 

Time 

Period

Management Objective 

(Measure) Monitoring Type

allotment

 Big Field 

unit

(Weixelman & Cooper 

2007).

Peat Development

Exposed Peat 

5 years Exposed peat is ≤ 15% 

(Weixelman & Cooper 

2007).

Fen PFC and GDE Level 2 

Peat Forming Species 5 years The proportion of peat 

forming species is ≥ 90%.

Obligate Wetland 

Species 

5 years The proportion of obligate 

wetland species is ≥ 90%.

Non-Native Species 

5 years Non-native species are absent 

or are not expanding (FSM 

2900).

Sensitive Species

Population 

Abundance 

5 years Sensitive species populations 

are maintained at current 

extent or are expanding 

(FSM 2670).

Modified GDE Level 2 and 

Threatened, Endangered and 

Sensitive Plant module of the 

USFS Natural Resource 

Information System 

Habitat Abundance 

5 year Sensitive species habitats are 

maintained at current extent 

or are expanding (FSM 

2670).

Modified GDE Level 2 and 

photopoints 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategy Page 330

Appendix A

Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategies

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

Summit Creek

Reaches

1, 2, 3 & 4

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 Sagehen 

Unit

Entire pasture 

would be rested 3 

years out of a 10 

year period (season 

long rest). Entire 

allowable use levels 

(see Appendix I). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

Construction of the 

Sagehen Riparian 

exclosure and 

Sagehen Riparian 

pasture along 

Summit Creek in 

Reach 2. The 

riparian exclosure 

would not be 

grazed. The riparian 

pasture would be 

rested for 3-5 years 

after the pasture 

fence is constructed. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

resource objectives 

have been achieved.

Reach 1, 3, and 4 of 

Summit Creek 

would be grazed 

annually to 

allowable use levels 

(see Appendix I). 

Additionally rest

within the riparian 

pasture (Reach 2) 

and change 

allowable use levels 

(Reaches 1, 3, and 

4). 

Daily riding by 

permittee to move 

livestock away from 

Summit Creek. 

Construction of 

cages and small 

exclosure (20x50 

ft). Exclosures 

would be 

approximately 10% 

of the total riparian 

length. 

Construct 

exclosures around a 

higher percentage 

of Summit Creek. 

Summit Creek 

Reach 5 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment

 Little Logan 

Entire pasture 

rested 3 years out of 

a 10 year period 

(season long rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

Construction of two 

riparian pastures

(Lower Little Logan 

and Upper Little 

Logan Riparian 

pastures) along 

Additionally rest

within the riparian 

pasture 

Daily riding by 

permittee to move 

livestock away from 

Summit Creek. 

Construction of 

cages and small 

Construct 

exclosures around a 

higher percentage 

of Summit Creek.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategy Page 331

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

unit Summit Creek. The 

riparian pastures 

would be rested for 

3-5 years after the 

pasture fences are 

constructed. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

resource objectives 

have been achieved

exclosures (20x50 

ft). Exclosures 

would be 

approximately 10% 

of the total riparian 

length. 

Summit Creek 

Reach 6 

and

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2 

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment

 Summit 

Rock unit

Entire pasture 

would be grazed 

annually to 

allowable use level 

(see Appendix I).

Change allowable 

use levels. 

Entire pasture 

would be grazed 

annually to 

allowable use level 

(see Appendix I).

Change allowable 

use levels. 

The area outside of 

the Prairie Riparian 

pasture would be 

grazed annually to 

allowable use level 

(see Appendix I). 

See below for 

Prairie Riparian 

pasture proposed 

action. 

Change allowable 

use levels outside of 

the Prairie Riparian 

pasture. 

See below for 

Riparian Pasture 

Adaptive Strategy.

Summit Creek

Reach 7

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 North 

Summit unit

Entire pasture 

would be grazed 

annually to 

allowable use level 

(See Appendix I).

Change allowable 

use levels. 

Construct North 

Summit Riparian 

pasture (Summit 

Creek Reach 7). 

The riparian pasture 

would be rested for 

3-5 years after the 

pasture fence is 

constructed. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

resource objectives 

Additionally rest

within the riparian 

pasture.

Construct Prairie 

Riparian pasture 

along (Summit 

Creek Reach 7 and 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2). The 

riparian pasture 

would be rested for 

3-5 years after the 

pasture fence is 

constructed. 

Additionally rest

within the riparian 

pasture.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategy Page 332

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

have been achieved

(see Appendix I).

Grazing would 

resume after 

resource objectives 

have been achieved 

(see Appendix I).

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1

 Summit 

Prairie 

allotment 

 West 

Summit 

Recovery

unit

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 

2011) would be 

rested 3-5 

immediate grazing

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit. 

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 

2011) would be 

rested 3-5 

immediate grazing

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit. 

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 

2011) would be 

rested 3-5 

immediate grazing

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit. 

Bosenberg 

Creek 

No PFC

Assessment 

 Lake Creek 

allotment

 Bosenberg 

unit (above 

FS rd 1648)

Entire pasture 

rested 3 years out of 

a 10 year period 

(season long rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

None (Bosenberg 

remains vacant) None None (Bosenberg remains vacant) None

Lake Creek 

Reach 3

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

Pasture 

(existing 

authorized 

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is 

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit. 

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is 

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit 

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Summit Recovery

unit 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategy Page 333

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

project to be 

constructed 

in 2012 or 

2013)

Big Creek 

(No PFC

Assessment, 

located s. side 

of FS rd 16 for 

0.15 miles)

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

Pasture 

(existing 

authorized 

project to be 

constructed 

in 2012 or 

2013)

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is 

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture. 

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is 

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture.

Rest would occur 

for 3-5 years after 

the fence is 

constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would 

resume after 

willows have 

established. 

Additional rest

within the West 

Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture.

Big Creek 

Reach 1, 2, & 

3

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 South Big 

Creek unit 

(reach 1)

 North Big 

Creek unit 

(reach 2) 

 East Big 

Creek unit 

The South Big 

Creek, North Big 

Creek and East Big

Creek units would 

be combined into a 

single unit 

identified as the Big 

Creek Riparian 

pasture. The entire 

Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of 

a 10 year period 

(season long rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

The South Big 

Creek, North Big 

Creek and East Big 

Creek units would 

be combined into a 

single unit 

identified as the Big 

Creek Riparian 

pasture. The entire 

Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of 

a 10 year period 

(season long rest).

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest

The South Big 

Creek, North Big 

Creek and East Big 

Creek units would 

be combined into a 

single unit 

identified as the Big 

Creek Riparian 

pasture. The entire 

Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of 

a 10 year period 

(season long rest).

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix A, Part 3: Adaptive Management Strategy Page 334

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

(reach 3) 

Fen Area

 Logan 

Valley 

allotment 

 Big Field 

Creek unit

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence 

around Fen area 

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence 

around Fen area 

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence 

around Fen area 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B: Map Page 335

Appendix B

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authoization Project Maps 

Vicinity Map

Alternative 1 – No Grazing: 

 Lake Creek Allotment 

 Logan Valley Allotment 

 McCoy Creek Allotment 

 Summit Prairie Allotment

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: 

 Lake Creek Allotment 

 Logan Valley Allotment 

 McCoy Creek Allotment 

 Summit Prairie Allotment

Alternative 3: 

 Lake Creek Allotment 

 Logan Valley Allotment 

 McCoy Creek Allotment 

 Summit Prairie Allotment

Alternative 4:

 Lake Creek Allotment 

 Logan Valley Allotment 

 McCoy Creek Allotment 

 Summit Prairie Allotment

Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the Project Area 

Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within the Project Area 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B: Map Page 336
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 1 – No Grazing: Lake Creek Allotment Page 337
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 1 – No Grazing: Logan Valley Allotment Page 338
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 1 – No Grazing: McCoy Creek Allotment Page 339
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 1 – No Grazing: Summit Prairie Allotment Page 340
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Lake Creek Allotment Page 341
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Logan Valley Allotment Page 342
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: McCoy Creek Allotment Page 343
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Summit Prairie Allotment Page 344
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 3 – Lake Creek Allotment Page 345
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 3 – Logan Valley Allotment Page 346
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 3 – McCoy Creek Allotment Page 347
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 3 – Summit Prairie Allotment Page 348
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 4 – Lake Creek Allotment Page 349
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 4 – Logan Valley Allotment Page 350
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 4 – McCoy Creek Allotment Page 351
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Alternative 4 – Summit Prairie Allotment Page 352
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the Project Area Page 353
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 354
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 355

Appendix C 

Cumulative Activities Considered

The following listed activities will be reviewed for cumulative effects within each of the resource 

sections. These activities are located within the project area unless otherwise noted. The project 

area consists of all or portions of the Upper Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit Creek, and 

Bosenberg Creek subwatersheds in the Upper Malheur River Watershed. The year listed on the 

table is the year the activity was implemented or proposed for implementation. 

Past Activities in the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project Area 

Past Timber Sales:

Year Sale Name Harvest Type 

1972 Little Logan HPR

1972 Mickey Mouse HSV

1974 Bosenberg HPR

1975 Black Canyon HPR

1977-1979 Lonsumess HCC/HPR/HFR

1979 Muddy Shoe HSH/HFR

1980-1983 Spiketail HCR/HFR/HSH

1981 Big Pine HSV/HPR/HCC

1981 Conroy HPR

1981 Malheur River HFR

1981-1984 Scots HCC/HPR/HSH/HFR

1982 Stacked HSV

1982 Logan IV HCR

1982 Logan LP HCR

1982-1983 Fourteen HFR/HCC/HPR/HSV

1983 Logan 0 HCR

1983 Logan II HCR

1983 Logan III HCR

1983-1984 BO HFR/HSV

1983-1984 Sage HFR

1983-1987 Exchange II HSV/HCR

1984-1985 Hare HCC/HPR/HCR/HFR

1984-1986 Teen HFR

1985 Bigham HCR/HTH/HPR

1985-1987 Keystone HSH/HFR

1986 Logan HFR/HCR

1986 Exchange III HCR/HFR/HTH/HPR

1986-1988 Exchange IV HCR/HPR/HTH

1986-1988 PC Rock HCC/HFR/HOR/HOH
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 356

Year Sale Name Harvest Type 

1987-1989 Hilo Exchange II HCC/HCR/HSH/HPR

1989-1995 McCoy HCC/HCP/HOR/HSH

1990-1991 Parallel HCC/HOR/HCP

1991-1992 Bullet HCR/HCP/HSH

1991-1992 Silver HSH/HCP/HSV/HCR

1991-1992 Sno A HSH/HCC

1991-1992 Sno B HCR/HCC

1991-1992 Sno C HCC/HTH

1991-2001 Wickiup HSH/HOR/HCC/HSV/HSA

2002-2011 Merit HTH/HCR/HSH

2002-2011 Starvation Lodgepole HTH

*Area ID – These harvest areas are broadly mapped; minimal historical records; A map showing the locations of past harvest 

areas is located in the Malheur Headwaters Watershed Assessment (2000), Figure 37.

Harvest Prescription Definitions: 

 HTH: Commercial thinning

 HCR: Regeneration harvest (even aged management; the stands naturally or artificially regenerated) 

 HCC: Clearcut 

 HSH: Shelterwood/Seed tree 

 HOR: Harvest overstory removal 

 HFR: Final removal (of a mature overstory to release established immature crop tree that were not a result of a 

prescribed regeneration cut)

 HPR: Partial removal 

 HSV: Selection removal 

 HSA: Salvage harvest 

Past Wildfires:

Year Fire Name Acres Description 

1990 Snowshoe, Corral Basin, and Sheep 10,022

Stand replacement fires in the Big Creek, 

Summit Creek and Bosenberg 

subwatersheds (Upper Malheur River 

watershed). 

2002 High Robert 9,917

Stand replacement fire in the Rail Creek, 

Upper Big Creek and Lake Creek 

subwatersheds. 

Other Past Activities:

Year Activity Description 

Mid-1800’s to 

Present

Livestock grazing

(cattle/sheep)

From the mid-1880’s to the 1900’s, cattle mostly 

grazed in low-lying riparian areas but since the early 

1900’s, when overgrazing became an obvious 

problem, livestock grazing decreased considerably. 

Grazing activities include construction and 

maintenance projects (fences and water troughs) 

needed for range management. Currently, Dollar 

Basin, McCoy Creek, Summit Prairie and Logan 

Valley are active allotments; Lake Creek has been 

vacant with no livestock grazing since 1985.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 357

Year Activity Description 

Mid-1800’s to 

Present

Private land livestock 

grazing adjacent to 

project area.

There are four private land owners adjacent to the 

project area. All private lands are grazed to some 

extent. The private lands located along Lake Creek 

and McCoy Creek are generally grazed from June 

through October.

The private land located along Bosenberg Creek is 

generally grazed from June through October. 

The private land located south of the Forest Service 

road 16 is generally grazed May through October. 

The riparian areas have been placed in a conservation 

program and are currently not being grazed. 

The private land at the south end of the project area 

along the Malheur River is grazed early in the season 

from June to July, and in the fall for a week or two 

before livestock are trucked home. 

The private land located along Summit Creek is 

generally grazed from June through October. 

Early 1900’s to 

Present 

Water withdrawal for 

irrigation 

Construction and maintenance of diversions and 

ditches for either pasture irrigation or livestock 

watering. 

Early 1900’s to 

Present Summer Recreation Use includes camping, mushroom picking, fishing and sightseeing.

Early 1900’s to 

Present Fall Recreation Use includes hunting and fishing. 

1920s to Present 

Use and Maintenance of 

National Forest roads 

Road maintenance includes but is not limited to

cleaning culverts, ditches and cattleguards, blading, 

brushing and signing roads. All road maintenance 

activity follows the commercial roads rule 

requirements of 2009. 

Early 1900’s to 

1960’s Railroad Line 

Railroad lines were constructed from Seneca, Oregon 

to Summit Prairie. The track was abandoned and 

removed in the 1960’s and the majority of the lines 

were converted to roads.

1950’s to Present Fire Suppression Fire suppression activities 

1950’s Introduction of Brook 

Trout

Introduction of brook trout into the Malheur River 

system. 

1960’s to Present Firewood Cutting 

Firewood cutting throughout the project area. 

Firewood cutting has increased since the 1920s as 

railroad lines and roads were established.

1960’s to Present Lake Creek 

Organization Camp

In 2005 a Special Use Permit (20 year permit) 

granting continued use of approximately 20 acres of 

NFS lands to Lake Creek Youth Recreational Camp, 

Inc. (Lake Creek Camp). The permit authorizes 

maintenance and seasonal operation of existing 

facilities on this site primarily for a youth camp. 

Additional conditions under the permit removal of 

facilities within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 358

Year Activity Description 

Historically the area was a Forest Service Ranger 

Station (early 1900’s). 

1970’s to Present Winter Recreation Use includes snowmobiling, grooming and use of 

existing snowmobile trails. 

1990’s Sandpiper Habitat 

Restoration 

Removal and piling of encroaching lodgepole pine 

saplings along the edges of meadow areas in Logan 

Valley. 

2004 Burns Piaute Bridge Construction of an access bridge. 

2004 Bridge removal Removal of two unsafe railroad bridges. 

2005 Meadow Fork Culvert 

Replacement

Replaced the culvert on Meadow For Big Creek with 

a bridge.

2009-2010 Merit Road Closures and 

Decommissioning

Road closures (10.4 miles with gates and 15.3 miles 

with dirt berms) and decommissioning (12.6 miles) in 

the Lake Creek subwatershed. 

2005-2011 Merit Precommercial 

Thinning

Precommercial thinning and machine piling and 

handpiling on approximately 370 acres in the Lake 

Creek subwatershed.

2010 Merit Underburning Underburned 250 acres

2005-Present Big Creek Aspen 

Restoration

Construction of buck and pole fence, commercial and 

noncommercial thinning, and fuel treatments on 22 

acres. Still need to do jackpot burning. 

2008 Logan Valley Meadow 

Restoration

5 acres of meadow restoration in Logan Valley. 

Noncommercial removal of encroaching lodgepole 

pine and handpiling in meadows.

2010 - Present

Logan Valley 

Meadow/Grassland 

Enhancement, Aspen 

Restoration Project.

Project is partially complete. Approximately 229 

acres of grassland/meadow enhancement which 

includes combinations of hand cutting of encroaching 

lodgepole, fuel treatments, and underburning. Aspen 

restoration on approximately 18 acres which includes 

conifer cutting and seedling protection (hinging and 

fencing). Commercial thinning on approximately 

100 acres to minimize the impacts of Mt. Pine beetle.

Present or Ongoing Activities (2012) 

Present or Ongoing Activities

Activity Description 

Water withdrawals/irrigation Same as in the past 

Firewood cutting Same as in the past 

Livestock grazing Same as in the past 

Invasive weed control Same as in the past 

Summer, fall, winter recreation Same as in the past 

Use and maintenance of National Forest roads Same as in the past 

Fire suppression Same as in the past 

Lake Creek Organization Camp Same as in the past

Logan Valley Meadow/Grassland Enhancement, 

Aspen Restoration Project. Same as in the past
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 359

Activity Description 

West Fork Summit Creek fence and water gap 

Construct a 4-wire let-down fence along 

approximately 0.3 miles of West Fork of Summit 

Creek. The fence and water gap would be 

constructed along the west side of the stream. 

West Fork Summit Creek parallel tree felling 

Green lodgepole felled parallel along West Fork of 

Summit Creek for approximately 1⁄2 miles (roughly 

50-75 trees). 

Little Logan willow restoration (continued) 

Enlarge or replace existing cages around willows. 

Cages would be approximately 20 ft. in diameter. 

Construct a 1⁄4 mile buck and pole exclosure around 

a group of willows, removing cages. 

Sagehen stock ponds 

Construction of 3 stock ponds in the Sagehen unit. 

Ponds would be located in the uplands (outside of 

RHACs), capturing runoff from snow melt. 

Lake Creek unit division fence reconstruction Reconstruction of approximately 1 mile of 4-wire 

barbed wire let-down fence. 

Big Creek fence and water-gap 

Construct a 4-wire barbed let-down fence along 

approximately 0.2 miles of Big Creek. The fence 

(with rock jacks) and water gap would be 

constructed along the east side of the stream. Some 

willows may be cut or removed, depending on the 

timing, willow stems or entire places with roots 

may be transplanted to other locations along Big 

and/or Lake Creeks. 

Lake Creek fence and water-gap

Construct a 4-wire barbed let-down fence with 

water-gaps along approximately 0.2 miles of Lake 

Creek. 

Lake Creek willow gallery fence Construct a 4-wire barbed wire fence with rock 

jacks along approximately 0.5 miles of Lake Creek.

Big Creek and Lake Creek off-site water source

A flex tub with pump would be placed in stream 

channel. A small piece of equipment would trench 

the pipeline from the adjacent riparian area to the 

troughs. A solar panel would be placed in the 

adjacent area of the stream channel to power the 

pump. Trough locations would be leveled and 

hardened with rocks. 

West Lake Creek riparian fence

Construct a 4-wire let-down fence with rock jacks 

along approximately 1 mile of Lake Creek (totally 

2.1 miles of fence). 

Foreseeable Activities

Year Approved Foreseeable Activity Description 

Annual Yes Water withdrawals/irrigation Same as in past 

Annual Yes Firewood cutting Same as in past 

Annual Yes Livestock grazing Same as in past 

Annual Yes Summer, fall, winter recreation Same as in past 

Annual Yes Use and maintenance of National Same as in past 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix B; Maps: Monitoring Sites and Stream Reaches within Project Area Page 360

Year Approved Foreseeable Activity Description 

Forest roads

Annual Yes Fire Suppression Same as in past 

2012-

2013 Yes Riparian Hardwood Planting Restoration

Planting of hardwood cuttings along 

approximately 1.2 miles of Lake Creek and 

2.5 miles of Big Creek to restore shade and 

cover.

2013 NO Malheur National Forest Travel 

Management 

Cross country travel would be prohibited 

across 1,337,770 acres on the Malheur 

National Forest where it is not already 

prohibited with the exception of cross 

country travel from designated open routes 

for the sole purpose of dispersed camping 

when resource damage caused by motor 

vehicle use can be avoided. The distance 

that cross country travel would be allowed 

from open routes to existing dispersed camp 

sites would vary by alternative considered 

in the travel management analysis. 

Existing dispersed sites in a riparian area

would also have a setback distance from the 

stream where motorized access would be 

restricted.

2013 No Malheur National Forest SiteSpecific Invasive Plant Treatment 

Treatment of known and newly discovered 

invasive plants using herbicide, manual, 

mechanical, biological and/or cultural 

treatments. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 361

Appendix D 

Definition of Terms 

A: 

Access – The mode by which activities are pursued and how well users can travel to or within the 

setting.

Adaptive Management – A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended 

outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, 

if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or reevaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural 

resource systems is sometimes uncertain.

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) – A long-term operating plan for a grazing allotment on 

public land prepared and agreed to by the permittee and appropriate agency.

Allowable Use – (1) The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various 

parts of a ranch or allotment considering the present nature and condition of the resource, 

management objectives and levels of management. (2) The amount of forage planned to be used 

to accelerate range improvement.

Animal-Unit-Month (AUM) – The amount of dry forage required by one animal unit for one 

month based on a forage allowance of 26 pounds per day. Not synonymous with animal-month. 

The term AUM is commonly used in three ways: (a) stocking rate, as in “X acres per AUM”, (b) 

forage allocations, as in “X AUMs in Allotment A”, (c) utilization, as in “X AUMs taken from 

Unit B.”

Available Forage – That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified 

kind or class of grazing animal.

Average Bankfull Width – The width at the elevation of the bank where flooding occurs.

B: 

Bankfull width to depth – A ratio that divides the bankfull width by the average depth of the 

bankfull channel. A higher value is typically wide and shallow, whereas a lower values is 

narrower and deeper.

Bankfull – The elevation of the bank where flooding begins. The bankfull level is associated 

with the streamflow that just fills the channel to the top of its banks where water begins to 

overflow onto the floodplain.

Bryophyte – Species of land plants that do not have true vascular tissue (non-vascular), such as 

mosses, liverworts, and hornworts (compare to vascular plant).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 362

C: 

Capability – Potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site conditions 

such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management 

practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease

Carrying Capacity – The maximum stocking rate possible without inducing damage to 

vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year on the same areas due to 

fluctuating forage production. Syn., grazing capacity.

Complete Survey – For this type of survey, the survey area is given a very close review by 

walking through the entire area and its perimeter more than once. Virtually all of the area is 

examined.

Cultural Resources – The physical remains (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) 

and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, as a 

sacred area of native peoples, etc.) of an area associated with human use capable of providing 

scientific or humanistic understanding of past human behavior, cultural adaptation and related 

topics through the application of scientific or scholarly techniques of investigation, or has 

spiritual value for members of the affiliated culture.

D: 

Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) – Forest Plan Management Area 13 which is comprised of mature 

trees (150 years or older) provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature forest 

conditions and provides for ecosystem diversity. These areas are equally distributed across the 

Forest. Wildlife species dependent on these lands include pileated woodpecker and American 

(pine) marten.

Deferred Grazing – The use of deferment in grazing management of a management unit, but not 

in a systematic rotation including other units.

Deferred Rotation – Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of the 

deferment among pastures.

Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) – A relatively small portion of a pasture or management 

unit selected because of its location, use or grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It 

is assumed that key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall riparian condition and the 

acceptability of current grazing management in riparian areas.

Desired Condition – (1) A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result 

if goals and objectives are fully achieved. (2) A description of the landscape as it could 

reasonably be expected to appear at the end of the planning period if the plan goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines for that landscape are fully achieved.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 363

Dispersed Recreation – Recreation use that occurs outside of developed sites and requires few, if 

any, facilities other than roads and trails. Dispersed recreation activities include hiking, 

backpacking, cross-country skiing, hunting, and snowmobiling, viewing scenery, and driving for 

pleasure.

E: 

Ecological Status (seral status) – The present state of vegetation and soil protection of an 

ecological site in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the 

expression of the relative degree of which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a 

community resemble that of the potential natural community. If classes or ratings are used, they 

should be described in ecological rather than utilization terms. For example, some agencies are 

utilizing four classes of ecological status ratings (early seral, mid-seral, late seral, potential 

natural community) of vegetation corresponding to 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75% and 76-100% of the 

potential natural community standard. Soil status is a measure of present vegetation and litter 

cover relative to the amount of cover needed on the site to prevent accelerated erosion. This term 

is not used by all agencies.

Ecological Status Rating – The average ecological status rating of plants. The ecological status 

is calculated using plant successional status ratings and Winward’s Riparian Capability 

Groups. It is further adjusted where a woody overstory component should be present but 

currently is not present.

Effective Shade – The percent reduction of potential daily solar radiation delivered to the water 

surface.

End-point Indicator – Physical features that can be measured as a group to assess cause and 

affect relationships and determine condition and trend. The timing of measurements is based on 

the objective – bank disturbance features (such as hoof prints) are best measured at the end of the 

grazing season, vegetation monitoring is generally conducted at the end of the growing season 

(or the end of the grazing season-whichever is later).

Exclosure – An area fenced to exclude animals.

Extensive Management Strategy – A Forest Plan strategy where management seeks full 

utilization of forage available to livestock. Cost-effective management systems and techniques, 

including fencing and water development, are designed and applied to obtain relatively uniform 

distribution and use of forage and to maintain plant vigor.

F: 

Featured Species – The Malheur Forest Plan defines a featured species as a wildlife species of 

high public interest or demand.

Fen – A groundwater-dependent ecosystem and type of minerotrophic peatland that has a 

relatively constant supply of groundwater which saturates the soil and slows decomposition to 

the point that peat accumulates. The water table is slightly below, at, or just above the surface; 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 364

there is internal groundwater seepage in these systems, but sometimes they have over-surface 

flow. The dominant vegetation are bryophyte, graminoid, or low shrub species.

Floodplain – The relatively flat area adjacent to a stream or lake that experiences occasional or 

periodic flooding.

Forage – (n) Browse and herbage which is available and may provide food for grazing animals 

or be harvested for feeding. (v) To search for or consume forage. 

Forage Production – The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on 

a given area. The weight may be expressed as either green, air-dry, or oven-dry. The term may 

also be modified as to time of production such as annual, current years or seasonal forage 

production. 

Foreground – A term used in visual management to describe the portions of a view between the 

observer and up to 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile distant.

Functional At Risk (FAR) – Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but an 

existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. 

G: 

General Survey – For this type of survey, the survey area is given a closer review by walking 

through the area and its perimeter or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the 

area is examined.

Geomorphology – The study of landforms and the processes that form them.

Graminoid – Species of vascular plants that include grasses and grass-like plants, such as sedges, 

rushes, bulrushes, and spikerushes.

Grassland – Land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, and/or 

forbs. Non-forest land shall be classified as grassland if herbaceous vegetation provides at least 

80% of the canopy cover excluding trees. Lands not presently grassland that were originally or 

could become grassland through natural succession may be classified as potential natural 

grassland. See also: Rangeland.

Grazing Permit – Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and class of 

livestock for a specified period on a defined allotment or management area. See also: Term 

Permit. 

Grazing Permittee – An individual or other legal entity who has been granted a term grazing

permit to graze a specified number of livestock for a specific period on a range allotment. 

Grazing Season – (1) On public lands, an established period for which grazing permits are 

issued. May be established on private land in a grazing management plan. (2) The time interval 

when animals are allowed to utilize a certain area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 365

Grazing Use -

Actual Use – Report of the actual livestock use. 

Authorized Use – is the use specified on the annual Bill(s) for Collection and verified by 

permittee's payment of fees.

Permitted Use – is the number of animals, period of use, and location of use specified in 

Part 1 of the grazing permit (see also definition for authorized use).

Greenline Stability Rating – The average vegetation stability rating of plants measured during 

the greenline plant composition component of MIM.

Greenline to Greenline Width – The nonvegetated width of a stream channel measured from the 

greenline on one side of the channel perpendicular to the streamflow to the greenline on the 

opposite side.

Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) – A wetland community that is reliant on having 

access to groundwater to maintain its ecological structure and function. They are diverse, 

complex, and often have a disproportionate amount of rare, sensitive, and unusual plant 

species. Springs, seeps, fens, swamps, and marshes are all types of GDEs.

H: 

Hyphoreic Zone – The region beneath and adjacent to a stream where mixing in shallow 

groundwater and surface water occurs. Fish spawning typically occurs in these regions that 

provide cool water.

I: 

Incidental Survey – This type of survey is conducted while accomplishing other botanical, 

ecological, or biological work. Thus, the primary purpose of the survey is not necessarily to 

locate and document TES plant species, but to accomplish other goals related to plant species 

function and occurrence. However, TES species are often located through this method. Most of 

the area is examined.

Interdependent – A relationship where each member is mutually dependent on the others.

Interrelated – Relates or connects to one another.

Intuitive Survey – This type of survey is the most commonly used and most efficient method of 

surveying for TES plants. Potential suitable habitat is identified for each species of interest and 

the survey effort is focused in those areas. When conducting intuitive controlled surveys, an area 

somewhat larger than the identified suitable habitat is searched to validate current suitable 

habitat definitions.

Invasive species – Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original 

vegetation of a specific range site and will invade or increase following disturbance or continued 

heavy grazing.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 366

Irretrievable – Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources. For example, some or all 

of the timber production from an area is irretrievably lost during the time an area is used as a 

winter sports site. If the use is changed, timber production can be resumed. The production lost 

is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible.

Irreversible – Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or 

cultural resources, or to those factors such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long 

time periods. Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

L: 

Landscape Character – Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an 

image and make it identifiable or unique.

Late and Old Structural (LOS) Forest – A term used in Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans 

Amendment #2 (Interim Wildlife Standard) that refers to the structural stages where large trees 

are common. In this document old growth and mature forest are sometimes used as surrogate 

terms.

Lentic – Pertaining to ecosystems with still or slow moving waters (as lakes, ponds, fens, 

marshes, or swamps).

M: 

Management Indicator Species – Species selected by the Malheur National Forest as 

“barometers” of species diversity, viability, and the forest ecosystem. They are monitored over 

time to assess how changes in forest conditions (especially from management) affect MIS 

populations and habitat, and thus also populations of other species with similar habitat needs. 

Meadow – (1) An area of perennial herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or grass-like, (2) 

Openings in forests and grasslands of exceptional productivity in arid regions, usually resulting 

from high water content of the soil, as in streamside situations and areas having a perched water

table. 

Mean Residual Pool Depth – The average of all differences between the crest depth and pool 

max depth in the survey. This difference can be visualized by imagining that if water ceased to 

flow, the water left in the pool that can’t flow into the next riffle is the amount of the residual 

pool depth.

Middleground – The visible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible, 

but do not stand out distinctly from the stand. It is the zone between the foreground and the 

background in a landscape. The area located from 1⁄2 mile to 4 mile from the observer.

Minerotrphic – Soils and vegetation whose water supply comes mainly from streams or springs. 

This water has flowed over or through rocks or other minerals, often acquiring dissolved 

chemicals which raise the nutrient levels and reduce the acidity.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 367

Modification – A Visual Quality Objective meaning human activity may visually dominate the 

characteristic landscape, but also must utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture.

N: 

Non-Use – (1) Absence of grazing use on current year's forage production. (2) Lack of exercise, 

temporarily, of a grazing privilege on grazing lands. (3) An authorization to refrain, temporarily, 

from placing livestock on public ranges without loss of preference for future consideration

Noxious Weed – A plant species that is undesirable because it conflicts, restricts, or otherwise 

causes problems under management objectives. Not to be confused with species declared 

noxious by lows concerned with plants that are weedy in cultivated crops and on range. 

O: 

On-Site Recreation Development – The degree and appropriateness of recreation facilities 

provided within the setting.

P: 

Partial Retention – Management activities may be evident to the viewer but must remain visually 

subordinate to the surrounding landscape.

Pasture – A grazing area enclosed and separated from other areas by fencing or other barriers; 

the management unit for grazing land. 

Peat – Organic soils that are composed of partially decayed vegetation. Peat formation occurs 

when decomposition is very slow due to low oxygen conditions associated with waterlogging. 

Peat is primarily composed of un-decomposed graminoids and bryophytes.

Peatland – Any wetland that accumulates partially decayed plant matter (peat). Peatlands are 

often thousands of years old, and take from hundreds to thousands of years to form. Fens and 

bogs are the two primary peatland types.

Pedestaling – An evidence of soil erosion, where soil has been eroded from around a piece of 

ground cover (such as a clump of grass, or a piece of gravel), leaving the ground cover on a 

pedestal of un-eroded soil. 

Percent Use – Grazing use of current growth, usually expressed as a percent of the current 

growth (by weight) that has been removed.

Permittee – One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or certain privately 

owned lands. 

Phenology – The study of periodic biological phenomena that are recurrent such as flowering, 

seeding, etc., especially as related to climate. 

Plant Vigor – Plant health. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 368

Potential Natural Community (PNC) – The biotic community that would become established on 

an ecological site if all successional sequences were completed without interferences by man 

under the present environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in its 

development. The PNC may include acclimatized or naturalized non-native species.

Productivity – (1) Soil productivity: the capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the 

soil’s chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding 

capacity and mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). (2) Vegetative productivity: the rate 

of production of vegetation within a given period. (3) General: the innate capacity of an 

environment to support plant and animal life over time. 

Proper Functioning Condition – A riparian-wetland area is considered to be in proper 

functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: 

dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and ground-water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 

against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat 

and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl 

breeding, and other uses; support greater biodiversity.

R: 

Range – (n.) Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including rangeland, grazable 

woodland and shrubland. Range is not a use. (adj.) Modifies resources, products, activities, 

practices and phenomena pertaining to rangeland.

Rangeland – Land where the vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing. 

Range Improvement – Any structure or nonstructural improvement to facilitate management of 

rangelands or livestock. 

Range Readiness – The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin under a 

specific management plan without permanent damage to vegetation or soil. Usually applied to 

seasonal range. To be determined by Range Management Specialist with input from IDT. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A system for planning and managing recreation 

resources. Land delineations that identify a variety of recreation experience opportunities 

categorized into classes on a continuum from primitive to urban. Each class is defined in terms 

of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs, based on the extent to 

which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of 

outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. The settings, 

activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences have been arranged along a continuum or 

spectrum divided into seven classes: Primitive, Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive 

Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban.

Remoteness – The extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from the sight and sounds of 

human activity.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 369

Replacement Old Growth (ROG) – Part of Forest Plan Management Area 13. These areas serve 

as replacements for DOG in the case of catastrophic damage or deterioration of dedicated old 

growth. Replacement old growth areas are to be located within 1⁄4 mile of the dedicated areas 

and are one-half the size of corresponding dedicated old growth units.

Resilient, resilience, resiliency – (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. 

Resiliency is one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or 

successional stages. (2) In human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to 

externally induced changes such as larger economic or social forces. 

Retention – Provides for management activities that are not visually evident. Management 

activities are permitted, but the results of the activities on the natural landscape must not be 

evident to the average viewer.

Riparian area – Area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream and other body of 

water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley 

bottoms that support riparian vegetation.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) – Portions of watersheds where ripariandependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific 

standards and guidelines. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian 

corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, 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 for stream, 

and (4) protecting water quality.

Riparian Pasture – Riparian pastures are designed to protect riparian values. They may be 

smaller areas of rangeland containing both upland and riparian vegetation that are managed 

together as a unit to achieve riparian objectives, or they may be streamside pastures containing 

only riparian vegetation.

Riparian Species – Plant species occurring within the riparian zone. Obligate species require the 

environmental conditions within the riparian zone; facultative species tolerate the environmental 

conditions, and may occur away from the riparian zone. 

Riparian Zone – The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, watercourses, seeps and springs 

whose waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally so as 

to provide a moister habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands. 

Roaded Natural – A natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and 

sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction 

between users may be moderate to high with evidence of other users prevalent. Motorized use is 

allowed.

Roaded Modified – A natural environment substantially modified, particularly by vegetation and 

landform alterations. There is strong evidence of roads and/or highways. Frequency of contact 

is low to moderate.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 370

Rosgen Channel Types – An alpha-numeric classification system for communicating the type of 

stream channel that exists. Streams are grouped by entrenchment (the ease in which water flows 

onto the floodplain or is confined in the stream channel), the bankfull width/depth ratio, the 

sinuosity (or degree of meandering), water surface slope, and streambed rock size. The system 

goes from A-G and 1-6. A channel types are steep headwater streams. B channel types typically

have water surface slopes between 2 and 4%, C channel types are lower gradient streams that 

typically have floodplains and point bars. D channel types drain glacially outwash areas such as 

Logan Valley. E channel types are extremely low gradient, have very sinuous channel patterns, 

don’t have point bars and have vegetation creating a very narrow, deep channel dimension. F 

and G channel types typically have been incised and are evolving into a different channel type. 

Rotation Grazing – A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit (paddock) 

in the same group of grazing units to another without regard to specific graze; rest periods or 

levels of plant defoliation.

S: 

Satisfactory Range Condition – On suitable range, forage condition is at least fair, with stable 

trend, and allotment is not classified PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage).

Scabland – An area characterized by elevated tracts of rocky land with little or no soil and sparse 

vegetation of vascular plants.

Scenery Management System – Management guidelines based on the premise that land 

management activities (including construction of facilities) should not contrast with the existing 

natural appearing landscape. Within a framework of regional landscape, character types, form, 

line, color, and texture should be used to make activities and structures “fit” within landscapes.

Scenic Integrity – The degree of direct human-caused deviations in the landscape, such as road 

construction, timber harvesting, or activity debris. Scenic integrity is evaluated by measuring 

degree of alteration in line, form, color, and texture from the natural or natural-appearing 

landscape character or form the established landscape character accepted over time by the 

general public. This is done by measuring changes in scale, intensity, and pattern against the 

attributes of that landscape character.

Seasonal Grazing – Grazing restricted to a specific season. 

Season of Use – The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as 

specified in the grazing permit.

Sediment – Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, 

gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually 

will settle out.

Semi-Primitive Motorized – A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large 

size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The opportunity 

exists to use motorized equipment. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 371

Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized – A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to 

large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Use of local 

roads for recreation purposes is not allowed. 

Seral – 1) Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during succession. 

Developmental stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. Early seral 

refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional 

process (in riparian areas-usually shallow-rooted, weak-stemmed colonizing plants that grow 

quickly and filter very fine sediment-often grasses); mid seral is often a mix of early and late 

seral plants; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of plant community 

succession (in riparian areas-commonly stabilizing plants such as sedges and rushes that have 

strong cord-like rhizomes, deep, fibrous roots, coarse leaves and strong crowns that buffer 

streambanks against erosion, enhance streambank strength, filter sediments, and with water 

build/rebuild eroded banks-Winward 2000). 2) Refers to species or communities that are 

eventually replaced by other species or communities within a sere.

Seral stage – The developmental phase of rangeland with characteristic structure and plant 

species composition (see SERAL). Seral stage is a measure of vegetative condition which varies 

from very early to late seral with potential natural community (PNC) being the latest seral stage. 

Generally, an area falls into a later seral stage if it has a high percentage of “stabilizers” (usually 

native, deep-rooted sedges and grasses, and in some places rocks and down wood) and a shrub 

component. Areas with a higher percentage of “colonizers” (usually short-lived, shallow-rooted 

plants that respond quickly to change, including non-native plants) and with fewer shrubs are in 

earlier seral stages (adopted from Winward, 2000). PACFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) 

defines seral stage by percent similarity of riparian vegetation to PNC or stream condition: under 

25% similarity to PNC or “poor” stream condition equals early seral, over 50% similarity to PNC 

or “good” or better stream condition equals late seral. In terms of riparian function, later stages 

provide better stability and function, but in terms of forage, mid- and early seral stages tend to 

provide more production. 

Social Encounters – The degree of solitude or social opportunities provided.

Soil – In this document “soil” means soil outside of stream channels. 

Species Composition – The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given 

area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. 

Standard 127 – LRMP Forest Wide Standard 127, which gives minimum ground cover by soil 

erodibility class. 

Stock Water Development – Development of a new or improved source of stock water supply, 

such as well, spring, pond, together with storage and delivery system. 

Suitable Range – Land which produces or has the inherent capability to produce 50 pounds or 

more of palatable forage per acre, can be grazed on a sustained-yield basis, and is or can be 

feasibly made accessible for use. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 372

Suitability – a determination of the appropriateness of applying certain resource management 

practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and 

environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone.

T: 

Term Permit – A document that authorizes grazing on public lands for a stated number of years 

as contrasted with an annual or temporary permit. See also: Grazing Permit. 

Thinning – An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, 

maintaining stand vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. 

Although thinning can result in commercial products, thinning generally refers to noncommercial operations. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species – An endangered species is an animal or plant 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A sensitive species is an animal or plant 

species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern 

either a) because of significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or 

density, or b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability

that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Trend – The direction of change in ecological status or resource value rating observed over time. 

Trend in ecological status should be described as toward or away from the potential natural 

community, or as not apparent. Trend in a resource value rating for a specific use should be 

described as up, down or not apparent. Trends in resource value ratings for several uses on the 

same site at a given time may be in different directions, and there is no necessary correlation 

between trends in resource value ratings and trend in ecological status. Some agencies use trend 

only in the context of ecological status. 

U: 

Understory – The trees and other woody species that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. 

Usually refers to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. 

Unsatisfactory Range Condition – Allotment does not meet criteria for satisfactory condition.

Upland – Ground elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills. The portion of the 

landscape above the valley floor or stream. 

Use – 1) The proportion of current year's forage production that is consumed or destroyed by 

grazing animals. May refer either to a single species or to the vegetation as a whole. (2) 

Utilization of range for a purpose such as grazing, bedding, shelter, trailing, watering, watershed, 

recreation, forestry, etc. 

Utilization – Syn. Use. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 373

Utilization Standards – The prescribed level of grazing by livestock which will achieve specific 

objectives including maintenance of vegetation and soil condition. Expressed as the percent of 

the annual herbaceous production removed by grazing.

V: 

Vascular Plant – Species of land plants that have true vascular tissue, such as flowering plants, 

conifers, and ferns (compare to bryophyte).

Vegetation condition rating – A rating for range vegetation from Condition and Trend (C/T) plot 

data that is calculated by using a model that uses four successional stages (climax, late seral, mid 

seral, and early seral) mainly determined by percentage of climax vegetation on site. The C/T 

plots on the Malheur National Forest used ratings of excellent, good, fair, and poor which 

correlate to climax, late seral, mid seral and early seral and can be substituted in the vocabulary 

if necessary. With heavy grazing and subsequent defoliation of decreases (palatable productive 

plants and perennial grasses associated with climax seral stages) comes retrogression to an 

earlier seral stage resulting in an increase of increasers (plants usually of lower productivity 

and/or palatability associated with early seral stages).

Vigor – Relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the 

same species. It is reflected primarily by the size of a plant and its parts in relation to its age and 

the environment in which it is growing. Syn. plant vigor. 

Visitor Impacts – The degree of impact on both the attributes of the setting and other visitors 

within the setting.

Visitor Management – The degree and appropriateness of how visitor actions are managed and 

serviced.

Visual Corridor (Viewshed) – The total landscape seen or potentially seen from all or a logical 

part of a travel route. 

Visual Quality – The degree of apparent modification of the natural landscape.

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) – A desired level of management based on physical and 

sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the 

characteristic landscape.

W:

Water Gap – 1) A specially constructed fence across drainage. The fence is easily moved by the 

forces of a flood, thus preventing damage to the permanent fence. (2) An opening of fences area 

providing access to a developed or natural water supply permitting one watering facility to serve 

two or more pastures. 

Wetland Rating – The average wetland ranking of plants as computed using the Wetland 

Indicator Status of Reed (1996).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Definition of Terms Page 374

Wolf Plant (wolfiness) – 1) A plant that, though of a species generally considered palatable, is 

not grazed by livestock. 2) An isolated plant growing to extraordinary size, usually from lack of 

competition.

Woody Cover – The sum of the percent cover of woody species along the greenline.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels Page 375

Appendix E

Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose different combinations of use levels that control the duration of 

the grazing management system to address the purpose and need and the significant issues shown 

in Chapter 1. To control the duration of grazing, move triggers and thresholds for allowable use

levels (end-point indicators) are identified for each alternative. Established thresholds are 

identified for upland and riparian herbaceous species use, bank alteration, and shrub browsing. 

Monitoring would ensure that management is helping or moving towards attaining desired 

conditions. Appendix A, Part 4 describes the monitoring that would be implemented with the 

action alternatives. The Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines lists accepted 

methodologies for monitoring, which may continue to be updated overtime.

Allowable use, move triggers, and end-point indicators may change for pastures based on site 

specific data collected at representative monitoring sites during the life of this analysis based on 

adjustments made in response to monitoring results, timing, or climatic conditions. As recovery

is obtained through meeting management objectives (see Appendix A, part 1), less restrictive use 

levels may be adequate to maintain or continue recovery of stream conditions. If management 

objectives are not being achieved in a timely manner, changes in move triggers and allowable 

use levels may be necessary to accelerate recovery (see Appendix A, part 3). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels Page 376

Table 1: Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Triggers17 Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators) Allotment and Pasture

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., sedges 

and rushes)

Along the 

greenline18

45% use OR 5-inch 

stubble height19 4-inch stubble height All pastures not listed below

35% use OR 7-inch 

stubble height 6-inch stubble height

Logan Valley Allotment:

 West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture

 West Lake Creek Riparian 

Pasture

Summit Prairie Allotment:

 Sagehen unit

 West Summit Recovery

unit

 West Fork Summit Creek 

within in the Summit Rock 

unit

Grass and grass-like 

(non-hydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian benches20

and upland21 areas 

of the unit

Uplands and in 

soils that are 

nonhydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available forage22 within riparian 

benches and forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within shrublands.

All pastures

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

Light (30%) to moderate (50%)23 hedging. 

Note: The level of use would be gathered in 

conjunction with estimates of age class distribution. A 

good mix of age classes is desired

All pastures

Bank Alteration

Along the 

greenline 20% bank alteration All pastures not listed below 

Along the 

greenline 15% bank alteration

West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture

Critical DMA 10% bank alteration

Bosenberg unit

Representive 15% bank alteration

 17Move Triggers are used to determine when livestock should be relocated from an area or pasture to achieve desired 

use levels.

18 Greenline is the first hydrophytic perennial vegetation for the water’s edge. 

19 Stubble is the basal portion of herbaceous plants remaining after the top portion has been harvested by grazing

animals. 

20 Benches, riparian terraces or islands are those portions of the riparian areas slightly higher and drier than the rest

of the riparian area. 21 Uplands are defined as the portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream. 22 Available use is the portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specific kind or class of grazing

animal. 

23 In general, light (30%) hedging would be an expected end-point indicator. However, moderate (50%) hedging 

may be acceptable on an occasional basis if the woody component is in a healthy and vigorous condition and there is 

good representation of age cohorts and the moderate use does not result in significant suppression in the vigor or 

growth form of the plant. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels Page 377

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Triggers17 Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators) Allotment and Pasture

DMA

Table 2: Alternative 3

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Trigger Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators) Allotment and Pasture

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., sedges 

and rushes)

Along the 

greenline

45% use OR 5-inch 

stubble height

4-inch stubble height All pastures not listed below

35% use OR 7-inch 

stubble height 6-inch stubble height

Logan Valley allotment: 

 West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen unit

 Little Logan unit 

 West Summit Recovery

unit

9-inch stubble 

height 7-inch stubble height

Logan Valley allotment:

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment: 

 Summit Rock unit (Reach 

2 of W. Fork Summit 

Creek, Reach 6 of 

Summit Creek) 

 Upper Little Logan 

Riparian pasture

 Lower Little Logan 

Riparian pasture

 Sagehen Riparian pasture

Grass and grass-like 

(non-hydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian bunches and 

upland areas of the 

unit

Uplands and in 

soils that are 

nonhydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available forage within riparian 

benches and forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within shrublands.

All pastures

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

30% 40% All pastures not listed below

20% 30%

Logan Valley allotment: 

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen

 Little Logan

 North Summit Riparian 

pasture

Bank Alteration Along the 

greenline

20% 25% All pastures not listed below

10% 15% Logan Valley allotment:
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels Page 378

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Trigger Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators) Allotment and Pasture

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

 West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen

 Little Logan 

 Summit Rock (Reach 2 of 

W. Fork Summit Creek & 

Reach 6 of Summit 

Creek)

 Upper Little Logan 

Riparian pasture

 Lower Little Logan 

Riparian pasture

 Sagehen Riparian pasture

15% 20%

Summit Prairie allotment: 

 North Summit Riparian 

pasture

Table 3: Alternative 4

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Trigger Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., sedges 

and rushes)

Along the 

greenline

45% use OR 5-inch 

stubble height 4-inch stubble height All pastures and greenlines not listed below

35% use OR 7-inch 

stubble height 6-inch stubble height

Logan Valley allotment: 

 West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Prairie Riparian pasture 

(Summit Creek)

9-inch stubble 

height 7-inch stubble height

Logan Valley allotment:

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen

 Little Logan

 Summit Rock units 

(Reach 2 of W. Fork of 

Summit Creek & Reach 6 

of Summit Creek)

 Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit (7-9 inches 

on W. Fork of Summit 

Creek)
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – Appendixes Section

Appendix E: Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels Page 379

Indicator Measurement 

Location Move Trigger Allowable Use (End-Point Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Grass and grass-like 

(non-hydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian bunches and 

upland areas of the 

unit

Uplands and in 

soils that are 

nonhydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available forage within riparian 

benches and forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within shrublands

Uplands and in soils that are 

non-hydrophytic in nature

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

30% 40% All pastures and greenlines not 

listed below

20% 30%

Logan Valley allotment:

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen unit

 Little Logan unit 

 Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Bank Alteration Along the 

greenline

20% 25% All pastures and greenlines not 

listed below

10% 15%

Logan Valley allotment:

 Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 

 West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

 West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Sagehen, Little Logan, & 

Summit Rock units 

(Reach 2 of W. Fork 

Summit Creek & Reach 6 

on Summit Creek)

15% 20%

Summit Prairie allotment:

 Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit