U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

Klamath Falls Resource Area Office 

2795 Anderson Avenue, Building #25 

Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

Fremont-Winema and Modoc National Forests

 Bly Ranger District Doublehead Ranger District

 Highway 140 P.O. Box 369

 Bly, Oregon 97622 Tulelake, CA 96134 

July 2003 

Gerber - Willow Valley

Watershed Analysis
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and 

natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under 

U.S. administration. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 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). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-

W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5694 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/033+1792
 

Cover photograph by Jannice Cutler (June 1996) shows Big Adobe Reservoir with Yainax Butte in the background. 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

INTRODUCTION 

Watershed analysis is a process of characterizing the human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial features, and 

their associated conditions, processes, and interactions (collectively referred to as “ecosystem elements”) 

within a watershed. This provides a structured way to organize and understand ecosystem information. It 

enhances our ability to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of our management activities and 

guides the general type, location, and sequence of appropriate management activities within a watershed. 

Watershed analysis is not a decision making process. Rather it is a “stage-setting” process. It helps us to 

understand the distribution, interaction, and behavior of a watershed’s physical and biological resources. 

The results of watershed analyses establish the context for subsequent decision-making processes, including 

planning, project development, and regulatory compliance. 

This analysis has been conducted by a team of Journey-level resource specialists from the Bureau of Land 

Management Klamath Falls Resource Area and the Fremont-Winema and Modoc National Forests. The team 

members consisted of Managers, Foresters, GIS Specialists, Archeologists, Range Conservationists, 

Silviculturists, Wildlife Biologists, Fisheries Biologists, Hydrologists, Botanists, Planners, Engineers, Soils 

Scientists, Fire Ecologists, and Ecologists. The team followed a standard, interagency, six-step process 

outlined in the Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. 

The steps followed by the team for this process are: 

STEP 1 - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATERSHED 

This step provides a summary of the dominant conditions and interactions within the watershed. 

STEP 2 - IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND KEY QUESTIONS 

Issues and key questions were developed collaboratively through the Coordinated Resource 

Management Planning (CRMP) process with representatives of other public agencies and members 

of the Gerber CRMP Group. 

STEP 3 - DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS 

This step provides a compilation of the most detailed and current resource information available for 

the analysis area. 

STEP 4 - DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE CONDITIONS 

In general, this step describes the historic (or reference) conditions prior to the influence of 

European settlement. Quantitative data describing historical conditions for most parameters are 

generally not available for most resources. Therefore, the “Reference Conditions” step of this 

analysis focuses on “desired condition” for most resources, based on what anecdotal information was 

available and the professional opinion of the resource specialists. 

STEP 5 - SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION 

This step provides a comparison of current and reference conditions including discussion of 

similarities, differences, causes, trends, and management implications. 

STEP 6 - MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

This step provides recommendations based on the analysis presented in the previous five steps, 

identifies monitoring activities that are needed in association with these recommendations, and 

documents data gaps and limitations of the analysis. Recommendations are designed to identify 

management activities which address differences between current and reference conditions where 

there is a need to provide restoration, maintenance, or protection of ecosystem components in order 

to sustain the health and productivity of natural resources. 

i 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

This six-step process is the method used by federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest and focuses on 

watershed-specific conditions, issues, values, and uses that exist on the landscape. It is one of the principal 

analyses for implementing the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan 

(Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA, USDI 1994)). It provides the watershed 

context for fishery protection, restoration, and enhancement efforts. 

The Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington and related policy 

and guidance recommend that Rangeland Health Standards Assessments (RHSA’s) for BLM grazing 

allotments be completed concurrently with watershed analysis when practical (USDI – BLM, 1997). 

Consequently this document serves as the analytical portion of the RHSA’s for eight BLM allotments within 

the analysis area. A separate Rangeland Health Determination for these eight allotments was prepared, a 

copy of which is included as Appendix C. 

Though the analysis area is not within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl, The Klamath Falls Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan (USDI – BLM, 1994) prescribes that the entire Resource Area will be 

managed for ACS objectives. Additionally, the National Forest Management Act of 1975, the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

of 1989 define goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for the management of public lands. Watershed 

Analysis allows the refinement of those goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines to fit the physical and 

biological environment of the Gerber / Willow Valley Watershed Assessment Study Area. 

What it does for me: (Private landowner & Agency) 

Ø Enhances ability to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of our management activities 

before implementation. 

Ø	 Can help guide the general type, location, and sequence of appropriate management activities within 

a watershed. 

Ø	 Can assist in developing ecologically sustainable programs to produce water, timber, recreation, and 

other commodities. 

Ø	 Facilitates program and budget development by identifying and setting priorities for social,
 

economic, and ecological needs within and among watersheds.
 

Ø	 Establishes a consistent watershed-wide context for: 

·	 Project level NEPA analyses 

·	 Development of management goals and project objectives (i.e. Management plans). 

·	 Evaluation of management activities and project consistency given existing plan objectives. 

·	 Implementation of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7) including conferencing and 

consulting. 

·	 Water quality improvement efforts, and for the protection of beneficial uses identified by states, 

tribes, and other users in their water quality standards under the Federal Clean Water Act. 

·	 Identification and prioritization of watershed restoration needs. 

·	 Development of a monitoring plan that is responsive to the watershed processes of concern. 

This document is organized by the six steps and core topics of the aforementioned guide. Thus it is often 

necessary for the reader to move from one step to the next in order to gain the complete “story” for a given 

core topic. There is also a difference in the basic unit of analysis between different core topics. For instance 

the minimum or basic unit of analysis for grazing is the allotment and pasture, whereas for hydrology, the 

basic unit is the subshed (6th field watershed). Other core topics may be broken down no further than the 5th 

ii 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

field watershed or may be analyzed for the entire study area based on what makes sense for that particular 

core topic. 

The Gerber / Willow Valley Watershed Analysis study area encompasses almost 282,000 acres. The Bureau 

of Land Management Klamath Falls Resource Area manages approximately 110,138 acres, 71, 366 are 

managed by the Fremont National Forest, and 28,732 by the Modoc National Forest, with the remainder 

being State of Oregon and Private. The study area stretches from Bly Ridge in the north to Clear Lake in the 

south, and from Barnes Rim in the east to Langell Valley in the west. Elevation in the study area ranges from 

4120’ to 7213’, averaging 5080’. 

The study area is composed of two fifth field watersheds and some adjacent BLM lands. The Adjacent BLM 

lands were included in this analysis because their resources are similar to those occurring within the Gerber 

and Willow Valley watersheds, and they occur in a watershed (Lost River) that may not be analyzed in a 

watershed analysis in the near future. The BLM is actively performing management actions in the area, and 

not having been analyzed in a watershed analysis would inhibit achievement of ACS objectives, and interfere 

with the other benefits of the process outlined above. 

The two adjacent BLM administered areas are Lorella and Woolen Canyon. Lorella, the northern area, is 

approximately 4300 acres. The southern area, Woolen Canyon, is about 8700 acres. The Gerber 5th field 

watershed is composed of ten smaller (6th field) watersheds sometimes referred to as “subsheds”. They 

include; Barnes Valley Creek, Ben Hall Creek, Buckmaster Creek, Dry Prairie, East Gerber Frontal, West 

Gerber Frontal, Horse Canyon Creek, Long Branch Creek, Miller Creek, and Pitchlog Creek. The Willow 

Valley (Upper Lost River) 5th field watershed contains four subsheds; Antelope Creek, Rock Creek, Upper 

Lost River, and Willow Valley. 

Most of the major topographic features occur along the divides and rims between the Gerber and Willow 

Valley watersheds, and adjacent watersheds. Topographic features vary between uplifted plateaus, table 

lands, high ridges, mountains, broad drainages, deep canyons, and shallow lake beds. The vegetation types 

present in the analysis area range from stream edges vegetated with willows, small pockets of aspen, and 

other deciduous shrubs, dry and wet meadow, grassland/shrub non-forested uplands, juniper woodlands, 

ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer. 

The analysis area lies within the Klamath Basin Province. The geomorphology of the area is characterized 

by north to northwest trending faults, and volcanic plateaus. The parent material is mostly 1 to 11 million 

year old Mafic Basalt, which cooled slowly resulting in fine-grained rock. The area is interspersed with 

basaltic eruptive centers including basaltic or rhyolite flows, cinder cones and volcanic broken rock (Pankey 

Lakes, Paddock Butte, Rock Creek, and Brady Butte). Recent Alluvium exists in the lower basins and 

drainages, consisting of fine to coarse grain sediment derived from volcanic rock. 

The study area is in the High Plateau and South-Central Climate Zones with warm dry summers and cold wet 

winters, as a result of being in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains. Most precipitation falls in the 

winter as snow with a second peak in late spring and early summer. Precipitation ranges between 13 and 30 

inches depending on elevation and aspect. The average annual precipitation between 1925 and 2000 at 

Gerber Reservoir is 18.63". The diurnal variation in temperature ranges from 20 degrees in January to 40 in 

July. The growing season varies between 60 and 125 days. 

This document represents the current understanding of the conditions, processes, interactions, and issues of 

concern occurring within the Gerber / Willow Valley Watershed Analysis Area. Prior to implementation any 

actions or projects, which utilize the information presented in this Watershed Analysis, will be analyzed on a 

site-specific basis by an interdisciplinary team and will include both public involvement and disclosure of 

decision as prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

iii 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

iv 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

STEP 1 - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATERSHED .............................................................................. 1
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics.............................................................................................................................. 1
 

Climate ................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Uplands/Soils.......................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Hydrologic Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 4
 

Stream Channels ..................................................................................................................................... 6
 

Riparian Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 6
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................... 7
 

II. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................... 7
 

Forested Uplands .................................................................................................................................... 8
 

Non-Forested Uplands ............................................................................................................................ 8
 

Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................................................... 10
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ......................................................................... 10
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat ............................................................................................................... 10
 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ................................................................................... 10
 

Big Game .............................................................................................................................................. 11
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional Forest Habitats ....................................... 11
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat ........................................................... 12
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat ............................................................... 12
 

Other Terrestrial Species ...................................................................................................................... 13
 

IV. Human Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 13
 

Timber .................................................................................................................................................. 13
 

Grazing ................................................................................................................................................. 13
 

Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 14
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 14
 

STEP 2. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND KEY QUESTIONS ............................................................... 17
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics ............................................................................................................................ 17
 

Upland/Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 17
 

Stream Channels ................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Riparian Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 18
 

Water Quality........................................................................................................................................ 18
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................. 18
 

II. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................. 19
 

Forested Uplands .................................................................................................................................. 19
 

Non-Forested Uplands .......................................................................................................................... 19
 

Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................... 20
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat ................................................................................................................ 20
 

IV. Human Uses ............................................................................................................................................. 21
 

STEP 3. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 23
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics ............................................................................................................................ 23
 

Uplands/Soils........................................................................................................................................ 23
 

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 25
 

Stream Channels ................................................................................................................................... 31
 

Riparian Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 38
 

v 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Water Quality........................................................................................................................................ 42
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................. 49
 

II. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................. 62
 

Forested Uplands .................................................................................................................................. 62
 

Non-Forested Uplands .......................................................................................................................... 70
 

Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................................................... 88
 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................... 89
 

Special Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 90
 

Fire and Fuels ....................................................................................................................................... 91
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat ................................................................................................................ 95
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .................................................................................. 97
 

Big Game .............................................................................................................................................. 99
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional (LOS)Forest Habitats ........................... 101
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat ......................................................... 104
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Deciduous Riparian Habitat ........................................... 105
 

Other Terrestrial Species .................................................................................................................... 106
 

IV. Human Uses ........................................................................................................................................... 108
 

Timber ................................................................................................................................................ 108
 

Grazing ............................................................................................................................................... 108
 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 122
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 122
 

Administrative Facilities.....................................................................................................................124
 

STEP 4. REFERENCE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 127
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics .......................................................................................................................... 127
 

Uplands/Soils...................................................................................................................................... 127
 

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 128
 

Stream Channels ................................................................................................................................. 131
 

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 133
 

Water Quality...................................................................................................................................... 134
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................ 135
 

II. Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 138
 

Forested Uplands ................................................................................................................................ 139
 

Non-Forested Uplands ........................................................................................................................ 142
 

Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................................... 148
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ....................................................................... 148
 

Fire and Fuels ..................................................................................................................................... 149
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat.............................................................................................................. 151
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ................................................................................ 151
 

Big Game ............................................................................................................................................ 152
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late /Old Growth Successional (LOS) Habitat ........................ 153
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat ......................................................... 154
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat ............................................................. 155
 

Other Terrestrial Species .................................................................................................................... 155
 

IV. Human Uses........................................................................................................................................... 156
 

Prehistory............................................................................................................................................ 156
 

History ................................................................................................................................................ 158
 

STEP 5. SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................... 161
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics .......................................................................................................................... 161
 

Uplands/Soils...................................................................................................................................... 161
 

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 163
 

vi 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Stream Channels ................................................................................................................................. 170
 

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 174
 

Water Quality...................................................................................................................................... 175
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................ 178
 

II. Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 186
 

Forested Uplands ................................................................................................................................ 186
 

Non-Forested Uplands ........................................................................................................................ 188
 

Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................................... 197
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ....................................................................... 197
 

Special Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 198
 

Fire and Fuels ..................................................................................................................................... 198
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat .............................................................................................................. 201
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ................................................................................ 201
 

Big Game ............................................................................................................................................ 203
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late /Old Growth Successional (LOS) Habitat ........................ 204
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat ......................................................... 207
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat ............................................................. 208
 

Other Terrestrial Species .................................................................................................................... 209
 

IV. Human Uses........................................................................................................................................... 210
 

Timber ................................................................................................................................................ 210
 

Grazing ............................................................................................................................................... 211
 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 286
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 287
 

STEP 6. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 289
 

I. Watershed and Aquatics .......................................................................................................................... 289
 

Uplands/Soils...................................................................................................................................... 289
 

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 290
 

Stream Channels ................................................................................................................................. 290
 

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 293
 

Water Quality...................................................................................................................................... 294
 

Habitat for Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................ 295
 

II. Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 299
 

Forested Uplands ................................................................................................................................ 299
 

Non-Forested Uplands ........................................................................................................................ 303
 

Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................................... 311
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ....................................................................... 311
 

Special Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 312
 

Fire and Fuels ..................................................................................................................................... 312
 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat .............................................................................................................. 314
 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ................................................................................. 314
 

Big Game ............................................................................................................................................ 315
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional (LOS) Forest Habitats .......................... 317
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat ......................................................... 318
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat ............................................................. 319
 

Other Terrestrial Species .................................................................................................................... 320
 

IV. Human Uses........................................................................................................................................... 321
 

Timber ................................................................................................................................................ 321
 

Grazing ............................................................................................................................................... 321
 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 340
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 341
 

vii 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDI X A - WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST..................................................................................................343
 

APPENDIX B - CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE LIST...............................................................................351
 

APPENDIX C - RANGELAND HEALTH DETERMINATION.....................................................................367
 

APPENDIX D - REFERENCE LIST...............................................................................................................369
 

APPENDIX E - MAPS.....................................................................................................................................385
 

LIST OF TABLES
 

Table 1-1: Inflow into Gerber Reservoir (in Thousands of Acre Feet) .............................................................. 5
 

Table 1-2: Acres of Plant Communities by Subwatershed. ................................................................................ 8
 

Table 1-3. Forest Community Type Acreage by Landowner. ............................................................................. 8
 

Table 1-4. Condensed summary of the ESI based vegetation information for BLM lands. ............................... 9
 

Table 1-5. Non-forest Vegetation Types on the Fremont NF Adjacent to the Gerber Block............................... 9
 

Table 3-1. Erosion estimates for the Gerber drainage (Water Erosion Prediction Project technology) ............ 23
 

Table 3-2. Percent bare ground observed during Ecological Site Inventory on BLM-administered land, by
 

ecological type and condition class. ........................................................................................................... 26
 

Table 3-3. Subwatershed road densities in the Gerber area. ............................................................................. 28
 

Table 3-4. Initial dates of completion for select dams in the analysis area. ...................................................... 29
 

Table 3-5. General description of Rosgen Level I stream types (paraphrased from Rosgen, 1996). ............... 32
 

Table 3-6. Rosgen (1996) Level I channel classification for select streams in the analysis area..................... 32
 

Table 3-7. Summary of USFS Bottomline Survey data. .................................................................................... 35
 

Table 3-8. Bank stability ratings from BLM Greenline riparian surveys. ......................................................... 35
 

Table 3-9. Summary of PFC ratings for streams on BLM land within the analysis area. ................................. 36
 

Table 3-10. Measured bank erosion at sites on 3 streams. ................................................................................ 37
 

Table 3-11. Pebble count data for streams in the analysis area (1996 and 1997 BLM stream surveys). .......... 37
 

Table 3-12. Distribution and size of large woody debris for select streams (from ODFW surveys). .............. 39
 

Table 3-13. Road drainage features connected to streams, based on 2002 BLM/USFS road inventory. ......... 43
 

Table 3-14. Water quality standards for relevant parameters with numeric standards. ..................................... 45
 

Table 3-15. Streams included on Oregon 2002 and California 1998 303(d) lists. ............................................ 46
 

Table 3-16. Proportion of days between 1 June and 30 September with 7- day moving average of maximum
 

daily stream temperature greater than 64 F (18 C). .................................................................................... 46
 

Table 3-17. Summary of instantaneous water quality data................................................................................ 47
 

Table 3-18. Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. .............................................................................................. 48
 

Table 3-19. Summary of Gerber tributary sucker spawning surveys 1993-2002. ............................................ 50
 

Table 3-20. Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed reservoirs game fish species presence (P) or absence (A). ..... 55
 

Table 3-21. Large woody debris and large boulders expressed as number of pieces/mile............................... 60
 

Table 3-22. Number of pools per mile in Barnes Valley Creek, Miller Creek and Antelope Creek ................ 61
 

Table 3-23. Pool width/max depth ratios for Barnes Valley Creek, Miller Creek and Antelope Creek ............ 61
 

Table 3-24: Percent fine substrate (<2mm diameter) in and percent gravel (2mm - 64mm) in riffles for survey
 

reaches......................................................................................................................................................... 62
 

Table 3-25: Total Allotment Acres (Public & Private) by Ecological Site and Condition Class. .................... 72
 

Table 3-26: Acres of non-forest vegetative communities surrounding the Gerber Block. ............................... 83
 

Table 3-27: Ecological Classification and Acres by Allotment for Bly and Lakeview Ranger Districts......... 83
 

Table 3-28: Lost River Watershed Vegetation Types within the Warm Springs Allotment Doublehead Ranger
 

District - Modoc National Forest. ............................................................................................................... 84
 

Table 3-29: Acreages, Seral Stage, and Ecological Condition of Existing Vegetation on the Clear Lake
 

Allotment – Modoc National Forest. .......................................................................................................... 87
 

Table 3-30. Noxious Weed Sites in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed. ..................................................... 88
 

Table 3-31. Populations of Special Status Plant Species................................................................................... 89
 

viii 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-32. Agency Status of Sensitive Plant Species...................................................................................... 90
 

Table 3-33. Designated Special Areas within the Gerber Analysis Area. ......................................................... 91
 

Table 3-34: Fuels Treatments by Treatment Type in Gerber Block (BLM). .................................................... 93
 

Table 3-35: Fuels Treatments by Vegetation Type in Gerber Block (BLM) .................................................... 93
 

Table 3-36. Summary of major habitat types and representative wildlife species groups for the Gerber and
 

Willow Valley watershed. ........................................................................................................................... 95
 

Table 3-37. Acres of Habitat Types by Subwatershed ...................................................................................... 96
 

Table 3-38. Acres of terrestrial habitat removed by roads and road densities by subwatershed. ..................... 97
 

Table 3-39. Bald eagle management area and acres. ........................................................................................ 97
 

Table 3-40. Pronghorn habitat by subwatershed ............................................................................................ 101
 

Table 3-41. Acres of Old Growth by vegetation type by subwatershed. ........................................................ 102
 

Table 3-42. Western Sage Grouse Lek Locations............................................................................................ 104
 

Table 3-43. Sage grouse nesting habitat by subwatershed. ............................................................................ 105
 

Table 3-44: Acres of Aspen by Sub-Watershed .............................................................................................. 105
 

Table 3-45. Herpetofauna of the Gerber Watershed – Potential/Documented. .............................................. 106
 

Table 3-46. Osprey Nest Sites in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watersheds....................................................... 107
 

Table 3-47. BLM Grazing Allotments and Authorized Use. ........................................................................... 109
 

Table 3-48. Degree of Allowable Use (Percentage) for Upland Vegetation.................................................... 111
 

Table 3-49. Degree of Allowable Use (Percentage) for Riparian Vegetation.................................................. 112
 

Table 3-50. Fremont National Forest Allotments/Authorized Use .................................................................. 120
 

Table 4-1: Comparison of percent ground cover and mean infiltration rate (ml/second) ............................... 127
 

Table 4-2. Approximate length of streams inundated by Gerber Reservoir. .................................................. 132
 

Table 4-3. Assumed historic species list for the Gerber/ Willow Valley watershed....................................... 136
 

Table 4-4 - Natural or Near Natural Frequency of LWD in Northern Great Basin Streams ........................... 138
 

Table 4-5 - Natural or Near Natural Frequency of Pools and mean width/ max depth ratio in Northern Great
 

Basin Streams (Quigley et al 1997). ......................................................................................................... 138
 

Table 4-6. 1946-47 Vegetation Condition on Fremont National Forest ......................................................... 139
 

Table 5-1. Measured transpiration in juniper communities............................................................................ 166
 

Table 5-2. Number of old growth and non-old growth (encroaching) juniper trees per acre, by ecological type
 

and condition class. ................................................................................................................................... 167
 

Table 5-3. Characteristics of major soils series on BLM-administered lands. ............................................... 167
 

Table 5-4. Estimated annual water availability and usage for soil series associated with ecological types
 

experiencing juniper encroachment. ......................................................................................................... 168
 

Table 5-5. Frequency of LWD 20 inches in diameter for Northern Great Basin Streams (Quigley et al, 1997)
 

compared to existing conditions in Barnes Valley Creek and Miller Creek. ............................................ 179
 

Table 5-6. Number of Pools per mile (as a function of stream width) and Pool width /maximum depth ration
 

for streams surveyed in 2001. ................................................................................................................... 181
 

Table 5-7. Percent fine substrate (<2mm diameter) and percent gravel (2mm - 64mm) in riffles for survey
 

reaches....................................................................................................................................................... 182
 

Table 5-8. Vegetative condition and trend on a site-specific basis by allotment in the Gerber watershed. .... 196
 

Table 5-9. Principles and methods of developing fire-resilient forests and rangelands. ................................ 200
 

Table 6-1. General management considerations for incised stream channels. ............................................... 292
 

Table 6-2. Riparian reserve types and widths for public lands in the analysis area ........................................ 295
 

Table 6-3. Relative Juniper Treatment Priorities by Ecological Site .............................................................. 309
 

Table 6-4. Risk potential for significant (>30% of non-tree annual production) undesirable disturbance
 

induced annual grass & forb invasion by Ecological Site. ....................................................................... 310
 

ix 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Average monthly precipitation in the analysis area, as measured at NRCS and National Weather
 

Service climate stations................................................................................................................................. 2
 

Figure 1-2: Annual precipitation at the Gerber climate station with five-year moving average. ....................... 2
 

Figure 1-3: Annual Precipitation at Strawberry Reservoir for the Period of Record ......................................... 3
 

Figure 1-4: Average annual inflow into Gerber Reservoir. ................................................................................ 4
 

Figure 1-5. Average inflow into Gerber Reservoir for water years 1926 through 2000..................................... 5
 

Figure 1-6. Example of annual cycles of surface elevations in Gerber Reservoir. ............................................ 6
 

Figure 1-7. Modoc Tribal Territory (from Ray 1963). ..................................................................................... 15
 

Figure 1-8. Map of former Klamath Reservation in relation to Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed. ................ 16
 

Figure3-1. Actual Miller Creek flows for water years 1998 and 2000 compared to estimated approximate
 

flows occurring without the presence of Gerber Dam. ............................................................................... 30
 

Figure 3-2. Generalized hydrographs illustrating the concept of increased and earlier peak flows and reduced
 

baseflows..................................................................................................................................................... 31
 

Figure 3-5. Length frequency distribution of shortnose suckers by sex from Gerber Reservoir using trammel
 

Figure 3-8. Seven-day moving average values for maximum, mean, and minimum water temperatures in
 

Figure 3-9. Estimated (open circles) and documented (closed circles) mean fire return intervals for major
 

Figure 3-10. Conceptual diagram of changes in a shrub steppe community in the absence of fire (from Miller
 

Figure 5-2. Generalized plane views (A) and longitudinal profiles (B) of channel and riparian features
 

Figure 5-3. Seven-day running averages of maximum, mean, and minimum water temperatures, plotted with
 

Figure 3-3. General Diagram of Rosgen Level I Stream Types. ....................................................................... 32
 

Figure 3-4. Estimated extent of wetland areas by subwatershed as determined from GIS data. ...................... 41
 

nets. ............................................................................................................................................................. 53
 

Figure 3-6. Number of redband trout and suckers captured in the North canal in Oct 1999. .......................... 55
 

Figure 3-7. Number of redband trout captured in lower Miller Creek (April and October 1997). .................. 56
 

Barnes Valley Creek upstream from the CCC Road crossing. .................................................................... 59
 

cover types in the Great Basin (Miller and Tausch 2001). ......................................................................... 69
 

et al 1999). .................................................................................................................................................. 70
 

Figure 3-11. Photo of telephone pole built along Willow Valley Road. (Photo by Robert Mutch, 2002.) .... 123
 

Figure 3-12. Historic photo of Antelope telephone line built by CCC Co. 557. (Photo by CCC) ..................123
 

Figure 5-1. General effects of two types of impoundments on streamflow. .................................................. 164
 

associated with varying reservoir inundation. .......................................................................................... 172
 

average daily discharge from Gerber Dam. .............................................................................................. 177
 

Figure 5-4. A damaged rock art panel in Barnes Valley. ................................................................................ 287
 

x 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 1 - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATERSHED 

The Gerber and Willow Valley Watersheds are located in the southeast portion of the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area (Lakeview District, BLM) and include portions of the Bly and Lakeview Ranger Districts on the 

Fremont-Winema National Forests and the Doublehead Ranger District on the Modoc National Forest. 

(Refer to Map 1.1 - Land Status, in Appendix E.) 

Elevations in the analysis area range from 4,300 feet in southern Langell Valley to 7,200 feet at Yainax Butte. 

Most of the Gerber Watershed is between the elevations of 5,000 to 5,500 feet while most of the Willow 

Valley Watershed is below 5,000 feet. Precipitation in the analysis area increases from west to east and from 

low elevations to higher elevations. Precipitation amounts range between 14 to 30 inches annually, the 

majority of which falls as snow. Most of the runoff from the Gerber Watershed comes from Ben Hall Creek 

and Barnes Valley Creek, with smaller amounts coming from Barnes Creek and Wildhorse Creek. In the 

Willow Valley Watershed the East Branch of the Lost River and Rock Creek are the main tributaries. The 

general information provided below is supplemented in more detail in Step 3. 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Climate 

Much of the Gerber watershed is located within the High Plateau Climate Zone. The Willow Valley 

watershed and some of the extreme western portion of the Gerber watershed is within the South-Central 

Climate Zone. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defines the High Plateau and South-Central Climate 

Zones as a relatively dry region of Oregon, in the “rain shadow” of the Southern Oregon Cascades. (Refer to 

discussion of Level III ecoregion class in the following “Uplands/Soils” section.) The High Plateau has cool 

temperatures and can receive significant snowfall. Daily low temperatures are, on average, above 32 degrees 

F for only two months out of the year, resulting in very short growing seasons. The South-Central Climate 

Zone is warmer and drier, with a growing season that usually does not exceed 90 days. Temperature swings 

between day and night are about 20 degrees F during winter months and up to 40 degrees F during summer 

months. These fluctuations affect snowmelt and soil freeze-thaw processes. Most precipitation occurs as 

snowfall during mild intensity storms, with a second maximum occurring in the late spring and early summer 

(Figure 1-1). This second maximum is more pronounced in the eastern sections of these watersheds, and is 

the cue that prompts the growing season. Average annual precipitation in these watersheds is highest on 

Yainax Butte (30 inches), and is lowest near Willow Valley Reservoir (14 inches). 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 1
A nnua l P r e c i p i t a t i on A t G e rbe r R e s e rv oi r 

7.00 

12.00 

17.00 

22.00 

27.00 

32.00 

1925-26

1928-291931-32

1934-351937-381940-41

1943-441946-471949-501952-53 1955-56

1958-59 1961-62 1964-65

1967-68 1970-71 

1973-74 

1976-77 1979-80 

1982-83 

1985-86 

1988-89 

1991-92 

1994-951997-98 

I n ch es o f P r eci p i t a t i o n 

Annual Precipitation In Inches

Average Annual Precipitation (18.63)

5 per. Mov. Avg. (Annual Precipitation In Inches) 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Figure 1-1. Average monthly precipitation in the analysis area, as measured at NRCS and National 

Weather Service climate stations. 

0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

Precipitation (inches) 

Gerber 

Strawberry 

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep 

Average annual precipitation at Gerber Reservoir for the period of record (1925 to 2000) is 18.63 inches 

(Figure 1-2). Average annual precipitation from 1971 to 2000 is slightly higher (18.84 inches). There is a 5 

to 10 year pattern of wet to dry years at Gerber. The most pronounced have been since the early 1980’s when 

large swings in precipitation amounts begin to occur. This is likely due to the increased frequency of El 

Nino and La Nina episodes. 

Figure 1-2: Annual precipitation at the Gerber climate station with five-year moving average. 

Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 2 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Between 1981 and 2000 the Strawberry Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) site had an average annual precipitation 

of 23.7 inches (Figure 1-3). Annual precipitation at Strawberry has followed a pattern similar to that recorded 

at Gerber, with the early- to mid-1980s wet, the late-1980s to the early-1990s dry, and the mid- and late1990s relatively wet. Following the cyclic wet/dry pattern observed at these sites over the past 75 years, the 

dry cycle continued through 2001 and 2002. 

Figure 1-3: Annual Precipitation at Strawberry Reservoir for the Period of Record 

Straw berry SNOTEL Annual Precipitation 

9 

14 

19 

24 

29 

34 

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year 

Precipitation in Inches

Annual Precipitation 

Average Precipitation 

(23.7 inches) 

Uplands/Soils 

An Order 3 Soil survey has been completed for the Gerber Block. Much of the information regarding soils 

for this watershed analysis is taken from the BLM Interim Soil Survey Report of the Gerber Block (Leet, 

2001). The past and present climatic conditions in the survey area, particularly moisture and temperature, 

have greatly influenced soil formation controlling chemical and physical reactions taking place in soils. 

Water dissolves soluble material in soils, and it transports material from one part of a soil to another and is 

necessary for the growth of plants and other organisms that contribute organic matter to soils. Temperature 

affects the rate of chemical reactions and of physical breakdown caused by the freezing and thawing of 

water, which causes expansion and contraction and influences the movement of soil particles and rock 

fragments. The kind and amount of living organisms in and on a soil determine the kind and amount of 

organic matter added to the soil. The rate of decomposition of organic matter is controlled by temperature 

and moisture. When soils are moist and warm, weathering and organic matter decomposition can occur. 

When they are dry or cold, reactions are slow and chemical weathering may cease. Soil moisture and 

temperature vary greatly within the survey area because of the differences in the landscape. 

Gerber’s drainage occurs in the Eastern Cascade Slope and Foothill Level III Ecoregion which is the driest of 

the seven Level III Ecoregions in Western Washington and Oregon (Pater et al, 1998). It is a semiarid 

climate that grades from the wet climate to the west and the arid climate to the east. The soils are cold in 

winter, yet warm in summer. Soil temperatures conducive to chemical reactions are present from about 

March through November at the lower elevations and from May through October at the higher elevations 

(Soil Survey Staff, 2002). Gerber’s land area is dominated by basalt, andesite, and tuff geologic materials, 

which release shrink-swell clays as they weather to soils. The soils have cobblestone and gravel stone clay 

loam surface layers. The region supports open forest and rangelands adapted to a prevailing dry climate and 

in a terrain susceptible to wildfire, an inter-fingering mosaic of the 9j and 9g Level IV ecoregion map units. 

Map unit 9j is the Klamath Juniper / Ponderosa Pine Woodland, which has a terrain of undulating hills and 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 3
Annual Gerber Reservoir Inflow 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

1925-261928-291931-321934-351937-381940-411943-441946-471949-501952-531955-561958-591961-621964-651967-681970-711973-741976-771979-801982-831985-861988-891991-921994-951997-98 

Thousands of Acre Feet 

Annual Inflow 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

plateaus that form a mosaic of pastures and woodlands dominated by juniper. The adjacent map unit 9g is the 

Klamath /Goose Lake Warm Wet Basins, which has pluvial lakes and wetlands surrounded by sagebrush and 

bunchgrasses. (Refer to Map 1.2 – Ecoregions, in Appendix E.) 

For erosion estimates, ecoregion map units 9j and 9g were divided by slope and vegetation into 4 erosion 

areas. Erosion was estimated with Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP, 2001) technology bases on Green 

and Amp infiltration for the forest and rangeland vegetation. Erosion and sediment transport to Gerber 

reservoir is apt to be minimal with mild Pacific storm intensities, gentle slopes, and depositional pluvial lake 

basins. Risk of erosion events should be low, except for the elevated risk from high intensity burns in closed 

forests, severe bank erosion, or rapid snowmelt events. 

Hydrologic Conditions 

There is very limited information on the streamflow conditions in both of the watersheds. The best
 

hydrologic records are from the Gerber Reservoir inflow record (Figure 1-4). Annual reservoir inflow is
 

closely correlated with fall and winter precipitation. The highest monthly inflow volumes are typically
 

recorded following rain-on-snow events such as occurred in 1956 and 1964.
 

In order to fill the reservoir, almost all inflow is impounded from October through March. (Approximately 2 

cfs is released to prevent freezing of the dam.) However, during years with unusually high snowpack water is 

released for flood management purposes. Average monthly Gerber Reservoir inflows range from a high of 

17,000 acre-feet in March to a low of 211 acre-feet in August. The yearly average inflow is 57,000 acre-feet, 

from a drainage area of approximately 234 square miles. Flows in streams that contribute to Gerber 

Reservoir rise in response to mid-winter rain storms and spring snowmelt and then remain low from late 

spring through fall. Figure 1-5 shows data from USBR Klamath Basin Area Office, converted from average 

monthly inflows (thousands of acre feet) to average instantaneous discharge (cubic feet per second). 

Figure 1-4: Average annual inflow into Gerber Reservoir. 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 4 
300 

Average Gerber Reservoir 

Inflows 250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Average Inflow into

Gerber Reservoir (cfs) 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Figure 1-5. Average inflow into Gerber Reservoir for water years 1926 through 2000. 

Table 1-1 shows a more detailed explanation of inflow into Gerber Reservoir. This streamflow pattern, in 

combination with the pattern of reservoir releases, accounts for the annual cycle of rising and falling water 

surface elevations in the reservoir (See Figure 1-5. Data from USBR Klamath Basin Area Office). 

Table 1-1: Inflow into Gerber Reservoir (in Thousands of Acre Feet) 

Month Average Inflow Maximum Inflow (Year) Minimum Inflow (Year) 

October 0.53 13.90 (1969) 0.00 (1936, 1997, 1999) 

November 1.60 13.40 (1981) 0.00 (1936) 

December 4.79 46.23 (1964) 0.03 (1931, 1989) 

January 5.13 36.60 (1970) 0.00 (1985) 

February 8.83 51.50 (1985) 0.07 (1932) 

March 17.07 64.28 (1993) 0.57 (1992) 

April 13.38 68.95 (1952) 0.16 (1931) 

May 3.69 28.30 (1998) 0.01 (1991) 

June 1.12 9.34 (1998) 0.00 (1999, 2000) 

July 0.46 4.51 (1986) 0.00 (Many) 

August 0.21 1.14 (1976) 0.00 (Many) 

September 0.24 2.10 (1980) 0.00 (Many) 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 5
01-Oct-89 

01-Oct-90 

01-Oct-91 

30-Sep-92 

30-Sep-93 

30-Sep-94 

30-Sep-95 

29-Sep-96 

29-Sep-97 

29-Sep-98 

29-Sep-99 

28-Sep-00 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Figure 1-6. Example of annual cycles of surface elevations in Gerber Reservoir. 

4790 

4800 

4810 

4820 

4830 

4840 

Gerber Reservoir

Elevation (feet) 

Date 

Stream Channels 

There are hundreds of miles of streams in the analysis area. These streams exhibit great variability in flow 

patterns, channel form, and resource values and concerns. A large proportion of the drainage network is 

comprised of small streams that are ephemeral or intermittent. Even in the larger streams, perennial flow is 

often due to springs (or reservoir operations). Streams in the area flow though rocky canyons, narrow 

meadows, or wide wet meadows, and the shapes of stream channels vary as a result. Values associated with 

streams include riparian areas, water quality, and fish and aquatic habitat. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Riparian areas are wetland ecosystems that have a high water table because of proximity to areas that have 

an aquatic ecosystem or subsurface water. Riparian ecosystems generally occur as an ecotone between 

aquatic and upland ecosystems, but they have distinct vegetative and soil characteristics. Riparian areas are 

uniquely characterized by high diversity, density, and productivity of species. The vegetation in riparian 

areas provides shade and traps sediment before it reaches stream channels, thus helping to maintain a supply 

of cool, clean water. 

Wetlands and riparian areas are deposition lands. They have characteristic fluvial deposits, soil biology and 

vegetation associated with seasonal flooding and saturation (Leopold et al, 1964, Mitsch and Gosselink, 

1993, Weixelman et al., 1999). Wetlands habitats and their riparian extensions along stream and lake 

margins are shaped by stream flow patterns and sediment supply. In turn, vegetation roughness, affects 

sediment retention and fluvial landforms. Riparian habitats are shaped by dynamic feedback mechanism 

between sediment deposited and sediment eroded. If the sediment supply in and out is balanced, then the 

landforms shaped by a stream are “at grade.” At grade, deposition is on bars and sediment removal is from 

meander cut banks. There is also sequential accumulation of finer “silts” over the coarser bar “gravels” for a 

two-tier coarse bed and fine bank deposits (Leopold et al., 1964). Riparian and wetland habitats in the 

Gerber/Willow Valley area show the influences of a semiarid climate, resistant bedrock, low relief, and clay 

soils. 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 6 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

Parameters for this analysis were chosen based their importance as potential limiting factors for the species 

of concern (namely redband trout and Klamath sucker species) in the watershed. Redband trout was selected 

because it has the most stringent water quality, habitat complexity, and substrate requirements of the fish in 

the Gerber/ Willow Valley analysis area. Shortnose suckers were chosen because of the important 

management implications related to Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. 

Selected Habitat Parameters include: 

- Fish passage and distribution 

- Stream temperature 

- Spawning habitat 

- Habitat complexity (amount of large woody debris and number of pools per mile) 

- Exotic Species distribution and abundance 

Shortnose Suckers and Klamath Largescale suckers 

The shortnose and Lost River suckers were listed as endangered in 1988 under the Endangered Species Act 

(USDI-FWS. 1988). Both species inhabit lakes and streams in the Klamath Basin and were once abundant 

in the Lost River watershed, Upper Klamath Lake, and its tributaries. Gerber Reservoir and its watershed is 

identified as unit 6 in the proposed critical habitat for shortnose sucker and is the only major habitat area 

inhabited by shortnose suckers but not Lost River suckers (USDI-FWS. 1994). Proposed critical habitat 

includes the waters of Gerber Reservoir below the high water line and a large portion of the Ben Hall, 

Barnes, Barnes Valley, Pitchlog, and Wildhorse Creek watersheds. In addition, juvenile suckers have been 

found in Long Branch Creek, and Lapham Creek a tributary of Barnes Valley Creek on Forest Service 

administered lands (USDI-FWS. 1995) 

Klamath Redband trout 

Redband trout, a state sensitive species in the Lost River drainage, are limited to a few small, scattered 

populations that are largely limited by restricted habitats (ODFW 1997). Perennial streams interrupted by 

dry reaches above Gerber Reservoir support spawning populations that rear in the reservoir. Cold water, 

spring-fed tributaries provide some refugial habitat during dry months. Miller Creek, downstream from 

Gerber Reservoir periodically supports a population of redband trout. 

II. Vegetation 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 7
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 1-2 below provides a rough estimate (derived from ISODATA classification of satellite imagery) of the 

number of acres by plant community for each subwatershed. 

Table 1-2: Acres of Plant Communities by Subwatershed. 

Sub Watershed Riparian Shrub Grass Juniper Conifer Pine Regen* Total 

Ben Hall Creek 149 950 185 504 529 6571 2224 11,112 

Buckmaster Creek 217 376 152 339 485 3227 704 5500 

West Gerber Frontal 1588 5348 20 4418 469 3730 133 15,706 

Long Branch Creek 377 5542 71 2554 916 4784 677 14,921 

East Gerber Frontal 229 5086 53 4452 4813 4247 367 19,247 

Barnes Valley Creek 1956 9724 343 5628 778 9913 0 28,342 

Pitch Log Creek 114 6853 121 2406 515 4882 0 14,891 

Rock Creek 919 10,989 111 11,001 692 7920 0 31,632 

Horse Canyon Creek 339 2927 698 1021 1969 7579 3208 17,741 

Dry Prairie 720 10,174 37 4236 364 5229 216 20,976 

Miller Creek 2039 6351 220 14,048 139 3410 37 26,244 

Lorella 0 180 0 2212 0 436 0 2828 

Antelope Creek 907 10,518 124 11,951 208 3308 0 27,016 

Woolen Canyon 14 2000 0 6611 0 65 0 8690 

Willow Valley Reservoir 38 3338 6 13,089 0 60 6 16,537 

Upper Lost River Frontal 64 5570 53 9416 23 1485 0 16,611 

Total in Analysis Area 9670 85,926 2194 93,886 11,900 66,846 7572 277,994 

(*Reneration of conifers) 

Forested Uplands 

Forest Vegetation (including Juniper) covers approximately 176,500 acres in the Gerber/Willow Valley WA 

area, or 63% of the total area. The major forest community types are ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, 

lodgepole pine, and western juniper woodlands. (Juniper woodlands are further split into “natural” stands, 

where they would occur under natural conditions with periodic fire, and “invasive” stands, which have 

expanded from natural sites due to the exclusion of natural fire). These forest community types are shown 

on Map 1.3 (Appendix E). Table 1-3 below summarizes these types by landowner. 

Table 1-3. Forest Community Type Acreage by Landowner. 

Landowner Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer Juniper Total Forest Land 

BLM 12,445 778 53,892 67,115 

Fremont National Forest 29,396 3,531 12,243 45,170 

Modoc National Forest 2,013 30 17,107 19,150 

State of Oregon 797 196 46 1,039 

Private 22,555 4,895 11,368 39,818 

Total 67,206 9,429 94,655 172,292 

Non-Forested Uplands 

BLM Administered Lands 

The non-forested upland vegetation in the analysis area is dominated by western juniper, low sagebrush, 

bitterbrush, mountain big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, single spike oatgrass, and a plethora of other shrubs, 

grasses, and forbs. During the 1997 and 1998 field seasons, an Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 8 
 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

completed for the Gerber Block. This inventory classified the BLM lands (and most of the intermingled 

private) into an array of ecologically distinct vegetation communities. Over 110,500 acres of vegetation 

were classified during the ESI. On the BLM administered lands in the analysis area, there are approximately 

83,500 acres of non-forested vegetation identified and classified. Non-forested, as defined in this section 

includes juniper potential vegetation types and will be addressed in this portion of the analysis throughout 

this document. Also classified were an additional 27,000 acres within several ponderosa pine ecological 

types. (The Forested Uplands section throughout this analysis will address pine sites.) The following Table 

1-4 is a condensed summary of the ESI based vegetation information for BLM lands; more complete 

information is found in Steps 3, 4, and 5: 

Table 1-4. Condensed summary of the ESI based vegetation information for BLM lands. 

Vegetation Type (# of distinct ecological sites included) Acres Percent of surveyed area 

Pine vegetation sites (3) 27,102 24.5% 

Juniper vegetation sites (4) 45,342 41.0% 

Big sagebrush sites (3) 1,909 1.7% 

Low sagebrush sites (4) 32,361 29.3% 

Mesic sites (3) 2,962 2.7% 

Miscellaneous sites (3) 848 0.8% 

USFS Administered Lands 

Modoc National Forest - For the limited amount of Modoc NF lands in the analysis area, there is no 

vegetation information available that is specific only to the analysis area. There is, however, vegetation 

information for the two allotments that extend into the analysis area, but it is not possible to break out the 

information for only this watershed analysis area. The vegetation types are analogous to the BLM and 

Fremont NF lands listed above. See the Modoc NF portion Step 3 for more information on vegetation that is 

available. 

Fremont National Forest - Most of the Fremont NF vegetation types are equivalent to the ecological sites 

described on the BLM lands. The following table is a summary of the vegetation types found on the Fremont 

NF lands immediately adjacent to the Gerber Block and within the analysis area. 

Table 1-5. Non-forest Vegetation Types on the Fremont NF Adjacent to the Gerber Block 

ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION ACRES 

Juniper/Low Sagebrush/fescue 15,459 

Low Sagebrush/Fescue-Squirreltail 24,757 

Big Sagebrush/Bunchgrass 14 

Sagebrush 17 

Meadow (wet, moist, dry) 1517 

Water 572 

Rock 28 

Aspen 11 

Grasslands 38 

Alpine Low Sagebrush/Red Fescue 3 

Unknown 415 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 9
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

TOTAL 42,831 

Noxious Weeds 

(Refer to discussion in Step 3 – Current Conditions.) 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species 

(Refer to discussion in Step 3 – Current Conditions.) 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

The terrestrial wildlife species that inhabit the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds include many of the 

species that are typically associated with various grass, riparian, shrub, juniper, pine, and fir habitats within 

the transition zone between the east slope of the Cascades and the Great Basin ecoregions. Some of these 

species have state and/or federal listing of varying degrees. Others have relatively small populations since 

the watersheds lie on the edges of their natural range. Refer to Appendix A for a summarization the wildlife 

species that are known or thought to occur within the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

Species of Concern (SOC) 

Bald Eagle - (Threatened, Proposed for De-listing) - Bald eagle activity has been documented in the Gerber 

and Willow Valley Watersheds. There are currently seven active nest sites on USFS and BLM land. 

Fourteen historic nest sites have been documented in the watersheds. Bald eagles are typically seen foraging 

at Gerber reservoir, Willow Valley reservoir, Antelope reservoir, Upper Midway reservoir, Tull Lake, Miller 

creek, and Barnes Valley creek. In these areas, roosting sites usually consist of large live or dead conifers. 

American Peregrine Falcon - (R-6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List; recently De-listed from 

Endangered) - American peregrine falcons have been documented historically in the Gerber watershed. The 

Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds were surveyed for peregrine falcon nesting and roosting habitat in 

1999 in response to the de-listing decision. One site in the Miller creek canyon below Gerber dam received a 

high potential rating and another nearby site received a medium potential rating for nest sites. Peregrine 

falcons were seen in the Gerber watershed in 1999. 

Canada Lynx - (Federally Listed Threatened) - Canada lynx are federally listed as a threatened species in 

Oregon. This carnivore probably historically occurred in low numbers in the analysis area. Although 

localized prey base populations are likely healthy enough to support lynx, habitat type, condition, continuity, 

and overall prey base is not considered to be suitable for lynx. Therefore, Canada Lynx will not be discussed 

further in this document. Currently, formal carnivore surveys are being performed in the analysis area. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - The 

northwestern pond turtle is a federally designated Species of Concern (ONHP Feb. 2001). This aquatic turtle 

can be found in lakes, ponds, and along larger streams similar to those found in the analysis area. Currently 

in the Gerber watershed an inventory and population study of reptiles and amphibians is being conducted. 

Sightings of pond turtles have been documented in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed, mostly along the 

main access road leading to Gerber Reservoir. However there appears to be little potential for northwestern 

pond turtle habitat in the watersheds. There is no current evidence of successful reproduction. Primarily the 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 10 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

aquatic habitats would be near springs along major tributaries. Most of the streams in the watersheds are 

locked up as ice during the winter months and are completely dry in the summer providing very little 

sustained suitable habitat for this turtle species. 

Bats – Although bats are known to occur in the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds, formal surveys have 

not been completed. There are potentially nine bat species within the analysis area. The silver-haired bat, 

pallid bat, Yuma myotis, long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis are Federal Species of Concern and 

Bureau Tracking Species in Oregon (ONHP, 2001). Bats utilize structures, caves, snags and other suitable 

trees with cavities and/or loose bark for roosting and maternal colony sties. Suitable bat habitat is available 

to varying degrees within the analysis area. 

Great Gray Owl - (BLM Survey and Manage Species, State Sensitive Vulnerable in Oregon) - Some of the 

USFS land within the Gerber watershed has been incidentally surveyed for owls. There have been great gray 

owls detected in the eastern and northeastern parts of the watershed. The BLM portion has not been 

formally surveyed. Great grays have been known to prefer large live or dead trees for nesting and open areas 

for foraging. There is potential great gray owl habitat in both watersheds. 

Big Game 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) designates Management Units for big game. The 

Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds include portions of both the Klamath Falls and the Interstate 

Management Units. These areas are managed for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and pronghorn antelope. 

The area also contains populations of mountain lion and black bear. All hunting is by permit or by quota 

system, with the exception of the general eastern Oregon black bear season and the first season Rocky 

Mountain elk general hunt. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional Forest Habitats 

There are approximately 2258 acres of old-growth forest within the watersheds. This total includes areas 

dominated by ponderosa pine or considered mixed conifer forest. Old growth forest cover represents 

approximately 2.9% of the forested vegetation in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands within the 

watershed. Based on known changes on USFS land in old growth forest cover, it is assumed that Late/Old 

Successional (LOS) forest cover has declined since mid-century, and species composition has changed in 

pure ponderosa pine to a more mixed conifer forest. Little of this LOS forest cover is single-storied stands. 

In general, habitat for species associated with open, park-like single canopy LOS ponderosa pine stands has 

declined while multi-storied mixed conifer LOS habitats have increased. Within the last few decades, 

forested stands on the BLM portions of the watersheds have been managed for more LOS ponderosa pine 

characteristics. Other than the species discussed below, there are numerous wildlife species that utilize LOS 

forest habitats. 

Northern Goshawk - Five goshawk nest sites have been historically identified within the watershed. Suitable 

nesting habitat for goshawks currently exists within the present LOS ponderosa pine habitat as well as in 

older mixed coniferous forest habitat. Overall habitat suitability and availability has declined with the 

decreases in LOS forest cover, conversion of LOS forest cover to multi-storied habitats, and increases in 

understory vegetation. However, these accipiters have been known to use multi-storied stands containing 

adequate flight corridors. 

Pileated Woodpecker - There are no known active pileated woodpecker nest sites within the watersheds. 

However, these woodpeckers have been documented within the Gerber watershed. Suitable habitat exists 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 11
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

within mixed conifer LOS stands. Overall, habitat suitability has increased where conversion of LOS 

ponderosa pine forest cover to LOS mixed conifer habitats has occurred. 

American Marten - Recently, martens have been documented in the upper Gerber watershed. Other potential 

marten habitat exists in and adjacent to LOS forest habitat throughout the watershed. Both habitat 

availability and continuity have declined within the last 50 years. Habitat suitability however, may have 

increased in patches of LOS forest habitat. 

Black-backed/white-headed woodpecker - Black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers have been formally 

documented within the watersheds. Although these woodpeckers are most commonly associated with LOS 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats, suitable habitat also exists within forest stands where insect 

activity has provided foraging opportunity and snag numbers are adequate. Availability, continuity, and 

suitability of habitat in some ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats have declined over the past 50 years, 

while availability and suitability have increased in some areas with increases in LOS forest cover. 

LOS Landbirds - The golden-crowned kinglet, olive-sided flycatcher, pine siskin, pygmy nuthatch and 

Wlliamson’s sapsucker have all been documented within the watersheds. They are known to prefer mature 

forest stands typical of LOS habitat for roosting, nesting and foraging (Partners-in-flight, 1998). 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat 

The Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds contain many thousands of acres of sagebrush steppe habitat. A 

large percentage of this habitat type in dominated by low sagebrush, where as a small percentage is 

dominated by big sagebrush. Other components include antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, grasses 

and an increasing amount of western juniper. Some terrestrial species of wildlife in the analysis area are 

considered sagebrush obligates, while others utilize these habitats only during certain times of the year. 

Western Sage Grouse - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Western sage 

grouse historically inhabited suitable areas of the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds. There are seven 

historic breeding areas or leks within the watersheds. None of these leks are currently considered occupied. 

Suitable habitat for sage grouse is found where relatively large, open areas of low and/or big sagebrush and 

wet meadows/ephemeral lakes occur. 

Pygmy Rabbit - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Although the 

watersheds have not been extensively surveyed for pygmy rabbits to this date, it is likely that these rabbits 

occur within the analysis area. They have recently been documented outside the watersheds to the west on 

Bryant Mountain. Currently, plans to conduct pygmy rabbit surveys in the analysis area are being developed. 

Suitable habitat is thought to consist of big sagebrush dominated areas and associated deeper, relatively 

looser soil than adjacent areas. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat 

Approximately 9670 acres of riparian and wet meadow habitat exists within the watersheds. Aspen stands 

tend to be relatively small and scattered throughout the analysis area where conditions are suitable. Aspen 

distribution is generally restricted to moist/wet sites associated with riparian areas, rock outcrops or 

seasonally wet areas. These stands seem to be tied to specific sites within other plant communities where 

moisture is sufficient and in drainages, riparian zones or depressions. Other than the species discussed 

below, there are numerous wildlife species in the analysis area that utilize aspen/riparian habitats exclusively 

or periodically during the year. 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 12 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Red-naped/Red-breasted sapsucker - The red-naped and red-breasted sapsucker have not been formally 

surveyed for, but both have been documented within the analysis area. The preferred habitat of these birds 

(especially the red-naped) for foraging and nesting is LOS aspen stands. These types of aspen stands are 

distributed throughout the watershed, but in relatively small patches. 

American Beaver - Evidence of beaver activity is present within the watersheds, though little distinction 

between historic and current activity has been made. Beavers flourish in riparian habitat along permanent 

waterways with a substantial aspen, willow, alder and/or cottonwood component. They have been known to 

use other woody vegetation for food and building materials when their preferred trees/shrubs are not 

available. Historically, beavers likely existed in certain parts of the analysis area. 

Willow Flycatcher - The Willow Flycatcher has been formally documented within the analysis area. As its 

name implies, this bird is found in riparian areas typically with a healthy willow component. It forages 

mainly on insects and nests in shrubs and trees characteristic of riparian habitat. Suitable habitat exists in 

riparian areas located along most of the tributaries of Gerber and Willow Valley reservoir. 

Other Terrestrial Species 

Other terrestrial wildlife common to the Great Basin and east side of the Cascades are found in the analysis 

area. Bobcats, coyotes, rabbits, porcupines, red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, prairie falcons, ravens, kestrels, 

great-horned owls, amphibians, reptiles, neotropical landbirds, primary and secondary cavity nesters, and 

numerous other raptors, birds, and small mammals are all present within the watersheds. (See Appendix A.) 

IV. Human Uses 

Timber 

(Refer to discussion in Step 3 – Current Conditions.) 

Grazing 

BLM Administered Lands 

Within the Gerber Block, the total maximum number of cattle permitted is 2300 to 2400 head with an 

average season of use of about 3 months, though the latter varies by allotment from a few weeks to almost 5 

months. The area is allocated into 18 different allotments with 16 different grazing permit holders. There is 

a total of 7,170 AUMs currently permitted in the analysis area, which is slightly more than half of the KFRA 

total. 

USFS Administered Lands 

Fremont National Forest - There are nine Forest Service allotments lying adjacent to the “Gerber Block” on 

the west, north, and east sides. Seven of these allotments are administered by the Bly Ranger District and 2 

by the Lakeview Ranger District. These allotments have varying seasons-of-use, but are within the range of 

6/1 to 9/30. The numbers of livestock (cattle) can range from 11 head to over 500 pair depending on the 

allotment. 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 13
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Modoc National Forest - There are two Forest Service allotments of which small portions lie within the 

analysis area. The Clear Lake allotment is currently permitted for 750 head (cow/calf pairs) from 4/16-10/ 

15. For the Warm Springs allotment, 350 cattle are permitted with the grazing season varying by year 

depending on the grazing plan, though it generally amounts to approximately 1300 animal unit months 

beginning 5/1 and ending 10/15. More specific information for the grazing use of all these lands is found in 

Step 3: Human Uses - Grazing. 

Recreation 

Within the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed area are a variety of BLM developed campgrounds, more 

primitive campsites, and day use areas (no recreation sites are located within Forest Service lands). The 

two main Gerber campgrounds, located at Gerber Reservoir, contain approximately 45 campsites, with 

developed day use areas available for fishing, boating and picnicking. A total of eight primitive campsites 

(hunter camps) are scattered about the watershed (Gerber Potholes, Stan H. Spring, Miller Creek, Pitchlog 

Creek, Wildhorse, Basin Camp, Upper Midway and Rock Creek). Two primitive day use areas are located 

on Gerber Reservoir at Frog Camp (east of Gerber dam) and at Barnes Valley Creek boat ramp. A fully 

developed day use area with boat ramp is located at Willow Valley Reservoir.A number of smaller reservoirs 

in the watershed provide a variety of wildlife and waterfowl habitat. Approximately seven of these 

reservoirs are signed on the ground and mapped in the Gerber Watchable Wildlife brochure, a driving tour. 

In addition, the watershed offers a variety of reservoirs that are stocked by Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

for anglers (Gerber reservoir is not stocked due to concerns about impacts to endangered suckers). These 

reservoirs, along with other areas within the watershed, receive dispersed recreation use, primarily during the 

summer and fall months. 

Cultural Resources 

A brief examination of historical and research literature and oral histories indicate that humans have
 

inhabited the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed area for thousands of years and the evidence of their
 

occupation can be found throughout the landscape. The area is rich in both prehistoric (pre-1875) and
 

historical archaeological material.
 

Prehistorically, the Modoc tribe inhabited the watershed analysis area (Figure 1-7). They, along with the
 

Klamath and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians, ceded the lands in and around the watershed to the United
 

States in the Klamath Lake Treaty of 1864. Article I of the Klamath Lake Treaty established the Klamath
 

Reservation.
 

In 1864, the reservation encompassed about 1.1 million acres. Identification of survey errors reduced the
 

reservation to 862,622 acres by 1954. At this time, Congress passed the Termination Act (25 USCS-564)
 

which suspended the Tribe’s federal status, treaty rights, and reservation. Much of the reservation became
 

the Winema National Forest and Klamath Wildlife Preserve in 1961 (Zucker et al. 1983).
 

However, termination did not end the Tribe’s hunting, gathering, and fishing rights within the former 

reservation boundary (Final Consent Decree: Kimball v. Callahan, et al., civ.73-155 United States District 

Court for the District of Oregon, 1981; Zucker et al. 1983). Only 1025 acres of the Gerber/Willow Valley 

watershed analysis area lies within the former reservation lands (Figure 1-8). Under the Consent Decree the 

Klamath Tribes are allowed to hunt, fish, and gather without federal regulation. Lands outside of the 

reservation established by the 1864 treaty were exempt from the consent decree, thus treaty rights were not 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 14 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

re-established in these areas. The Klamath Tribes federal status was restored in 1986 by an Act of Congress 

(Public Law 99-389). 

Figure 1-7. Modoc Tribal Territory (from Ray 1963). 

A small portion on the northern edge of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed (see Figure 1-8) lies within the 

“Area of Cultural Influence” of the Klamath Tribes (also referred to as “area Impacting the Tribes’ Treaty 

Rights”) as defined by the February 15, 1999 Memorandum of Agreement between the Klamath Tribes and 

the Fremont U.S. National Forest. The United States has a trust responsibility to protect the Klamath Tribes’ 

treaty rights. Development and implementation of management activities within the former reservation lands 

has the potential to affect treaty rights. 

Euro-Americans began to settle the area in 1875 (Beckham 2000:19, 26-29). The historic economy revolved 

around livestock grazing, thus the area was developed for ranching. The first grazing district in Oregon and 

the United States was established in the Gerber/Willow Valley area in 1934, under the 1933 Taylor Grazing 

Act. Major changes to the landscape occurred when the Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Gerber Dam 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 15
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

on Miller Creek in 1925 for irrigation water storage, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) built roads, 

stock ponds, and fences in the 1930s. 

Figure 1-8. Map of former Klamath Reservation in relation to Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed. 

10 0 10 20 Miles 

Land Ownership

BLM 

BLM 

FS 

State 

State 

Reservation Boundary at Termination (1954) 

Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed 

Reservation/Watershed Analysis Overlap 

Oregon/California Stateline N 

W E

S 

 Characterization of the Watershed, Step 1 16 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 2. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND KEY QUESTIONS
 

Step 2 identifies the issues and corresponding key questions developed by the analysis team. This 

identification of key questions helps focus the analysis on the elements of the ecosystem that are most 

relevant to the management objectives, human values, or resource conditions within the watershed. During 

the analysis process some issues and key questions have been refined and some newly developed. 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Upland/Soils 

Issues: 

A. Altered soil condition from accelerated erosion, compaction, road surfacing, change in the flood and fire 

regimes and soil mixing have caused loss of productivity, increased stream embeddedness, accelerated 

reservoir siltation, and reduction in water quality and soil water holding capacity. 

B. Alteration of sediment supply and conveyance has increased the amount of fine sediment decreasing the 

quality of aquatic habitat. 

Key Questions: 

1. What past and current management activities and uses (road and off-road travel, grazing, timber harvest, 

fire exclusion) have altered soil conditions (productivity, erosion rates, bulk density, type, quantity)? 

2. Are there sensitive/at risk soils in the watershed? 

3. Have land management activities changed the amount, size and movement of sediment in the watershed? 

Hydrology 

Issues: 

A. Alterations in the watershed have affected flow regimes and water movement, which has affected the 

stream channel, aquatic and riparian habitats, site productivity, and species viability. 

B. Diversions and dams of all sizes have altered the amount and timing of flows in streams, the amount and 

size of sediment and channel shape and capacity. 

Key Questions: 

1. What land management activities may be affecting runoff and sediment yield from uplands in the analysis 

area? 

Stream Channels 

Issues: 

A. Stream channel condition has been degraded, resulting in altered flooding regimes, channel instability, 

and loss of aquatic habitat. 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2 17
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Key Questions: 

!. Have land management activities changed the amount, type and duration of fluvial erosion in the
 

watershed?
 

2. Have management activities altered channel shape and function? 

Riparian Vegetation 

Issues: 

A. Past and current management activities have altered vegetation directly, and have altered natural
 

processes that change vegetation over time, decreasing sustainability and health of the vegetation.
 

Key Questions: 

1. Have conditions and trends of the various rangeland vegetation communities (upland and wetland/ 

riparian) passed a threshold so that they are not functional and/or adequately supporting watershed health? 

2. Have management activities altered riparian and wetland function? 

Water Quality 

Issues: 

A. Water quality has been altered and does not support the beneficial uses of the streams. 

Key Questions: 

1. Which water quality parameters does land management have the ability to affect? 

2. Have land management altered those parameters such that they no longer support aquatic and riparian 

species? 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

Issues: 

A. Alterations in the watershed have affected flow regimes and water movement, which has affected the
 

stream channel, aquatic and riparian habitats, site productivity, and species viability.
 

B. Wildlife, aquatic, and ecosystem function may have been altered from that which occurred historically
 

due to past and on-going management activities.
 

Key Questions: 

1. How are riparian condition and trends affecting stream and aquatic habitat function? 

2. What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are important in the
 

watershed?
 

3. What are the current habitat conditions and trends for these species of concern? 

4. What are the current habitat conditions and what affect has this had on species composition and
 

distribution within the watershed?
 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2 18 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

5. What past and on-going human activities are having an affect on wildlife populations and distributions, 

either positive or negative? 

6. Do any invasive and/or non-native plant or animal species occur within the watershed? Have these 

species altered the historic condition and functions of wildlife habitats? 

7. Do any rare or unique habitat features and/or species occur within the watershed that may require special 

management and/or legal obligations? 

8. What types of restoration activities are needed to restore/ maintain habitat conditions? 

9. What state, tribal and public needs occur within the watershed and affect wildlife management trends? 

10. What were the historical relative abundance and distribution of species of concern and the historical 

condition and distribution of habitats in the watershed? 

II. Vegetation 

Forested Uplands 

Issues: 

A. Fire as a key disturbance process in the watershed has been excluded by management actions and has 

resulted in altered forest, range, and riparian vegetation. 

B. Past management activities have altered forest vegetation directly, and have altered natural processes that 

change vegetation over time, and decreased sustainability and health of the vegetation. 

Key Questions: 

1. How has the change in the fire regime in these ecosystems altered forest, range, and riparian vegetation? 

2. What changes have occurred to the forest vegetation and what caused them? 

Non-Forested Uplands 

Issues: 

A. Past and current management activities have altered vegetation directly, and have altered natural 

processes that change vegetation over time, decreasing sustainability and health of the vegetation. 

Key Questions: 

1. How have landscape patterns of plant communities and seral stages changed over time? 

2. What caused the changes in landscape patterns of plant communities and seral stages? What effect have 

the changes had on the watershed’s ability to withstand catastrophic events? 

3. Is current livestock management (numbers, intensity, season-of-use, range improvements, etc.) appropriate 

and consistent with long-term resource sustainability? If not, what management changes are needed to meet 

- or make significant progress towards meeting - sustainability goals? 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2 19
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Noxious Weeds 

Issues: 

A. Past and current management activities have altered vegetation directly, and have altered natural 

processes that change vegetation over time, decreasing sustainability and health of the vegetation. 

Key Questions: 

1. Are current management activities contributing to an increase in range and abundance of noxious weeds? 

2. Are current noxious weed management efforts effective in limiting the spread and/or reducing the 

abundance of noxious weed species? 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species 

Issues: 

A. Past and current management activities have altered vegetation directly, and have altered natural 

processes that change vegetation over time, decreasing sustainability and health of the vegetation. 

Key Questions: 

1. What rare or designated sensitive plants occur in the watershed? 

2. Has land management changed the amount and distribution of sensitive plant species? 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

Issues: 

A. Wildlife habitat and species composition has been altered due to past and current management. 

Key Questions: 

1. What differences exist between historic and current habitat conditions and what affect has this had on 

wildlife species composition and their habitats? 

2. What are the key wildlife species, their habitat requirements and habitat distribution in the watershed? 

3. What past and on-going management activities are having an affect on wildlife populations and 

distributions, either positive or negative? 

4. Do any invasive and/or non-native plant or animal species occur within the watershed? Have these 

species altered the historic condition and functions of wildlife habitats? 

5. What state, tribal and public needs occur within the watershed and affect wildlife management trends? 

6. Do any rare or unique habitat features and/or species occur within the watershed that may require special 

management and/or legal obligations? 

7. What restoration activities are needed to restore/maintain habitat conditions? 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2 20 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

IV. Human Uses 

Issues: 

A. Cultural and heritage resources are at risk of damage and/or loss. 

B. Prior to Euroamerican settlement, lands within the watershed were generally occupied or used by the 

Modoc, now part of the Klamath Tribes. After the Modoc War (1873), Native American use of the watershed 

decreased drastically. 

C. Federal employees often lack the historical perspective, understanding, or appreciation of the watershed 

that many private landowners obtain through years of living, working, and recreating in the area. 

D. Past and current management activities have altered vegetation directly, and have altered natural 

processes that change vegetation over time, decreasing sustainability and health of the vegetation. 

E. In addition to major historic uses such as grazing, water storage, and logging, public lands within the 

watershed will be increasingly valued for recreation, open space, and other uses. 

Key Questions: 

1. What is the general nature and extent of cultural resources located within the watershed? 

2. What types of archeological sites are at greater risk and suffering significant and negative impacts from 

looting, vandalism, recreation, grazing, or other uses? 

3. What kinds of relationships/ties remain between the land and the Klamath Tribes? 

4. Are Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), root gathering or areas of critical tribal concern located 

within the watershed boundaries? 

5. What mechanisms exist to increase tribal participation in watershed stewardship? 

6. What have been major land uses and changes since historic settlement? 

7. What roles have private landowners, the Forest Service, BLM, and other agencies played in the history of 

the Gerber/Willow Valley landscape? 

8. Is current livestock management (numbers, intensity, season-of-use, range improvements, etc.) appropriate 

and consistent with long-term resource sustainability? If not, what management changes are needed to meet 

- or make significant progress towards meeting - sustainability goals? 

9. Will increased recreation and other uses alter the relatively rustic character of the landscape? 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2 21
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

 Identification of Issues and Key Questions, Step 2
 22 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 3. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS
 

The purpose of this step is to present detailed information that deals with the current range, distribution and 

condition of the relevant ecosystem elements within the watershed. These elements were initially discussed 

in a less detailed manner in Step 1 “Characterization”. Current condition generally reflects information that 

has been gathered within the past five years. 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Uplands/Soils 

Erosion Estimates 

Upland erosion was estimated with WEPP (2001) technology for the forest and rangeland vegetation in Table 

3-1. For erosion estimates, ecoregion map units 9j and 9g were divided by slope and vegetation into 4 

erosion areas: 1) Low gradient rangeland; 2) Rims and moderate gradient rangeland; 3) Low to moderate 

gradient forest; and 4) Moderate gradient forest. The soils commonly have cobble and gravel clay loam 

surface layers. Two climate stations, Lava Bed National Monument, California and Sprague River, Oregon, 

which bracket the Gerber’s catchments, were employed. A fifty-year simulation period generated 3640 

storms events. Most of the precipitation fell as snowfall from mild Pacific storms, yet most of the erosion was 

from rainfall events. The WEPP (2001) simulated values are consistent with erosion estimates bases on 

ecological conditions of rangelands in late seral and forest in mid seral condition in the Gerber area (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2002). 

Table 3-1. Erosion estimates for the Gerber drainage (Water Erosion Prediction Project technology) 

Tons per acre 

Landscape 

Low Gradient Rangeland

Rims/Moderate Gradient Rangeland

Low to Moderate Gradient Forest 

Moderate Gradient Forest 

Current 

0.00

 0.00 

1.23 to 0.02 with fire 

1.91 to 0.04 with fire 

Ground Fire 

 0.01

0.02

0.02(Open stands)

0.04(Open stands)

Crown Fire 

0.69* 

1.23* 

1.23** 

1.91 

(Based on Green and Amp infiltration for four select rangeland and forestland habitats topography and surface soil 

with 50-year climate simulations.) 

*Closed Juniper canopy 

**Over-stocked stands 

Erosion in Low Gradient Rangeland is apt to be minor with a WEPP estimate of 0.00 tons per acre of 

sediment transport from the soil profile. Only 3 rainfall runoff and erosion events occurred. With simulated 

ground fire, erosion increased slightly to 0.01 tons per acre with 11 rainfall and 4 snowmelt runoff events. 

Yet if the Low Gradient Rangeland develops into Juniper woodland and burns as crown fires, the erosion 

yield jumps to 0.69 tons per acre with 95 rainfall and 70 snowmelt runoff events. So under current conditions 

the erosion risk is low, but conversion to woodland yields a moderate erosion risk. 

Erosion in the Rims and Moderate Gradient Rangeland, for example Goodlow Rim, is apt to be minor with a 

WEPP estimate of 0.00 tons per acre sediment transport from the soil profile. With ground fire erosion yields 

0.02 tons per acre sediment transported from the soil with 11 rainfall and 4 snowmelt runoff events from 

3640 storms. If the rangeland develops into Juniper woodland then burns as crown fires, the erosion yield 

jumps to 1.23 tons per acre with 96 rainfalls and 70 snowmelt runoff events. Under current conditions the 

erosion risk is low, yet conversion to woodland in the Rims and Moderate Gradient Rangeland yields a 

moderate erosion risk. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 23
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

A moderate erosion risk exists in the Low to Moderate Gradient Forest with the current overstocked forest 

condition. For example Goodlow and Horsefly Mountain in current overstocked condition have a WEPP 

estimate of 1.23 tons per acre. With well-developed forest openings, erosion drops to a WEPP estimate of 

0.02 tons per acre, consistent with the historic Ponderosa pine frequent light surface fire regime (Agee, 

1993). A moderate to high erosion risk exist in Moderate Gradient Forest, for example Yainax Mountain, is 

apt to yield a high WEPP estimate of 1.91 tons per acre sediment transport. Crown fires that drive this 

erosion risk are likely with frequent fire starts in the area (Fremont Forest Fire Staff, 2002) and overstocked 

forest. Erosion risk is reduced where forest openings support a well-developed grassy understory. 

Compaction Estimates 

Compaction effects associated with mechanized cultivation was identified as an issue by the 1930’s in 

croplands. And conservation practices for compaction recovery that began to be identified in the 1940’s have 

been tested and have gained broad acceptance in croplands (Lamarca, 1996). Compaction is a recent issue in 

forest environs, although many recovery processes learned in croplands can be applied in wildlands. 

Initial forest cultivation studies focused on loamy texture soils where mechanized cultivation was common. 

In a comparative study Gomez et al (2002) examined Ponderosa pine seedling and sapling growth in three 

California soils of contrasting textures: clayey, loamy, and sandy loam. This study expands the geographic 

scope with three soil textures and the study period to 3 to 8 years of forest growth from a typical 2-year 

research timeline. With forest cultivation soil bulk density increased the greatest in the loamy soil at 30 

percent and the least in the sandy loam texture soil at 23 percent. By tracking growth and plant-available 

water in the sites Gomez et al., (2002) identified compaction of the sandy loam soil extended the season of 

plant-available water. Overall compaction effects on pine seedlings and sapling growth were detrimental in 

the clayey soil, insignificant or no effect in the loamy soil, and beneficial in the sandy loam soil. 

Similarly in croplands, changes in bulk soil density corresponding to measurable reduction in crop growth 

were associated with the occurrence platy soil structure (Taylor, and Ashcroft, 1972, Veihmeyer, and 

Hendrickson, 1948). The distribution and depth of soil plates in traffic areas are consistent with the Proctor 

theory of compaction (Bowles 1979). In uniform soil materials such as roadbeds bulk soil density is a 

pragmatic measure of soil mechanical conditions. But most native soils have native variability in minerals, 

grain sizes, and humus. So bulk soil densities tend to be spatially variable, and field scale density effects on 

soil-plant-water relations are often presented with high levels of uncertainty (Survey Division Staff, 1993, 

Taylor, and Ashcroft, 1972). 

Soil spatial variability, soil variable in mineral matter or humus, is a basis for habitat richness and diversity. 

Native soil spatial variability presents sampling challenges, which can be addressed with stratified systematic 

sampling, rather than simple random sampling. (For example, transects stratified by a soil map unit and 

systematic samples 20 meters apart along a 400 meter transects in a cardinal direction.) At a sample point 

field scale, information may be evidence of equipment and/or evidence of growth limiting soil environs with 

compaction. Tallies of samples along transects with growth limiting platy structure (soil plates 5 to 10 cm 

thick, or soil plates thicker than 10 cm) can be used to estimate detrimental soil conditions. 

Fifteen percent increase in bulk density over twenty percent of the project area is the current definition of 

detrimental soil conditions for both the BLM and USFS – Pacific Northwest Region (RMP/EIS, 1995 and 

USFS, 1998). The current soil condition standards do not address potential recovery from compaction. 

Herbaceous stubble and its decay is a key soil-plant recovery process (Lamarca, 1996). Shrink-swell clay 

soils, which are common in Gerber, have a self-plowing recovery with wetting that improves the recovery 

rate from traffic or compaction. Shrink-swell recovery was not a part of Gomez’s et al (2002) findings, so 

the sites at Gerber are apt to recover more quickly from the effects of compaction. 

24 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Northwest of Gerber Reservoir there is an example of current compaction conditions in forested soils. The 

example is Mortar Coyote catchment area in the vicinity of Keno Springs and Goodlow Mountain which is 

dominated by Land Type 34A associated with the Winterim soil series (Kienzle, 1999, Wenzel, 1979). 

Rogger and Woodchopper soil series are also common. Moderately deep Rogger soil series occurs in Land 

Types 37A and 38. The deep Woodchopper soil series occurs in Land Type 37A and 35. The example 

catchment has shrink-swell clays with high shrink swell potential in the sub-soil layers from 18 to 40 inches. 

In the Mortar Coyote catchment area, a soil compaction study was conducted. Transects were run and 542 

plots were sampled, these samples follow a near normal distribution. The data was grouped into six 

condition classes that range between low, garden like soil conditions and high platy, compacted soil 

conditions. Based on this grouping, there are 14% unacceptable compaction condition measures as platy soil 

in the example catchment area. On a landscape basis with a data distribution estimate and a conservative 

high/low estimate, the findings show current compaction conditions due to forest management activities is 

14%, which is within the 20% guideline for soil resource conditions. 

The issue of soil health in Gerber is continuing to be investigated by quantifying disturbance levels. 

Concerns have been raised on the resource area about excessive soil compaction possibly occurring with 

repeated use of a mechanical harvester in a forest stand or juniper woodland over time. Use of a mechanical 

harvester/slashbuster results in greater areal (area of disturbance) ground disturbance since it is not confined 

to skid roads, although a mechanical harvester reportedly causes less soil compaction since it exerts less 

pounds per square inch of force/pressure than other ground-based harvesting machinery. Since use of a 

mechanical harvester is becoming more common and is the most economical choice for density-management 

treatment of forest stands and juniper woodlands, the resource area is measuring the areal extent of soil 

disturbance and changes in soil bulk density in representative ground disturbing projects to evaluate soil 

health. 

A representative area for soil compaction and areal disturbance monitoring was selected in the Willow Valley 

watershed in 2001 to collect baseline, pre-treatment soil data. The project selected is the Kilgore juniper/ 

fuels reduction treatment in the southern portion of the Gerber Block. Upon project completion, posttreatment soil bulk density samples will be collected, processed, and compared to the pre-treatment samples 

to determine if soil resources are being detrimentally impacted as per RMP and regional standards and 

guidelines for detrimental soil impacts. 

Infiltration 

Infiltration and infiltration recovery are complementary issues to compaction. Generally in sieved soil 

material infiltration varies with texture: sandy soils have higher rates than clays. However, soil structure and 

rooting networks have over-riding effects on infiltration (Lamarca, 1996, Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993, 

Taylor, and Ashcroft, 1972, Veihmeyer, and Hendrickson, 1948). Water recharge varies with understory 

forest conditions. Ecological site survey data (Soil Survey Staff, 2002) was used to locate sites on a condition 

gradient for a comparison of infiltration rate and condition of ground cover. A positive correlation between 

condition (grass cover) and infiltration rates in Pine Fescue sites was found. Infiltration varied from 7.7 ml/s 

in early mid to 8.2 ml/s in late conditions. 

Hydrology 

The processes of generating runoff and generating sediment yield are intimately related. The factors that 

determine runoff rates are similar to the factors that determine sediment yields, and the dominant hillslope 

erosion processes of sheet wash and rill/gully formation are mediated by water. For this discussion, runoff 

and sediment yield are discussed simultaneously, and, except where noted, those management actions that 

increase runoff are also considered to increase sediment yield. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 25
 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Semi-arid climates, such as found in the analysis area, foster high rates of runoff and erosion. (Langbein and 

Schumm, 1958, in Leopold et al., 1964). This is a consequence of precipitation rates that are not high enough 

to allow establishment of extensive ground cover but are sufficient to generate runoff. Hydrologic routing in 

semi-arid areas is commonly dominated by overland flow, that is, surface runoff generated as a result of low 

surface infiltration capacity rather than as a result of soil saturation (Knighton, 1984). 

In unaltered systems, in general, sediment yields are low from ponderosa pine forests and meadows, are 

moderate from sagebrush, and are high from juniper stands (Buckhouse and Gaither, 1982). In each of these 

types, runoff and sediment yield increase with decreasing condition class. The areas with the highest runoff 

potential are those that foster plant communities with a low proportion of perennial grasses, are currently in 

“poor” or “fair” ecological condition, and are associated with soils that have moderate to high runoff 

potentials. Within the analysis area, the ecological condition of many vegetation communities has been 

degraded by past land management actions and fire suppression. The resulting impacts to hydrologic 

processes will be discussed below. 

Range Management 

It is likely that livestock grazing has affected runoff and infiltration rates in the watersheds. Domestic 

livestock grazing has been shown to increase runoff and sediment yield. In one paired watershed study in 

Colorado, grazed areas had 30% more runoff and 45% more sediment yield than ungrazed areas. The central 

finding of this study was that runoff is directly related to the percentage of watershed area exposed as bare 

soil (Lusby, 1970). Due to differences in physiography and climate, the magnitude of anthropogenic runoff 

and sediment yield increases in the analysis area may be less than that in the Colorado study. 

The extent of bare ground in BLM-administered portions of the analysis area has been quantified from ESI 

data (Table 3-2). It is evident that bare ground is extensive within the major ecological types, regardless of 

ecological condition. 

Table 3-2. Percent bare ground observed during Ecological Site Inventory on BLM-administered land, 

by ecological type and condition class. 

Ecological 

Type 

Percent 

of ESI 

area 

Condition Class 

PNC Late Mid Early 

Average 

percent 

bare 

ground 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

percent 

bare 

ground 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

percent 

bare 

ground 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

percent 

bare 

ground 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Shrubby Loam 

16-20” 1% 68 

(55–75) 6 

PineMahoganyFescue 16-20” 

6% 15 1 54 

(33-68) 13 69 1 

Stony Claypan 

14-20” 10% 53 (37-68) 9 52 (25-70) 8 

Juniper 

Claypan 16­

20” 

24% 53 

(30-66) 14 53 

(31-73) 8 68 

(66-69) 2 

Juniper 

Claypan 12­

16” 

15% 47 

(35-66) 3 42 

(19-62) 5 57 

(44-73) 5 53 

(42-63) 2 

Shallow Stony 

10-20” 18% 63 

(56-73) 3 51 

(10-79) 22 48 

(40-55) 2 

Pine-SedgeFescue 16-24” 15% 45 

(15-62) 10 40 

(15-67) 9 

26 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Although similar information is not available for the National Forest system lands within the watershed, it is 

likely that they have not been affected to the same degree as BLM-administered lands. In general, higher 

elevations and greater precipitation may have allowed Fremont rangelands to withstand greater utilization 

stresses with less degradation of plant communities. For the most part, national forest rangelands benefited 

from earlier reductions in the number of permitted AUMs, resulting in more time for recovery. 

Juniper Encroachment 

As noted in the Vegetation, Non-Forested Upland section, the density and extent of western juniper has 

increased dramatically in the analysis area, partly as a result of fire suppression and grazing. What were once 

savanna-like stands of juniper mixed with sagebrush and/or perennial grasses now have much higher canopy 

closure and much lower understory cover. Additionally, juniper encroachment is occurring at lower 

elevations (generally less than 4800 feet) and at the dry edges of meadows. The increase in juniper has likely 

led to reduced infiltration rates and increased overland flow, as well as reduced water yield (these effects are 

discussed in more detail in the Watershed and Aquatics section of Step 5). 

Forest Management 

As discussed in the Vegetation, Forested Upland section, timber management occurs to varying degrees 

throughout the analysis area. Depending on their current condition, commercial forest stands may be 

contributing more or less water yield than would be expected under historic conditions. In those stands that 

are densely stocked, transpiration has increased, to the detriment of water yield. In those stands that have 

recently been harvested, transpiration has been reduced and the amount of water available to understory 

plants and streamflow has been increased. As discussed in the Soils section, increased herbaceous cover in 

forested areas is correlated with increased infiltration rates. Soil compaction during timber harvest can 

reduce infiltration locally. Compacted areas near hydrologic flow paths (roads, streams, etc.) may cause 

increased runoff. 

Removing trees and creating openings affects snow dynamics in various ways, depending on the size of 

openings. Small openings (about two to four acres in size, or about one to three tree heights across) can 

increase snow accumulation (by reducing canopy interception and influencing local wind patterns) and 

reduce rates of snow melt (by affecting radiation gains and losses) (Troendle 1982; Baker 1988). Larger 

openings do not induce increased snow accumulation and can result in more rapid snowmelt due to increased 

solar radiation and increased rain-on-snow potential (Kattelmann et al. 1983). Thinning has the same general 

effect as small openings, though the magnitude of potential increases in water yield are directly related to the 

amount of basal area removed (Troendle and King 1987). Past patch cuts and smaller regeneration units have 

probably increased snow accumulation, which would lead to delayed snow melt and increased streamflow 

during the later spring and early summer. 

Roads 

In general, the road network in the analysis area has increased runoff, increased peak flows, and decreased 

infiltration and soil water storage. These effects are roughly commensurate with road density (the length of 

roads per unit area). 

Although annual precipitation rates are fairly low, high intensity precipitation or snow melt events (especially 

those that occur in areas with impermeable soils) can cause runoff generation. Roads that channelize flow 

intercept this runoff and deliver it to streams at a faster rate than would occur naturally. Roads that are lower 

than the surrounding land surface can also cause gullies to form, since the road acts as a “base level” to which 

flow paths incise. 

Subwatershed road densities in the analysis area range between one and four miles per square mile ( See 

Table 3-3). In general, road densities (including all roads – open and closed) are lowest in the Upper Lost 

River watershed (Willow Valley) and the lower elevation portions of the Gerber watershed. This is primarily 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 27
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

a result of different land management activities (range management requires fewer roads than timber 

management) and the presence of large lakes and wetlands at low elevations. Despite these low road 

densities, there are numerous roads that parallel streams in the Willow Valley and Antelope subwatersheds. 

The relative magnitude of drainage network extension is particularly high in the Antelope and Willow Valley 

subwatersheds, partly as result of low natural drainage density. 

Table 3-3. Subwatershed road densities in the Gerber area. 

Road Flow Increase in Road- Road Road Subwatershed Area Road Density Surface Capture on Drainage Stream Impact Length Area1 Roads Network Length5 Crossings Index 

Name (sq mi) (miles) (miles/sq mi) (acres) (mi) (%) (#) 

Ben Hall2

 17.4 61.3 3.5 104.0 3.7 18 31 0.29 

Horse Canyon 27.8 97.0 3.5 164.6 3.8 13 57 0.53 

Buckmaster Creek 8.6 32.6 3.8 55.3 0.3 2 18 0.18 

Dry Prairie2

 33.3 69.6 2.1 118.1 13.4 49 31 0.17 

West Gerber Frontal 30.4 55.0 1.8 93.3 3.3 11 27 0.13 

Long Branch 23.4 50.8 2.2 86.2 3.1 10 44 0.25 

East Gerber Frontal 23.7 45.2 1.9 76.7 9.3 34 26 0.13 

Barnes Valley 44.8 102.6 2.3 174.1 7.1 10 91 0.55 

Miller2

 41.4 52.4 1.3 88.9 8.7 15 54 0.18 

Pitch Log 24.2 52.4 2.2 88.9 1.3 4 40 0.23 

Antelope 42.5 86.2 2.0 146.3 29.9 69 69 0.37 

Willow Valley Reservoir 26.9 24.3 0.9 41.2 9.6 48 20 0.05 

Rock3

 49.6 117.7 2.4 199.7 10.24 18 75 0.47 

Upper Lost River Frontal3

 26.1 29.9 1.1 50.7 5.04 14 14 0.04 

1

Assuming a 14 foot road width for all roads in the analysis area. 

2

 Some private lands within these subwatersheds were not included in the 2002 road inventory. 

3

The California portions of these subwatersheds were not included within the 2002 road inventory, and data has been 

supplemented with GTRN data when applicable. 4

Flow capture data available only for roads within Oregon. 

5

Calculated by comparing flow capture on roads to stream mileage. 

The subwatersheds with the highest road densities are in the northern portion of the analysis area. The Ben 

Hall, Horse Canyon, and Buckmaster subwatersheds all have road densities in excess of 3.5 miles per square 

mile. Relatively high road densities in these and other subwatersheds are at least partly a consequence of 

more intense forest management activities, which itself is a result of greater precipitation and deeper soils. 

These soils have relatively high infiltration rates (as discussed in the Uplands/Soils section), and road 

impacts are not strongly expressed at the local scale (i.e., gullies do not commonly occur at culvert outfalls). 

For this analysis, the degree to which roads supply runoff and sediment to streams is estimated using two 

methods: 

-Drainage network extension due to connections between road surfaces and perennial or intermittent 

channels is estimated using results of the 2002 BLM/USFS road inventory; and 

-Road Impact Index (RII), a qualitative measure of sediment delivery risk associated with road 

density and the number of stream crossings, calculated as:

 [RII = (acres of road / subwatershed area) x (number of stream crossings)]. 

28 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

As used in this analysis (as a relative measure of potential sediment delivery), the RII method is based on the 

following assumptions: 

-As a result of increased extent of exposed surfaces, potential sediment yield increases with increased 

road density; and 

-There is a high probability that sediment enters stream channels at road- stream crossings (Rosgen, 

1991). 

Diversions and Impoundments 

Major reservoirs, which were built as early as 1910 (the enlargement and regulation of storage capacity at 

Clear Lake), collect a large portion of total basin yield for the Gerber watershed and the Antelope and Willow 

Valley subwatersheds (Table 3-4). Numerous smaller reservoirs are scattered throughout the Gerber and 

Upper Lost River watersheds. Many of these occur in areas that once functioned as wetlands, and thus did not 

require extensive construction to meet irrigation needs. While these developments can affect watershed 

function, especially at small scales, their individual impacts are likely very small relative to those caused by 

the larger developments. 

Reservoir filling occurs from late fall through spring. Reservoir water levels vary widely between years and 

throughout a given year. Water levels are typically highest in late spring and lowest in autumn, and some 

reservoirs are frequently drained completely. 

Reservoirs in the headwaters of Barnes Valley and Long Branch Creeks are capable of storing approximately 

18 and 12 percent, respectively, of estimated average annual water yield from these subwatersheds. 

Reservoirs in the Upper Lost River watershed, especially Willow Valley Reservoir and those in the 

headwaters of Antelope and Rock Creeks, are likely capable of storing an equal or greater percentage of 

annual water yield, although the data necessary to estimate this is not currently available. 

Table 3-4. Initial dates of completion for select dams in the analysis area. 

Year Development Year Development 

1910 Clear Lake 1952 Bumpheads 

1919 Strawberry 1955 Round Valley 

1920 Antelope 1955 Grohs 

1920 Willow Valley Reservoir 1957 Dog 

1920 Wilson Lake 1958 Dog Hollow 

1924 Tull 1958 Upper Midway 

1925 Gerber Reservoir Pre-1960 Dry Prairie 

1936 Copeland 1960 Twenty-one 

1937 Little Squaw Flat 1961 Midway 

1937 Midway 1961 Timber Hill 

1945 Arkansas Reservoir 1968 Big Adobe 

1946 Kilgore 1983 Wild 

1948 Threemile 

With the exception of Gerber, Willow Valley, and Clear Lake, reservoirs in the analysis area are not designed 

to capture the entire volume of water that enters them or passes their intakes (even the large reservoirs spill 

excess inflow occasionally). The three large reservoirs tend to strongly influence downstream flow patterns 

over time scales ranging from daily to annually. Figure 3-1 illustrates actual Miller Creek flows (a 

combination of irrigation releases and spill) for water years 1998 and 2000 compared to approximate flows 

that would have occurred without the presence of Gerber Dam (an estimate based on daily changes in 

reservoir storage that does not account for evapotranspiration losses) based on data from USBR Klamath 

Basin Area Office. Generally, these dams increase summer baseflows, reduce or eliminate winter peak flows, 

and change the timing of peak flows. During the period December through March (the time when peak flows 

would naturally occur in Miller Creek), USBR data indicates that water in excess of irrigation flows was 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 29
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

released from Gerber Dam in 32 of the 75 years from 1926 to 2000. In the other 43 years, no flow in excess 

of winter minimum baseflows (approximately 2 cfs) was released. 

While the magnitude of flow alterations varies, it is apparent from USBR data and observations that Clear 

Lake and Willow Valley Reservoir have similar effects on flows in the Upper Lost River and the East Branch 

of the Lost River. 

Other on-stream impoundments and off-stream diversions tend to dampen, rather than eliminate, flood peaks. 

This effect is commensurate with the volume of the spring flood, water rights, and the conveyance capacity 

of intake mechanisms. Some reservoirs may be capable of capturing smaller flood peaks, such as those 

caused by high intensity precipitation events or melt of short-lived snowpacks. 

Impounded water is usually used for irrigation of pastures or hayfields. Irrigation releases usually occur from 

April to October. As a consequence of high rates of evapotranspiration from irrigated fields, return flows are 

likely much less than irrigation supply flows. Nonetheless, they do contribute an indeterminate volume of 

summer baseflow to streams, as does reservoir seepage and releases directly into stream channels. This is 

partly at the expense of receding flows that occur in spring as snow melt and subsurface flow reaches 

streams. Baseflow may increase in some downstream reaches at the same time baseflow is reduced in 

upstream reaches. It is unclear whether the magnitude of baseflow augmentation that occurs is greater or less 

than the decreases to baseflow caused by decreased floodplain aquifer recharge downstream from 

impoundments. 

Figure3-1. Actual Miller Creek flows for water years 1998 and 2000 compared to estimated 

approximate flows occurring without the presence of Gerber Dam. Estimated Miller Creek Discharge (cfs) 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

E stim a te d U n im p a ire d M ille r C re e k F lo w 

A c tu a l M ille r C re e k F lo w 

0 1 -O c t-9 7 3 0 -D ec -9 7 3 0 -M ar-9 8 2 8 -Ju n -9 8 2 6 -S e p -9 8 2 5 -D e c-9 8 2 5 -M a r-9 9 2 3 -Ju n -9 9 2 1 -S e p -9 9 2 0 -D ec -9 9 1 9 -M ar-0 0 1 7 -Ju n -0 0 1 5 -S ep -0 0 

Date 

Changes in Channel Form 

As discussed in the Stream Channels section, many streams in the analysis area have incised and/or widened 

during the historic period. The hydrological linkage between floodplains and meadows (via floodplain 

30 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Flow 

T im e 

G eneralized pred evelo p m en t 

hydrograp h 

G eneralized po stdevelopm en t 

hydro graph 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

inundation or subsurface flow paths) has been diminished or severed. Soils in these areas are deeper, loamier, 

and more absorbent than those on hillslopes - and thus have greater water storage capacity than most soils in 

the watershed. Recharge of these shallow aquifers does not frequently occur at present, and the supply of 

late-season baseflow to streams has been reduced as a result. 

In terms of watershed management and its effect on runoff and erosion, the impacts of road networks, 

increased stand densities in woodlands and forests, and altered stream channels are of highest concern. These 

management impacts lead to increased and earlier peak flows and reduced infiltration and baseflows 

compared to reference, or pre-settlement, conditions (Figure 3-2). 

Figure 3-2. Generalized hydrographs illustrating the concept of increased and earlier peak flows and 

reduced baseflows. 

Stream Channels 

Natural processes of sediment supply, transport, and deposition are critical to shaping stream channels. Many 

stream landforms, ranging in size from gravel bars to floodplains, are the result of interactions between 

sediment and flowing water. Many of these processes have been altered by land management activities. 

Stream channels integrate the condition of upstream drainage areas, adjacent riparian areas and hillslopes, 

and, in some cases, downstream areas. Changes in stream channel form reflect a combination of natural 

channel evolution processes (such as meander migration, floodplain formation, and pool-riffle dynamics) and 

anthropogenic influences (such as riparian vegetation conversion, diminished coarse woody debris inputs, 

irrigation withdrawals). As with watershed processes, fluvial processes act on many spatial and temporal 

scales, although most channel change takes place during high flow events that occur no more than a few 

times a year. 

Channel Shape 

A variety of different types of stream channels occur in the analysis area. The Rosgen (1996) classification 

system is widely used to categorize stream channels (see Table 3-5 and Figure 3-3), and will be used in this 

document as a framework for conceptualizing stream channels and fluvial processes. 

Table 3-6 shows the distribution of Rosgen channel types within some streams in the Gerber watershed. 

Some streams in the Upper Lost River watershed have also been classified to Level I channel types, but data 

are not in a format that allows tabulation. It is assumed that the general distribution of stream types in the 

analysis areas is similar to that observed in the seven streams listed in Table 3-6. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 31
C 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Rosgen B stream types occur in steep-walled valleys, such as along Miller Creek or in Barnes Valley Creek 

between the Mainhaul Road and the CCC Road. Rosgen C, E, F, and G stream types generally occur in more 

open settings. Adjacent terraces (relict floodplains) may constrain F and G channels, although the alluvial 

material that comprises terraces can be eroded as these channels develop. 

Table 3-5. General description of Rosgen Level I stream types (paraphrased from Rosgen, 1996). 

Type	 Description 

A	 A stream types are associated with landforms of high relief, are deeply incised and characterized by steep 

gradients. They typically have cascading, step/pool morphology with high energy, sediment supply and 

transport potential. 

B	 B stream types are associated with narrow valleys. They are moderate gradient, low sinuosity streams that 

are stable both vertically and laterally, and are dominated by riffles and occasional scour pools. 

C streams types are associated with broad alluvial valleys with well-defined floodplains. They are low 

gradient, meandering streams characterized by riffle/pool sequences and point bars. 

E	 E stream types are found in broad alluvial valleys and meadows with well-developed floodplains. They are 

low-gradient, highly sinuous streams that are stable due to well-vegetated banks. When vegetation is 

lacking these channel types are highly sensitive to disturbance, which may result in increased levels of 

streambank erosion and downcutting. The E stream type provides excellent fish habitat through undercut 

banks, clean spawning gravels, and numerous deep pools. 

F	 F stream types are entrenched within terraces (relict floodplains). They have gentle gradients and high 

width-depth ratios, and develop meandering pool/riffle sequences over time (a transition that requires high 

bank erosion rates in order to occur). 

G	 G stream types are “gully” streams that have incised into narrow valleys or terraces. They have moderate 

slope and sinuosity, and high rates of bank erosion and vertical adjustment. 

Figure 3-3. General Diagram of Rosgen Level I Stream Types. 

32 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-6. Rosgen (1996) Level I channel classification for select streams in the analysis area. 

Stream Name Total Length Classified* Rosgen Level I Stream Type (miles)

 (miles) B C E F G 

Barnes Valley Creek 11.5 1.7 6.0 - 3.8 -

Ben Hall Creek 1.8 - - - 1.8 -

Casebeer Creek 1.6 0.1 - 1.2 0.3 -

Lapham Creek 0.6 - - - 0.6 -

Long Branch Creek 4.9 0.5 - 1.0 3.3 0.2 

Miller Creek 9.8 7.7 - 2.2 - -

Pitch Log Creek 5.3 1.1 - 0.3 3.7 0.1 

Total 35.5 11.0 6.0 4.6 13.6 0.3 

Percent of Streams 31% 17% 13% 38% 1% 

*Based on analysis of maps and air photos. 

Roughly one-third of the streams in the analysis area are Rosgen B stream types. More than one-third of 

channels are Rosgen F stream types. These F channels are either deep and relatively narrow or wide and 

shallow. The F streams are incised into historic floodplains (which are now terraces). 

The remaining two-thirds of the streams are divided fairly evenly into C and E stream types. These types are 

found in unconfined settings, typically in association with floodplains or wet meadows. C streams are 

steeper and less sinuous than E types. Functionally, C streams adjust in response to bedload and LWD, while 

E stream types are shaped primarily by the rooting strength of riparian vegetation. In addition to stable C and 

E stream types that are connected with their pre-settlement floodplains, these stream types are also becoming 

re-established within the meander belts that develop in association with F stream types (these stream types 

are difficult to distinguish during office-based Level I classification). 

Rosgen G stream types occur in headwater areas that are actively adjusting to decreased bank stability and/or 

increased stream energy. G stream types were not common during the air photo analysis, likely because 

many of streams have already evolved to F stream types. Nonetheless, it is likely that the air photo analysis 

under-represented these stream types. 

Bank stability 

Fluvial erosion, or erosion occurring as a result of streamflow, can occur either laterally or vertically. Streams 

with decreased bank stability are susceptible to fluvial erosion, especially in subwatersheds that currently 

experience increased peak flows as result of land management activities. 

The processes driving these two types of erosion are similar, and streams often erode laterally in response to 

vertical erosion (Simon, 1989). Vertical erosion (“incision”) results from increases in streamflow or lowering 

of the base level to which stream gradients are adjusted. Incision proceeds upstream via “headcutting”. 

Streambanks with no vegetation or with weakly-rooted vegetation are particularly susceptible to lateral 

erosion. Such conditions may also be indicative of bank trampling and streambank sloughing caused by 

cattle. Bank erosion and reduced width-depth ratios can also result from sediment loading in excess of a 

stream’s sediment transport capacity. Mid-channel bars that may develop in such situations force flows 

towards banks; as the channel widens and becomes more shallow, streambed roughness increases and more 

fine sediment is deposited (Leopold et al., 1964). 

The subwatersheds most vulnerable to excessive fluvial erosion are those that: 

-Are currently adjusting to historic channel incision (through meander-belt development and bank 

erosion) (typically Rosgen F stream types); 

-Have extensive lengths of stream channel that do not benefit from riparian-sensitive grazing 

management schemes (such as rest-rotation or exclusion), and are thus unable to recover from 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 33
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

historic grazing impacts; and,
 

-Have high riparian road densities and high proportions of juniper encroachment.
 

Some streams that do have extensive riparian exclosures and/or riparian-sensitive management schemes 

continue to experience high erosion rates. The hydrologic legacy of historic grazing and timber harvest 

continues to affect channel processes in these streams, despite the implementation of improved land 

management programs in the past few decades. Channel response is slower than vegetation response, 

primarily because the processes responsible for development of landforms on the spatial scale of stream 

segments operate over much longer time scales than the processes responsible for development of vegetation 

communities (Platts, 1991; Kondolf, 1993). Information collected during PFC surveys supports this 

interpretation; of the streams for which excessive erosion or deposition was noted, very few were lacking 

adequate floodplain or channel roughness elements. 

A variety of monitoring information exists for streambanks in the analysis area. Information is not available 

for all streams, and for some streams information is available only for that portion administered by the BLM. 

Because of the generally similar physiography and land use throughout the analysis area, some inferences 

can be made for streams lacking survey data. Inferences for headwaters portions of streams, however, cannot 

be made on the basis of data collected in the downstream portion of the same stream. 

Bottomline Surveys 

The entire lengths of Horse Canyon, Barnes Valley and Long Branch Creeks were surveyed in 1994 using the 

USFS Bottomline protocol (Ochoco National Forest, 1995). These surveys identify the extent of cutbanks 

along both banks of the survey length (Table 3-7). 

In 1994, all of the surveyed streams had a moderate proportion of streambanks that were susceptible to 

erosion. The reaches surveyed that year are generally unconfined and located in the lower segments of major 

streams; as such, portions of these reaches have evolved into Rosgen F stream types that are experiencing 

high rates of bank erosion. 

The 2001 surveys focused in smaller tributaries located in upper watershed positions. In general, exposed 

cutbanks were rare in reaches with large portions of Rosgen B, C, or E stream types, or in small, wellarmored drainage ways. Exposed cutbanks were more extensive in channels that had evolved into F stream 

types (such as has occurred along much of the upper segment of Barnes Valley Creek). 

As discussed above (with regards to Channel Shape), meander migration and cut bank development are 

naturally occurring processes in many stream types. The high rates of bank erosion observed in F and G 

stream types are a reflection of channel adjustment following historic (and, to a lesser degree, ongoing) land 

management impacts. 

Greenline Vegetation Surveys 

Vegetation compositions and dominance along streambanks in the analysis area varies, depending on stream 

type and land management history (refer to previous discussion of Riparian Vegetation in this section). The 

proportions of various vegetation types at nine BLM riparian monitoring sites along five streams have been 

documented using the Greenline survey protocol (described in Winward, 2000). These surveys were first 

conducted in 1994/1995 and again in 1999/2000 (Table 3-8). Survey transects of streamside vegetation 

34 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

extend parallel to the stream, along both sides of the stream, and typically cover a total length of 800 to 1000 

feet. 

Table 3-7. Summary of USFS Bottomline Survey data. 

Stream Year Length % Exposed Cutbank 

Horse Canyon 1994 2.0 20
 

Barnes Valley 1994 8.9 20
 

Long Branch 1994 4.8 14
 

Barnes Valley Creek 2001 2.6 30
 

Barnes Valley Creek, Unnamed Tributary 2001 1.2 0
 

Bachelor Creek 2001 1.3 1
 

Bachelor Creek Tributary, Spring 1 2001 0.1 0
 

Bachelor Creek Tributary, Spring 2 2001 0.3 0
 

Lapham Creek 2001 2.8 <1
 

Little Squaw Flat Tributary 2001 3.4 10
 

Strawberry Creek 2001 2.5 4
 

Squaw Flat Tributary 2001 0.1 0
 

Pitch Log Creek 2001 5.5 6
 

Table 3-8. Bank stability ratings from BLM Greenline riparian surveys. 

Stream Segment Initial Survey Subsequent Survey 

Date Rating1 Date Rating1 

Barnes Valley (BV-3) July 1994 8 July 1999 8 

Barnes Valley (BV-10-2) Sept 1995 8 July 2000 9 

Pitchlog (PL-4) July 1994 6 Aug 1999 7 

Pitchlog (PL-9) July 1994 7 July 1999 7 

Pitchlog (PL-6) Aug 1995 6 July 2000 6 

Long Branch (LB-7) Aug 1994 8 July 1999 8 

Long Branch (LB-5) July 1995 8 July 2000 8 

Ben Hall (BH-1) July 1994 8 Aug 1999 7 

Antelope (Duncan Springs, D-2) Sept 1995 9 July 2000 9 

1

Based on a 10 point stability rating (Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide, USFS, 1992): 1-2 = very low, 3-4 = low, 5­

6 = moderate, 7-8 = high, 9-10 = excellent 

Greenline data indicate that vegetation and substrate (boulders) provided moderate to high bank stability at 

the time of the initial surveys. Since then, bank stability has improved at two sites, remained constant at five 

sites, and decreased at one site. The site with the highest bank stability (Antelope Creek) has been within an 

exclosure since 1977. Sites with lower ratings are primarily F stream types. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Surveys 

PFC surveys attempt to qualitatively assess the physical functioning of riparian areas, through consideration 

of hydrology, vegetation, and soil/landform attributes. The assessment classifies streams as being in one of 

three conditions: 

Proper Functioning Condition - Riparian conditions are adequate to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows, store sediment, improve flood-water retention and groundwater recharge, and develop root 

masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting erosion. 

Functional At Risk - Some riparian conditions necessary to attain PFC are present, but at least one riparian 

attribute/process causes a high probability of degradation with a relatively high flow event. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 35
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Nonfunctional - Riparian conditions are clearly inadequate to ensure the values of properly functioning 

streams. 

For those streams identified as Functional at Risk, the trend of riparian conditions is determined. Recruitment 

and establishment of riparian species (or the absence thereof) that indicate an increase (or decline) of soil 

moisture characteristics can be especially useful in this regard, provided that recent climatic conditions are 

considered in the interpretation. If there is insufficient evidence to make a determination that there is a trend 

toward or away from PFC (upward and downward, respectively), then the trend is not apparent (USDI, 

1998). 

BLM interdisciplinary teams surveyed approximately 35 miles of streams in the analysis area between 1994 

and 1997 (Table 3-9). These surveys were generally limited to BLM lands, and some subwatersheds were not 

surveyed at all. 

Table 3-9. Summary of PFC ratings for streams on BLM land within the analysis area. 

Subwatershed Total PFC FAR-U FAR-N NF 

Miles miles % miles % miles % miles %
 

Ben Hall 2.6 1.1 42% 1.2 46% 0.3 12%
 

Long Branch 1.4 1.2 88% 0.1 8% 0.1 4%
 

East Gerber Frontal 5.6 3.4 61% 0.6 11% 1.6 29%
 

Barnes Valley 3.2 2.8 88% 0.4 13%
 

Miller 2.4 0.9 38% 1.1 46% 0.4 17%
 

Pitch Log 7.2 1.6 22% 0.4 5% 5.2 73%
 

Antelope 6.5 3.9 60% 0.6 9% 2.0 31%
 

Willow Valley Res. 3.7 3.7 100%
 

Rock 2.3 0.7 30% 1.6 70%
 

Total 34.9 19.3 (55%) 1.2 3% 3.5 10% 10.9 31%
 

High percentages of stream length within the Pitch Log and Rock Creek subwatersheds were determined to 

be in non-functional condition. In the case of Pitch Log, riparian vegetation was lacking and bank erosion 

was severe, particularly along the drainage below Willow Springs. Conditions in the Pitch Log subwatershed 

appear to be recovering, as indicated by willow re-establishment. In Rock Creek, riparian vegetation 

establishment and channel processes were detrimentally affected by diversions. 

In most of the segments classified as “Not Functioning” or “FAR-No Apparent Trend” excessive erosion or 

deposition was noted. Vertical instability (i.e., susceptibility to incision), on the other hand, was not noted as 

a problem in most of these segments, perhaps as a consequence of vertical controls imposed by the 

occurrence of coarse bedrock at shallow depths. 

Bank Erosion Pins 

Erosion pins were installed in selected cutbanks of three streams in 1996. At each site, three re-bar stakes 

were pounded flush with the surface of a vertical cutbank. The stakes were placed horizontally in a line up 

the cutbank, with one pin at the bottom of the cutbank, one in the middle, and one at the top. The length of 

exposed pin was measured one year later, giving a value for bank erosion over one high flow season (Table 

3-10). 

This data suggests that during the high flows of winter 1996 there was substantial bank erosion at the study 

sites. Although the sites were not chosen to be representative of conditions in entire stream segments, neither 

should they be considered anomalous. The fact that bank erosion occurred along the entire height of cut 

36 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

banks suggests that, between 1996 and 1997, stream channels were actively widening at the study sites. 

(Additional bank erosion pins were installed in Pitch Log Creek in 2002, and this effort may be expanded in 

the future.) 

Table 3-10. Measured bank erosion at sites on 3 streams. 

Stream Site # Erosion from bank surface between 11/96 and 10/97 

Average Bottom Middle Top 

Ben Hall 1 11 cm 8 cm 1 cm 23 cm 

Long Branch 1 20 cm 11cm 32 cm 17 cm

 2 36 cm 10 cm 44cm 55cm 

Pitch Log 1 15 cm 12 cm 6 cm 28 cm

 2 7 cm 5 cm 3 cm 14 cm 

Bed Material 

Pebble count data is available for 17 reaches of 7 streams in the analysis area (Table 3-11). This data was 

collected in 1997 and 2000 in order to quantify the relative proportion of different bed material types. 

Table 3-11. Pebble count data for streams in the analysis area (1996 and 1997 BLM stream surveys). 

Stream Reach Silt/Clay/Sand (%) Gravel (%) Cobble (%) Boulder (%) Bedrock (%) 

Barnes Valley Reach 1 (1) 22 39 5 0 0 

Reach 1 (2) 5 57 5 0 0 

Reach 2 28 22 39 11 0 

Miller Lower 7 26 32 35 0 

Upper 11 29 33 23 4 

Antelope Reach 1 36 32 16 16 0 

Reach 2a 20 35 30 15 0 

Reach 2b 9 40 33 18 0 

Reach 3a 17 28 39 16 0 

Reach 3b 13 25 42 20 0 

Reach 4a 9 19 25 47 0 

Reach 4b 6 29 29 36 0 

Reach 5 15 35 38 12 0 

For the most part, substrate texture is finer in low gradient stream reaches and coarser in high gradient 

reaches. Data from some reaches suggests bed armoring. Examples of this include the upper and lower 

reaches of Barnes Valley Creek and the lower reach of Miller Creek, both of which have anomalously high 

proportions of cobble/boulder material (diameter 6.4 cm to 4.1 m). 

In-Stream Large Wood Recruitment and Retention 

Large woody debris (LWD) enters stream channels in the analysis area primarily via tree fall that results from 

windthrow, mortality, or bank failure. The most wood (though not necessarily the largest) tends to originate 

in areas that are experiencing high mortality of trees, either due to insects, disease, or fire. In western Oregon 

and Washington, most instream LWD originates within 20 meters of the stream channel (McDade et al. 

1990), and almost all LWD originates within 1 site potential tree height of the stream (FEMAT 1993). It is 

assumed that these values apply to the analysis area. 

The rate at which LWD is supplied to streams depends on the character of adjacent landforms and vegetation 

patches. In forested canyon settings, LWD recruitment is expected to be relatively high, while wood delivery 

to streams that flow through meadows and rangelands occurs at lower rates. LWD surveys conducted in five 

streams in the analysis area illustrate this point (Table 3-12). 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 37
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The stream reaches that have the highest LWD volumes tend to be adjacent to hillslopes, typically Rosgen B 

or C streams. Streams that are incised or flow through open meadows generally have lower LWD volumes, 

since there are fewer trees near the stream channel. Currently, since pines and junipers have become 

established on terraces, more LWD is available to F channel types. E channel types are highly associated 

with wet meadows, and conifer trees typically do not occur in large numbers in these areas. As a result, not 

much LWD is supplied to E channels. 

The instream role of LWD varies according to stream type and the size and location of LWD pieces. In B 

and C channels, structural elements such as boulders and LWD redistribute velocity patterns and cause scour 

pools, gravel bars, and side channels to form. The primary function of LWD in these streams is to diversify 

channel features. In narrow F channels, wood that enters (primarily via bank erosion) tends to direct 

streamflow against the opposite bank, accelerating bank erosion. This hastens the process by which incised F 

channels widen out and establish new floodplains. In both wide and narrow F channels, LWD creates 

depositional areas that can be utilized by colonizing plants. Instream LWD is not common in E channels and 

does not play a key role in shaping those channel types. 

LWD stability is a function of length, diameter, channel location, species, and stream type. Longer pieces, 

especially those with lengths greater than bankfull width and/or rootwads attached, are more stable and less 

prone to move great distances when mobilized. Jams of LWD tend to be more stable than individual pieces. 

All things considered, most instream LWD is currently relatively unstable and therefore less likely to 

contribute to development of desired habitat features. 

The interaction between beaver activity and channel processes has been diminished. By constructing dams 

and creating low gradient expanses of emergent vegetation, beavers can effectively control the longitudinal 

gradient of streams. As a result, sediment deposition occurs and valleys accumulate material (or “aggrade”). 

In the absence of beavers, streams are more prone to incise. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Ecological Types 

The types and condition of wetlands and riparian areas found in Gerber’s catchment are based on soil and 

vegetation surveys (Riegel et al., 2002, Soil Survey Staff, 2002). Ecological sites were developed in a 1990’s 

soil survey by the Natural Resource Conservation Service staff with the Bureau of Land Management, 

Klamath Resource staff (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). Following is a brief discussion of the major riparian 

habitat types in the analysis area. (For more detailed discussion of ecological sites, refer to the Vegetation/ 

Non-forested Upland section.) 

Playas 

Four wetland playa ecological sites were large enough to map on a soil survey: Ephemeral Lakebeds, Dry 

Meadow, Semi-Wet Meadow and Wet Meadow (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). Playas distributed across the 

Gerber drainage display an ephemeral springtime sea of spike rush, Eleocharis, and rush, Juncus balticus. 

These spike rush and rush plants are resilient rhizomatous plants, which fit the wetland ecology of 

domination in mid to late seral stages (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Clay soils and vernal or seasonally 

ponded oatgrass wetlands with shrink-swell clays are characteristic of the analysis area (Riegel et al., 2002, 

Soil Survey Staff, 2002). In the late fall, shrink cracks are visible in the clay-rich mesic graminoid ecological 

type. Fall shrink cracks are less obvious in the silt-rich Nebraska sedge and Geyer willow ecological types 

(Riegel et al., 2002). 

38 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-12. Distribution and size of large woody debris for select streams (from ODFW surveys). 

Stream Reach1 Length 

(miles) 

Gradient 

(%) Channel Form2 

Large Woody Debris3 Riparian Trees5 

Pieces 

(#/mile) 

Volume 

(m3

/mile) 

Key 

Pieces4 

(#/mile) 

Total 

(#/mile) 

>20" 

DBH 

(#/mile) 

>35" 

DBH 

(#/mile) 

Long 

Branch 

Creek 

1 0.1 4.9 Constrained by 

Terraces 0.0 0.0 0.0 2577 322 0 

2 0.1 2.2 Unconstrained, Single 

Channel 9.7 1.6 0.0 1125 158 0 

3 0.3 0.2 Constrained by 

Terraces 0.0 0.0 0.0 2038 106 0 

Pitch 

Log 

Creek 

1 0.2 2.8 Constrained by 

Hillslopes 180.3 170.7 6.4 5306 158 0 

2 0.4 0.6 Constrained by 

Terraces 11.3 30.6 1.6 4023 158 0 

3 0.1 Not Surveyed 

4 0.4 0.4 

Constrained by 

Alternating Hillslopes 

and Terraces 

17.7 51.5 1.6 3057 0 0 

5 0.2 Not Surveyed 

6 0.4 1.8 Constrained by 

Hillslopes 16.1 64.4 4.8 4023 0 0 

Willow 

Springs 

Drainage 

1 0.2 Not Surveyed 

2 0.6 0.4 Unconstrained, Single 

Channel 4.8 4.8 0.0 803 0 0 

3 0.2 0.1 Constrained by 

Terraces 41.9 19.3 0.0 7403 0 0 

4 0.5 0.5 Unconstrained, Single 

Channel 11.3 3.2 0.0 2038 0 0 

Barnes 

Valley 

Creek 

1 0.1 0.5 Constrained by 

Terraces 0.0 0.0 0.0 7080 0 0 

2 0.7 1.7 Constrained by 

Hillslopes 6.4 19.3 1.6 5196 137 0 

3 0.8 0.6 Unconstrained, Single 

Channel 1.6 11.3 0.0 3216 32 0 

4 0.1 0.5 Unconstrained, Single 

Channel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 

Miller 

Creek 

1 0.4 1.6 

Constrained by 

Alternating Hillslopes 

and Terraces 

12.9 14.5 1.6 2899 158 0 

2 1.0 2.0 Constrained by 

Hillslopes 9.7 9.7 0.0 1552 158 0 

3 0.8 0.7 Constrained by 

Hillslopes 14.5 25.8 1.6 4414 0 0 

1

Reaches are defined by functional characteristics such as tributary junctions or changes in channel form; reach numbering begins
 

at the downstream end of a stream and increases upstream.
 2

Determined by the morphology of the active channel.
 3

Minimum size 15 cm diameter by 3 meters length.
 4

Minimum size is 60 cm diameter by 10 meters length.
 5

Sampled along 30 meter transects perpendicular to the stream.
 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 39
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Streambanks 

Riparian ecological types along streams are similar to the Semi-Wet Meadow and Wet Meadow ecological 

sites, which have high proportions of mesic grass and Nebraska sedge (Riegel et al., 2002). Generally, 

Gerber’s riparian and wetland habitats show the influences of low relief valleys and clay soil bank materials. 

Clayey banks resist sloughing creating vertical banks, rather than low wide channel banks associated with 

sandy banks. 

Willow and cottonwood ecological types, which are dependent on coarse (sand or gravel) bank material with 

relief, are uncommon in Gerber (Riegel et al., 2002, Weixelman et al., 1996, 1999). Reaches along Pitch Log 

have silt to sand banks, where sandbar willow could stabilize a wide reach. There are also examples of midseral status willow and cottonwood ecological types along Barnes Valley Creek. 

Bank building, as deposition of silt and accumulation of humus, is correlated with status in Gerber’s riparian 

habitats (Riegel et al., 2002). This correlation among plant species and humus as soil carbon, nitrogen, litter, 

and root mass develops a local understanding of nutrient flows and wetland succession. Silt and humus 

accumulation on the gravel bars promotes the development of sedge cover among willow in riparian habitats. 

Bank building is associated with aquifer storage so it may have similar cold water effects as shade, which is 

the lynch pin water quality element for the State of Oregon. 

Ecological Condition 

A wide range of habitat conditions were used to identify reference species composition for ecological sites 

and ecological status (condition) scorecards. The scorecard survey began on the Fremont National Forest in 

the mid 1990’s expanded to adjacent public lands in the late 1990’s (Riegel et al., 2002). The scorecard 

survey identifies and monitors trends in riparian habitats. The twelve draft scorecard ecological types, such 

as Geyer willow and Nebraska sedge types that occur along streams are often too narrow to form soil survey 

map units and have been displayed as line map elements (Riegel et al., 2002). The map polygons and line 

elements complement each other and together better characterize Gerber’s landscape. 

In the Gerber Block, most rangeland wetlands sites are showing stable or improving trend, i.e. recovery in 

condition or status. Recent restoration efforts, including construction of structural improvements and 

implementation of grazing systems designed to promote recovery of these areas, have significantly improved 

the physical, biological, and ecological condition of a number of riparian areas. It will take many decades, 

however, to return some of the riparian areas in this survey area to the desired ecological condition (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2002). On the Fremont National Forest, 22 of 50 proper function condition sites were 

functional at risk, although most sites were in an upward trend. However, the biological vigor or resilience of 

mid status functions were lacking in many sites. The recovery is apt to be slowed by the local competition 

for water in this semi-arid forest landscape with overstocked forest condition. 

To get at wetland functions, newer research has focused on nutrient flows and food webs. The food webs of 

aquatic invertebrate communities showed relationship to stream substrate and riparian conditions. In meadow 

and willow ecological types aquatic diversity varied with ecological status. The highest diversity of 

invertebrates occurs in mid status willow and aspen ecological types (Kennedy et al, 2000). The stream 

temperatures also aligned with riparian status on canonical correspondence analysis. So status conditions are 

apt to be an indicator of “fish” water qualities. In frequently disturbed willow and woody riparian habitats no 

correlation was found between status and shade, in part because of the spatial complexity of flood deposits 

(Riegel et al, 2002). The riparian mapping to be conducted in 2003 will help describe and clarify some of 

these relationships. 

Wetland Loss 

On a landscape scale, wetland loss is a national conservation issue. It is apt to be the principal issue in the
 

Gerber drainage with altered woodland and forest vegetation structure that competes for a limited water
 

40 Current Conditions, Step 3 
0 

10 00 

20 00 

30 00 

40 00 

50 00 

60 00 

Acres 

Reservoirs 

Im p oun de d W e tlan ds 

N atural Lakes/P onds 

W etlan ds 

Ben Hall

Horse Canyon

Buckmaster Creek

Dry Prairie

West Gerber Frontal

Long Branch

East Gerber Frontal

Barnes Valley

Miller

Pitch Log

Antelope

Willow Valley Reservoir

Rock

Upper Lost River Frontal 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

resource. Mapping is an essential part of accurately estimating the areas of wetland loss or gain. In upper 

watersheds, scattered surveys of riparian and wetland areas have occurred and documented conifer 

encroachment into wetlands. Pine encroachment has been observed in meadow and aspen / lodgepole pine 

ecological inventory map units (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). In plant species lists for riparian habitats, 

ponderosa pine and white fir were ecological mismatches for the saturated soil conditions (Riegal et al, 

2002). Plant and soil mismatches were also observed in ecological unit inventory map units on the east edge 

of the Winema National Forest in habitats similar to Gerber (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). For example on the 

Fall 2002 field review, ponderosa pine encroachment was observed on a meadow with the Bigtoe soil series. 

The meadow’s present vegetation is Cusick’s bluegrass, prairie Junegrass and a diverse list of forbs. The 

historic plant community is a dry meadow, yet with fire exclusion it has a potential to become a ponderosa 

pine series. Similarly, the Mighty soil series has scattered ponderosa pine poles in an aspen and lodgepole 

pine forest with a diverse mix of moist site forbs, such a Voila, Aquilegia formosa, and California false 

hellebore. Scattered ponderosa pines are an ecological mismatch with the mucky mineral wetland features of 

the Mighty soil series. In Gerber the vernally moist oatgrass ecological type extends into the forest edge 

(Riegel et al., 2002). 

The depositional position where wetlands occur makes them susceptible to losses from inundation by ponds 

and reservoirs. Construction of dams has impounded wetlands and altered the timing, depth, and duration of 

flooding in playas and wet meadows. Figure 3-4 illustrates the approximate extent of wetland features in the 

analysis area. It is not possible to accurately estimate the wetland area inundated by reservoirs. About 550 

acres of various wetland ecological types are inundated by Gerber Reservoir alone, and it is likely that 

wetlands are inundated by other reservoirs such as Round Valley and Willow Valley. Mudflats are exposed 

when areas with deep water are drawn down (seasonally or during multi-year dry periods). 

Figure 3-4. Estimated extent of wetland areas by subwatershed as determined from GIS data. 

(Does not including narrow riparian areas associated with streams.) 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 41
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Construction of low dams has altered the timing, depth, and duration of flooding in playas and wet meadows. 

In response, vegetation communities in portions of some wetlands have changed. Some former emergent 

wetlands have been converted to open water habitat types (i.e., lakes and ponds). 

Besides construction of dams, other types of modifications have also affected wetlands in the area. These 

include roads, stockponds, habitat creation projects, and check dams (designed to stabilize stream channels). 

Such modifications benefit other resources or management programs at the expense of changing the timing 

and/or spatial pattern of wetland inundation. 

Water Quality 

Water quality in streams and lakes reflects the range of physical, chemical, and biological processes operating 

in the upstream watershed. Changes in terrestrial, riparian, or fluvial ecosystems, and consequent alterations 

in watershed processes, can affect one or more water quality parameters. Water quality, in turn, affects 

aquatic ecosystems. Due to the spatial and temporal variability of the numerous factors affecting water 

quality, water quality itself is variable in space and time, and it may be difficult to ascertain the specific cause 

of water quality problems (Naiman et al., 1992). 

Temperature 

Water temperature is a key factor affecting the growth and survival of all aquatic organisms. The effect of 

stream temperature on fish, amphibians, macroinvertebrates, etc. varies between species and within the life 

cycle of a given species (Lantz, 1971; Oregon DEQ, 1995). Many factors influence water temperature, 

including landscape position (e.g., elevation, slope aspect, local topography, and distance from headwaters), 

solar potential (a function of latitude), stream flow patterns, vegetation and stream shading, channel 

geometry, streambed substrate, and channel-floodplain connectivity. The first two factors are not affected by 

land management, but the remaining factors may be. 

When temperatures reach stressful levels, pockets of cool water provide “refugia” for temperature-sensitive 

aquatic species. Such refugia, if sufficiently abundant and well distributed, can sustain populations of 

sensitive species (Sedell et al., 1990). Cool water habitat can be found in deep pools, in the vicinity of cold 

springs, and at the junction of cooler tributary streams. Effects of water temperature on fish are discussed in 

the Aquatic Resources section. 

Habitat modification 

Decreased winter flows on streams downstream from reservoirs may adversely affect fluvial processes and 

fish habitat. Summer reservoir releases are typically “clear” water without any entrained sediment, and do 

not supply sediment to downstream reaches. As a result, streams can become “armored” with coarse 

sediment (Williams and Wolman, 1984). Such streams may not adequately support the habitat requirements 

of various species and of the various life cycles of a given species. 

In a more general sense, because fluvial landforms reflect the range of processes occurring in riparian zones 

and uplands, aquatic habitat can be affected by land uses occurring within the watershed. Causes of habitat 

modification can then include those actions that alter the supply, transport, or storage of water, sediment, or 

large woody debris. Individual management actions may not affect watershed processes to the degree 

necessary to alter habitat, but the cumulative effect of numerous actions may be that watershed processes are 

substantially changed (Reid, 1993). 

42 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Sedimentation 

Large inputs of sediment to streams can degrade aquatic habitat. Excess sediment can fill interstitial space 

(pore space within the stream bed substrate), decrease pool depth and frequency, and change the gradient and 

plan form of stream channels (Oregon Plan, 1999). Along with bank erosion (discussed in the Stream 

Channels section), roads are a major source of fine sediment to stream channels. 

Sediment production from roads is a function primarily of road surfacing, road condition, and road use. Dirt 

roads have large amount of available sediment and are typically in worse condition than surfaced roads, and 

thus produce the most sediment. Sediment delivery from roads to streams requires connectivity between 

road drainage features and watercourses. Table 3-13 shows the number of road drainage features (lead-off 

ditches, cross-drain culverts, etc) in each subwatershed that are connected to watercourses. Emphasis is 

placed on non-engineered features, which as the name implies, are not engineered and therefore can 

contribute large amounts of sediment (and runoff) to streams. 

Roads that cross or are adjacent to streams, or that traverse steep canyon slopes, may present local sources of 

chronic sediment inputs. Additionally, some roads that cross poorly drained upland areas intercept subsurface 

flows and concentrate them on roadways. Ditchlines draining such roads may route turbid water into streams 

(such as where the Mainhaul Road crosses Barnes Valley Creek). 

Table 3-13. Road drainage features connected to streams, based on 2002 BLM/USFS road inventory. 

Number of road drainage features hydrologically connected to streams 

Subwatershed Name Total*** Non-engineered drainages 

Ben Hall * 62 37 

Horse Canyon 85 39 

Buckmaster Creek 32 17 

Dry Prairie* 37 23 

West Gerber Frontal 22 6 

Long Branch 18 10 

East Gerber Frontal 29 4 

Barnes Valley 131 84 

Miller* 23 15 

Pitch Log 50 24 

Antelope 76 66 

Willow Valley Reservoir 30 17 

Rock** 67 51 

Upper Lost River Frontal** 7 4 

* Some private lands within these subwatersheds were not included in the 2002 road inventory; **California portions 

of subwatersheds not included in the 2002 road inventory. Data supplemented with GTRN data when applicable; 

***Total includes low water crossings, ditch relief culverts, water bars, broad-based dips, lead-off ditches, and nonengineered drainages; it does not include constructed stream crossings. 

Nutrients and Aquatic Weeds 

High nutrient loading, and the prolific growth of aquatic weeds associated with high nutrient loading, can 

adversely affect aquatic life and recreational use, among other beneficial uses of surface water. In the absence 

of other limiting factors, excessive nutrient inputs can accelerate the eutrophication of water bodies. Such 

waters are typified as having an undesirable abundance of plant growth. When this growth dies and 

decomposes, dissolved oxygen is depleted and un-ionized ammonia can be produced. At elevated levels, unionized ammonia can reduce the vigor of, or even kill, fish. High water temperatures can also stimulate 

excessive plant growth (USEPA, 1999). 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 43
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Land management actions can increase the delivery of nitrogen and phosphorous to lakes and streams 

(Owens et al, 1989), although the volcanic and sedimentary bedrock of the assessment area may be partially 

responsible for high phosphorous concentrations. Phosphorous attaches (‘sorbs”) strongly to soil particles 

and organic matter and is therefore typically transported in surface runoff. Inorganic nitrogen may be sorbed 

to particles (though less strongly than does phosphorous) or may be transported as dissolved matter in runoff 

or groundwater. Relatively minor amounts of nitrogen can be added by atmospheric deposition (EPA, 1999). 

The altered hydrology of wet meadows and the loss of riparian vegetation due to grazing and channel 

incision may have reduced the amount of nutrients stored in wetland vegetation and soils (Mitsch, 1995), thus 

increasing the delivery of nutrients to reservoirs. 

Because phosphorous and nitrogen interact with sediment in different ways, they behave differently in lakes. 

Nitrogen tends to remain within the water column. The particles to which phosphorous is absorbed settle out 

of the water column over time, causing phosphorous to become unavailable to aquatic plants. Phosphorous 

may become available as a result of benthic invertebrates stirring up lake-bottom sediments or due to changes 

in water chemistry. These processes can make phosphorous available for plant uptake long after it enters a 

water body. This means that even if the supply of phosphorous is reduced, the phosphorous already present 

can continue to affect reservoir water quality for many years (EPA, 1999). 

It should be noted that the water bodies within the analysis area that have high nutrient levels are likely 

functioning, to some degree at least, as “buffers” for downstream rivers and lakes. While not all of the 

sediment and associated nutrients that settle out in lakes is completely removed from the system, a substantial 

portion is, especially in deeper lakes such as Gerber Reservoir. 

The State of Oregon’s 303(d) list identifies water bodies that are impaired to the point that beneficial uses 

(such as fisheries or recreation) are not supported (Table 3-14). Monitoring of water quality parameters by the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Forest Service, and the BLM has identified stream 

segments in the assessment area for inclusion on this list. Water quality measurements were taken on some of 

the larger reservoirs in the assessment area in 1982 (Johnson et al., 1985). 

Approximately 40 miles of streams are included on the 2002 Oregon 303(d) list (Table 3-15) for violations of 

the 64 F temperature standard for protecting salmonid rearing. Because water quality information is not 

available for all water bodies in the assessment area, and because almost all of the water bodies for which 

water quality data is available are included on the 303(d) list, it is reasonable to assume that more streams 

than are listed are not meeting temperature standards. (Although no new streams were added to the list, the 

BLM and FS supplied additional water temperature data to the DEQ for use in development of the 2002 

303(d) list) 

The Upper Lost River is included on the 1998 California 303(d) list for summer temperature concerns. It is 

likely that the impaired condition of this river segment can be primarily attributed to the quality of water 

flowing out of Clear Lake, although the temperature of tributary waters originating within the analysis area 

may exacerbate problems. 

In addition to the streams listed for water temperature concerns, on the 1998 303(d) list the DEQ noted that 

more evaluation of water quality conditions in four reservoirs is needed. These concerns focus on nutrients 

and aquatic weeds that may be impairing beneficial uses within these waterbodies. 

Water Quality Data - Streams 

The results of water quality monitoring must be considered within the context of multiple scales of 

variability. Natural and anthropogenic factors at the scale of subwatersheds, stream segments, and stream 

reaches can affect water quality parameters observed at monitoring sites, as can differences in the type of 

water year (wet or dry), the time of day, and the amount of time elapsed since the most recent runoff event. 

44 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

As discussed above, temperature has profound effects on aquatic habitat quality. All of the stream segments 

for which continuous temperature data is available had maximum daily temperatures that regularly exceeded 

64 F (See Table 3-16.) This threshold was determined to be a biologically significant value, above which 

trout are stressed (See the Habitat for Aquatic Species section for more discussion of water temperature 

effects on fish). 

It is clear that water temperatures throughout the analysis area are high. Some streams not currently on the 

303(d) list may be added in the future. That said, the 303(d) lists and the data collected by the BLM and FS 

may exaggerate the extent of excessively warm streams for three reasons: 1)the data is, in some cases, 

collected at or near the mouth of the stream, which is typically where water temperatures are highest; 

2)listings for the entire length of intermittent streams may not account for distinct seasonal patterns of 

streamflow; and 3)in some systems, thermal refuges (such as springs or areas where baseflow enters the 

stream from shallow aquifers) may locally reduce water temperatures (measured water temperatures in 

springs range from 50 to 70 F). 

No water temperature data is available for spring-fed streams on private land (such as Barnes Creek or 

Casebeer Creek). While water temperatures in these streams are likely lower than in other streams, they may 

still be adversely affected by land management activities. 

Table 3-14. Water quality standards for relevant parameters with numeric standards. 

Parameter 	 Oregon DEQ Standards California DEQ Standards 

Temperature 	 The numeric criteria for all surface waters in the state is 64 The natural receiving water temperature of 

degrees Fahrenheit (F), measured as the seven day moving intrastate waters shall not be altered unless 

average of the daily maximum temperatures. If there is it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of 

insufficient data to establish a seven-day maximum the Regional Water Board that such 

temperature, the numeric criteria shall be applied as an alteration in temperature does not adversely 

instantaneous maximum. An exception to this criterion is as affect beneficial uses. At no time or place 

follows: waterbodies in which salmonid species spawn or rear shall the temperature of any intrastate 

should not exceed 55 degrees F during the spawning and waters with the "cold freshwater habitat" 

rearing seasons. designated beneficial use be increased by 

more than 5 F above natural receiving 

Unless specifically allowed under a DEQ-approved surface water temperature. Elevated temperature 

water temperature management plan as required under OAR waste discharges into interstate waters with 

340-41-026(3)(a)(D), no measurable surface water the "cold freshwater habitat" designated 

temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities benefic use are prohibited. At no time or 

is allowed: In a basin in which surface water temperatures place shall the temperature of intrastate and 

exceed 64.0 degrees F; in waters determined by the DEQ to interstate waters with the “warm freshwater 

be ecologically significant cold-water refugia; in stream habitat" designated beneficial use be 

segments containing federally listed Threatened and increased by more than 5 F above natural 

Endangered species if the increase would impair the receiving water temperature. 

biological integrity of Threatened and Endangered 

population; in Oregon waters when the dissolved oxygen 

(DO) levels are within 0.5 mg/L or 10 percent saturation of 

the water column or inter-gravel DO criterion for a given 

stream reach or sub-basin; and in natural lakes. 

Sedimentation No more than 10 percent cumulative increase in natural Turbidity shall not be increased more than 

stream turbidities allowed. 20 percent above naturally occurring 

background levels. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 45
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-15. Streams included on Oregon 2002 and California 1998 303(d) lists. 

Waterbody Boundaries Land Status 303(d) Listing 

Barnes Valley Creek River Miles 0 to 14 BLM, USFS, Private Summer Temperature 

Long Branch Creek River Miles 0 to 4.6 USFS, Private, BLM Summer Temperature 

Horse Canyon Creek River Miles 0 to 2.2 USFS Summer Temperature 

Lapham Creek River Miles 0 to 4 Private, USFS Summer Temperature 

Miller Creek Mouth to Gerber Res. BLM, Private Summer Temperature 

(River Miles 0 to 9.6) 

Antelope Creek River Mile 2 to 3 BLM Summer Temperature 

Upper Lost River California Segment USFS, Private Summer Temperature 

Upper Lost River Oregon Segment Private, BLM, USFS Summer Temperature 

Chlorophyll a1 

Dissolved Oxygen1 

Fecal Coliform1 

Notes: (1) Listed based on Oregon DEQ water quality sampling conducted more than 35 miles downstream from the 

analysis area 

Table 3-16. Proportion of days between 1 June and 30 September with 7- day moving average of 

maximum daily stream temperature greater than 64 F (18 C). 

Stream Site 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Horse Canyon Creek HC-4885 72% 45% 100% 

Lapham Creek LP-5240 67% 49% 

Ben Hall Creek * * * 

Long Branch Creek LB-5180 90% 76% 

LB-5100 89% 79% 

Barnes Valley Creek BV-5160 90% 

BV-5135 67% 85% 65% 89% 

BV-4840 75% 100% 

Miller Creek MR-4760 35% 57% 5% 47% 65% 

MR-4320 87% 78% 76% 

Antelope Creek AP-4720 0% 

AP-4580 52% 

AP-4530 83% 

E. Branch Lost River LR-4500 70% 

Rock Creek RO-4870 75% 66% 

*Indicates that data is available for less than one summer month. Instantaneous data for sites in Ben Hall and Pitchlog 

creeks suggest that temperatures in these creeks also exceed 64 F. 

Instantaneous measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity are available for select sites on BLM 

land (Table 3-17). This data was collected over a range of discharges over the course of many years, and is 

thus difficult to interpret except in a very general sense. On average, pH shows little variability between sites, 

although it is highly variable over time. Pitch Log Creek has high amounts of suspended matter throughout 

its length. 

46 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-17. Summary of instantaneous water quality data. 

Stream Site 

Number 

of 

Samples 

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) PH Turbidity (NTU1

) 

Range Average Range Average Range Average 

Long Branch Creek LB-5095 4 6.0 - 10.2 7.8 7.2 - 8.3 7.8 1.0 - 4.0 2.8 

Pitch Log PL-3 2 8 - 9.8 8.9 7.4 - 8.6 8.0 6.4 - 21 13.7 

PL-2 2 8.8 - 12.5 10.1 7.4 - 7.9 7.7 6.5 - 22 14.3 

PL-1 5 7.6 - 9.4 8.3 7.1 - 8.6 7.8 1.1 - 18 12.3 

Barnes Valley CreekBV-2 3 5.3 - 9.4 7.4 7.4 - 8.8 8.2 0.55 - 1.8 1.0

 BV-4840 14 7.7 - 10.9 9.4 7.9 -9.2 8.4 0.5 - 19 4.0 

Ben Hall Creek BH-4840 9 5.1 - 10.5 8.1 6.9 - 8.6 7.5 0.85 - 27 5.9 

Miller Creek MR-4760 2 6.9 - 8.4 7.7 7.5 - 8.6 8.1 --- 12 

MR-4320 1 --- 7.5 --- 7.7 --- --- 

Antelope Creek AP-4720 4 6.8 - 11 9.2 7.6 - 8.6 7.9 <1 - 1.7 * 

AP-4580 3 8.1 - 8.6 8.5 7.3 - 8.7 8.0 <1 - 2.3 * 

1

Nephlometric Turbidity Units, which are a measure of light scatter within the water column 

Note: * indicates that no average was calculated due to questionable data quality 

Note: For streams with multiple sites, sites are listed from upper-most to lower-most 

Macroinvertebrate Sampling - Streams 

In addition to direct measures of water quality, benthic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) are important 

elements of water quality evaluations because they: 

- live in, on, or near streambed sediments, 

- have relatively long life cycles, 

- are sensitive to environmental change, and 

- are relatively sessile compared with larger and more mobile organisms (such as fish). 

These characteristics ensure that benthic macroinvertebrates (1) respond to natural and anthropogenic 

environmental conditions that alter streambed sediments; (2) integrate effects over relatively long time 

periods (months to a year); and (3) characterize effects over a relatively small spatial scale. Variability in 

benthic macroinvertebrate distributions can be used to assess site-specific water quality over time, or to 

compare spatial patterns of water quality at several sites (Vinson, 1998). 

Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys have been done on BLM streams in the analysis area since 1994. For ease 

of interpretation, four metrics have been chosen as representative of both species distribution and water 

quality concerns (Table 3-18). 

Overall, measures of diversity (Taxa Richness and Shannon Diversity Index) are fairly constant throughout 

the analysis area, while measures of abundance and functional feeding group proportion are highly variable. 

In a very general sense, taxa richness values below 19 indicate moderate impairment, while values less than 

10 indicate severe impairment (Oregon Plan Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook, 1999). Although the SDI 

may not accurately reflect the composition of invertebrate communities, for a number of reasons (Kennedy et 

al., 2000), it is commonly used, and is therefore used in this analysis. The available data suggests spatial and 

temporal trends for streams in the analysis area. Interpretations must be considered within the context of the 

limited data set and, more importantly, the fact that macroinvertebrate data does not necessarily reflect 

subwatershed-scale processes or trends. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 47
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-18. Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. 

Stream Station	 Date Taxa Richness Total Abundance Shannon Diversity SC : CF Ratio 

Long Branch LB-5095	 6/14/96 28 4151 2.141 0.216
 

5/20/97 28 3097 2.258 0.664
 

7/1/98 18 606 2.329 0.000
 

Pitch Log PL-5100	 5/11/94 27 556 2.621 0.421
 

5/15/97 23 495 2.580 0.234
 

5/1/98 17 591 2.278 0.000
 

Barnes Valley BV-4840	 5/11/93 15 2160 1.616 0.222
 

5/11/94 24 7989 2.088 0.396
 

6/14/96 28 23766 2.497 0.048
 

5/15/97 22 8806 2.147 0.176
 

Ben Hall BH-4840	 5/11/93 13 1372 2.076 0.012
 

5/11/94 20 5348 1.863 0.000
 

5/16/96 19 13688 1.153 0.000
 

5/20/97 20 4416 1.264 0.000
 

Miller	 MC-4755 7/29/97 20 18104 2.281 0.259
 

MC-4320 8/19/97 24 9075 2.436 0.785
 

Antelope AP-4725	 5/12/93 19 7538 1.776 0.810
 

7/17/96 24 52323 1.575 0.912
 

7/1/98 21 40555 1.182 0.897
 

AP-4580	 5/12/93 31 4696 2.780 0.607 

7/17/96 33 38791 2.494 0.356 

7/2/98 28 27760 2.259 0.339 

Average Values 23 12540 2.077 0.334 

Taxa Richness - The number of distinct taxa usually decreases with decreasing water quality. In some 

situations organic enrichment can cause an increase in the number of pollution tolerant taxa. 

Abundance - The number of benthic macroinvertebrates per unit area is an indicator of habitat availability 

and fish food abundance. Abundance may be reduced or increased depending on the type of impact. 

Shannon Diversity Index (SDI)- Ecological diversity is a measure of community structure defined by the 

relationship between the number of distinct taxa and their relative abundances. Higher SDI values indicate 

higher levels of diversity. 

Ratio of Scraper and Collector-Filterer Functional Feeding Groups (SC:CF) - This ratio reflects the riffle/run 

community food base and provides insight into the nature of potential disturbance factors. Scrapers decrease 

and collector-filterers increase in relative abundance in response to sedimentation and organic enrichment 

(Vinson, 1992). 

The macroinvertebrate assemblages indicate that: 

-Between 1994 and 1998, values for taxa richness, SDI, and SC: CF ratio declined in Pitch Log 

Creek, suggesting recent and perhaps ongoing degradation of water quality. 

-Water quality in Long Branch Creek was relatively constant between 1996 and 97, and has declined 

from 1997 to 1998 

-Water quality in Barnes Valley Creek is highly variable. 

-Ben Hall Creek has poor water quality, as indicated by an extremely low SC:CF ratio. Instantaneous 

water quality data show that turbidity in this stream is low, suggesting that organic enrichment may 

be affecting the SC:CF ratio (does have a fairly low DO). This stream has the lowest SDI of all the 

streams sampled, below average abundance, and below average taxa richness. 

-Water quality in Miller Creek increases from upstream to downstream. This may be a reflection of 

spring inflows increasing discharge with increasing distance downstream from Gerber Reservoir. The 

data set for this stream is very limited. 

-Water quality in Antelope Creek is generally good, although it degrades with distance downstream 

from Duncan Springs. 

48 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Water Quality Data - Reservoirs 

Many of the reservoirs in the analysis area are considered eutrophic – that is, they are biologically 

productive. Of all the reservoirs, water quality has been well documented in only one – Gerber Reservoir. 

This reservoir provides habitat for the shortnose sucker and is thus of special concern to the USBR, which 

between 1991 and 1995 monitored temperature (1991 to 1993), dissolved oxygen (DO) (1992 to 1995), and 

pH (1992 to 1995) (Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003). 

Temperature 

Gerber Reservoir is thermally stratified, with fairly stable water temperatures below 1 meter from the surface. 

Water temperatures at the surface (≤ 1 meter) varied annually from 36 to 72 F, and by up to 8.5 F on a daily 

basis. In addition, surface temperatures varied spatially across the area of the reservoir. Maximum surface 

water temperatures occurred from July through September and exceeded 78 F (Piaskowski and Buettner, 

2003). 

Below 1m, temperatures generally ranged from 37 to 70 F. Daily water temperature fluctuations averaged 

about 1 F during the summer months. At depth, water temperatures throughout the reservoir were similar 

(Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003). 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Dissolved oxygen levels varied with depth and sampling location, as well as between seasons and years. 

Daily variability was minimal. DO levels decreased with increasing depth, with an average difference of 2.7 

mg/L between measurements taken at the surface and at depth (during summer months, this difference could 

reach 13 mg/L). Seasonally, the DO levels were generally higher in spring and lower in late summer and 

winter (when levels continuously below 4 mg/L were recorded). DO levels during a given season varied 

between years, perhaps as a result of varying water levels (Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003). Low DO levels 

are generally associated with the decomposition of excessive aquatic growth. 

pH 

pH levels ranged from 7 to 10, with the highest average monthly levels (pH of 9) occurring during summer. 

pH levels tended to increase throughout the summer months. pH declined with depth during the summer 

months, and levels did not exceed 9.5 below a depth of 1 meter. During periods when pH was greater than 

9.5 at the surface, pH levels were usually less than 8 near the bottom. Higher pH levels at the surface may be 

related to the photosynthesis by algae (Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003). 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

Overview 

This section describes the habitat requirements of the species of concern followed by a description of their 

distribution and relative abundance. Finally, habitat parameters that are measurable and provide an index of 

habitat condition are defined and their condition in the watersheds described. In section 4 & 5, probable 

habitat conditions prior to euro-American settlement are compared to the existing conditions. Parameters for 

this analysis were chosen based their importance as potential limiting factors for the species of concern 

(namely redband trout and Klamath sucker species) in the watershed. 

Selected Parameters: 

- Fish passage and distribution. 

- Stream temperature 

- Spawning habitat 

- Habitat complexity (amount of large woody debris and # pools/mi) 

- Exotic Species 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 49
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Life History and Habitat Requirements 

Klamath Largescale and Shortnose Suckers 

Both Klamath Largescale and shortnose suckers exist in Gerber Reservoir and its tributaries. Because much 

of the population information collected to date does not distinguish between the two species and their life 

history requirements are apparently similar, the following habitat requirements are assumed to apply to both 

species. 

Spawning Habitat 

For stream spawning populations in the Klamath Basin, suckers begin their spawning migration in late 

February, March, or early April depending on peak flows and temperature cues, with spawning activity 

continuing well into May (USDI-FWS. 1993). Spawning surveys conducted on tributaries of Gerber 

reservoir during the spring of 1993 through 2000 indicate that shortnose and Klamath Largescale suckers 

typically initiate spawning in late April, the earliest record for spawning as indicated by egg presence was 

April 17, 2000 (Table 3-19). Egg presence has been identified as late as May 10 in 1995 and 1996. Suckers 

spawn in a range of water temperatures (9-17C), water depths (11-70 cm), and water velocities (42-132 cm/s) 

(Buettner and Scoppettone 1990). Spawning occurs near the bottom and when gravel is available; eggs are 

dispersed within the top several centimeters. Spawning over cobbles and armored substrate, eggs fall 

between the crevices or are swept downstream. Spawning preference appears to be more related to flow and 

depth than to substrate type. It is not known how tightly reproductive success is linked to spawning 

preference. 

Larval and Juvenile Habitat 

Larval suckers usually spend relatively little time in tributary streams and migrate back to the reservoir 

shortly after swim up (USDI-FWS, 1993). Larval suckers appear to exhibit a diel migratory behavior and 

typically migrate during the evening hours. Most larvae migrate to the reservoir between May and June. 

Larvae surveys of tributaries of Gerber Reservoir during the spring of 1993 though 2000 indicate that native 

shortnose sucker larvae initiate migration in mid-April and continue into mid-June (Table 3-19). Larvae 

preferred habitat appears to be pocket water surrounded by rooted aquatic vegetation and they appear to 

avoid areas devoid of vegetation. Gently sloping, sandy unvegetated shorelines are common today along 

dikes lining lakes and larger streams. This type of habitat was probably nonexistent historically and such 

habitats would probably not provide nursery habitats of the same quality as a marsh edge. 

Table 3-19. Summary of Gerber tributary sucker spawning surveys 1993-2002. 

Year* Observations Earliest Latest Comment (*Survey dates vary between years.) 

Eggs Larvae 

1993 not surveyed Yes 20-May 15-Jun 

1994 No No X X A few adults were observed stranded in pools in Barnes 

Valley Creek in June (only year no reproduction was 

documented). 

1995 not surveyed Yes 10-May 2-Jun 

1996 Yes Yes 10-May 4-Jun 

1997 Yes Yes 17-Apr X No surveys in June 

1998 not surveyed Yes 10-May X High water in May prevented egg surveys 

1999 Yes Yes 26-Apr 1-Jun 

2000 Yes Yes 17-Apr 23-May 

2001 No Yes 21-May 14-Jun Larvae observed only in the lower reach of Barnes Valley 

Creek and perennial reach of Long Branch Creek 

2002 not surveyed Yes X 12-Jun June 12 was the only survey date 

50 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Adult Habitat 

Adult sucker spend relatively little time in tributary streams and migrate back to the lake after spawning 

(USDI-FWS, 1993). A small segment of the native sucker population appears to reside in perennial tributary 

streams of the Gerber Reservoir (BLM Internal Data). Oxygen depletion can occur under severe ice cover 

when biological demand depletes oxygen and the ice cover prevents atmospheric gas exchange. Thus, 

streams could become important refugial habitat when conditions in Gerber Reservoir decline during 

extended drought. 

Klamath Redband trout 

Redband trout (a USFS R6 sensitive species, BLM sensitive species, and ONHP vulnerable species) probably 

entered the Upper Klamath basin from interior connections contemporary with the establishment of the bull 

trout and the tui chub. After the lake cut an outlet to the Pacific Ocean via the Klamath River, the lake 

became smaller as the outlet trenched down (Behnke 1992), isolating the Klamath population of redband 

from the rest of the interior populations. 

Redband trout in the Lost River drainage are limited to a few small, scattered populations that are largely 

limited by restricted habitats (ODFW 1997). Tributaries of Gerber Reservoir support spawning populations 

that rear in the reservoir. Miller Creek, downstream from Gerber Reservoir has supported a population of 

redband trout but that stream can become dry in drought years (e.g. 1992). 

Trout species are affected by increases in temperature, either by altering feeding behavior or displacement by 

more tolerant aquatic species. However thousands of years of adapting to a desiccating environment have 

enabled many populations of Oregon desert redband trout to feed at higher temperatures than most other 

western trout (Behnke 1992). Native stocks of redband in the Klamath watershed have also evolved 

resistance to an endemic bacterial disease, (Ceratomyxa shasta), which is highly lethal to nonnative trout. 

The existence of a self-sustaining population of redband in Gerber suggests that the fish present are of native 

stock as conditions that have occurred since the last stocking of rainbow trout in Gerber Reservoir, spring of 

1990, would likely have eliminated strains of introduced trout. 

In many circumstances, especially in high-gradient streams, trout abundance may be constrained more by 

physical habitat than food (Behnke 1992). Trout require four kinds of habitat during the various stages of 

their life history: spawning habitat, nursery or rearing habitat, adult habitat, and overwintering habitat. 

Deficiencies in any one of the four will limit production. 

Spawning Habitat 

All western trout evolved to spawn during the spring season, stimulated by the rising water temperatures 

(Behnke 1992). However, specific spawning time varies greatly depending on temperature and flow regimes. 

Native redband trout are iteroparous, spawning more than once in a lifetime, and age of first spawning is 

likely highly variable based on environmental conditions. All western trout evolved to spawn in flowing 

waters that circulate dissolved oxygen through the redd (gravel nest constructed by spawning trout where 

eggs are deposited and covered). 

Where spawning gravels are extensive enough, trout can be highly fecund producing far more young than the 

population can absorb (Behnke 1992). Females can produce 1800 to 2200 eggs per kilogram of female body 

weight. A stable population can be maintained if only two progeny from each pair of spawning parents 

survive to reproduce themselves. This leaves a tremendous surplus of young fish expendable to natural 

mortality. 

In the Gerber/Willow Valley system most of the spawning habitat that is available is in intermittent streams 

and the trout likely use these small tributaries for reproduction. This tactic is successful if the tributary flow 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 51
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

is maintained until the young are able to move to the main streams (Behnke 1992). Once the young acquire 

some swimming facility, declining flow stimulate their downstream movement, and massive losses from 

stranding are avoided. 

Harsh environments can lead to certain reproductive adaptations under specific conditions, such as 

accelerated embryonic development, ability to spawn and begin egg incubation at temperatures considerable 

below the norm, could result (Behnke 1992). Gerber trout populations may exhibit these types of 

adaptations. 

Nursery or Rearing Habitat 

After hatching and during the first month of life, trout need rearing habitat with protective cover and water of 

low velocity (Behnke 1992). Such habitats occur along the margins of streams and in spring seeps, side 

channels, and small tributaries. High gradient, high velocity stream may lack suitable nursery sites, in which 

case few fish survive to their second year even though spawning success may be high. As with spawning 

habitat, however, there can be too much rearing habitat. Excessive recruitment into a population where 

young and adult fish compete for a common food supply results in short-lived, slow growing individuals and 

a population whose biomass is tied up in small young fish. 

The survival rate greatly increases after young trout attain length of 125-150 mm, typically in the second year 

of life (Behnke 1992). At this stage they relocate to riffle areas; later, they establish territories in deeper 

waters such as those of pools or undercut banks. 

Adult Habitat 

By the time they reach adulthood, stream trout generally live at depth of 0.3 m or greater in areas where slow 

waters for resting are juxtaposed with fast waters that carry food and where protective cover is provided by 

boulders, logs, overhanging vegetation, or undercut banks. 

It is adult habitat that limits the population biomass of resident trout in most streams (Behnke 1992). That is, 

spawning and rearing habitat are adequate, and the food supply would support a greater biomass of trout if 

more adult habitat were present. 

Over-wintering Habitat 

Over-winter survival is related to the amount of deep water with low current velocity and protective cover, 

such as occurs in deep pools with large boulders and root wads or areas with deep beaver ponds. Most 

winters in Gerber would be considered severe in nature with most water in the headwaters locked up as ice. 

Due to the intermittent and flashy nature of the streams and tributaries of the Gerber/Willow Valley 

watershed little over-wintering stream habitat is available. Most fish would be forced to leave in the fall to 

over-winter at lower elevations (Behnke 1992), in this case, Gerber Reservoir or the Lost River. An 

alternative winter refugial habitat would be the spring-fed tributaries of Gerber Reservoir such as Casebeer 

Creek, Barnes Creek, Lapham Creek, and Antelope Creek 

Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance 

Current fish distribution is mapped (Map 3.1 in Appendix E) as “presence verified” and “presence not 

verified”. Comprehensive fish presence/absence surveys have not been done in the watershed and therefore 

absence of a particular species is not displayed. This analysis will focus on distribution and habitat condition 

of redband trout and Klamath basin suckers. There are no estimates for fish populations in the analysis area; 

however, there are several sources of information that provide some evidence of population health and 

viability. A general description of warm-water fisheries is provided because of its importance as a recreational 

element and potential negative effects of native species if habitat conditions become so favorable for those 

species that they begin to displace native species. 

52 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Gerber Reservoir Fish Populations 

Population age structure (Figure 3-5) and relative species abundance estimates (summarized below) are 

available for suckers in Gerber Reservoir (Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003). USBR has compiled and is in 

the process of analyzing relevant water quality and fish population data for Gerber Reservoir collected 

between 1992 and 2000. Effort and sites sampled within reservoir differ between years. USBR collected 

data for 1992 through 1996. Data for 2000 were collected by USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD). 

Fish were collected using only trapnets in 1992. Both trapnets and trammel nets were used in all other years 

to collect fish. Sites sampled within reservoir differed between years. Data for Klamath Largescale suckers 

and Shortnose suckers is combined and labeled “shortnose sucker”. 

Figure 3-5. Length frequency distribution of shortnose suckers by sex from Gerber Reservoir using 

trammel nets. 

Number of fish (indicated by “n”) Fork length class (mm) 

1994 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

220 300 350 400 450 500 550 

Male, n=69 

Female, n=209 

Unknown, n=1 

2000 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

n=111 

n=151 

n=13 

220 300 350 400 450 500 550 

The following conclusions were made by USBR in their draft report (2002). 

-Low DO levels (< 4 mg/L), occurring at mid- to bottom water column depths in summer and winter, 

may negatively impact sucker health in Gerber Reservoir. Although areas of higher DO levels were 

present at shallower depths when stressful levels existed below, it is unknown whether they would be 

used by suckers. 

-Larval and juvenile suckers distributed in near surface waters (< 1 m depth) during some times in 

summer may be negatively impacted by pH and temperature levels. However below near surface 

waters, where most suckers > age 0 would be expected, pH and temperatures rarely achieved levels 

stressful to suckers at anytime of the year. 

-Length frequency distributions of suckers collected by trammel nets between 1994 and 2000 were 

similar, providing evidence of a stable population. However, comparisons should be made with 

caution since sampling protocols differed between years and other factors cannot be ruled out. For 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 53
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

example, although trammel nets in both 1994 and 2000 were set throughout Gerber Reservoir on a
 

similar number of days (18 and 24, respectively), sampling mostly occurred in June and July in 1994,
 

compared to June through September in 2000.
 

-Fish were observed to be in poor condition during and following low reservoir/poor water quality
 

years as evidenced by length/weight relationships.
 

The relationship between length and age of suckers in Gerber Reservoir is unknown. However, if shortnose 

suckers in Gerber Reservoir grow at similar rates to those found in Clear Lake Reservoir (see Scoppettone 

and Buettner 1995), then the length of suckers collected from Gerber Reservoir suggest ages ranged from less 

than one year to about 13 years, with most ages apparently represented in between. 

Relative species abundance data suggest that introduced species co-exist with native species although nonnatives tend to dominate in fish numbers and probably biomass. Redband trout were observed in only a few 

occasions throughout the 8-year sample periods suggesting populations are extremely low. Sample methods 

may be less effective for redband although they are apparently somewhat effective in Upper Klamath Lake 

despite the target species being suckers. 

Other Reservoirs 

Other reservoirs in the analysis such as Upper Midway, Antelope Reservoir, Willow Valley Reservoir, and 

Bumphead Reservoir primarily contain introduced warm water game fish. Angling for these species has 

become an integral part of the Gerber / Willow Valley opportunities for recreation. Hatchery reared cutthroat 

trout were stocked in Willow Valley Reservoir up until 1999. Known fish presence of game fish, as of 2000 

(Table 3-20). 

Table 3-20. Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed reservoirs game fish species presence (P) or absence (A). 

Species Gerber Bumphead* Round Valley Willow Valley Upper Midway 

Lahontan Cutthroat A A A P A 

Yellow Perch P P - - P 

Redband Trout P - - - -

Pumpkinseed P - - - -

Bluegill - - - P -

Crappie - P - - -

Bullhead Catfish P ? P ? P 

Largemouth Bass P P - P P 

Bull Frog P P P P -

*(dry in 2001) 

Introduced species such as brown bullheads, fathead minnows, Sacramento perch, yellow perch, 

pumpkinseed, green sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass may become established and abundant in the these 

smaller waterbodies (USDI-FWS. 1993). USFWS in their 2000 Biological Opinion suggested that predation 

or competition with small sucker with fatheads, perch and other introduced species potentially could cause 

limited recruitment of suckers to the reservoir. However, based on population sampling in Gerber Reservoir, 

most recently in 2000 (Piaskowski and Buettner, 2003), a relatively stable population of suckers coexists with 

non-native species in Gerber Reservoir. 

Miller Creek 

Fish population data from Miller Creek is scarce. In the late summer of 1992 Miller Creek was dry 

throughout most of its 8 mile length. Subsequent spot electro-fish surveys in 1993 revealed no trout or 

suckers present (R Hicks, memo to BLM file). Since then however, starting in 1995 redband trout and 

suckers have been observed routinely and a popular trout fishery is apparent. Additionally, a shortnose/ 

Klamath largescale spawning population has been documented near the mouth of Miller Creek on USBR 

54 Current Conditions, Step 3 
North Canal, Langell Valley Oct 1999 

0 18 

43 

2 5 5 11 10 4 3

318 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

1-40 41-80 81-120 121-160 161-200 201-240 241-280 281-320 >320 

Fork Length class (mm) 

# Fish 

Redband 

Suckers 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

easement lands (Mark Buettner, personal communication). Spawning adult shortnose suckers have been 

observed as far as upstream as Pankey Basin inlet, 5 miles upstream from the Lost River confluence (BLM 

data). It is not clear to what extent trout or suckers move upstream from the Lost River to Miller Creek or 

downstream from the irrigation outlet at Gerber Reservoir. 

Some information for fish assemblage in Miller Creek can be inferred from fish salvaged by USBR from the 

main diversion canal which is unscreened at the diversion point (Figure 3-6). About 82 % of these trout were 

juvenile young of the year. Several other year classes are apparent indicating that some successful 

recruitment occurred regularly in the mid-1990s. Few suckers were located in Miller Creek in 1999 and all 

were young of the year. 

Figure 3-6. Number of redband trout and suckers captured in the North canal in Oct 1999. 

The BLM collected fish assemblage data from a short reach of Miller Creek in 1997 (Figure 3-7). Too few 

fish (a total of 31) were collected to infer age class distribution although, again, several year classes are 

apparent. Few young of the year are present. However, fish salvage data from USBR (1999) indicates that 

young fish may migrate downstream into the canal, possibly when flow decreases as a result of irrigation 

reduction in October. It should be noted that juvenile redband recruitment and reproduction was associated 

with high water years only, when Gerber was spilling over the outlet or released for flood control (USBR, 

1999). Young of the year fish may not be detectable in April. Reach length was 0.35 mile (25 trout/mile in 

April; 63 trout/mile in October). Methodology was a single pass electroshock. No block nets were used. This 

method probably significantly underestimated the true population. Marbled sculpin and speckled dace were 

also captured in this survey. 

Habitat Conditions - General Descriptions of Waterbodies - Reservoirs 

Gerber 

Gerber Reservoir was created in 1925 with the construction of a dam on Miller Creek by USBR to store 

water for agricultural irrigation. The waters of Gerber Reservoir are highly productive and classified as 

eutrophic. Depth is sufficient to form thermal stratification, which may result in depletion of dissolved 

oxygen in the lower zones. Water transparency is limited by phytoplankton and suspended sediment. Annual 

fluctuation in water level and the high turbidity results in very few aquatic plants in the reservoir. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 55
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Round Valley 

When full, Round Valley Reservoir has about 310 surface acres, maximum depth is only 6 feet and average 

depth is 5 feet (ODFW 1997). It is fed by intermittent runoff from its 3 square mile watershed. This 

reservoir is eutrophic. Although water transparency is limited to 2-3 feet, aquatic vegetation grows profusely. 

Physical cover is provided by emergent vegetation and flooded juniper trees along the shoreline areas. 

Diversion from Wildhorse Creek provides additional inflow for Round Valley Reservoir. Round Valley 

Reservoir waters are intended to irrigate the Round Valley Waterspreader. 

Figure 3-7. Number of redband trout captured in lower Miller Creek (April and October 1997). 

Lower Miller Creek Canyon, 1997 

1 1 

3 

6 

2 

4 

6 

1 

2 

5 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1-40 41-80 81-120 121-160 161-200 201-240 241-280 281-320 >320 

Fork Length Class (mm) 

# Fish 

Redband -April, 1997 

Redband -Oct, 1997 

Upper Midway 

Size is estimated at 40 acres with depths to about 10 feet (ODFW 1997). The reservoir was built for storage 

of irrigation waters but not used that heavily. Being shallow it has a high proportion of shoal area that 

supports growths of emergent aquatic vegetation. Willows growing along the dam provide shade and cover 

in higher water levels. The BLM does not have legal water rights to this reservoir (see water rights 

discussion for the affects from drawdown). This reservoir is drained approximately every five years leaving 

little or no aquatic habitat for fish species, which effectively resets the reservoirs fishery community with no 

fish present. 

Willow Valley 

Willow Valley Reservoir was formed by the construction of a dam on East Fork Lost River or Antelope Creek 

in about 1920 to provide storage for agriculture irrigation (ODFW 1997). At elevation 4526 Willow Valley 

has a surface area of 588 acres, depth averages 12 feet a maximum of 25 feet, providing a volume of 6800 

acre feet. The reservoir is classified as eutrophic with high levels of phosphorus. Water transparency is low 

because of algae and suspended sediments. Low light penetration retards growth of aquatic vegetation. 

Flooded juniper trees and rocks provide the primary cover elements. Irrigation and maintenance can virtually 

dried up the reservoir leaving only the small inflow from East Fork Lost River to provide refugial habitat. 

Bumpheads 

Bumpheads Reservoir is a small shallow irrigation storage reservoir constructed in 1950 within the watershed 

of Willow Valley Reservoir (ODFW 1997). At elevation 4740 it has a surface area of 89 acres, its average 

depth is 8 feet when full and is 15 feet at its deepest point. Inflow is from intermittent surface drainage. 

Water levels fluctuate from irrigation withdrawals and the reservoir has been dried up in some years of 

56 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

drought conditions. This reservoir is also eutrophic with high biological productivity. Water transparency is 

limited by suspended sediments and algal blooms. 

Dog Hollow 

Dog Hollow is another small irrigation storage reservoir (ODFW 1997) with a surface area of 88 acres, a 

maximum depth of 16 feet, and a total volume of 444 acre feet. No information is available on water quality 

but it appears to be typical of other small reservoir in the Gerber area, fairly productive but with suspended 

sediments clouding the water. This reservoir is subject to periodic draining for irrigation purposes. 

Habitat Conditions - General Descriptions of Waterbodies - Streams 

Miller Creek
 

Low to moderate gradient, confined in steeper canyon, rocky substrate with few gravels due to reservoir
 

controlled flows. Miller Creek is the outlet from Gerber Reservoir and its flows are subject to the storage and
 

release of waters for irrigation purposes (ODFW 1997). Therefore, this stream typically has its high flows in
 

the summer and is cut off in the winter and spring except for leakage and some ground water that may trickle
 

in within the canyon area. To prevent freezing of the outlet valves during the winter, approximately one to
 

two cubic feet per second is bypassed and released in to the Miller Creek channel (USBR. 1992). The bypass
 

usually begins in November and continues to the beginning of irrigation season. The outlet at Gerber is
 

opened in the spring (approx April 15) to provide irrigation water to the Langell Valley Irrigation District
 

lands (USDI USBR. 1992). The outlet is shut off on or about October 1. Toward the lower end of the creek,
 

the flow is diverted into irrigation canals. Only in periods of spring runoff, when Gerber Reservoir is full,
 

does Miller Creek reach the Lost River (ODFW 1997). Because of low winter flow, complete freezing or ice
 

related anoxia during cold spells might be a problem for fish in Miller Creek.
 

Barnes Valley Creek, Long Branch Creek, Pitch Log Creek Creeks, Ben Hall Creek
 

These are the largest streams entering Gerber Reservoir. Low to moderate gradients, low summer base flows,
 

and high peak flows during snowmelt and rain on snow events characterizes the stream environment for fish.
 

These tributaries are important because of their use as the primary spawning habitat for shortnose and
 

Klamath Largescale suckers and redband trout. These streams are best described as “interrupted perennial”,
 

that is, some sections of the stream run subsurface during dry periods.
 

Antelope Creek
 

Antelope Creek drains a rocky plateau during spring runoff but perennial flow is limited to a 2 mile section
 

fed by Duncan Springs. That perennial segment lies within a rim rock canyon and generally has good cover
 

provided by boulders, shrubs, and trees. This stream flows into Willow Valley reservoir where its waters are
 

stored for irrigation purposes.
 

East Fork of the Lost River
 

The East Fork of the Lost River flows from Willow Valley Reservoir five miles to its confluence with the
 

Lost River. The condition of the stream channel between the reservoir and the Lost River is not well known.
 

Fluctuating water levels due to irrigation releases may limit its value as fish habitat.
 

Rock Creek
 

Rock Creek is a mix of perennial spring fed sections and intermittent sections. A diversion is present on the
 

stream to provide water to Grohs Reservoir.
 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 

Barnes Creek, Casebeer Creek, Lapham Creek
 

These are small perennial spring-fed tributaries that are capable of providing important refugial cold water
 

habitat during the summer and possibly freeze resistant over-wintering habitat. Their geomorphic tendency
 

to form Rosgen E channel types allows for good depth and cover for fish despite their small relative size
 

(Rosgen 1996). Over the last 10 years, redband trout have been documented in Barnes Creek, Lapham Creek
 

and anecdotal reports of redband exist from Casebeer Creek.
 57
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Fish Passage 

Road culverts can block the movement of fish; the most common access inhibitors being excessive water 

velocities and associated vertical drops (Baker and Votapka 1990). When assessing culverts for fish passage, 

the following parameters should be evaluated: (1) jumping pools, (2) vertical jumps of <1 foot, (3) velocities 

that do not exceed maximum sustained swimming speed, and (4) culvert length (Furniss et al. 1991). Baker 

and Votapka (1990) document sustained speeds of rainbow trout being 2.0 - 6.6 feet per second. The criteria 

for suckers has not been well studied but 4.2 ft/sec sustained speed is suggested. Further, as the water 

velocity increases, the length of a culvert that a trout can swim through decreases. For example, a trout can 

maneuver through a 50-foot culvert with water velocities up to 3 feet per second; however, at water velocities 

of 4 feet per second, a trout can only swim through a 30-foot culvert. 

Barriers to fish movement can be natural (falls, cascades, dry channels, poor water quality), man-made 

(dams, diversions, and culverts) or a combination of natural and manmade causes. For example, if a channel 

becomes very wide because of human caused streambank degradation, water depth decreases and more flow 

is required to achieve adequate depth for fish movement. Diversions can cause barriers to fish passage at the 

point of diversion or areas downstream due to flow reductions. Four culverts blocking fish passage were 

identified on USFS lands in the Barnes Valley watershed. Watershed impacts that affect the timing and 

magnitude of runoff such as increased drainage network, or decreased infiltration rates in the uplands can 

also lead to water quality and flow barriers to migration and fish passage. This can happen when the peak of 

the hydrograph shifts earlier and results in low flow during the spring when fish are spawning. Refer to Steps 

5& 6 for descriptions as to where some of these impacts may be occurring and how they may be inhibiting 

fish passage potential. 

All of the man-made reservoirs that occur on fish bearing streams are fish passage barriers since none have 

fish ladders or fish screens. Notable among them are Gerber Dam, Willow Valley Reservoir dam, and Dry 

Prairie on Ben Hall Creek. No road crossings on BLM have been identified as fish passage barriers. Fish 

passage barriers on Forest Service Lands. Additional road or diversion barriers may exist on headwater/ 

spring-fed streams on private lands and within Barnes Valley proper. A partial barrier, the low-water ford on 

the CCC road near the mouth of Barnes Valley Creek was replaced in 2001 and now provides improved fish 

passage at a greater range of flows. 

Casebeer Creek, Barnes Creek, and Antelope Creek in Willow Valley have limited ability to provide even 

seasonal fish passage when reservoir levels are lower than full pool because of poor channel conditions at the 

stream mouths (see Figure 5-2, in Step 5 – Synthesis and Interpretation). Additionally, a significant 

proportion of base flow may be diverted for irrigation, which restricts both upstream and downstream 

migration. 

Stream Temperature 

Stream temperature is an important factor regulating aquatic life. Fish are cold blooded, and thus, assume the 

temperature of the water in which they live. For this reason, a fish’s metabolism, and consequently their 

growth and development, are directly controlled by their thermal environment (Brown 1983). Therefore, the 

growth and survival of fish can be greatly affected by temperature extremes (Beschta et al. 1987). Because 

stream temperature affects fish habitat, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has 

established a state water quality temperature criteria: 7 consecutive average daily maximum temperatures are 

to be at or below 17.8°C (64°F) with fish being the primary benefiting resource. Generally, water 

temperatures in excess of 21°C (70°F) are unfavorable and may cause stress to all age classes (Sigler and 

Sigler 1991). However, Behnke (1992) states that redband trout possess a hereditary basis to persist at higher 

water temperatures than other species of trout. This is supported in recent thermal tolerance research 

58 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

3/1/97 3/21/97 4/10/97 4/30/97 5/20/97 6/9/97 6/29/97 

Water Temperature (F) 

Maximum 

Mean 

Minimum 

Estimated 

trout 

spawning 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

conducted in Malhuer and Warner basins (Rodnick et al, 2002 draft manuscript). They found that adult 

redband trout could tolerate 2-4 °C (3.6-7.2°F) higher acute increase in temperature before experiencing 

thermal stress than hatchery rainbow trout. Behnke (1992) has captured (fly-fishing) live redband in streams 

with temperatures of 28.3°C (82.9°F). Temperatures exceeding 29.4°C (84.9°F) can be fatal to rainbow trout 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). It should be noted that desired stream temperatures are discussed in relation to 

redband trout, since these fish are the only native trout known to exist within the Gerber/ Willow Valley 

watershed. 

Figure 3-8. Seven-day moving average values for maximum, mean, and minimum water temperatures 

in Barnes Valley Creek upstream from the CCC Road crossing. 

Summer stream temperatures were evaluated for their frequency in exceeding the DEQ 64°F criteria (Table 

3-16, Water Quality section). In lower Barnes Valley Creek the standard was exceeded between 74% and 

100% of the days between June 1 and September 30 for the seven years of record. An additional stream 

temperature problem encountered by fish in the watershed is high water temperatures associated with low 

flows in the early spring. DEQ has suggested that 55°F is needed for salmonids during spawning and 

incubation periods (Table 3-14, Water Quality section). This standard is frequently exceeded in Barnes 

Valley Creek and probably in Miller Creek before irrigation is turned on in April and early May when trout 

would likely be spawning. Figure 3-8 (above) shows the seven-day moving average values for maximum, 

mean, and minimum water temperatures in Barnes Valley Creek upstream from the CCC Road crossing - site 

BV4840. (USBR inflow data indicates that Barnes Valley Creek streamflows were below average in the 

spring of 1997.) 

Large Woody Debris (LWD) and its Contribution to Fish Habitat 

Large woody debris in streams is an important roughness element influencing channel morphology, sediment 

distribution, and water routing (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978, Bisson et al. 1987). Large wood can form a 

step gradient, a stair-step effect along the channel. As a result, stream velocity is reduced in the relatively 

long stretches between debris steps and increases where water falls over the logs. A straight stream will be 

converted into a more sinuous or meandering stream with the LWD (Swanson 1991). These alterations in 

flow patterns may either protect or erode banks, but in general, this energy distribution reduces the streams 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 59
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

ability to erode banks and enhances sediment storage (Zimmerman et al. 1967). Wood also serves as an 

important agent in pool formation. The resulting effect on fish habitat is significant. Large wood in the low 

energy segments traps organic matter such as leaves, which remains in the stream longer, providing food for 

aquatic organisms (Speaker et al. 1984). Reeves et al. (1991) notes that low velocity areas required by fish— 

during floods—increase with additional LWD. Bjornn and Reiser (1991) cited several studies that 

documented an increase in fish densities with higher levels of LWD. It should be noted that the role of LWD 

decreases as streams become larger, because greater currents will carry the wood out of the active channel 

and onto the banks (Murphy and Meehan 1991). 

Large woody debris information was collected in selected streams in the Gerber watershed by ODFW survey 

crews in 2001. Data from two streams, Barnes Valley Creek and Miller Creek is presented in Table 3-21. In 

streams where LWD is lacking, large boulders (>1.4 ft diameter) can function as coarse roughness features. 

They provide cover, promote scour features, and reduce water velocity (ODFW 1997). In Step 5, this data 

will be compared to LWD data for near reference condition values suggested by Quigley et al (1997). 

Table 3-21. Large woody debris and large boulders expressed as number of pieces/mile. 

Stream Name Reach # Reach 

Length (mi) 

Slope 

Class (%) 

Stream 

Width (ft) 

Large Wood 

(pieces > 20 in diam/mi) 

Large Boulders 

(>1.4 ft diam) 

Barnes Valley 1* 0.4 <2% 49.2 0.0 209 

2 2.4 <2% 32.8 6.4 1304 

3 2.7 <2% 19.7 1.6 80 

4 0.5 <2% 26.2 0.0 0 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 12.9 1625 

2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 9.7 2784 

3 2.7 <2% 62.3 14.5 2028 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs and therefore their condition was influenced by the reservoir 

Pools and their Contribution to Fish Habitat 

Pools are considered to be one of the most important fish habitat features, and for most fish, pools are the 

preferred habitat type (Bestcha and Platts 1986). Reeves et al. (1991) describes some of the reasons why 

trout use this habitat type: pools offer low velocity refuges, cooler stream temperatures during the summer 

months and over-wintering habitat. Furthermore, the majority of trout spawning occurs at pool tailouts, 

where spawning gravel is deposited (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Reeves et al. 1991). In addition, pools provide 

rearing habitat for juvenile fish and resting habitat for adult fish (Bjornn and Reiser 1991), and refugia from 

drought, fire, winter icing and other disturbances (Sedell et. al. 1990). When pool numbers, volume, and 

complexity increases, the stream’s capacity to support a diversity of species and life stages/history types 

increases (Bisson et. al. 1992; Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Further, Decker and Erman (1992) found that 

rainbow trout numbers were more abundant with an increase in pool habitat. Finally, an increase in pool 

numbers and complexity produces conditions for increased fish numbers and biomass (Fausch and Northcote 

1992). Table 3-22 presents pool frequency data for 3 streams (BLM, 1997 and ODFW, 2001). In Step 5 -

“Reference Condition”, values are compared to research information from the northern Great Basin (Quigley 

et al, 1997). 

60 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-22. Number of pools per mile in Barnes Valley Creek, Miller Creek and Antelope Creek 

Stream Name Reach # Reach Length (mi) Slope Class (%)Stream Width (ft) Pool w/d ratio 

Barnes Valley 1* 0.4 <2% 49.2 7.9 

2 2.4 <2% 32.8 9.2 

3 2.7 <2% 19.7 5.8 

4 0.5 <2% 26.2 7.7 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 13.9 

2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 12.7 

3 2.7 <2% 62.3 22.0 

Antelope 1* 0.2 <2% 4.3 8.1 

2 0.2 <2% 6.0 7.9 

3** 1.0 <2% 5.6 7.0 

4** 1.0 <2% 7.9 7.1 

5 0.3 <2% 14.8 9.9 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs; therefore their condition was influenced by the reservoir 

**reaches were used for the “Gerber\Willow Valley reference condition” 

Another pool attribute that can be useful for evaluating habitat condition and value as fish habitat is pool 

width to depth ratios (Table 3-23 from BLM, 1997 and ODFW, 2001). Values are compared to research 

information from the northern Great Basin (Quigley et al, 1997). 

Table 3-23. Pool width/max depth ratios for Barnes Valley Creek, Miller Creek and Antelope Creek 

Stream Name Reach # Length (mi) Slope Class (%) Width (ft) Pool w/d ratio 

Barnes Valley 1* 0.4 <2% 49.2 7.9 

2 2.4 <2% 32.8 9.2 

3 2.7 <2% 19.7 5.8 

4 0.5 <2% 26.2 7.7 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 13.9 

2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 12.7 

3 2.7 <2% 62.3 22.0 

Antelope 1* 0.2 <2% 4.3 8.1 

2 0.2 <2% 6.0 7.9 

3** 1.0 <2% 5.6 7.0 

4** 1.0 <2% 7.9 7.1 

5 0.3 <2% 14.8 9.9 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs; therefore their condition was influenced by the reservoir 

**reaches were used for the “Gerber\Willow Valley reference condition” 

Spawning Gravel Fines and their Influence on Fish Habitat and Reproductive Success 

Willers (1991), describes the effects of spawning gravel size on egg and alevin survival (hatched fish that 

have not emerged from spawning gravels). In general, he states mortality increases as spawning gravel size 

decreases because fine sediment impedes the flow of oxygenated water over the eggs or can trap the alevins 

in the gravel. Likewise, other studies show an inverse relationship between fine sediment and reproductive 

success (Everest et al. 1987). Bjornn and Reiser (1991) documented rainbow trout embryo survival as it 

related to substrate fines <6.4 mm: 90% embryo survival with fines at 10%, 75% embryo survival with fines 

at 20%, and 50% embryo survival with fines at 30%. In general, habitat guidelines for incubation of 

salmonid embryos require less than 25% volume of fines. 

Substrate composition in riffles was evaluated by visual estimation methods (ODFW 1997) in the ODFW 

stream habitat survey (2001). This methodology is known to underestimate the proportion of fines 

comprising the bed material. Pebble count methodology was used to estimate percent fine substrate in 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 61
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Antelope Creek (BLM 1997). While this method is more quantitative, it still underestimates the proportion 

of fines in comprising the bed material because material on the surface is generally larger than in the 

subsurface (i.e. armoring). Bulk sieve analysis of the surface and subsurface is a more accurate and 

appropriate methodology. Based on this information and current literature (Quigley et al, 1997), desired 

conditions for spawning substrates are evaluated in Steps 5 & 6. Table 3-24 includes data on relative 

composition of fine substrate (<2mm diameter) and gravel (2mm - 64mm) in riffles for survey reaches in 

three streams. 

Table 3-24: Percent fine substrate (<2mm diameter) in and percent gravel (2mm - 64mm) in riffles for 

survey reaches. 

Stream Name Reach # Length (mi) Slope Class % Width (ft) Fines in Riffles % Gravel in Riffles % 

Barnes Valley 1* 0.4 <2% 49.2 5.0 20.0 

2 2.4 <2% 32.8 7.0 25.0 

3 2.7 <2% 19.7 x x 

4 0.5 <2% 26.2 x x
 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 1.0 12.0
 

2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 5.0 35.0 

3 2.7 <2% 62.3 7.0 19.0
 

Antelope 1* 0.2 <2% 4.3 35.5 32.6
 

2 0.2 <2% 6.0 14.4 37.7 

3** 1.0 <2% 5.6 14.9 26.3 

4** 1.0 <2% 7.9 9.2 18.5 

5 0.3 <2% 14.8 10.5 31.9
 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs; therefore their condition was influenced by the reservoir
 

**reaches were used for the “Gerber\Willow Valley reference condition”
 

II. Vegetation 

Forested Uplands 

Ponderosa Pine 

Ponderosa pine forests cover approximately 67,000 acres of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed, which is
 

24% of the total area. It is the most widespread forest community type. Ponderosa pine is well adapted to
 

warmer and drier sites, and forms the first forests above the valley floors and juniper woodlands. Most
 

stands are found between 4800 to 5400 feet elevation. At lower elevations, and rocky stand edges, western
 

juniper mixes with the pine. At higher elevations, white fir can be a minor stand component
 

Overall, ponderosa pine stands are relatively densely stocked with small diameter pine, with juniper invading 

lower elevation stands, and white fir seedlings becoming established at higher elevations. 

The ponderosa pine community types can support a significant shrub component. Big sagebrush, antelope 

bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany are common on lower to moderate elevation sites. Greenleaf manzanita 

and squawcarpet can be found on higher elevation sites. The shrub layer can cover 60 to 70% of the area. 

The herb-grass layer is highly variable with a diverse number of species occurring throughout the area. 

The mean stand productivity is highly variable depending on stand density and site quality. Ponderosa pine 

forests generally have relatively low to moderate productivity. Mean wood productivity ranges from 42 to 54 

cubic feet per acre per year. 

62 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition of the ponderosa pine forests can generally be summarized by: 

- increased stand density and overstocking due to fire exclusion, 

- increased stand complexity (layers), and more ladder fuels, 

- decreased stand vigor and resiliency (positive response to disturbance events), 

- increased vulnerability to insect attack, 

- increased ground and standing fuels, and 

- increased risk of stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire. 

Disturbance Agents in Ponderosa Pine Forests 

1. Fire Ecology 

Dramatic changes in stand structure and species composition, over the last 150 years, can be attributed to fire 

exclusion, historical grazing practices, and timber harvest. Fire has played a dominant role in the 

development and structure of ponderosa pine stands within the Gerber-Willow Valley WA Area, as it has 

across the entire West. (Fire’s historical role in stand development is also discussed in Steps 4 and 5). Fire 

history studies in Oregon’s ponderosa pine forests show a fire return interval of 3 to 50 years, depending on 

site conditions and weather patterns (Agee 1993). In general, higher elevation sites, or sites on the fringe of 

mixed-conifer forests, usually had longer fire-free intervals compared to drier, lower elevation sites. Local 

investigations for the Gerber area indicate a fire return interval of 8 to 12 years (USDI, 1994). These 

naturally occurring fires were normally low-intensity burns that consumed ground fuels and kept the forest 

floor relatively free of fuels and brush. 

The process of stand development in ponderosa pine forests is a function of shade intolerance of ponderosa 

pine, periodic good years of seedling establishment associated with years of above normal precipitation, and 

frequent fire (Agee 1993). Gaps in the forest created by insects, wind, or disease, and cleaned by periodic 

natural fires, allow pine to seed in and become established in openings. In these areas, young trees are 

protected from fire due to light fuel loads on the forest floor. As the trees in the openings develop, and 

continue to grow, they begin to shed needles and limbs to build up sufficient fuel to carry natural fire and thin 

out the stand. These groups of younger trees grow to canopy level and can maintain codominance for very 

long periods of time. What looks like an open “park like” even-aged and single-storied stand, can actually be 

composed of groups of trees of varying ages. The age of codominants in a stand can vary from 150 to 500+ 

years old. Multi-aged stands are commonly composed of a mosaic of small groups, or patches of even-aged 

pine. In this case, the multi-aged structure is found on a horizontal basis, rather than vertically on every acre. 

Over the last 150 years, fire suppression has allowed the establishment of multistory structures under old 

growth pine. Where timber harvest has removed the old growth component, residual stands are mid seral 

pole sized trees. Current conditions (dense stands with a variable age class and ladder fuels, and a large 

accumulation of ground fuels) have increased the likelihood of large scale, stand-replacing wildfires, like the 

Kitts Mill Fire of 1987. Assuming a fire return interval of 8 to 12 years, most untreated stands have missed 

about 12 natural underburns, and currently carry a heavy accumulation of fuels as a result. Another result of 

fire exclusion has been the invasion by western juniper at lower elevations and dry edges, and by white fir in 

higher elevation stands. 

Prescribed fire, mainly to reduce fuel accumulations, was first implemented around 1980 by the Fremont N F 

and the BLM. More recently, cooperative burns have been made in the Paddock Butte area, involving the 

Fremont N F, BLM, and a private landowner. Industrial forestlands within the WA area have not undergone 

prescribed burn treatments. 

2. Insects 

Western pine beetle, mountain pine beetle, pine engraver, and red turpentine beetle are the major insects 

affecting the ponderosa pine forests. They usually attack trees weakened by other causes, like drought stress. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 63
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Under normal conditions, beetle populations remain at a low endemic level, but increase sharply when stand 

condition is weakened. 

Western pine beetle typically attacks individual large pine weakened by moisture stress. Moisture stress is
 

usually caused by excessive stand density, especially where dense understories are found below the larger
 

trees. In recent years, only limited mortality caused by western pine beetle has been detected.
 

Mountain pine beetles typically attack overstocked sapling/pole sized stands, and kill single trees, or groups 

to 1/4 acre in size or larger. Dense stands, with stressed trees, are at highest risk. Mortality typically rises to 

high levels during and following extended drought periods. Stands having reduced densities through 

thinning or underburns are more resistant to mountain pine beetle attack. 

The pine engraver bark beetle also attacks smaller trees, logging slash, fire-killed trees, windthrows, and the 

tops and limbs of trees killed by other beetles. During severe outbreaks, pine engraver beetles can group-kill 

parts of stands like mountain pine beetle. 

The red turpentine beetle causes the least damage of the four bark beetles, but can kill trees after repeated
 

attacks. More often, it attacks injured, weakened, or dying trees, and further weakens them, making them
 

more vulnerable to attack by other bark beetles.
 

3. Disease 

Annosus root rot is a major disease in the area. The P-strain of the fungus causes the disease that affects 

ponderosa pine. Windborne spores germinate on freshly cut stumps and spread to the roots, and to the roots 

of adjacent live trees through root grafts. Ponderosa pine and western juniper are the species susceptible to 

the P-strain of this disease. Individual infection centers can radially spread outward until host material is no 

longer available. Stand gaps, or openings of varying sizes are a legacy of this disease. Infection levels are 

high on more marginal sites and compacted soils, especially at lower elevations of the WA area. 

Ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe is a species-specific plant that infects only ponderosa pine. It causes growth 

loss, can kill smaller trees, and often weakens trees enough to make them vulnerable to bark beetle attack. 

Spread and damage is greatest in pure ponderosa pine stands with multi-layered canopies. 

Comandra blister rust causes only minor mortality, but often kills the tops of larger trees. These “spike” tops 

often provided the only long-lasting snag habitat in pre-settlement forests, where “whole-tree” snags burned 

every few years. 

Locally, windthrow can create stand openings that change the structure of the pine stands. 

4. Management 

Early “management” of the ponderosa pine forests began in the 1870’s, when local and transient livestock 

operators began utilization of the unfenced ranges. Cattle, horses, and sheep (up to 20,000 head per band) 

heavily grazed the range, and reduced the amount of ground fuel that “carried” periodic light natural ground 

fires. In addition, active fire suppression by all landowners began after 1900. While well intentioned, the 

full suppression of fires has allowed the expansion of juniper from more natural rocky, low fuel sites, to 

adjacent range communities and pine stands. White fir (and pine) seedlings, which would formerly have 

burned in periodic ground fires, have been allowed to grow into the dense pole and saw timber stands now 

found in many ponderosa pine stands. In the 1960’s, precommercial thinnings were begun in younger stands 

on national forest and BLM lands, to reduce stand densities for improved growth, as well as increased 

resistance to insect attack. Since the late 1970’s, prescribed underburns have been done on national forest, 

BLM, and private lands, to reduce the excessive fuel loads to lower, more natural levels, and reduce the risk 

of stand-replacing wildfires. 

64 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Management of the commercial-sized pine stands has varied with the landowner in the Gerber/Willow Valley 

WA area. Until about 1998, Weyerhaeuser Company owned much of the industrial private lands in the WA 

area. (In 1998, they sold their lands to U.S. Timber Company, who in turn have sold a portion of these lands 

to Jeld-Wen, Inc.). From about 1930 to the 1970’s, these private lands were logged, mainly to remove the 

large, old-growth ponderosa pine. Depending on markets, other species and smaller pine were sometimes 

also removed. Early logging tended to leave the dense understories behind, while later even-aged practices 

resulted in clearcuts and establishment of extensive ponderosa pine plantations. 

On the Fremont National Forest, timber harvest up to World War II was limited to small operations. After 

World War II, timber harvest increased, and concentrated on removing large, old-growth pine. (Higher 

quality boards milled from ponderosa pine were used for non-structural applications, like window frames, 

doors, and furniture. Most of the logs ended up as boxes for California fruit and vegetable growers). In the 

1970’s and 1980’s, management shifted to extensive overstory removal of large pine, to help release 

understories, which often were precommercially thinned after. In the late 1980’s, clearcutting was also done 

to a limited extent. Since the early 1990’s, harvest levels have been drastically reduced, in response to 

management direction to protect other resource values. 

Public lands in the “Gerber Block” were first managed to control cattle grazing, under the Taylor Grazing Act 

of 1934 (Beckham 2000). Crews from CCC Camp Bonanza worked on range projects in the Gerber Block, 

and also built and improved existing roads of the time. Negligible timber cutting in the pine stands took 

place until after 1947. That year, the Materials Sales Act authorized cutting of green timber on public lands. 

The newly formed Bureau of Land Management (1946) then began a timber management program in 1948 

that focused on the salvage of mortality volume and establishment of a permanent road system for future 

treatments. Since about 1968, subsequent entries have been made with the goal of maintaining the multiaged structure of the stands, especially maintaining the larger trees. Timber harvest concentrated on 

individual tree selection of larger, high-risk trees, limited overstory removal where adequate pine understory 

is present, and commercial thinning of the understory. Reserving part of the old-growth component has 

allowed retention of a multi-aged stand structure. (However, the number of large pine would not be enough 

to meet Hopkins’ old-growth definition criteria). The multi-aged structure is typically “horizontal” on a 

stand basis, where the stand is composed of a mosaic of small clumps of varying ages and sizes. 

Underburning has been extensively applied to the BLM pine stands and nearly all have been treated at least 

once since 1980. 

White Fir/Mixed Conifer 

White fir and white fir/ponderosa pine mix conifer cover types exist as scattered polygons throughout the 

Gerber Watershed where site conditions allow for the development of white fir. Site conditions favorable for 

the development of fir include sheltered locations and low energy aspects (north to east) at lower elevations 

(less than 5,500 feet), and all aspects above approximately 5,500 feet in elevation where soil development 

and disturbance history permit. Approximately 7,700 acres are included within these two cover types, 

representing about 3 percent of the watershed. 

Associated species in these cover types include incense cedar and lodgepole pine. These species are 

normally subordinate to the white fir or white fir/ponderosa pine mixed forests. 

At lower elevations, white fir is usually subordinate to ponderosa pine and normally exists in the lower 

canopy levels. This situation is most evident at the ecological limits of white fir regeneration and 

establishment. This situation usually develops due to a combination of (1) successful fire suppression, which 

removes an efficient mortality agent of white fir seedlings/saplings and (2) plant succession (temporal 

changes in both species abundance and vegetation structure) as environmental conditions are modified by 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 65
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

increased canopy closure in the upper canopy, resulting in favorable conditions for the establishment, growth 

and development of white fir. 

As site conditions become more favorable for establishment and development of white fir either through 

increases in precipitation (upper elevations with adequate soil development), or decreases in 

evapotranspiration (protected lower elevation sites), white fir exists throughout the canopy. Pure white fir 

stands exist at the upper most elevations (Horsefly Mountain), but generally ponderosa pine occurs as a codominant. The actual abundance of species within this type correlates to disturbance history, cone periodicity 

and seed fecundity and other site factors. 

1. Fire Ecology 

The fire regimes affecting mixed conifer forests across the west are highly variable. Historical fire return 

intervals within true mixed-conifer forests are probably between 25 and 75 years. Where white fir occurs 

with ponderosa pine, fire-return intervals are probably at short end of the range. In the lodgepole pine/white 

fir associations, the fire-return interval is probably on the longer end of the range. As fire return intervals 

lengthen, likely due to cooler, wetter climate, there is a tendency to have higher proportions of white fir in the 

overstory (Agee 1993). 

Ponderosa pine has a competitive advantage in the presence of fire that it loses in a fire free environment. 

Today most mixed conifer stands in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed exhibit abundant white fir in their 

understory. The fire free period experienced this century has caused mixed conifer stands, which evolved 

similar to open ponderosa stands, to become dense stands of true fir with unprecedented stocking levels. As a 

result, fires that were historically a maintenance event would today likely be a high intensity stand 

replacement event. 

2. Insects 

In addition to the insects that affect ponderosa pine, fir engraver beetle, Modoc budworm and the Douglas-fir 

tussock moth are important insects that affect white fir. Although threats by insects and diseases seem 

numerous, they tend to be species specific. Mixed conifer stands typically provide a greater resiliency to 

insect attack than stands that are composed of a single species. 

The fir engraver beetle is an opportunist that will attack and kill white fir under stress (Eglitis, et al. 1993). 

Periods of drought generally correlate to beetle attacks within the Gerber watershed. The stands at highest 

risk are those occupying sites at the drier fringe of their range. 

The Modoc budworm has a small natural range between NE California and SE Oregon. The insect is 

considered to be less aggressive than the western spruce budworm with sporadic outbreaks that haven’t 

caused severe damage to host stands. The Modoc budworm is not a primary mortality agent. In extreme 

cases, trees can be totally defoliated. The weakened tree then succumbs to more aggressive agents such as fir 

engraver (Eglitis, et al. 1993) 

Information on current distribution in the Gerber Watershed is not available, though it is not uncommon to 

find the larvae feeding on white fir foliage. There has never been a reported outbreak to the extent that trees 

had been severely defoliated. Due to fire exclusion, host stands have been increasing across the landscape. 

The stands at highest risk are those multi-story stands, heavy to white fir, under stress from density or 

drought. 

The Douglas-fir tussock moth has potential to be an important insect within white fir stands. Annual “early 

detection” monitoring has yet to detect harmful population levels on the Fremont NF, nor has there ever been 

a documented outbreak on this forest. 

66 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

3. Disease 

Because ponderosa pine in an integral species in mixed conifer stands in the Gerber watershed, Annosus and 

Armillaria root disease, and dwarf mistletoe are important diseases to these stands. In addition, Indian paint 

fungus is an important stem decay pathogen in white fir. 

S-strain Annosus, which infects only white fir, has been documented throughout the Fremont NF including 

the Gerber watershed. Multiple entries within stands of high white fir composition tend to aggravate the 

occurrence of this root disease. 

Armillaria root disease prefers white fir to pine. Though probably present within the Gerber watershed there 

are no documented infection centers. 

There is a species of dwarf mistletoe that infects only white fir. Due to the fact that white fir has expanded 

its presence so quickly across the landscape, this mistletoe is not distributed as widely as the ponderosa 

species. Information on current distribution in the Gerber watershed is not available. 

Indian paint fungus affects only white fir within the Gerber watershed. Most infections enter through small 

branch stubs, or other entry points from wounds or mechanical damage. Once the infection point heals, the 

fungus remains dormant for up to 50 years or longer. Death of large branches, mechanical wounds, insect 

patch kills, and fire scars appear to activate dormant fungus infections (Aho 1981). The percentage of trees 

which are of less commercial value as a result of these pathogens varies widely from drainage to drainage but 

can run as high as 30 to 50 percent. Fir damaged during management activities runs the risk of accelerating 

development of these decays and will likely lead to substantial decay losses by Indian paint fungus and 

others. It is thought that mechanical wounds today play the same role as fire scars had played historically in 

initiating stem decays in white fir (Aho 1981). Information on current distribution in the Gerber Watershed 

is not available. 

4. Management 

Management within the mixed conifer stands began much as it had with the ponderosa pine type. Protecting 

and capturing mortality of the valuable mature pine was paramount. By far, most of the intensive forest 

management practices occurring on the Fremont NF were implemented in these relatively productive mixed 

conifer types. Due to the management imposed fire free period partial overstory removals became practical 

and common. Valuable ponderosa was harvested and the fast growing white fir understory was treated as 

advanced regeneration thus avoiding the cost of artificial regeneration. Many of these areas have had a precommercial thinning treatment completed. Recently (mid-1990’s), salvage harvest has become common in 

an attempt to capture mortality created by the fir engraver. 

Even-age regeneration methods were also used, particularly in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Approximately 7600 

acres of plantations have been created. Just as in the ponderosa pine types, these plantations were planted at 

high stocking levels, and would require pre-commercial thinning if large tree diameters and lower stocking 

densities are desired. 

To date on the Fremont NF, very little prescribed underburns have occurred in mixed conifer types because 

of the sensitivity that white fir and incense cedar have to fire. The natural fuels underburn project plan 

addressed only treating ponderosa pine types. 

Western Juniper Woodlands - (Also see discussion under Non-Forested Uplands) 

Western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) appears to have undergone major expansion within its range during 

the last 100 – 150 years. Post-settlement expansion of juniper woodlands is considered unprecedented when 

compared to prehistoric expansions during the Holocene period (Miller and Wigend 1994). Juniper 

woodlands have expanded as much as 5 to 10 times in area and 2 to 20 times in density (Burkhart and Tisdale 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 67
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

1976, Tausch et. al. 1981, Miller and Rose 1995 & 1999). A majority of this expansion has occurred in the 

more productive mountain big sagebrush cover type. However, western juniper has also been actively 

encroaching into aspen, curl-leaf mountain mahogany and riparian communities below 7,000 feet in the 

northwestern portion of the Great Basin (Miller and Rose 1995, Wall et. al. 2001). 

The factors most frequently attributed to the increase in both area and density of juniper are climate, the 

introduction of livestock (1860 – 1870s), post-industrial increases in CO2, and reduced role of fire. 

Climate- From 1850 to 1916 winters became milder and wetter than the long-term average across much of the 

Great Basin. This wet period coincides with the initiation and peak period of current woodland 

establishment. 

Livestock - The introduction of livestock during the 1860s and the large buildup of animals from the 1870s to 

early 1900s coincide with the initial expansion of juniper woodlands in the northwestern Great Basin. 

Domestic grazing likely influenced juniper expansion through the reduction of fine fuel loads, which 

significantly altered the fire regime (Campbell 1954, Ellison 1960, Burkhart and Tisdale 1976, Miller and 

Rose 1999). 

Atmospheric CO2 - Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 have also been cited as causing the increase in woody 

species throughout the West (Knapp and Soule 1996). The rise of the modern industrial development and the 

initiation and peak period of current woodland establishment do overlap each other by time period. However, 

the influence of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on the peak initial increase of juniper, tree growth or the 

competitive relationship between trees and understory species are not well understood. 

1. Fire Ecology 

Fire is considered to be the most important factor in maintaining shrub steppe communities and open juniper 

savannas prior to Eurasian settlement (West 1999) Limited data exist describing fire histories across the shrub 

steppe communities and woodlands of the Great Basin. Unlike ponderosa pine, juniper seldom scars 

repeatedly (Gruell 1999, West 1999); thus it is difficult to develop fire histories for juniper woodlands. Old 

growth juniper trees are commonly found on relatively fire safe sites characterized by rocky surfaces with 

limited fuel loads. 

Western juniper is very susceptible to fire early in life when in grasslands, and at all life stages in brush 

fields. Mature juniper is fire resistant and the elimination of fine fuels further restricts fire spread. Fire 

frequently regulated the historic area occupied by juniper. The lack of fires in more recent times has resulted 

in many acres of overstocked juniper woodlands with little grass or brush in the understory. There has been 

an increasing amount of juniper invasion into former grasslands and shrub lands. When juniper trees invade 

wetter areas, such as meadows, their transpiration rates lead to a drier microclimate, which eventually leads 

to complete loss of the moisture-dependent community. 

The most extensive fire history information in the semi-arid shrub steppe plant communities has been 

developed for the mountain big sagebrush – Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) association. Pre-settlement 

Mean Fire Return Intervals (MFRI) ranged from 11 – 25 years and significantly increased (i.e. number of 

years between fire events increased) after the 1860s throughout much of this cover type. Two studies report 

fire-free periods varying between 8 and 29 years (Gruell 1999) and between 3 and 28 years (Miller and Rose 

1999). 

Mean Fire Return Intervals reported for the low sagebrush – Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) cover type is 

considerably longer than adjacent mountain big sagebrush communities (Miller and Rose 1999). Fire free 

periods varied from 90 years (Young and Evans 1981) to 138 years (Miller and Rose 1999). A MFRI of 100 

68 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

years should be adequate to create a low-density stand of widely scattered trees in low sagebrush – Sandberg 

bluegrass cover types. 

Where western juniper is growing in association with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), the MFRI is similar 

to either ponderosa pine or mountain big sagebrush, depending on site-specific vegetation composition. Fire 

history studies in Oregon’s ponderosa pine forests show a fire return interval of 3 to 50 years depending on 

site conditions and weather patterns (Agee 1993). 

Figure 3-9. Estimated (open circles) and documented (closed circles) mean fire return intervals for 

major cover types in the Great Basin (Miller and Tausch 2001). 

2. Management - Prescribed Fire vs. Mechanical Treatment 

The condition of the shrub understory in juniper woodlands is critical in determining whether prescribed fire 

can be effective for fuels or vegetation management. As juniper canopy full potential cover increases toward 

25 to 35 percent or greater (dependent upon soil conditions), the shrub layer collapses and the ladder fuels 

are eliminated. This occurs due to the trees out-competing the shrubs for available soil moisture. A model 

investigated by Miller (1984) estimates that under cool conditions (60 degrees & RH of 20%), 100 trees per 

acre of 12-inch diameter would use 200-250 gallons/day. When temperature is 90 degrees and relative 

humidity is 15 %, these same trees would use 450-500 gallons/day. Large numbers of trees tend to dry the 

site out, thereby fire proofing the site, by reducing ladder fuels. 

The Figure 3-10 shows a conceptual threshold for the use of fire in juniper management for vegetation. 

Basically, the left side of the threshold bar is where prescribed fire may play a role. These communities are 

easy to burn and the understory vegetation recovers well in a couple of growing seasons. On the right side of 

the threshold bar, mechanical treatment would be more successful. The loss of significant understory 

vegetation could open the site up to invasion by annual vegetation or noxious weeds. Succession would have 

persisted in the early portion of this graph due to short fire return intervals. The fire threshold is crossed 

when understory fuels are no longer abundant enough to carry the fire. 

Aspen 

Quaking aspen stands are small and very scattered across the landscape. They are found in microsites with 

significant available water, as around springs or perched water tables. In some areas, black cottonwood may 

be found in aspen groves. Many aspen stands are declining due to invasion by conifers (juniper, pine, or 

others), livestock grazing of aspen suckers, and fire suppression. Periodic disturbance stimulates sprouting, 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 69
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

and can create a mixed age and size structure. Disturbance by cutting or fire is necessary to stimulate 

regeneration of these declining stands, followed by exclusion of livestock and/or wildlife grazing. Aspen 

sprouts profusely after fire when grazing is properly managed in riparian areas. One problem is that current 

fuel loads in riparian areas are typically so heavy that fire severity may be well beyond pre-settlement levels 

and result in aspen mortality rather than stimulation of regeneration. (See Map 3.2 - Aspen Stands in the 

Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed Area). 

Figure 3-10. Conceptual diagram of changes in a shrub steppe community in the absence of fire (from 

Miller et al 1999). 

Non-Forested Uplands 

Introduction 

The following section breaks the analysis area into two discrete sections - BLM and Forest Service 

administered lands. The Forest Service lands are further broken down into the Fremont and Modoc National 

Forest areas. These breaks are made because all three bodies of information are different enough so that 

integration of the information is not possible at this time. 

BLM Administered Lands - (The “Gerber Block”) 

On the BLM administered lands within the Klamath Falls Resource Area (KFRA) portion of the analysis 

area, there are approximately 83,500 acres of non-forested vegetation. Non-forested, as defined here, 

includes juniper potential vegetation types. During the 1997 and 1998 field seasons, an Ecological Site 

Inventory (ESI) was completed for the Gerber Block, which classified all the BLM lands (and much of the 

intermingled private) into an array of ecologically distinct vegetation communities. Over 110,500 acres of 

vegetation were classified during the ESI, which in addition to the non-forested vegetation included an 

additional 27,000 acres within several ponderosa pine ecological types. 

A major aspect of the ESI survey, in addition to an Order 3 soils survey, was a vegetation survey and 

mapping that compares the current vegetation against the potential vegetation by ecological site. A rangeland 

70 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

ecological site is, according to the National Range and Pasture Handbook (USDA 1997), “...a distinctive 

kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to 

produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation”. The potential vegetation for a given ecological site is 

described in an ecological site description (which may also be referred to in this analysis as “site”). These 

site descriptions are prepared and maintained for various ecologically distinct regions or Major Land 

Resource Area (MLRA) by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). For the Gerber Block the 

pertinent ecological site descriptions are for the D-21 MLRA, “Klamath and Shasta Valleys and Basins”. 

During the 1997-98 ESI survey effort, the ecological site descriptions were revised and refined in a joint 

effort between the NRCS and the BLM. This resulted in site descriptions that are more Gerber specific, and 

hopefully more accurate, than the original descriptions. 

The ESI vegetation information is based on an estimate of current years growth by plant species and results 

in an ecological condition, or “seral stage”, rating. The more the current vegetation resembles the potential 

vegetation the higher the condition rating, and vice versa. The rating system is based on a scale of 0% to 

100% similarity to the ecological site description. For example, if the plant community has nothing in 

common with the site description it would have a zero rating. Conversely, if the current vegetation is 3/4ths 

similar to the site description, the rating would be 75. The seral stages are classified into four different 

levels, as follows: 0-25% similarity is early seral (or “poor”) condition, 26-50% is mid seral (or “fair”) 

condition, 51-75% is late seral (or “good”) condition, and 76-100% is the Potential Natural Community 

(PNC or “excellent” condition). Both types of terminology are used interchangeably in this analysis. 

One general ecological concept should be kept in mind when considering the upland vegetation information 

in this watershed analysis. It relates to the primary condition determinate for most of the ecological sites in 

this area and is as follows: The higher the proportion of perennial grasses present on a given site, the higher 

the seral stage and relative condition class. Native perennial grasses, typically making up 40-70% of the 

community in the described PNC, dominated virtually all of the ecological sites in our area. The upland 

vegetation section of Step 4 will explain and explore this concept in more detail. 

Overall, the ESI determined that conditions in the Gerber Block are proportionally as follows: 

Condition Classes as % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community (PNC) 28.6%
 

Late Seral 53.7%
 

Mid Seral 17.1%
 

Early Seral 0.6%
 

Table 3-25 summarizes the acres of all classified vegetation by ecological site in the Gerber Block, including 

intermingled private lands. The allotment-specific tabulations are found in Step 5 - “Human Uses - Grazing” 

section. The following discussion should help to clarify the numbers in the table. The table includes data on 

a combination of approximately 87.8% public land and 12.2% intermingled private lands and represents the 

vast majority of the Gerber Block area. 

The vegetation/condition figures summarized in the table were based on acreage figures calculated from the 

ecological site inventory (ESI) defined vegetation classification zones (site write-up areas) that have been 

entered into the BLM’s Geographical Information System (GIS). It includes all vegetation-classified acres 

within allotment boundaries, including the private lands that were shown as intermingled with BLM in the 

GIS database and included in the ESI. Since the actual vegetation information from the ESI has not yet been 

entered into the GIS, the acres were tabulated by hand using the vegetation field sheets from the 1997-98 

survey. Rounding and small calculation errors are thought to be less than 1%. This does not significantly 

detract from the larger picture that emerges from the data, i.e. acres by ecological site, stratified by condition 

class. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 71
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-25: Total Allotment Acres (Public & Private) by Ecological Site and Condition Class. 

Ecological Site Name PNC LATE MID EARLY Total by ecological site 

Acres %
 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" 0 7,613 8,740 0 16,353 14.8
 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" 554 6,163 20 0 6,737 6.1
 

Juniper Dry Pine 14-16" 0 4,012 0 0 4,012 3.6
 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 17,287 8,081 979 0 26,347 23.8
 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 4,677 5,159 6,393 648 16,877 15.3
 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" 0 300 56 0 356 0.3
 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" 0 1,032 730 0 1,762 1.6
 

Mahogany Rockland 10-20" 0 173 0 0 173 0.2
 

North Slopes 14-18" 0 78 0 0 78 0.1
 

South Slopes 14-18" 104 86 799 0 989 0.9
 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 768 74 0 842 0.8
 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 4,027 7,301 0 0 11,328 10.3
 

Claypan 14-20" 215 494 140 0 849 0.8
 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 196 0 0 196 0.2
 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 2,196 17,001 791 0 19,988 18.1
 

Ephemeral Lakebed 1,900 169 0 0 2,069 1.8
 

Dry Meadow 67 597 162 39 865 0.8
 

Semi-Wet Meadow 28 0 0 0 28 <0.1
 

Irrigated Shallow Stony 0 16 0 0 16 <0.1
 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 551 108 0 0 659 0.6
 

Totals by condition class 31,606 59,347 18,884 687 110,524 100%
 

The total acres listed in the summary table above (110,000+ acres) understates the acreage within the Gerber 

Block, which the GIS tabulates to be approximately 128,000 acres. This latter figure is higher than the 

acreage generally acknowledged for the Gerber Block, which has been thought to be in the range of 110,000 

to 115,000 acres. There are several reasons for this under tabulation. First, when defining the Gerber Block, 

the GIS database uses a different external boundary than used in past analyses (i.e. RMP) - particularly in the 

southeast corner of the area. This results in the inclusion of more privately owned lands within the area. 

Second, the tabulated acres do not include water bodies or rock outcrops. There are numerous reservoirs in 

the Gerber Block, including Gerber Reservoir itself, which is over 3000 acres at the high water line. Related 

to the above is the GIS computation irregularity of calculating acres of land below reservoir high water lines 

as the same as the neighboring vegetation type. The high water mark on Gerber Reservoir (and some other 

reservoirs) is also the allotment boundary line for the neighboring allotments. The lands below the high 

water line (and below water much of the year) were not classified inside of an allotment boundary, but still 

calculated out as having the same vegetation as the neighboring ESI types. In fact, these areas are usually 

rock or mud flats. 

Third, the tables do not include the unclassified (i.e. not vegetation mapped) private lands, which totals 

several thousand acres. Many of these private lands are either fenced separate and functionally discrete from 

the public lands, or were not mapped because it was the responsibility of another agency (i.e. Natural 

Resource Conservation Service) and was not completed. And finally, a large amount of the unaccounted for 

acres - both public and private - lie outside of the GIS defined allotment boundaries around the periphery of 

the Gerber Block and was not “captured” within a specified allotment when the database was queried. 

Even though the ESI information for the Gerber Block has not been entirely compiled and input into all the 

appropriate data bases, the information covers at least 95% of the BLM lands in the area and has been 

72 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

analyzed enough to fully and proportionally describe the vegetation communities and their conditions in the 

Gerber Block. 

The following is a summary of the current conditions, by ecological site, of the important vegetation 

communities in the Gerber Block. A brief overview of the Potential Natural Community (PNC) descriptions 

is found in Step 4 - Reference Conditions: Non-Forested Uplands later in this document and will be used as 

the baseline or “reference condition” for analysis purposes. However, since over 82% of the Gerber Block is 

in either late seral or PNC conditions, some Step 4 type information is unavoidable in this section. A 

comparison of the existing conditions (this section) with the potential (Step 4) will be done in Step 5 -

Synthesis and Interpretation. (Note of clarification: Most ecological sites have the estimated precipitation 

range for that site listed after, and included as part of, the name, e.g. Stony Claypan 16-20". It is not the soil 

depth, as some believe.) 

Meadow Communities (totals 2.7% of surveyed area) 

These communities are found in areas where the effective moisture is higher than that found on the 

surrounding, more distinctly, upland sites. As a group, these sites make the smallest acreage within the 

analysis area, but are some of the most important due to various intrinsic resource values related to their 

inherent productivity and location. (Note of explanation: The ESI did not specifically classify riparian/ 

wetland type areas, with the exception of the three sites that follow. Another survey was envisioned to 

classify the riparian areas to the degree befitting their importance. See the Riparian Section of this 

document for details.) 

Dry Meadow (0.8% of surveyed area) - This site is widespread throughout the Gerber Block, with a small 

presence in virtually every grazing allotment. Specifically, the ESI identified 865 acres of Dry Meadow. 

This site is dominated by silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana ssp. bolanderi) and Nevada bluegrass (Poa 

nevadensis), reflecting its seasonally saturated soils. Approximately 77% of the acres classified as Dry 

Meadow was rated as late seral or PNC. The remainder was primarily mid seral (19%), with a very small 

amount in early seral (4%). These sites have historically received above average grazing use by livestock 

due to herbaceous productivity, typical proximity to water, and lack of slope. Fortunately, due to the higher 

effective moisture on these sites, the opportunities for condition improvement (i.e. upward trends) are high 

with appropriate grazing management. Juniper does not generally invade this ecological site due to the 

seasonally saturated soils. 

The Dry Meadow site is typically found as a transition between true riparian vegetation and drier upland 

areas, and as such, is often situated as a narrow band between those two categories of vegetation. Due to its 

transitional nature, this site is often hard to segregate and classify at the level of detail the ESI requires. That 

is, these areas are easy to see in the field, but hard to draw lines around due to their small size. During the 

ESI, this site was sometimes used as a “catch-all” site for quasi-meadow areas that did not neatly fit into 

another site description. 

Late Seral/PNC areas are typified by at least 40% Nevada bluegrass, less than 25% silver sagebrush, and a 

minor mix of native forbs. Production can easily exceed 1000 lbs/acre. Bare ground is abundant on this site, 

even in good condition areas, and biotic crusts are apparently limited due to inundation, though this could be 

also due to these sites grazing attractiveness. Mid seral areas have lesser amounts of Nevada bluegrass (20­

30%), greater amounts of silver sagebrush (30%-40%), and/or an increase in annual grasses and forbs. 

Production can be up to 1000 lbs/acre. 

Ephemeral Lakebed (1.8% of the surveyed area) - This ecological site is also widespread in relatively small 

parcels throughout the Gerber Block, with a total of 2069 acres classified. (There is also a large amount of 

this type on the intermingled private lands that were not surveyed.) The Ephemeral Lakebed site occurs in 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 73
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the small, closed basin “pothole” areas that are scattered throughout the Gerber Block. The site is also found 

in and around most of the artificial reservoirs, most of which were potholes with dikes built to enlarge them 

in the mid-20th century. This site is dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), which is a dense growing, 

rhizomatous, grass-like plant that thrives in areas that experience lengthy spring inundation. The Ephemeral 

Lakebed site is wetter than the Dry Meadow site, but has less moisture than is needed for a true Wet Meadow 

ecological site. The Ephemeral Lakebed community is also frequently mixed in with other riparian types 

along many of the drainages in the analysis area. Due to the saturated soils, juniper invasion is not possible 

within these sites unless the hydrology is drastically altered. 

Virtually all (92%) of the Ephemeral Lakebed areas in the Gerber Block are classified as PNC, with the rest 

(8%) in late seral condition class. The ESI rated PNC areas typically are 70-90% spike-rush, with a minor 

mix of other rushes/sedges and a few species of forbs. Production at PNC usually is 1000-1500 lbs/acre. 

Biotic crusts are not common on this site due to the lengthy inundation period and churning, high clay soils. 

Late seral rated areas have less spike-rush (30-50%), more bare interspaces, and more other species of 

sedges/rushes. Late seral areas often have a significant component of mat muhly (Muhlenbergia 

richardsoni), which is a low growing, native rhizomatous grass that provides good ground cover. 

All of the Ephemeral Lakebed areas have historically received higher than average grazing pressure for the 

same reasons listed for the Dry Meadow ecological site. Though coarse looking, spike-rush is a very 

palatable species during the spring to late summer period when green. It is also a very resilient species that is 

largely immune to relatively high levels of grazing pressure, as long as the lengthy seasonally saturated 

conditions persist and it is not grazed season long. Spike-rush is also extremely resistant to drought 

conditions, as were experienced during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. These areas weathered that period 

with no apparent condition degradation, though livestock grazing largely continued unabated. Based on ESI 

observations, condition trends in this site have been found to be largely static reflecting the inherent 

resiliency and currently elevated ecological status. 

Semi-Wet Meadow (<0.1% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is an extremely minor vegetation 

component of the Gerber Block, though very small parcels of it (<1 acre) can be found spread throughout. 

During the ESI, it was primarily noted as an undefined inclusion. This site is also seasonally saturated 

similar to the Dry Meadow site, but tends to be found as small inset pockets within larger upland areas. Its 

saturation is a function of runoff from these adjacent upland areas. This site is dominated by California 

oatgrass (Danthonia californica) which makes up 50-80%+ of the composition in late seral/PNC. The only 

classified site in the Gerber Block was rated as PNC. The analysis area also has abundant amounts of a 

similar species – single spike oatgrass (D. unispicata) - that is discussed more under the true upland sites. 

(Note: There is also an ecological description for a Wet Meadow site, though it was not used during the ESI 

and will not be covered here. See the Riparian section.) 

Shrub/Bunchgrass Communities (totals 31.4% of surveyed area) 

a. Low Sagebrush Dominated Communities - Low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) is by far the
 

most abundant shrub species in the Gerber Block, reflecting the regnant shallow soils. Four ecological site
 

descriptions cover all of the non-juniper, low sagebrush vegetation types, though the first two described
 

below cover 97% of classified acres. The large majority of these sites were classified in good to excellent
 

condition during the ESI.
 

Of interest, two forms of low sagebrush appear to exist in the area. Most abundant is the typical low growing 

form which is rarely more than 20" tall - sometimes well under 15"in height. The other form often grows up 

to 30+” tall and could possibly be a hybrid between low sagebrush and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ­

two subspecies discussed later). This taller form is most often found in areas where both typical species co74 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

exist in proximity. Often this “big” low sagebrush is found on the slightly deeper soil transition zones 

between a true big sagebrush site and a neighboring low sagebrush type - but not always. Besides its height, 

big low sagebrush’s primary characteristics are much more similar to typical low sagebrush than either big 

sagebrush species. 

(Note: The “big” low sagebrush has many similarities to Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. wyomingensis) ­

a subspecies of big sagebrush that is not thought to be in our area for two reasons: Wyoming big sagebrush 

likes moderate/deep, well drained, relatively loamy soils, whereas the “big” low sagebrush is found on 

moderately shallow, high clay soils; and Wyoming big sagebrush is found in areas with <12-14" 

precipitation, whereas areas where the “big” low sagebrush is found in Gerber are typically 16-20" 

precipitation - a significant moisture difference in sub-humid, sagebrush dominated, areas.) 

Shallow Stony 10-20" (18.1% of surveyed area) - This is the most common of the non-juniper, sagebrush 

dominated ecological sites in the Gerber Block, with almost 20,000 acres classified. This community is 

dominated by Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii) and low sagebrush, which is often of very low stature. 

Common sub-components of this site are single-spike oatgrass, which can form dense stands in low (i.e. 

wetter) spots within this site and rival the bluegrass for dominance, bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), 

and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). The ESI classified over 96% of the Shallow Stony sites as late seral/ 

PNC, with the remaining 4% mid seral. Due to the thin soils (<12") this is the areas lowest production 

potential ecological site, averaging 250-300 lbs/acre of growth per year. Biotic crusts - especially mosses ­

are frequently very abundant within this site. 

Late seral/PNC areas are typified by at least 50-60% native perennial grasses, less than 30% low sagebrush, 

and a mix of desirable native forbs species up to 10-15% composition. Production is usually in the 275-350 

lbs/acre range, but is highly variable depending on soil depth and can be significantly more or less than that 

production range and still be in good or better condition. Biotic crust densities are as good as are seen in the 

analysis area. Mid seral communities typically have higher amounts of low sagebrush (>30%), greater 

amounts of weedy forb and annual grasses, and/or lesser amounts (<40%) of site typical perennial grasses. 

Mid seral sites are sometimes lower in production than late seral, but more often the production is similar but 

of less desirable plants (i.e. not/less site typical). 

This ecological site is typified by the visually open, sometimes very rocky, “scabland” areas that are common 

throughout the Gerber Block. Juniper is very slow to encroach in to these sites due to the shallow soils, 

though many sites have some limited invasion occurring. Livestock grazing has probably been of above 

average intensity historically in these areas due to the gentle topography and generally easy accessibility. It 

is possible that some of the current Shallow Stony sites are ex-Stony Claypan sites, where the high levels of 

uncontrolled grazing in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s may have caused an extensive loss of the already 

shallow soils. Though impossible to conclusively prove, it is likely that an irreversible ecological site type 

change did occur to some of the Stony Claypan areas resulting in more Shallow Stony sites today. Which 

locations had this potentially happen is also not possible to evaluate. Regardless of past causes, soil 

formation is an extremely slow process in arid basaltic areas, and these areas will remain as and be managed 

as Shallow Stony sites. Condition trends in this ecological site throughout the Gerber Block are static to 

upwards based on trend monitoring studies and ESI observations. 

Stony Claypan 14-20" (10.3% of surveyed area) - The Stony Claypan ecological site is also common 

throughout the Gerber Block, with over 11,300 acres classified. This site is, however, more common in the 

higher (above 4800’) northern and eastern portions of the area, where there is somewhat more available 

moisture. This vegetation community is typically dominated by Idaho fescue and low sagebrush, with 

significant sub-components of single-spike oatgrass (denser in “swale” areas), bottlebrush squirreltail, and 

Sandberg’s bluegrass. The ESI classified 64% of this site as late seral and 36% as PNC. Average yearly 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 75
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

production ranges from 500-750 lbs/acre, depending on site specific rockiness and soil depth, and over 1000 

lbs/acre in some ideal areas. 

PNC areas typically have vegetative compositions with better than 60% native perennial grasses, less than 

20% low sagebrush, and a mix of desirable native forb species in the 5-10% range. The late seral areas are 

similar to PNC but typically have 25-35% low sagebrush and 40-50+% site typical perennial grasses. Both 

condition classes have moderate amounts of biotic crusts and similarly good stability and functionality. Even 

though none was classified within the Gerber Block, mid seral conditions would have higher amounts of low 

sage (35%+), less perennial grasses (<35%), and/or more weedy forbs and annual grasses as compared to the 

late seral areas. 

This site is almost identical vegetatively to the Juniper Claypan 16-20" ecological site (discussed later), 

except that it does not have old juniper trees (i.e.150+ years old). This is probably due to the Juniper 

Claypan sites being generally rockier and less conducive to wildfires than the Stony Claypan, though this site 

is not thought to have a high fire frequency either. Both sites often lie adjacent to each other. The Stony 

Claypan site has probably experienced widely varying amounts of historical livestock use, depending 

primarily on the rockiness of the specific area. Inevitably, these areas have received higher than average 

grazing use levels due to the intrinsic quantity and quality of the forage species. This site has moderate 

potential for juniper encroachment which is occurring in some areas. However, due to the similarity between 

the Juniper Claypan and Stony Claypan sites, it is difficult to differentiate an invaded Stony Claypan site 

from a Juniper Claypan with younger trees (due to past fire removal of the older growth junipers). Condition 

trends in the Stony Claypan sites throughout the Gerber Block are static to upwards based on various trend 

monitoring studies and ESI observations. 

Claypan 14-20" & Claypan Bottom 12-18" (1.0% of surveyed area) - Both of these ecological sites are found 

infrequently in the Gerber Block and are similar enough to be considered together as they occupy similar 

locations on the landscape. Both are also distinct enough from the Stony Claypan to be considered separate 

sites, in that they both are generally free of rocks - surface or subsurface. Both the Claypan and Claypan 

Bottom sites are typically located near the edges of drainages or other slightly wetter areas that are not moist 

enough to support a Dry Meadow community. Both sites are dominated by Idaho fescue and low sagebrush, 

but the Claypan Bottom has a significant (up to 15%) component of Nevada bluegrass, whereas the Claypan 

will not. (Visually, the Claypan Bottom looks like the Dry Meadow site with the silver sagebrush replaced by 

low sagebrush.) Both sites have moderately high production potential of 600-900 lbs/acre in elevated 

condition classes. The ESI classified most (87%) of these two sites as late seral/PNC with the remainder 

(13%) mid seral (all the mid seral was Claypan). 

Late seral/PNC areas typically have 50-60%+ site appropriate native perennial grasses, less than 30% low 

sagebrush, a minimum amount of weedy forbs and annual grasses, and production above 500 lbs/acre. The 

mid seral areas have limited production (<500 lbs/acre), higher levels (30%+) of low sagebrush, limited 

(<35%) perennial grasses, and/or a significant amount (20%+) of annual forbs/grasses. Historical grazing use 

in these sites was probably high due to ease of access and high productivity. Juniper encroachment is a minor 

(Claypan bottom) to moderate (Claypan) concern in these sites. Some juniper increases were noted during 

the ESI, but it is not considered a significant issue because of the limited area of both sites. Condition trends 

in these sites appear to be largely static based on ESI observations. 

b. Big Sagebrush/Bitterbrush Dominated Communities (totals 2% of surveyed area) - Two 

subspecies of big sagebrush are found within the Gerber Block - mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana) and basin big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. tridentata). Mountain big sagebrush is the most 

common by far and the only subspecies that is typically present in the sites described below. Even though 

mountain big sagebrush is commonly found throughout the area, it is rarely abundant enough to define an 

ecological site and primarily exists as a minor component of other ecological sites with deeper soils ­

76 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

particularly the pine sites. Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) is similar to mountain big sagebrush in 

that it is common throughout the analysis area, but rarely in enough density to define a site. Bitterbrush is 

present in virtually all of the non-riparian/wetland ecological sites in the analysis area, often as a subdominant (5-10% or more), but usually as a minor component (<5%). 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" (0.8% of surveyed area) - This ecological site was newly described for the Gerber ESI 

and is found sporadically through the center and northern portions of the Gerber Block. It is co-dominated 

by mountain big sagebrush and bitterbrush, with a significant understory of Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s 

bluegrass, and other perennial grasses. It is often, but not always, found as a narrow transition area between 

the pine and low sagebrush sites where the soils are of moderate depth. The ESI classified most (91%) of 

this site as late seral, with the remainder (9%) as mid seral. Due to the deeper soils on this site, production 

potential is relatively high and can reach or exceed 1000 lbs/acre. 

Late seral/PNC areas are typified by 35-50%+ native perennial grasses, 20-30% big sagebrush and 

bitterbrush, and a significant (5-10%) mix of site typical native forbs. Biotic crusts are of low to moderate 

density and production is in the 700-1000 lbs/acre range. Mid seral communities have somewhat less 

perennial grasses, more shrub and juniper density, and/or weedy forbs and annual grasses are more abundant 

(10%+). Encroachment of juniper, crowding out the site typical grasses and, in particular, shrubs, is a major 

concern on these sites. Historically, these areas have received higher than average grazing use levels due to 

easy access and the intrinsic quantity/quality of the forage species. Based on ESI observations, condition 

trends in these sites appear to be largely static, though where juniper is a significant invader, conditions 

would be considered as slowly trending downwards. There are also a few sites - most notably east of Gerber 

Reservoir - that have juniper invasion in high enough density to almost totally out-compete the shrubs and 

most of the grasses. 

South Slopes 14-18" (0.9% of surveyed area) - The South Slopes ecological site is found in the central and 

southern portions of the Gerber Block. At PNC, this site is typically dominated (40-60%) by bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata, a.k.a. Agropyron spicata) with significant amounts (10%+) of Idaho 

fescue and a shrub overstory (20-30%) of mountain big sagebrush and/or bitterbrush. During the ESI, most 

(81%) of the South Slope sites were determined to be in mid seral condition, with smaller amounts in late 

seral (9%) and PNC (10%). Annual production is wide ranging with the potential for 800-1000 lbs/acre at 

PNC, though it is usually less in the Gerber Block due to juniper invasion and historic condition impacts. 

Biotic crusts are typically in the low moderate range. 

The mid-seral condition sites in the Gerber Block have a relatively high (20-40%) canopy cover of invasive 

juniper, relatively low production (400-675 lbs/acre) which, at least partially, reflects the juniper competition, 

and a herbaceous understory that has a relatively high percentage (10-20%) of weedy species like cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum), willow herb (Epilobium spp.), medusaehead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), and others. 

(See the Non-Forested Upland section in Step 5 for a discussion on the mid-seral condition sites.) 

North Slopes 14-18" (0.1% of surveyed area) - This is the only ESI defined bitterbrush dominant site, though 

the Shrubby Loam site has it as a co-dominant. This site’s aspect is dominated by bitterbrush - with some 

mountain big sagebrush - and it has an understory dominated by Idaho fescue and other perennial grasses. 

The North Slope ecological site was only classified in one location in the Willow Valley allotment below 

Willow Valley Reservoir. It was found to be in late seral condition and estimated to be have an upward trend. 

(Since it is an extremely minor acreage, it will not be discussed further.) 

c. Mahogany Communities- Mountain mahogany (primarily curlleaf - Cercocarpus ledifolius, 

though there is some birchleaf - C. betuloides) is a common, though rarely a distinctly dominant species 

within the Gerber Block. It is commonly found in most of the juniper and pine ecological sites, with a 

particular affinity for the deeper soil, mixed tree areas (i.e. pine and juniper together). Specifically, mountain 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 77
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

mahogany is a common sub-dominant species in the Juniper Dry-Pine 14-16", Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16­

20", and to some degree, the Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" ecological sites, which will be discussed later. 

One ecological site is defined by mountain mahogany - the Mahogany Rockland 10-20" site (0.2% of the 

surveyed area). This is a highly variable site depending on landscape position, topography, slope, aspect, 

rockiness, and probably other factors. In late seral/PNC condition, this site is typically co-dominated by 

mahogany and/or bitterbrush, with a wide array of other shrub species present, including mountain big 

sagebrush, chokecherry and Klamath plum (Prunus spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), serviceberry 

(Amelanchier alnifolia), gooseberry/currant (Ribes spp.), and numerous other species in lesser quantities. 

Grasses are typical for the area, though dominated by Idaho fescue, various bluegrasses and needlegrasses 

(Stipa spp.), and many other species potentially present. During the ESI, this ecological site was found 

throughout the analysis area, though usually as an unmeasured inclusion in the pine and/or juniper dominated 

areas. The two ESI identified “pure” Mahogany Rockland areas are on Horse Camp Rim and in the Miller 

Creek Canyon. Both sites had production in the 900-1000+ lbs/acre range and were rated as late seral. Both 

areas also had moderate to high levels of biotic crusts. Livestock grazing in these areas has probably been a 

negligible condition factor due to natural topographical exclusion precluding most use. Fire exclusion has 

been more of a factor in allowing juniper encroachment to reach site atypical levels. 

One further observation, pertinent to mountain mahogany in the analysis area, needs to be discussed. That is 

the widespread “collapse” of mountain mahogany as a major sub-component in the major pine/juniper sites 

noted above. In particular, the Pine-Mahogany-Fescue and Juniper Dry Pine sites have experienced major 

reductions in the quantity of mahogany in the understory. Residual dead mahogany stems and trunks often 

litter the ground in these ecological sites, and of significant future concern, many of these die-off areas are 

not experiencing sufficient regeneration of new mahogany plants to adequately replace the dead plants. This 

die-off appears to be due to the increase of juniper in these sites, which is possibly related to both fire 

exclusion and livestock grazing, though the actual causes are probably more complicated. In addition, the 

more pine dominated, Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" ecological sites, have experienced some mahogany 

diebacks, but not to the extent of the Pine-Mahogany-Fescue sites. 

Juniper Communities (totals 44.6% of surveyed area) 

True western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) potential vegetation communities make up the largest single 

class of ecological sites within the BLM managed portions of the analysis area, with approximately 50,000 

acres classified within the 5 juniper potential ecological sites. Juniper and juniper sites are found throughout 

all portions of the area with most (88%) of the ESI classified juniper acreage falling into the first two Juniper 

Claypan ecological sites described below. 

Unlike most juniper areas in the Intermountain West, where only 3 to 5% of the juniper is old-growth (Miller, 

et.al. 1999), almost all of the juniper areas in the Gerber Block are true old growth potential ecological sites 

with an average range of 8-15 “old” juniper trees per acre at PNC. (The ESI defined an old juniper as being 

at least 150 years old and an old growth juniper site as averaging - or having the potential for - at least 5 old 

juniper trees per acre. See the previously referenced publication for a general overview of the primary 

characteristics that allow for reasonably accurate age estimations of old junipers. Also, see the KFRA 

internet site for a narrative and pictorial summary of the Gerber juniper areas.) 

The Gerber Block juniper areas are presently a mix of savanna and woodland types. The savanna type is the 

classic old juniper site where the trees are widely spaced (<10-15% canopy cover) and the tree interspaces are 

primarily influenced by shrubs and herbs with little influence from juniper roots. The Gerber juniper 

woodland sites have higher - sometimes much higher - canopy cover and tree density, with the juniper root 

competition in the tree interspaces being moderately dominant to co-dominant with the shrubs grasses. 

Woodland sites are generally savanna sites with significant 20th century juniper density increases; these are 

78 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

not accurately called invasion since these are true juniper sites. Overall, the savanna types condition rated 

PNC or within the upper half of the late seral range. Woodland areas varied, but were generally condition 

rated in the lower half of the late seral range or mid-seral. Specifics by different ecological site can be found 

in the following: 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" (15.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant “old growth” juniper 

site in the southwestern and south central portions of the Gerber Block. In this area, this site ranges from 

about 4200' to an upper elevational limit of about 4700-4800' and receives precipitation in the 13-15" range. 

Compared to the Juniper Claypan 16-20" areas, this lower precipitation enhances conditions for bluebunch 

wheatgrass which becomes co-dominant with Idaho fescue in the described PNC. Scattered old juniper trees 

with an understory of low sagebrush, widely scattered bitterbrush, and the two previously noted perennial 

grasses dominate the visual aspect of this ecological site. This site has the widest range of current ecological 

conditions of any of the major vegetation sites, with 27% in PNC, 31% in late seral, 38% in mid seral, and 

4% in early seral. In fact, this ecological site accounted for almost all (94%) of the classified early seral 

vegetation and 63% of the non-pine mid seral vegetation, for reasons explained below. 

Late seral/PNC areas, as classified by the ESI, are typified by 40-60+% native perennial grasses - particularly 

Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and single-spike oatgrass, in descending order of 

importance. Low sagebrush is usually <20%, site typical forbs range from 5-15% with a minimum of weedy 

species, and annual production typically ranges from 500-900 lbs/acre, though it can be lower (250-500 lbs/ 

acre) and still condition rate compositionally as late seral. These latter, low production/high seral state 

communities are thought to actually be a strong indicator of the vegetative condition improvements made 

since pre-Taylor Grazing Act (1934) grazing abuses that caused a significant and irrevocable loss of the 

already shallow soils. The natural vegetation composition has and continues to be properly re-establishing, 

but the higher productivity potential is essentially lost with the soil. Similarly, all of the early seral areas 

actually classified as mid seral plant composition, but were downgraded due to low production. 

Related to the above information, is the ESI observation that some of these Juniper Claypan sites are 

functionally very similar to a Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site, except the soil is just deep enough to 

support some old junipers, but not deep enough to be dominated by Idaho fescue and/or bluebunch 

wheatgrass. The dominant grass in these areas is Sandberg’s bluegrass, which would dominate a Shallow 

Stony site in good condition. During the ESI survey efforts, thought was given to splitting out another 

ecological site that would be a “Juniper Shallow Stony”. This was not done, however, in the belief that these 

sites are probably Juniper Claypan sites that were permanently impaired by the early grazing pressures, and 

as such, are not a true ecological site. (Note: since the Gerber ESI, there has been work done in describing 

this site by personnel at Oregon State University - Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR. 

See Miller, et.al. 1999, for more information.) 

The mid and early seral Juniper Claypan 12-16" communities are found largely within the 1937 wildfire area 

which burned a substantial area (10,000+ acres) spread over portions of the Willow Valley, Bumpheads, 

Horse Camp Rim, and Horsefly allotments (Beckham 1999). These lower seral areas are typified by the 

limited and sporadic presence of old junipers, the fire having destroyed the majority. In addition, these areas 

are less dominated by native perennial grasses (<40%), higher levels (20-30%) of low sagebrush, site 

atypically high densities of post-fire aged juniper, and/or have high amounts (20%+) of annual forbs and 

grasses - exotic and native. The south Gerber Block is known to have received some of the highest grazing 

pressure in the area (i.e. Woolen Canyon was named as such due to it being a favored place for sheep grazing 

by itinerant herds). Since the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) controls were just being implemented on the ground 

in 1937, these areas were almost assuredly still being highly over grazed and in poor condition from decades 

of abusive grazing pressure. After the 1937 fire, these areas were probably not rested from grazing use, 

which continued - albeit at lesser levels than pre-TGA. These pressures, in combination, led to impacts to the 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 79
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

soil and vegetation resource that were extreme enough so as to permanently compromise site productivity and 

potential. 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" (23.8% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant “old growth” juniper 

site in the higher elevation (>4700') northern and eastern portions of the Gerber Block. This site is the most 

abundant ecological site in Gerber; making up almost one quarter of the ESI classified acreage. It is typically 

dominated by Idaho fescue and low sagebrush with the overall aspect visually dominated by scattered juniper 

trees - mostly old growth at PNC. This site has some of the most elevated ecological conditions of any in the 

Gerber Block, with 66% in PNC, 30% in late seral, and 4% in mid seral. Overall, this ecological site 

accounts for 55% of all the classified PNC acres. 

The highest seral areas (PNC) are dominated (50-65+%) by perennial grasses with the majority being Idaho 

fescue, but with Sandberg’s bluegrass and single-spike oatgrass being significant sub-dominants. Low 

sagebrush tends to be less than 25% composition and site typical forbs are in the 5-10% range. Old juniper 

trees are abundant (5-10+ per acre) with limited regeneration of younger trees (<100 year old trees) in 

between. Late seral sites are similar except for a slight diminishing of the native perennial grasses (40-50% 

in total) and an increase in low sagebrush (25-35%). Forbs species and abundance is similar to PNC, but 

young junipers are more abundant in these areas as compared to PNC. Overall annual production is in the 

600-800 lbs/acre range for both these condition class areas with moderate to moderately high density biotic 

crusts. Mid seral areas take the PNC to late seral vegetative trends and amplify them further with lesser 

quantities (<40%) of the desirable perennial grasses, low sagebrush in the same range, and more numbers of 

invasive juniper in the interspaces between the old trees. In addition, the mid-seral areas have increased 

quantities (15-20%+) of weedy forbs and annual grasses, and overall production is usually greater than 500 

lbs/acre. 

Similar to the previously described Juniper Claypan 12-16" site, a few of the Juniper Claypan 16-20" PNC 

and late seral sites were downgraded a condition class due to low production. In fact, all of the ESI classified 

mid seral areas had late seral plant diversity, but were production suppressed. The same rationales noted 

previously about past soil loss and ecological site damage holds for these downgraded sites also. 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" (1.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is found only in the extreme 

southwest corner of the Gerber Block and entirely within the Willow Valley Chaining pasture of the Willow 

Valley Allotment. It is the vegetation type that was chained and seeded in 1967-68, in partnership with the 

Oregon Game Commission, to create more deer (and livestock) forage in an otherwise ecologically degraded 

area; a function that the area still performs today. The area is of two distinct vegetation types - the relatively 

good forage condition chained and wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.) seeded areas and the lesser condition, 

untreated areas. These two plant communities will be addressed separately. (Note: The revised draft 

ecological site description lists mountain big sagebrush as the defining shrub species. However, field 

observations indicate that this area is a mix of mountain, low, and the previously described, “big” low 

sagebrushes, with the latter variant most abundant.) 

The chained/seeded area (59% of this site) is in “good” condition for a seeding. A good condition seeding is 

the functional equivalent to late seral for native communities, except it is based on percent (in this case 50­

75%) of the desired forage species. An ecological site rating is of little meaning in a seeded area, since it has 

been purposely altered for forage production reasons. The primary objective for the Chaining today 

continues to be to provide forage for both the migratory deer herd and livestock grazing. Annual production 

in the chaining is around 1000 lbs/acre and average for this ecological site. (See Step 5 for more discussion.) 

In the non-chained native areas (41% of this site), conditions were rated as mid seral. The actual numerical 

ratings were in the lower end of the late seral condition class, with the ultimate rating downgraded to mid 

seral due to low production, i.e. 250-450 lbs/acre on a site that should be in the 1000 lbs/acre range. This 

80 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

lessened production is a function of the often noted heavy livestock grazing in the early days that created 

stressed ecological conditions that led to soil loss allowing weedy annual forbs, grasses, and invasive juniper 

to dominate the site. Fortunately, these type areas are a very small percentage of the Gerber Block. 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (0.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site was newly described for the 

Gerber ESI in 1998. It is similar to the next described site except that pine is absent. Both sites have juniper 

trees with tall, straight growth forms reminiscent of a similar stand of pine. This site occurs infrequently - as 

indicated by the small acreage - and is either a transition type between a Juniper Claypan and adjacent pine 

dominated site or found along the base of the low, basalt escarpment rims common in the Gerber Block. It is 

the slightly deeper soils (deeper than low sagebrush areas and shallower than typical pine) in these areas that 

support the Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue sites. Most of this site was ESI rated as late seral condition (84%) 

with the rest (16%) mid seral. Since it is rare and, in fact, is probably a pine free derivative of the following 

site, this site will not be discussed further; the following discussion will suffice. 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" (3.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the driest of the sites with a 

ponderosa pine component and occurs in the southeast and south central portions of the Gerber Block, 

ranging from 4800' to 5100' elevation. The aspect of this site is co-dominated by juniper and pine, with a 

typical mid-story of juniper and pine reproduction, and understory of various shrubs and grasses. Annual 

production can be up to 1000 lbs/acre, but is usually less due to the shading/competition effect of the tree 

overstory and, most significantly to recent aggressive prescribed fire activities in most of these sites 

(discussed later in Pine Communities). The Juniper Dry-Pine ecological site is one of the sites experiencing 

an extensive die-off of mountain mahogany in the understory, as noted in the section on Mahogany 

Communities. 

All of the Juniper Dry-Pine sites (4000+ acres) were ESI classified as late seral condition. Late seral (and 

PNC) is typified by a relatively high (40-50%+) canopy cover of pine and juniper and 50+% highly diverse 

and variable mix of native perennial grasses or grasslike species - in particular bluebunch wheatgrass, 

Sandberg’s bluegrass, Ross’s sedge (Carex rossi), Idaho fescue, several species of needlegrass, and 

bottlebrush squirreltail. The shrub layer can be equally diverse in species, though it is usually dominated by 

mountain mahogany and bitterbrush, with frequent significant amounts of mountain big sagebrush, currant, 

serviceberry, chokecherry/Klamath plum, and occasionally squaw carpet (Ceanothus prostratus). Forbs are 

not abundant in this ecological site and are usually less than 5% of the composition. Late seral differs from 

the estimated PNC primarily by having lessened production (usually due to recent under burning), the 

previously noted reduction in mountain mahogany composition, a small but significant component of annual 

grasses/forbs, and higher levels of young juniper, bottlebrush squirreltail, and/or rabbitbrush. 

Pine Communities (totals 20.9% of surveyed area) 

The two primary pine dominated sites are the Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" and Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" 

ecological sites. Pine areas are more comprehensively addressed in the Forested Uplands section and will 

only be addressed here from the perspective of the Ecological Site Inventory data. Both sites are found in the 

same general elevational range (4800-5400'), where they occupy the deeper soil upland areas. Both sites have 

wide variations in plant composition and density. (Note: The ESI is not particularly meaningful in areas 

dominated by moderate to dense stands of coniferous trees, primarily because so much of the standing 

biomass and yearly production goes into the trees, where it is not accounted for by the survey methods. This 

is because the ESI only records annual plant production up to 4 1⁄2’ above the ground; a reflection of this 

survey’s lineage to earlier rangeland survey methods. There are separate, more appropriate, survey methods 

used in timbered areas referenced in the Forested Uplands section.) 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (6.1% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is a distinct transition between 

the true pine and old juniper potential areas. It is functionally a slightly higher and moister equivalent to the 

Juniper Dry-Pine site above and is found in the northern and eastern Gerber Block. The ESI rated most 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 81
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

(92%) of these sites as late seral, with 8% PNC and <1% mid seral. The late seral areas range widely in 

annual production from 450-1000 lbs/year. Production is commonly suppressed by thick pine needle duff or 

repeated underburning. Generally, the more recent the burning the lower the production. 

Late seral communities have widely varying plant communities, but generally have 40-60% perennial grasses 

- primarily Ross’s sedge, Idaho fescue, various bluegrasses (Poa spp.) and needlegrasses, bottlebrush 

squirreltail, and occasionally bluebunch wheatgrass. There are usually small percentages (5-8%) of annual 

grasses - both exotic and native species. Forbs are a minor component of this site, generally comprising 5% 

or less of the composition. Shrubs are widely variable in amounts (20-40% of composition), but are similar 

to the species found on the previously described Juniper Dry-Pine sites, with the addition of snowberry, 

manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), and snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus). In the late seral condition class, 

younger juniper is often an increasing component and the mahogany has often significantly decreased - not 

coincidentally, as noted in the Mahogany Communities section. The PNC sites are very similar to late seral, 

but have grass compositions on the upper end of the range (60%), few annuals, a variety of shrubs totaling 

about 30% composition, a still significant mahogany component, and limited increases in young juniper. 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" (14.8% of surveyed area) - The Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site is the most 

pine-dominated site found within the Gerber Block. It occupies the deepest non-riparian soils and is one of 

the more abundant ecological sites. The ESI rated these sites almost equally between late seral (47%) and 

mid seral (53%). However, virtually all of the mid seral areas actually ranked out as late seral, but 

downgraded due to production. Annual production on this site should average around 800 lbs/acre, but due 

to their recently disturbed nature (under burned), production was usually about half of that on the mid seral 

areas. The plant composition of both seral stages is similar and widely variable. Native perennial grasses 

range from 30-65%, site typical shrubs - 20-50%, tree reproduction is usually <15%, with forbs being a 

minor component (<10%). Difference in production is the primary determining factor between late and mid 

seral ratings. 

As noted, both pine dominant sites have been the primary beneficiary of the recent, comprehensive KFRA
 

underburning program. The primary ecological impact of this extensive prescribed burning has been a
 

significant diminishment of the understory in a majority of these sites - particularly the non-resprouting
 

shrubs - which appear to take 10-20+ years to significantly re-establish. In addition, most all of these sites
 

have had some amount of timber harvest, which has often caused a decrease in the condition class by
 

reducing the understory as a side-effect of the timber harvest methods and subsequent, post harvest,
 

reclamation activities.
 

Many of the pine stands have had both activities - timber harvest and underburning - occur and is the primary 

cause of the large percentage of the Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites being in the mid seral condition class. Unlike 

the juniper and sagebrush/bunchgrass areas, historic livestock grazing appears to have been a limited factor in 

the condition of these sites. Utilization pattern mapping generally shows little use of the pine sites by cattle. 

The majority of the areas classified in the two pine sites were estimated, during the ESI, to have upward 

trends, largely as a result of the recent post-disturbance (underburning and timber harvest) increases in shrubs 

and grasses. 

FS Administered Lands 

Fremont National Forest 

On the NFS administered lands surrounding the Gerber block there are approximately 42,831 acres of nonforested vegetation within the watershed boundary. This type of vegetation consists primarily of juniper/low 

sagebrush and low sagebrush/fescue-squirreltail communities. (Refer to Table 3-26.) 

82 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-26: Acres of non-forest vegetative communities surrounding the Gerber Block. 

ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION ACRES 

Juniper/Low Sagebrush/fescue (Juniper Claypan 16-20") 15,459 

Low Sagebrush/Fescue-Squirreltail (Stony Claypan 14-20") 24,757 

Big Sagebrush/Bunchgrass (Shrubby Loam 16-20") 14 

Sagebrush (Shrubby Loam 16-20") 17 

Meadow (wet, moist, dry) (A mix of all BLM meadow sites) 1,517 

Water 572 

Rock 28 

Aspen (See Forested Upland section) 11 

Grasslands (unknown equivalent) 38 

Alpine Low Sagebrush/Red Fescue (No BLM equivalent) 3 

Unknown 415 

TOTAL 42,831 

These figures reflect just the NFS acres lying within the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed boundary. (Note: 

Most of the Forest Service vegetation/ecological types in the chart above have direct counterparts with some 

of the ecological site descriptions discussed in the BLM section that follows. The BLM descriptions and 

information should be a reasonably accurate representation of the Forest Service types also. In the above 

table, the name in parenthesis following the vegetation types is the BLM ecological site thought to be 

equivalent to the NFS type.) 

There are eleven NFS allotments within the watershed boundary. Seven are on the Bly ranger district and 4 

on the Lakeview ranger district. Ecological classification and acres are shown by allotment in Table 3-27. 

Table 3-27: Ecological Classification and Acres by Allotment for Bly and Lakeview Ranger Districts. 

Allotment 

Name 

Juniper/ 

Low 

Sage 

/Fescue 

Low 

Sage 

/Fescue 

/Squirrel 

-tail 

Meadow Water Rock Unknown 

Big 

Sage 

/Bunch 

-grass 

Grass 

-lands 

Alpine 

low 

sage 

/Red 

Fescue 

Sagebrush 

Arkansas 2,766 927 93 28 28 81 

Barnes 

Valley 2,542 2,266 87 46 35 

Bly Ridge 2 

Horse Fly 1,458 1,900 98 26 

Privy 

Spring 270 125 

Pitchlog 465 1,430 119 55 23 

Yainax 1,097 6,605 557 9 118 14 

Bear 

Valley 1,704 3,621 15 185 7 35 3 

Dent 

Creek 3 

Fort 

Springs 434 427 17 17 

Wildhorse 500 762 94 104 16 

Modoc National Forest 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 83
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

These lands are located in California, immediately south of the BLM administered lands and comprise a 

small portion of the analysis area. The following information was provided by Brad Reed, Resource Officer, 

Doublehead Ranger District, Modoc National Forest, and inserted with minor format changes. The 

information is for both allotments (Warm Springs and Clear Lake) that lie partially within the watershed 

analysis area. However, the vegetation information is not computerized so the acres by allotment/pasture 

cannot be broken out at this time. The vegetation types are relatively uniformly spread over the allotments so 

that the acres may not be correct, but the proportions are roughly the same. See Map 3.3 (Appendix E) for 

locations of vegetation types. 

Warm Springs Allotment 

The following range types were determined for the Warm Springs allotment during range analysis in 1979. 

This is the most recent typing done on the Warm Springs allotment. Types are standard Forest Service range 

typing done according to Region 5 standards that were in place in 1979. 

Only a portion of the Warm Springs allotment is within the Lost River watershed. No attempt has been made 

to determine acreage by type that is inside the watershed boundary. Type distribution is fairly uniform within 

the allotment, however, so a rough determination of vegetation types within the watershed may be determined 

by the distribution of type occurrence on the allotment as a whole. 

Table 3-28: Lost River Watershed Vegetation Types within the Warm Springs Allotment Doublehead 

Ranger District - Modoc National Forest. 

Type Designator Type Name Acres 

1 Perennial Grassland 689 

2 Meadow 320 

4 Sagebrush 2,383 

5 Mountain Shrub 92 

6 Coniferous Forest 4,167 

9 Juniper 6,312 

In 1992 and 1993, upland vegetation was evaluated for the Clear Lake allotment in support of detailed 

environmental analysis and allotment management planning. The Clear Lake allotment includes a portion of 

the Lost River watershed. For ease of comparison, ecological types have been aggregated into 4 broad 

vegetative types. These are 1) pine-juniper woodlands, 2) juniper/sagebrush savannas, 3) sagebrush, and 4) 

medusa head grasslands. 

1. Pine-Juniper Woodlands 

Occur on 1735 acres in the northeastern portion of the Clear Lake allotment, primarily on fault ridges and 

colluvial slopes; they cover approximately 5% of the allotment (Ecological Types 3, 4, 9, 15, 21 and 26A). 

These areas are covered by dense juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) with scattered Ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa). The Canopy cover of juniper ranges from 20% to 40%, with most between 20% and 30%. Pine 

cover is generally less than 3%, except in occasional small clumps. Understory shrub communities range 

from Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate var. wyomingensis) and rubber rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus nauseosus) on low relief areas to mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), gooseberry 

(Ribes spp.), and wild cherry (Prunus spp.) on steeper terrain. Grasses are primarily Idaho fescue (Festuca 

idahoensis), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum). 

The current plant community is late seral. A trend toward progressively less pine in the mix may be in 

progress as a result of fire suppression. Most pine individuals are mature, while juniper occurs in all age 

groups. In some areas, entire stands of mountain mahogany are dead or decadent. The ecological status of 

the pine-juniper types is satisfactory. There is little or no evidence of accelerated soil erosion. The amount 

84 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

of bare soil is low due to high litter cover. Shrub and herbaceous diversity is adequate; future management 

needs to be directed toward preserving this. Weedy annual grasses and forbs are an insignificant component 

of the herbaceous layer. 

Forage production is widely variable. Actual measurements were not made on most of these areas. Where 

tree cover is dense, grass and shrub production is rather low; ocular estimates are in the 100-200 lbs/acre 

range. As tree cover decreases, forage production increases. In these more open areas, shrubs exert the same 

suppressive affect on grasses as the trees did. When shrub production is high, grass production is low. When 

shrub density decreases, grass production goes up. The highest amount of grass forage production observed 

or measured on the project area was 720 lbs/acre on the north side of Carr Butte, under a canopy of juniper, 

pine, and mountain mahogany. 

2. Juniper-Sagebrush Plant Communities 

Western Juniper/Low Sagebrush/Idaho Fescue - This is the potential plant association on shallow (less than 

15 inches), clayey soils on basalt flows (Ecological Types 5A and 5B). These communities occur on 13,433 

acres (26% of the project area). Tree cover (western juniper) ranges from zero to twenty percent, averaging 

6%. Shrub cover ranges from zero to twenty percent, averaging 9%; shrub forage production ranges from 

zero to three hundred-sixty pounds per acre (lbs/acre), averaging 68 lbs/acre. Grass cover ranges from five to 

thirty percent, averaging 14%; grass forage production ranges from fifty to four hundred lbs/acre, averaging 

206 lbs/acre. Forb cover ranges from one to twenty percent, averaging 8%, forb production ranges from five 

to four hundred-ten lbs/acre, averaging 119 lbs/acre. Bare soil and gravel account for forty to fifty-five 

percent of the ground surface, while litter cover averages 8%. Erosion potential is moderate to high. Waterholding capacity of the soil is low and herbaceous plant growth is generally limited to spring and early 

summer. Some regrowth of perennial grasses may occur with autumn rains. Juniper/low sagebrush 

communities are currently in satisfactory ecological condition, but cannot tolerate any decline in condition 

without risk of permanent loss of productivity. 

Western Juniper/Wyoming Big Sagebrush/Thurber’s Needlegrass-Bluebunch Wheatgrass - This type is the 

potential plant association on basalt flows with loamy soils and on shallow colluvial soils (Ecological Types 

5Aw and 5BW). It is also found on the solitary volcanic shield on the allotment. This community occurs on 

26,675 acres (51% of the allotment area), most of which is basalt flows (22,179 acres). Trees and shrub 

cover on flows are highly variable, both ranging from zero to thirty percent. Juniper cover averages 10%, as 

does shrub cover. Where junipers are densest (20% canopy cover), there is evidence of a declining shrub and 

herbaceous layer. Dead bitterbrush and big sagebrush interrupt expanses of bare soil. Shrub forage 

production ranges from an average of 25 lbs/acre on extremely rocky areas to 123 lbs/acre on less rocky 

areas. Grass cover ranges from ten the twenty percent, averaging 16%; grass forage production ranges from 

165 lbs/acre to 420 lbs/acre, averaging 325 lbs/acre. Forb canopy cover ranges from one to twenty percent, 

averaging 10%; forb forage production ranges from zero to one hundred-eighty lbs/acre, averaging 120 lbs/ 

acre. Bare soil and gravel cover averages 55% on the highly rocky moderately dissected flows, litter cover 

averages 20%. Erosion potential is moderate. Ecological condition on these loamy soil/moderately dissected 

flows (Ecological Type 5AW) is satisfactory (16,906 acres, 32% of the allotment). Areas with dense juniper 

need to be monitored carefully to prevent further decline. On highly dissected flows (Ecological Type 5BW), 

where there is much less rock, bare soil and gravel covers an average of 67% of the ground’s surface, litter 

averages 7%. The high amount of bare soil predisposes the area to excessive erosion and colonization by 

undesirable plant species on this ten percent (5,273 acres) of the allotment. These areas are in unsatisfactory 

ecological condition. Two other areas of concern are the colluvial sideslopes of flows and faults, which 

occupy 3% and 5% of the allotment (Ecological Types 17 and 13). These areas have the potential to be 

highly productive and diverse. They are also very attractive to wildlife and livestock and receive heavy use. 

Some spots have as much as 70% bare soil and gravel, while others have as little as 25%. Litter cover ranges 

from 3 to 70%. Because of these wide ranges, it is impossible to designate ecological condition, but it is 

clear that the potential for widespread unsatisfactory condition exists. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 85
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

3. Sagebrush Steppe Plant Communities 

These communities occur on cinder cones, alluvial valleys, and clay basins. As a whole, this treeless
 

formation takes up 7,541 acres (14%) of the allotment. These are the areas where seedings have been
 

concentrated. Sagebrush species occurring here are low sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, Basin big
 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), and silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana).
 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush – Antelope Bitterbrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass – Cusick’s Bluegrass - This plant 

community occurs on cinder cones and occupies 1,409 acres (2%) of the allotment. This is Ecological Type 

26CC. Juniper does occur here, but only in trace amounts (less than 1% canopy cover). Shrub and grass 

cover ranges from ten to thirty percent, averaging 20%. Shrub forage production ranges from twenty-five to 

two hundred forty-five lbs/acre, averaging 129 lbs/acre. Grass forage production ranges from forty-five to 

six hundred-sixty lbs/acre, averaging 296 lbs/acre. Forb cover ranges from on to ten percent, averaging 6%; 

forb forage production ranges from thirty-three to three hundred fifty-six lbs/acre. Bare soil averages 50%, 

litter averages 21% surface cover. The ecological status is satisfactory. Eighty-eight acres of this type is 

seeded to intermediate and crested wheatgrass. The seedings are in poor condition, with significant 

infiltration by native grasses and shrubs. 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush - This is the potential plant community for loamy, alluvial valleys and drainages 

(Ecological Type 11A). Great Basin wildrye may also be part of the potential here, though it was not found 

in this setting on this allotment. No plots were done on this type. One thousand one hundred twenty-five 

acres of this type have been seeded, mostly to crested wheatgrass. According to ocular estimates, shrub cover 

is from zero to ten percent, grass cover is from ten to twenty percent, and forb cover is about three percent. 

Shrub and forb forage production is minimal, while grass production is in the 300-500 lbs/acre range. Bare 

soil is very high, about 80%. Litter cover is negligible. Because these areas have been type-converted, 

ecological condition is not an applicable concept. These seedings are in average condition, but have not 

achieved their full potential. 

Low Sagebrush – Shrubby Eriogonum (Eriogonum sphaerocephalum) - This is the potential plant community 

on shallow clayey alluvial basins and drainages (Ecological Type 11). Four thousand five hundred seventyeight acres of this type occur on the allotment area (9% of the allotment). Isolated junipers may occur here, 

but do not exceed 1% canopy cover. Shrub cover ranges from one to thirty percent, averaging 11%; shrub 

forage production ranges from zero to three hundred-fifteen lbs/acre, averaging 65 lbs/acre. Grass cover 

ranges from three to twenty percent, averaging 8%; grass forage production ranges from twenty to two 

hundred-fifty lbs/acre, averaging 111 lbs/acre. Forb cover ranges from one to forty percent, averaging 14%; 

forb production ranges from thirty-seven to three hundred-thirty lbs/acre, averaging 133 lbs/acre. Bare soil 

and gravel averages 53% of the ground surface. Erosion potential is moderate to high on this type, but the 

flatness of the terrain moderates movement of soil off the area. This type is in satisfactory ecological 

condition, but is near the lower threshold. This type has potential to provide quality sage grouse nesting and 

brood rearing habitat, due to its usual proximity to springs, seeps, and waterholes as well as its ability to 

provide appropriate forage and cover. Seedings have not been implemented on this type. 

Basin Big Sagebrush - This type occurs on deep, loamy, skeletal colluvial soils on faults and the lower slopes 

of some cinder cones (Ecological Type 6 and 13CM). This type is not a major component of the Clear Lake 

allotment flora, occupying less than 1% of the project area. Approximately half of its area has been cleared 

and seeded to intermediate wheatgrass. 

Silver Sagebrush - This type occurs on deep clay basins (Ecological Type 12). It too occupies less than 1%
 

of the project area.
 

86 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

4. Medusa head Grasslands (Ecological Type 18) 

This type occurs on extremely clayey areas where medusa head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) has replaced 

the native shrubs (sagebrushes) and grasses. This substitution generally occurs when the native vegetation is 

removed, exposing bare soil. Rings of medusa head around artificial waterholes are an example of this 

phenomenon. Overutilization (grazing and trampling) by livestock and wildlife, as well as adverse climatic 

conditions, are other causes of medusa head establishment. There are 796 acres of medusa head grassland 

type on the allotment, plus an additional 543 acres where the plant was observed to occur (1,339 acres total, 

2.5% of the allotment). Because of its ability to totally eliminate native species (woody, herbaceous, and 

cryptobiotic) from their range, to increase fire behavior in previously fire-resistant settings, and because of its 

extreme unpalatability to livestock and wildlife, all medusahead grasslands are considered to be in 

unsatisfactory ecological condition. However, it is also recognized that rehabilitation of these sites is very 

difficult due to lack of sufficiently aggressive revegetation species and by the lack of appropriate 

technologies for reseeding such clayey, cobbley soils. 

Table 3-29: Acreages, Seral Stage, and Ecological Condition of Existing Vegetation on the Clear Lake 

Allotment – Modoc National Forest. 

Type Seral Ecological 

Ecological Type Description Designation Acres Stage Condition 

Pine-Juniper Woodlands 

Ponderosa Pine-Western Juniper/ Mountain Mahogany- 3 189 Potential Satisfactory 

AntelopeBitterbrush/Arrowleaf Balsamroot; Volcanic Shields 

Ponderosa Pine-Western Juniper; Highly Dissected 4 791 Potential Satisfactory 

Pliocene Volcanic 

Ponderosa Pine-Western Juniper/ Mtn. Mahogany/ Wyoming 9 573 Potential Satisfactory 

Sagebrush; Fault Scarp Colluvium 

Ponderosa Pine-Western Juniper; Horsts 21 143 Potential Satisfactory 

Ponderosa Pine-Western Juniper/ Mountain Mahogany 26A 39 Potential Satisfactory 

– Serviceberry; Cinder Cones 

Juniper-Sagebrush Savannas 

Western Juniper/Low Sagebrush/ Idaho Fescue; 5A 2,522.5 Potential Satisfactory 

Moderately Dissected Pliocene Volcanic Flows 

Western Juniper/Low Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass - 5B 10,911 Potential Satisfactory 

Idaho Fescue; Highly Dissected Pliocene Volcanic Flows 

Western Juniper/Wyoming Sagebrush/ Needlegrass; 5AW 16,906 Potential Satisfactory 

Moderately Dissected Pliocene Volcanic Flows 

Western Juniper/Wyoming Sagebrush/ Needlegrass; 5BW 5,272.5 Potential Unsatisfactory 

Highly Dissected Pliocene Volcanic Flow 

Western Juniper/Mountain Mahogany/ Bluebunch 7 234 Potential Satisfactory 

Wheatgrass; Volcanic Shields 

Western Juniper/Wyoming Big Sage/ Bluebunch 13 2,525 Potential Satisfactory 

Wheatgrass; Trace Faults within Volcanic Flows 

Western Juniper/Wyoming Sagebrush/ 17 1,737 Potential Unknown 

Needlegrass; Volcanic Flow Colluvium 

Sagebrush Steppe 

Basin Big Sagebrush; Highly Dissected Pliocene 6 177 Potential Satisfactory 

Volcanic Flow and Colluvial Slopes 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 87
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Low Sagebrush-Shrubby Eriogonum/ Idaho FescueSandberg Bluegrass; Alluvial Basins within Volcanic Flows  11 4,578 Potential Satisfactory 

Wyoming Sagebrush/Great Basin Wildrye; Fluvial

Alluvium 

 11A 1,045 Seeded Not Applicable 

Bolander Silver Sagebrush; Fluvial Basins Fault 12 332 Potential Unsatisfactory 

Zone Complex 

Wyoming Big Sage/Antelope Bitterbrush/Bluebunch

Wheatgrass-Cusick’s Bluegrass; Volcanic Cinder Cones 

26CC 1,409 Potential Satisfactory 

Other Types 

Medusa head-Autumn Willowherb; Fluvial Drainages

Polygonum Species; Playas within Volcanic Flows

Quaking Aspen; Fault Scarp Colluvium*

 18

 19

 23

 796 

180 

0 

Potential 

Potential 

Potential 

Unsatisfactory 

Satisfactory 

Satisfactory 

* This type occurs in very small units that are not measurable at the scale mapped. 

Noxious Weeds 

Many noxious weed species have a competitive advantage over native species in areas disturbed by human 

activities. Within the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed, human activities which have created disturbed 

conditions include timber harvest, grazing, and road construction. Consequently, noxious weeds have 

become established in a wide range of habitats, including riparian areas and wetlands, roadsides, 

campgrounds, rock pits, trails, forested and non-forested areas. These unwanted, introduced species have the 

potential to adversely affect species diversity, special status plant/animal species, range condition and forage 

production. Nine species of noxious weeds have been documented on federal lands within the watershed 

analysis area (Table 3-30). The 102 known noxious weed infestations are documented on lands managed by 

the Fremont National Forest and the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area. Information regarding noxious 

weed populations on the Modoc National Forest is needed. 

Table 3-30. Noxious Weed Sites in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed. 

Common Name Scientific Name Number of Populations Infested Area (acres) 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Numerous —— 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 46 17.7 

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica 1 0.1 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 14 53.9 

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopsis 4 2.0 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 33 897.5 

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens 1 0.1 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium 2 0.1 

St. John’s Wort Hypericum perforatum 1 1.0 

TOTAL 9 species 102 972.4 

Musk thistle occupies the largest amount of acres within the watershed, and has the second largest number of 

populations, some of which are large. Musk thistle is a biennial plant that aggressively invades disturbed 

sites and can form dense stands eventually crowding out desirable plants. This thistle is generally found in 

forested areas that have been logged or can be found in other areas associated with ground disturbance. 

Canada thistle has the largest number of populations within the watershed. Canada thistle has the capability 

to remain in relatively small populations for a number of years then increase exponentially. It is an aggressive 

colony forming perennial that reproduces by seed and from nodes on widely creeping horizontal roots that 

enable this plant to spread rapidly over large areas. This weed commonly invades riparian areas and has the 

88 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

capability to crowd out the native riparian flora, forming an extensive creeping root system that is currently 

controllable only by translocated herbicides. 

Leafy spurge seems to be increasing within the watershed, with the third largest number of populations and 

the second largest number of acres occupies. Leafy spurge is also an aggressive colony forming perennial 

that reproduces by seed and by rhizomes. It has been reported to cause severe irritation of the mouth and 

digestive tract in cattle which may result in death. This species often forms large populations with extensive 

underground rhizomes that are most effectively controlled by translocated herbicides. 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species 

There are approximately 210 acres of special status plant species occupied habitat in the Gerber/Willow 

Valley watershed analysis area. Information regarding these species is presented in the following tables and 

narrative. 

Table 3-31. Populations of Special Status Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Populations Occupied Habitat* 

(#) (Acres) 

Blue-leaved penstemon Penstemon glaucinus 1 140 

Long-bearded Mariposa lily Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus 37 66 

Baker’s globe mallow Iliamna bakeri 6 4 

Profuse-flowered mesa mint Pogogyne floribunda 2 40 

Fringed campion Silene nuda ssp. insectivora numerous —— 

*This represents only approximately 0.001% of the analysis area. 

The long-bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) grows in meadows, 

including low areas or drainages within low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) scablands. The meadows 

appear to be mostly edaphically produced; the seasonally wet, heavy soils may preclude trees. The meadows 

are generally within forests of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (P. contorta), and western 

juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). A draft species management guide for the long-bearded mariposa lily was 

developed in 1991 by Thomas Kaye of the Conservation Biology Program of the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, in consultation with Bruce Rittenhouse and Steve Popovich, botanists on the Fremont National 

Forest. An Interim Conservation Strategy for the long-bearded mariposa lily on the Winema National Forest 

was developed and signed by the botanists, TES coordinator, and forest supervisor in 1995. 

Baker’s globe mallow (Iliamna bakeri) commonly grows within plant associations which include western 

juniper, curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), 

squaw carpet (Ceanothus prostratus), and sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Scattered or open ponderosa 

pine occurs on some sites. Dry hilltop sandy soils with little or no overtopping canopy is the preferred 

habitat. Many of the known populations are associated with recent burns. Several known populations 

initially located on 5-10 year old burns appear to have flourished briefly and then declined or disappeared. A 

conservation assessment was written for Baker’s globe mallow in January 2000 by Robert W. Wooly, a 

botanist with the Fremont National Forest. The conservation assessment provides a review of current 

information about the taxonomy, range, distribution, habitat, ecology, and status of Baker’s globe mallow in 

Northern California and Southern Oregon. 

Profuse-flowered mesa mint (Pogogyne floribunda) grows in seasonal (vernal) wetlands characterized by 

silver sage (Artemisia cana). Until discovery of the Gerber area populations, this species was thought to be 

an endemic of the Modoc Plateau of northeastern California. Little is currently known about its ecology. In 

addition to silver sage, the Gerber populations were also associated with one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda 

ssp. secunda), navarretia (Navarretia intertexta), and annual hairgrass (Dechampsia danthonioides). The 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 89
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

California populations are also associated with slender orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis), a plant listed as 

endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus) commonly occurs on dry sandy loam soils in clearings within 

lodgepole pine forests, from elevations of 6,700 feet to 8,100 feet. The lower elevation (6,700 feet) portions 

of the population on Yainax Butte occur under ponderosa pine also. Commonly associated species include 

lodgepole pine, white fir (Abies concolor), pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), snowbrush 

(Ceanothus velutinus), and sagebrush. 

Fringed campion (Silene nuda ssp. insectivora) is found in relatively deeper soils of the sagebrush-steppe 

habitat, often associated with vernal streams and washes. Fringed campion is frequently associated with 

western juniper and big sagebrush dominated plant communities. Known populations seem to indicate that 

this species is somewhat tolerant to disturbance. 

Table 3-32. Agency Status of Sensitive Plant Species. 

Common Name ONHP List BLM Status USFS Status USFWS Status 

Blue-leaved penstemon NHP1 Bureau Sensitive Sensitive SoC 

Long-bearded Mariposa lily NHP1 Bureau Sensitive Sensitive SoC 

Baker’s globe mallow NHP1 Bureau Sensitive Sensitive None 

Profuse-flowered mesa mint NHP1 Bureau Sensitive Sensitive SoC 

Fringed campion NHP4 Bureau Tracking None None 

NHP1: Oregon Natural Heritage Program list 1. Taxa that are endangered or threatened with extinction or presumed 

to be extinct throughout their entire range. 

NHP4: Oregon Natural Heritage Program list 4. Taxa that are of concern, but are not currently threatened or 

endangered. Includes taxa that are very rare but currently secure, as well as taxa that are declining in numbers or 

habitat but are still too common to be proposed as threatened or endangered. 

SoC: Species of Concern (Not an official status category under ESA). Includes species formerly categorized as 

Federal candidate list 1 species (USFWS has information to support proposing as endangered or threatened) or 

Federal candidate list 2 species (USFWS needs additional information before proposing as endangered or 

threatened). These are species that USFWS is reviewing for consideration as Candidates for listing under the ESA. 

Special Areas 

Special areas within the analysis area include a Research Natural Area (RNA), two Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC), and a Special Botanical Area. RNA’s are designated to preserve and 

protect examples of relatively undisturbed biological communities and the ecological processes that support 

those communities. These areas are available for short- or long-term scientific study, research, and education, 

and serve as a baseline against which human impacts on natural systems can be measured. An ACEC 

designation highlights an area where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; or other natural 

systems or processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards. Special botanical areas were 

designated to protect, maintain, and/or restore specific botanical habitat values. 

90 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-33. Designated Special Areas within the Gerber Analysis Area. 

Special Area 

Bumpheads Special

Botanical Area 

Designation Date 

June 1995

Size (Acres) 

50 

Reason for Designation 

Undisturbed bunchgrass-shrub plant 

community 

Goodlow Mountain RNA February 1942 1,260 Ponderosa pine forest and transition 

to sagebrush steppe 

Miller Creek ACEC June 1995 2,000 Natural processes, wildlife, and 

scenic values 

Yainax Butte ACEC June 1995 720 Natural processes and systems, 

including special status plant species 

Fire and Fuels 

Fire/Fuels Management - BLM 

The absence of fire and other activities associated with European settlement has created fuel loads across the 

western U.S. that exceed any known occurrence in history (Agee 1993). In the BLM Klamath Falls Resource 

Area (KFRA), these fuel loads range from 20 to 100 tons/acre. Historic accounts within our own century 

point to cyclic patterns of drought, which increase the scope and intensity of wildfire. The question is not if 

fire will occur, but when and how it will occur. When wildfire does occur, the results are not advantageous to 

any resource. Episodic events that occurred under the worst weather conditions in the previous decade have 

provided many examples of this phenomenon. 

The ever-growing wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas within the Resource Area place the human 

inhabitants who live in these areas at ever-increasing risk. The development of adequate defensible space 

surrounding rural dwellings and using fire resistant building materials in construction is imperative if those 

dwellings are to survive an occurrence of wildfire. 

Current management objectives attempt to mimic the historic regimes to which the landscape evolved. 

Since the Fuels Management EA was signed in 1994 (USDI-BLM 1994), the four basic objectives of the 

fuels management program for the BLM—Klamath Falls Resource Area have been: 

-Reintroduce fire into areas in which fire has had a profound biological influence on ecosystem 

composition, structure, and function. Fire has played a major role in the early development and 

maintenance of plant associations in South Central Oregon. 

-Restore sustainable function and structure to plant communities, which would improve forest health 

in fire-adapted ecosystems. This would include restoring forest (and other plant communities) 

composition from fire-intolerant species to fire-resistant species. The populations of encroaching 

white fir and western juniper would be reduced. 

-Reduce major losses of sustainable ecosystem resources from catastrophic wildfire, which has 

resulted from heavy fuel loadings and vegetation changes that developed with “pseudo successful” 

total fire suppression. Reduce the potential for severe high-damage, forest overstory/stand replacing 

fires. 

-Reduce overall fire management costs by reducing the number of large acreage multi-burn period 

fires (large fires burning over many days). Reduce the number and type of suppression resources 

needed in extended attack and project fire situations. The number and types of Initial Attack (IA) 

resources would remain unchanged. The BLM fire planning process would recognize the changes in 

the amount of burned area, fire intensity and adjust IA resources. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 91
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Wildfire suppression would still occur where prescribed fires are not planned and authorized. A Wildland 

Fire Situation Analysis would be prepared for each fire that is active and unconfined into a second burning 

period. The Lakeview District Fire Management Activity Plan (FMAP) would continue to be implemented. 

This activity plan describes the process for suppression of unplanned and unauthorized fires (USDI-BLM, 

2002). 

KFRA has conducted prescribed burning on an annual basis since 1980 and acquired considerable experience 

in prescribed fire application. Prescribed burning facilitated the suppression and lessened the severity of 

unplanned wildfires that occurred on the John Springs (1992) and Kitts Mill (1987) Fires. Prior to 

underburning, fuel loads in the ponderosa pine forests of the Gerber Block averaged 61 tons/acre. The 

average fuel weight that assures the overstory can survive wildfire is less than 14 tons/acre. Units 

underburned once averaged 23 tons/acre, which indicates that several burn treatments are required to achieve 

maintenance level. The 1994 Prescribed Fire EA (USDI-BLM 1994) established a system of dividing the 

watersheds into blocks called Fire Management Units (FMU). After the first two years, FMUs were selected 

for burning by a random process. FMUs for five years have been selected using a random number generator 

(or table) and grouped together for each year’s operational area. Few ignitions would burn together; hence 

approximately 40% of the area would be burned. According to the KFRA Resource Management Plan, 

approximately 84,900 acres would need to be treated each decade to maintain the historic fire frequency 

level. The number of acres treated annually could vary considerably, due to the selection and review process. 

Reintroduction of fire in forested areas, using restoration burns, would use 2 to 3 treatments within a ten-year 

period (1 to 2 would be spring burns). These areas would then use one fall or summer maintenance burn 

selected by random process on a 5 to 15 year cycle in lower elevation ponderosa pine zones. A 10 to 20 year 

cycle (mid elevation) would be planned for ponderosa pine and Douglas fir mixes (Mean Fire Interval (MFI) 

of 15 years for all ponderosa pine dominant communities) and a 30 to 50 year cycle for white fir/Douglas fir 

and red fir communities (MFI of 40 years). Grasslands and oak/juniper woodlands would be burned during 

seasons that are characteristic of the historic fire occurrence, at an MFI of 25-100 years. The random 

selection process would produce a wide variation of fire interval, which is an essential component that 

ensures diversity. Reintroduction of fire within acceptable ignition times would provide desired ecological 

results and create a stepped reduction of fuel beds. 

The Clear Air Act (as amended) requires compliance with State Regulations. This creates a dilemma in areas 

where prescribed fire is necessary for ecosystem health and maintenance, because the desirable effects of fire 

are constrained by the impacts of smoke on human populations. The Klamath Falls Resource Area will 

comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the Oregon State Implementation Plan. Monitoring 

and evaluation of resource area burning will follow processes established by regulation and the Klamath 

volunteer smoke management process, which includes peer review. 

Statistics gathered from fuels treatments that were conducted during the last 13 years (from 1980 through 

2002) on BLM lands in the Gerber Block are displayed in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 below. To summarize the 

tables, the Klamath Falls Resource Area has treated 30,629 acres in the Gerber Block to reduce the fuel 

loadings, completing one to three treatments for an expenditure of $4,373,765. 75% of the acres were treated 

through prescribed burning, 23% by mechanical methods, and 2% by hand (chainsaw) treatments. Of the 

23,229 acres treated through prescribed burning, 70% have been burned more than once. 

The cost comparison table (Table 3-34) shows that 82% of the funds spent on fuels treatments were used in 

prescribed burning, 17% on mechanical treatments, and 1% on the hand treatments (although prescribed 

burning is less expensive per treatment, many acres have received multiple treatments). The hand and 

mechanical treatments will be followed by a second and possibly third treatment of prescribed burning, 

before the areas are considered to be in the maintenance category and scheduled for random selection in a 

recurring cycle that mimics more natural conditions. 

92 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-34: Fuels Treatments by Treatment Type in Gerber Block (BLM). 

Treatment Cost/ Acre # Entries Acres/ Treatment Cost ($)/ Treatment Totals 

Acres Cost ($) 

Hand (chainsaws) $350/ac 1 403 30,225 - ­

2 63 9,450 466 39,675 

Mechanical $110/ac 1 6,934 762,740 6,934 762,740 

Prescribed Burn $75/ac 1 6,879 515,925 - ­

2 8,311 1,246,650 - ­

3 8,039 1,808,775 23,229 3,571,350 

Total All Treatments 30,629 4,373,765 

Note: Cost figures used are average prices to contract fuels treatments in 2002. 

The majority of the fuels reduction treatments (51%) have occurred in western juniper vegetation types 

(15,532 acres). 7,643 acres (25%) of fuels management operations were done in ponderosa pine vegetation 

types; 6,984 acres (23%) were accomplished in non-timber types (mostly brush and grass); and 455 acres 

(1%) of mixed conifer types were treated. Table 3-35 shows acres of treatment by vegetation type. Map 3.4 

(Appendix E) has locations of the completed BLM fuels treatments in the Gerber Block. 

Table 3-35: Fuels Treatments by Vegetation Type in Gerber Block (BLM) 

Vegetation Codes Mechanical (acres) * Hand (acres) * Prescribed Burn (acres) * 

Juniper 636 227 2,532 

Agriculture 5 0 137 

Big Sage, Bitterbrush 14 0 310 

Deciduous Shrub 39 1 668 

Dry Grass ** 3 0 14 

Juniper/Low Sage 4,177 142 7,805 

Juniper/Sagebrush 6 0 7 

Mixed Conifer 15 0 440 

Low Sage/Grass ** 1,471 31 3,549 

Mountain Mahogany 12 3 623 

Ponderosa Pine/Juniper 359 58 3,388 

Regeneration 0 0 64 

Ponderosa Pine 201 1 3,633 

Rabbitbrush/Grass 0 0 40 

Ponderosa Pine/Mountain Mahogany 0 0 3 

Totals 6,938 463 23,213 

* Number of acres in Table 3-34 does not agree with Table 3-35 due to rounding/splitting discrepancies. 

** Invasive juniper was removed from the low sage/grass and dry grass vegetation types. 

Fire/Fuel Management - USFS 

The USFS is directed by the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review Final Report, 

December 18, 1995 (USFS-Washington Office) to use prescribed fire, from either management ignited or 

natural ignitions, in a safe, carefully controlled, cost effective manner as a means of achieving management 

objectives in Forest Plans. The policy has been developed for several reasons but primarily to provide for 

fire fighter safety by reducing the hazardous fuel loading and to reduce skyrocketing suppression costs of 

large fire suppression. 

The Gerber Watershed Analysis area is comprised of ponderosa pine associated and mixed conifer ecotypes. 

The majority of the project area has had some degree of partial cutting of timber or timber stand 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 93
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

improvement activities in the past. There is an increasing risk of catastrophic fire in the area due to 

understory development and elevated fuel loading, In addition some of the trees are dying or already dead, 

making stands very susceptible to crown fires given ignition. The existing condition in much of this area will 

promote high severity, stand replacement fire rather than the low severity understory fires. This condition is 

also contributing to an increased risk to fire fighters who are called to suppress these dangerous and 

destructive fires. 

Approximately 35,000 acres within the analysis area have been prescribed burned previously. The Juniper 

underburn consisted of approximately 5,748 acres was burned in 1991. The Oriana underburn consisted of 

approximately 7,443 acres was burned in 1985 and again in 1994. The Beautiful underburn was about 7,000 

acres in 1986 and 4,300 acres in 1995. The Deadman underburn was implemented on 4,200 acres in 1990, 

and the Goodlow underburn was 10,000 acres in 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002. Of the 35,000 acres that have 

been previously underburned, 14,000 acres has been entered twice. The rest has only been entered once. Due 

to the heavy fuel loading it may take up to 3 entries to get the fuel loading down to the desired condition. In 

addition, the district has been burning in mosaic pattern and consequently only about 60% of these areas have 

actually been burned. 

Fire managers are mainly interested in 0-3 inch material and fuelbed depth as these are the primary 

contributors to fire spread rate. However, large decaying fuels can be very susceptible to spot fires affecting 

fire spread. The Gerber Watershed Analysis Area is primarily within the Fremont Fire Occurrence Zone 3 and 

has a rate of 0.157 fires per year occurring per 1,000 acres. This occurrence zone reflects a high fire 

frequency on the forest. Existing fuel loading vary throughout the analysis area. 

In the stands of ponderosa pine associated ecotype the fuel loading is best illustrated on pages 48 and 49 from 

the USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-52, Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues. 

The residue descriptive code is 4-PP&ASSOC-4-PC. This fuel type is best represented by the standard fuel 

model 10 from the General Technical Report INT-22 with approximately 13 tons per acre of 0-3 inch down 

woody material and 21 tons per acre of down woody material. Fuelbed depth is approximately 1.3 foot. 

In the stands of mixed conifer ecotype the fuel loading is best illustrated on pages 30 and 31 from the USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-95, Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues. The residue 

descriptive code is 6-MC-4-PC. This fuel type is best represented by standard fuel model 10 from the General 

Technical Report INT-22 with approximately 17 tons per acre of 0-3 inch down woody material and 32 tons 

per acre of down woody material. Fuelbed depth is approximately 1.4 feet. 

The Gerber Analysis area includes Fremont NF management areas 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, & 13. Fire Management
 

Standards and Guidelines specific to these management areas are:
 

MA-1: Mule Deer Forage and Cover on Winter Range - Wildfire on winter range will be evaluated for 

appropriate suppression action. A natural fuels management plan for winter range will be developed through 

an interdisciplinary process. 

MA-2: Endangered and Threatened Species - Bald eagle management areas are the highest priority for 

wildfire suppression if potential for damage to habitat is high. Fuels Management activities (including fuels 

treatment) will be evaluated for effect on nesting peregrines or hack sites. Fuel treatment by fire around 

active nest sites will take place outside nesting season (March 1 to July 15) if fire activities and smoke would 

affect nesting eagles. 

MA-3: Old-growth Habitat for Dependent Species above the Management Requirement Level - Natural fuels 

management will take place in old growth areas only to meet old-growth habitat objectives. Old-growth 

areas should be priority for wildfire suppression. 

MA-5: Timber and Range Production - Timber harvest, fuels treatment, and site preparation activities should 

strive not to damage residual trees. A suggested sequence of activities to include at year 3 to 5: Treat fuels, 

94 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

protecting residual regeneration where feasible (prescribed fire should be strongly considered, both to reduce 

hazard and to control species composition). 

MA-14: Old-growth Habitat to Provide Management Requirements for Dependent Species - Natural fuels 

management will take place in old-growth areas only to meet old-growth habitat objectives. Old-growth 

areas should be a high priority for wildfire suppression. 

MA-15: Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality - Machine constructed fire lines should not be 

constructed in riparian areas during fire suppression activities. Perpendicular crossings, with subsequent 

rehabilitations, are permitted, but discouraged if alternatives exist. Use of prescribed fire will be limited to: 

-Burning of activity fuels located in the upland portion of the Streamside Management Unit. 

-Burning of natural fuels for the purpose of enhancing riparian dependent values. 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

The Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds contain many different major habitat types which can be broken 

down further into more specific habitat types. The terrestrial wildlife species that inhabit these specific 

habitat types are as variable and diverse as the flora itself. Table 3-36 shows some of the representative 

groups of species that are found within the various major habitat types. For a detailed wildlife species list, 

see Appendix A. 

Table 3-36. Summary of major habitat types and representative wildlife species groups for the Gerber 

and Willow Valley watershed. 

Habitat Types Acres Priority Habitat Feature Representative species or species groups 

Juniper 93,886 Old growth juniper trees gray flycatcher, robin, bobcat, mule deer 

Shrub 85,926 Big sagebrush stringers, bitterbrush, sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, Brewer’s sparrow, 

mountain mahogany pronghorn, mule deer, sagebrush lizard 

Ponderosa Pine 68,145* Large patches of old forest with woodpeckers, nuthatches, goshawk, elk, mule 

large trees and snags, patches of deer, landbirds, bats 

burned old forest, open understory 

with regenerating pines 

Mixed conifer 6,975** Large and snags, grassy openings woodpeckers, nuthatches, goshawk, mule deer, 

and dense thickets, multi-layered/ elk, bats 

dense canopy, edges and openings 

created by wildfire 

Riparian-wet 9,670 Deciduous trees, riparian shrubs, red-naped sapsucker (in aspen), waterfowl, 

meadow emergent vegetation, water shorebirds, garter snakes, bats, beaver 

spreaders 

Conifer 7,384 elk, mule deer, landbirds 

Regeneration 

Grass 2,194 Native bunch grass areas western meadowlark, horned lark, ferruginous 

hawk, rough-legged hawk (winter) 

Water 6,468 waterfowl, shorebirds, osprey, bald eagle, 

bullfrog, turtles 

Total 268,679 

*1,870 acres of late and old successional 

**388 acres of late and old successional 

Vegetation types identified in the Description of Vegetation Conditions (previous section) are grouped into 

major habitat types. The habitat types are summarized by subwatershed in Table 3-37. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 95
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-37. Acres of Habitat Types by Subwatershed 

Subwatersheds 

Shrubsteppe; 

Juniper 

Mixed 

Conifer 

Mountain 

Mahogany Ponderosa 

Pine 

RB1-Grass; 

Riparian-Wet 

Meadow 

Tree 

Regeneration Water Total 

Antelope 22,598 213 255 3,013 898 0 198 27,176 

Barnes 13,309 710 2,026 10,217 2,028 0 343 28,634 

Ben Hall 1,022 426 91 7,126 302 2,135 17 11,118 

Buckmaster 574 406 76 3,533 294 652 0 5,485 

Dry Prairie 13,923 277 457 5,357 726 186 395 21,322 

East Gerber 

Frontal 9,242 610 329 4,324 222 326 102 15,156 

Horse 

Canyon 3,425 1,836 323 7,900 948 3,300 27 17,759 

Long 

Branch 

7,481 838 598 4,982 368 633 76 14,977 

Miller 20,662 105 131 3,084 2,199 27 291 26,498 

Pitch Log 8,685 455 247 5,369 111 0 583 15,450 

Rock Creek 20,788 633 1,101 8,129 947 0 102 31,700 

Upper Lost 

River 

Frontal 

15,172 17 35 1,314 48 0 121 16,706 

West 

Gerber 

Frontal 

9,529 448 511 3,709 1,571 125 3,569 19,461 

Willow 

Valley 16,494 0 2 88 9 0 645 17,238 

Total 162,854 6,975 6,183 68,145 10,670 7,384 6,468 268,679 

A herpetological survey is ongoing in the Gerber Watershed area. Numerous species of reptiles and 

amphibians have been documented by this study (see Appendix A). 

Roads impact numerous wildlife species in several ways. Road use can cause direct harm to wildlife (road 

kill), and the road prism is a direct reduction of wildlife habitat. Many species are sensitive to the 

disturbance caused by road use and many species are vulnerable to human predation as a function of road 

use. Road density can be used as an index of direct harm, disturbance, and vulnerability. Acres of road 

surface can be used to determine habitat removed by roads. Table 3-38 summarizes terrestrial acres removed 

by roads and road densities by subwatershed. 

96 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-38. Acres of terrestrial habitat removed by roads and road densities by subwatershed. 

Subwatershed Gross Terrestrial Square miles Miles of Acres of Road Density 

Acres Acres (terrestrial) Road Roadway (miles/square mile)
 

Antelope 27,176 26,978 42 63 115 1.50
 

Barnes Valley 28,634 28,291 44 119 216 2.69
 

Ben Hall 11,118 11,101 17 52 95 3.02
 

Buckmaster 5,485 5,485 9 30 55 3.51
 

Dry Prairie 21,322 20,927 33 82 149 2.51
 

East Gerber Frontal 15,156 15,054 24 34 61 1.43
 

Horse Canyon 17,759 17,732 28 92 167 3.31
 

Long Branch 14,977 14,900 23 46 84 1.97
 

Miller Cr 26,498 26,207 41 60 110 1.48
 

Pitch Log 15,450 14,867 23 49 90 2.12
 

Rock Cr 31,700 31,598 49 86 157 1.75

 Upper Lost River
 

Frontal 16,706 16,585 26 29 53 1.12
 

West Gerber Frontal 19,461 15,892 25 42 77 1.70
 

Willow Valley 17,238 16,592 26 36 65 1.38
 

Total 268,679 262,209 410 821 1,492 2.00 (average)
 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Species of Concern (SOC) 

Bald Eagle - (Threatened, Proposed for De-listing) - Bald eagles use the analysis area for foraging, roosting 

and nesting. Their potential habitat exists where large, open-branched ponderosa pines are present near open 

water foraging habitat. The multiple reservoirs and nearby stringers of large pines in the watersheds seem to 

provide suitable habitat that results in successful reproduction. Many of the large live and dead ponderosa 

pines that are vital to bald eagles have been negatively affected by juniper encroachment. Invasive junipers 

take advantage of microclimate characteristics around large pines and, therefore, create intense competition 

for resources. 

Isaacs and Silovsky (1991) characterized potential eagle nesting and roosting areas for the Fremont National 

Forest and identified portions of the Gerber Watershed as potential habitat. Anthony and Isaacs (2002) 

identified six active bald eagle nest sites in the Gerber Watershed. Nest locations included one on Goodlow 

Mountain, four around Gerber reservoir and one near Tull Lake. One nest site was found in the Willow 

Valley Watershed, near Antelope Reservoir. Another bald eagle nest is located on the Modoc NF near Walter 

Flat. A bald eagle management area (BEMA) is designated around and includes Gerber Reservoir 

(approximately 15,057 acres of which 3,792 is Gerber Reservoir). The Fremont National Forest has 

identified three areas as BEMAs. The following table summarizes the acres in these management areas. 

Table 3-39. Bald eagle management area and acres. 

BEMA Number Acres
 

P05 1,698
 

635 931
 

P09 1,160
 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 97
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

American Peregrine Falcon - (R-6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List; recently De-listed from 

Endangered) - Peregrine falcons need suitable nest sites, usually cliffs, which overlook fairly open areas with 

an ample food supply. They typically nest and roost relatively close to water where waterbirds or other prey 

species are plentiful (Csuti et al 1997). 

The Lakeview District BLM was surveyed for peregrine falcon habitat in 1999. The purpose of this survey 

was to serve as a springboard for future surveys and monitoring by the BLM, to ascertain peregrine presence, 

and to contribute in monitoring the peregrine falcon recovery in Oregon, per recommendations by the 

USFWS under the delisting decision. Within the Gerber watershed a fifteen-acre area of Miller Creek is 

identified as peregrine habitat. Two specific areas in Miller creek canyon below Gerber dam were considered 

to be potential nest sites. One received a high potential for nests rating and the other received a medium 

potential rating (Pagel, 1999). 

Since the habitat rating procedure, both of these sites have been surveyed to protocol (Pagel 1989) and no 

peregrines have been detected. However, prairie falcons have been detected and have occupied both sites. It 

is possible that prairie falcons start breeding and nesting behavior earlier in the year than peregrines, and 

therefore are better suited to occupy these nest sites (Sitter, personal communication, 2002). Good foraging 

habitat exists primarily, around Gerber, Round Valley, and Upper midway reservoirs, along Miller creek and 

around nearby wet meadows, ephemeral lakes and agricultural fields. In the fall of 1999, Pagel documented 

peregrine falcons use of the Miller Creek area of the Gerber watershed. There have been occasional sightings 

of peregrines on the Modoc NF portion of the Willow Valley watershed. No other areas have been identified. 

Northwestern pond turtle - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - The 

northwestern pond turtle is listed as a BLM Bureau sensitive species in Oregon, a federally designated 

Species of Concern, a state listed sensitive critical species and an Oregon Natural Heritage Program list 1 

species (ONHP Feb. 2001). This aquatic turtle is typically found in lakes, ponds, marshes, rivers and streams 

with muddy or rocky bottoms (Csuti et al, 1997) and requires adequate forage, basking sites, nesting and 

overwintering habitat. Factors that have likely influenced pond turtle populations and distribution may 

include riparian reduction and degradation, altering of waterways causing hydrologic changes and 

introduction of non-native predators (largemouth bass, bullfrog, etc.). There is an ongoing herpetological 

inventory of the Gerber watershed and this study may help us better understand northwestern pond turtle 

abundance and distribution. 

Sightings of northwestern pond turtles have been documented in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed, mostly 

along the main access road leading to Gerber Reservoir. However there appears to be little potential for 

northwestern pond turtle habitat in the watersheds. Primarily, the aquatic habitats would be near springs 

along major tributaries. Most of the ponds/reservoirs in the watersheds are locked up as ice during the winter 

months and most of the streams are dry in the summer providing very little sustained suitable habitat for this 

turtle species. Retention of riparian communities and the use of best management practices for constructing 

roads and landings, grazing activities, and protecting potential nesting and overwintering areas may mitigate 

most potential habitat losses. 

Bats - The silver-haired bat, pallid bat, Yuma myotis, long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis are Federal 

Species of Concern and Bureau Tracking Species in Oregon. In the watersheds, these bat species are all 

closely associated with older ponderosa pine, mixed conifer or juniper forests. They are dependent on 

riparian zones and permanent water. Maternal colonies, roosting sites and overwintering sites are typically 

associated with large snags, cliffs, caves, mines, buildings and/or bridges. 

The Gerber watershed currently has several older, artificial roosting structures that are known to have large 

numbers of bats using them. Additional structures (bat boxes) have been erected recently throughout the 

watershed. Surveys have not yet been completed in the analysis area in order to ascertain abundance and 

distribution of bat species. Current habitat conditions are likely suitable to sustain some level of bat use. 

98 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Bat populations are likely being affected by continued riparian habitat degradation in some areas and 

negative impacts from juniper encroachment on large trees used for roosting. 

Great Gray Owl - (BLM Survey and Manage Species, State Sensitive Vulnerable in Oregon) - Great gray 

owls typically hunt for rodents in meadows (wet and dry), clear-cuts and other open areas. They have been 

known to use a variety of habitats and nest in existing cavities, broken tops of snags, or large nest structures 

usually in mature conifers. Because this owl is a large bird with a considerable wingspan, it has been found 

to prefer nesting in large trees with well-spaced branches. 

As a species of the higher latitudes of North America, the analysis area is situated near the southern most part 

of its range. It is thought that the great gray has been expanding its range in Oregon in recent history, taking 

advantage of openings in forests created by timber harvest practices (Csuti et al 1997). 

Three great gray owl detections have been formally documented within or close to the eastern boundary of 

the Gerber watershed. The detections were documented on USFS land. The first was a single adult seen 

north of Horsefly Mountain and the second was two adults seen west of Arkansas reservoir. The third was 

two adults and one fledgling seen near Upper Barnes Valley creek. 

Natural meadow systems important to great grays for foraging can be vulnerable to juniper, lodgepole pine 

and other types of encroachment. It has been realized that these owls can effectively hunt over other types of 

openings typical of some timber harvest practices. Large live trees and snags can be negatively affected by 

wildfires since fuel loads, including ladder fuels, have not been controlled like they were before fire 

suppression efforts. Mature, live trees preferred by these owls for nesting can be negatively impacted by 

juniper and other types of encroachment. 

Big Game 

The Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds provide fair to good habitat for mule deer and other large ungulate 

species. No specific information is available for the California portion of the Willow Valley watershed, 

although this area is known as extremely important winter range for mule deer and pronghorn. The 

watersheds include portions of the ODF&W Interstate Management Unit for deer and elk and the ODF&W 

South-Central Elk Management Zone. 

All seasonal habitats are in a state of advanced plant succession and thus have a reduced capacity to support 

big game. Forage availability in LOS stands has declined as density and structure within these stands has 

increased. An increase in the density and distribution of juniper at lower elevations has reduced the 

productivity of herbaceous and woody forage, but has increased cover. Riparian habitat conditions for 

fawning, calving and rearing were degraded since the turn of the century by heavy livestock and ungulate 

grazing. Due to management within the last decade, these areas have improved. Road densities on National 

Forest lands exceed the minimum desired condition for habitat security (USFS, 2000). 

Mule Deer - In the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds, mule deer inhabit sagebrush plains, canyons and 

rimrock areas. When pressured by hot weather or predation, they typically use juniper, pine or mixed conifer 

stringers or thickets. They are also known to use riparian areas. During the summer and fall mule deer can 

become nocturnal as they mainly move into suitable shrub areas to browse at night. They usually migrate to 

lower elevations during the winter in search of shallower snow depths and available forage. Wintering deer 

in 1998/1999 were estimated at 35% (Interstate) of management objective. Although Interstate herd count 

numbers are low, this is thought to be due to poor weather conditions during the count (Hedrick, personal 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 99
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

communication). Currently, the overall mule deer population appears to be on a slight upward trend (USFS, 

2000). 

Logging activity from the 1950’s through the 1990’s has created openings and increased edge habitat in the 

forest landscape, improving overall foraging conditions on summer ranges. Hiding and thermal cover has 

decreased and motorized access to summer ranges has increased. Deer numbers during this period fluctuated 

greatly. Population indices, calculated to 5-year averages, peaked in the early 1960’s and reached their 

lowest levels in the early 1980’s. The Interstate deer populations peaked in the 1950’s and have since 

declined by 60%. The population has been relatively stable in the last 20 years and appears to be within the 

carrying capacities of seasonal ranges (USFS, 2000). 

Cover, both hiding and thermal, though plentiful, is generally poorly distributed throughout the watersheds. 

Around 50% of the analysis area is classified as non-forested and may not be able to produce significant 

amounts of cover. Cover utilized in these areas may not meet current Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

definitions, but may nevertheless function as big game cover. Forage is highly variable over the watershed. 

Concentrations of high quality forage, primarily grasses, forbs, and sedges associated with riparian areas, 

meadows and small openings are distributed throughout the watershed. Sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain 

mahogany, bitter cherry and chokecherry occur at lower elevations and forest edges. 

The watersheds are almost entirely within the boundaries of the Interstate deer herd range. The area includes 

summer, transitional and winter ranges within the Klamath Falls and Interstate management units. Most of 

the watershed analysis area is considered transitional and summer range (Salwasser, 1979). The area south of 

Willow Valley Reservoir is considered winter range and many of the summering deer from the north migrate 

to this area. Other summering deer migrate from the Dry Lakes winter range to the southwest in California. 

Depending on weather and forage, mule deer can use all parts of the watersheds as habitat during the year. 

A summary of winter range acres is not available because it is incompletely mapped in the watersheds. 

However, the Clear Lake area of the Doublehead Ranger District in California is considered a critical winter 

range area for mule deer. Interstate mule deer herd populations were low in the early 20th century, increased 

to a maximum in the late 1940s through the mid-1960s, then declined (Salwasser 1979). Populations appear 

to be relatively stable at a much lower level than the 1960s maximum. 

Elk - Elk are the largest wild ungulate species found in the analysis area. They are primarily grazing animals, 

preferring a diet of grasses and some forbs. In winter they may turn to browsing trees, shrubs or other woody 

vegetation (Csuti et al 1997). Elk forage in meadows, clearings or other early seral areas with a grass 

component. Like mule deer, when pressured by weather and/or hunting or other predation, elk can become 

nocturnal. 

Elk and suitable elk habitat are distributed throughout the watershed. Elk can use all parts of the watersheds 

as habitat during the course of a year. Calving areas are generally associated with riparian, meadow, and/or 

moist soil sites, although additional, less consistently used calving habitat undoubtedly exists in suitable sites 

throughout the watershed. Migration corridors for elk are primarily between summer range and winter ranges 

to the north and east. Although wintering and calving areas are not mapped for the area, several areas in the 

eastern parts of the watersheds have been used as winter range. 

The elk population in the South-Central Elk Management Zone, estimated at 1,300 animals, was steadily 

increasing as of 1997. The current number of elk in the management zone is not known, however, the 

population is expected to continue growing and expanding into unoccupied habitat until it reaches 

equilibrium with the habitat’s carrying capacity. It is expected that the population management objective will 

be attained by 2010. The management objective for the South-Central Elk Management Zone is 2,000 

100 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

animals (Hershey, personal communication 2000). Population numbers specific to the Gerber and Willow 

Valley watersheds are not available. 

Pronghorn - In the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds, the pronghorn is mainly a species of sagebrush 

flats and grasslands. Low sagebrush and associated forbs are important forage components of preferred 

pronghorn habitat. In the analysis area, these animals have been known to use juniper and pine clumps and 

stringers for hiding and bedding cover. The Clear Lake area of the Doublehead Ranger District in California 

is considered a critical winter range area for pronghorn. 

Sagebrush steppe and native grassland habitats have been and continue to be affected by juniper 

encroachment, some grazing practices, noxious weeds and changes in fire activity. 

For the purpose of this document open environments such as big sage/bitterbrush, dry grass, juniper, low 

sage/grass, rabbitbrush/grass and riparian/wet meadow vegetation types are assumed to be pronghorn habitat. 

Total habitat (62% of the watershed analysis area) is summarized in the following table. 

Table 3-40. Pronghorn habitat by subwatershed 

Subwatershed Acres 

Antelope Creek 23,300 

Barnes Valley 14,786 

Ben Hall 1,076 

Buckmaster 702 

Dry Prairie 14,228 

East Gerber Frontal 9,343 

Horse Canyon 4,167 

Long Branch 7,548 

Miller Creek 22,699 

Pitch Log 8,405 

Rock Creek 21,199 

Upper Lost River Frontal 15,124 

West Gerber Frontal 10,962 

Willow Valley 16,499 

Total 170,038 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional (LOS) Forest Habitats 

LOS forest cover has declined since 1950, and species composition has changed in pure ponderosa pine to a 

more mixed conifer forest. Little LOS ponderosa pine remains as single story stands. In general, habitat for 

species associated with open, park-like single canopy LOS ponderosa pine stands has declined while multistoried more mixed conifer LOS habitat has increased. LOS habitat increases however have been somewhat 

negated by reduced continuity within a landscape fragmented by early and mid-seral patches. Average and 

maximum patch sizes of late/old seral forest have been reduced. Many patches that historically functioned as 

interior habitat now function as ecotone (edge) habitat and late/old forest cover is now strongly influenced by 

edge effects due to habitat fragmentation. Average road densities per square mile have added to the increase 

in edge and reduction of interior habitat (USFS, 2000). 

The Fremont-Winema National Forest has dedicated old growth patches approximately 5 miles apart across 

the landscape of the northern tier of watersheds. There are clusters of non-dedicated old growth near the 

Goodlow RNA and to the extreme northeast in the Barnes Valley subwatershed. Except for the upper Barnes 

Valley old growth area, all are islands with poor connectivity across the northern tier. There is a small 

amount of old growth ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forest across the BLM parts of the watersheds. Late 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 101
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

and old successional Forest habitat is not mapped consistently across the watersheds. Table 3-41 summarizes 

acres of old growth by major vegetation types by subwatershed. 

Table 3-41. Acres of Old Growth by vegetation type by subwatershed. 

Subwatershed Juniper Mountain Mahogany Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer 

Antelope Creek 0 0 0 0
 

Barnes Valley 90 603 1,023 76
 

Ben Hall 0 0 53 0
 

Buckmaster 0 0 0 0
 

Dry Prairie 9 28 161 18
 

East Gerber Frontal 0 6 21 34
 

Horse Canyon 51 16 249 96
 

Long Branch 32 0 122 132
 

Miller Creek 36 0 136 28
 

Pitch Log 0 0 0 0
 

Rock Creek 0 0 0 0
 

Upper Lost River Frontal 0 0 0 0
 

West Gerber Frontal 4 48 105 4
 

Willow Valley 0 0 0 0
 

Total 222 701 1,870 388
 

Northern Goshawk - Northern goshawks are known to be agile flying forest birds. They typically prefer 

large patches of late-successional mixed conifer or ponderosa pine forest with considerable canopy closure 

(Csuti et al 1997). They hunt both birds and mammals and like to use corridors within stands for hunting and 

travel lanes. Northern goshawks usually build stick nests in or under the canopy and aggressively defend 

nesting territories. In the analysis area, it is thought that the loss of LOS forests has caused a decline of this 

species. 

Six goshawk nest sites have been documented in the Gerber watershed. Four were found around Goodlow 

Mountain, one was detected near upper Barnes Valley Creek, and one northeast of Round Valley Reservoir. 

Goshawks have recently been sighted on BLM land in the northeastern Gerber watershed during early spring 

migration. No suitable nesting habitat occurs within the Willow Valley watershed. 

Assuming that ponderosa pine and mixed conifer old growth, as mapped, provide suitable habitat for 

goshawks, there are 2,258 acres of suitable habitat in the watershed analysis area, which is approximately 3 

percent of the total ponderosa pine and mixed conifer in the watersheds. On the Fremont-Winema National 

Forest and BLM, 30 acres (at a minimum) of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding the nest site is 

deferred from harvest. These thirty acres include known alternate nest sites and plucking posts. On the 

Fremont, a 400-acre post-fledging area is designated around each active nest site and is comprised of the best 

available habitat. A minimum of sixty percent of the post-fledging area is managed as LOS. Projects are 

designed to avoid or minimize disturbance during the bonding and nesting period, April 1 through August 30. 

On the Modoc NF, breeding sites are Protected Activity Centers (PACs) of 200 acres of the best available 

forested habitat surrounding nest sites (or, if the nest cannot be located, the location of territorial adults or 

recently fledged juveniles during the fledgling dependency period) in the largest contiguous blocks possible. 

Pileated Woodpecker - The pileated woodpecker is closely associated with forest habitats that have large 

trees, especially snags, for nesting and foraging. In the watersheds, it has been known to prefer large 

ponderosa pine stands with some fir component. This species may forage in more open areas, but typically 

needs forests over seventy years old for nesting. Conversion of older forests, with snags and downed logs, to 

102 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis even-aged, short rotation forests, is a major factor in reduction of pileated woodpecker habitat (Csuti et al 

1997). It is unknown if suitable nesting habitat occurs within the Willow Valley watershed. 

These large woodpeckers have been documented around Goodlow Mountain and likely occur in LOS pockets 

in the eastern part of the Gerber watershed. 

Assuming that ponderosa pine and mixed conifer old growth, as mapped, provide suitable habitat for pileated 

woodpecker, there are 2,258 acres of suitable habitat in the watershed analysis area, which is approximately 3 

percent of the total ponderosa pine and mixed conifer in the watersheds. 

American Marten - American martens are associated with forested habitats at a variety of elevations. They 

prefer mature forests with closed canopies, but will at times use openings within stands if there is enough 

downed wood to provide ample cover. The structure of a forest stand has been shown to be more important 

to a marten than the type of forest (Ingles 1965). Studies have shown that martens may use early to mid-seral 

forest if suitable den sites (slash piles, etc.) are available (Hayner, personal communication 2003). 

The marten uses large downed logs, log piles or hollow trees for dens. These can be typical characteristics of 

mature forests, and marten populations may be declining in some areas due to lack of den sites. . 

During an ongoing forest carnivore study, the BLM and USFS have documented American martens around 

Goodlow Mountain. Other LOS pockets in the Gerber watershed have been surveyed and likely contain 

suitable marten habitat (Kellam, personal communication, 2003). 

Black-backed/White-headed Woodpecker - In the analysis area, the black-backed woodpecker typically 

inhabits mature ponderosa pine forests in the lower half of the areas elevational range. It excavates its own 

nest cavity, usually in pine snags (Csuti et al 1997). This woodpecker has been documented in several areas 

within the watersheds. It is normally detected in or adjacent to LOS stands with good snag numbers. 

The white-headed woodpecker is closely associated with ponderosa pine or ponderosa pine/mixed conifer 

forests. It requires large trees for foraging, and snags for nesting, which are characteristic of older forests. 

One Oregon study found that these woodpeckers spent most of their time foraging in trees larger than twenty 

inches in diameter (Csuti et al 1997). The white-headed woodpecker has been documented incidentally and 

during surveys within the analysis area. 

These two woodpeckers, along with others, have diets that mainly consist of wood boring beetles and their 

larvae. They are likely critical in keeping these beetles and other pest populations under control. Foraging 

opportunities may have increased across the watersheds in association with increased bark beetle activity in 

recent years. Overstory mortality occurring in large diameter pine and fir in recent years from drought, 

overstocked stands, and an increase in disease and insect activity may have also created additional snag 

habitat to improve nesting habitat conditions and prey availability. 

Past forestry practices that replace older stands with younger forests reduce potential habitat for the blackbacked and white-headed woodpeckers. Availability, continuity, and suitability of habitat in ponderosa pine 

and mixed conifer habitats have declined over the past 50 years. Sanitation and salvage logging has limited 

the availability and abundance of this suitable habitat (USFS, 2000). Currently, the Fremont-Winema and the 

BLM manage some areas of the watersheds for LOS forest. 

Their populations could also be affected by changes in fire frequency or intervals that change natural snag 

recruitment cycles. Assuming that ponderosa pine and mixed conifer old growth, as mapped, provides 

suitable habitat for black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers, there are 2,258 acres of suitable habitat in 

the watershed analysis area. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 103
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat 

The Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds contain many thousands of acres of sagebrush steppe habitat. A 

large percentage of this habitat type in dominated by low sagebrush, where as a small percentage is 

dominated by big sagebrush. Other components include antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, grasses 

and an increasing amount of western juniper. Some terrestrial species of wildlife in the analysis area are 

considered sagebrush obligates, and others utilize these habitats during certain parts of the year. 

Western Sage Grouse - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Suitable 

habitat for sage grouse is found where relatively large, open areas of low and/or big sagebrush and wet 

meadows/ephemeral lakes occur. These birds require large, virtually treeless areas of low sage habitats for 

breeding/drumming sites or leks. Areas with a substantial big sage component and associated forbs are vital 

for nesting, brood rearing and wintering. Although these types of habitats occur within the watershed, their 

suitability as sage grouse habitat has been altered by juniper encroachment, historic grazing practices, 

noxious weeds and changes in fire activity. 

Since the analysis area geographically lies on the edge of this birds historic range, population numbers were 

probably historically lower than other, more classic sage grouse habitat areas. 

Six historical leks have been identified in the analysis area (See Table 3-42). There have been several recent 

incidental sage grouse detections near Gerber reservoir, Round Valley reservoir and Bumpheads reservoir. 

Most of the more recent sightings have been associated with reservoir edges, ephemeral lakes/meadows or 

water spreaders near Round Valley reservoir. 

Table 3-42. Western Sage Grouse Lek Locations 

Name Detections Watershed Status 

Casebeer Ranch Historic Gerber Historical 

Round Valley Within last 10 years Gerber Historical 

N. Gerber Res. Historic Gerber Historical 

Bumpheads Within last 10 years Willow Valley Historical 

Dry Prairie 1 Within last 10 years Gerber Historical 

Dry Prairie 2 Within last 10 years Gerber Historical 

Table 3-43 summarizes acres of potential nesting habitat (big sagebrush/bitterbrush) by subwatershed. Total 

potential nesting habitat is approximately 3 % of the total watershed analysis area. 

Pygmy Rabbit - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Pygmy rabbits are 

thought to be closely associated with areas supporting tall, dense areas of Great Basin or big sagebrush. They 

also require deep, relatively loose soil to dig their burrows. They are a unique rabbit in that they dig their 

own extensive burrow system and are active all year long and throughout the day (Csuti et al 1997). 

The abundance and distribution of these rabbits is currently not well understood in the analysis area. It is 

typically thought of as a Great Basin species, therefore the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds are 

geographically positioned on the edge of their range. In the Gerber watershed, big sage stringers occur as 

only a small percentage of the total acres, and even a smaller percentage in the Willow Valley watershed. The 

health of these big sage areas varies from site to site. Most have been negatively impacted by juniper 

encroachment, conversion of sagebrush habitats to exotic grasslands, some grazing practices, noxious weeds 

and changes in fire activity. Road systems and widespread clearings seem to be barriers to dispersal (Csuti et 

al 1997). In Lake County to the east of the analysis area, BLM biologists have surveyed land within the 

Lakeview Resource Area for pygmy rabbits. They have been documented in small islands or small stringers 

104 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

of big sagebrush surrounded by other shrub or grass dominated habitats (Forbes personal communication,
 

2003).
 

Recently, pygmy rabbits were detected and photographed by biologists employed by a private consulting
 

firm on the eastern slope of Bryant mountain, about ten miles west of the Gerber watershed boundary. They
 

were found in big sage/bitterbrush habitat with low to moderate juniper invasion (Huddleson, personal
 

communication 2002).
 

Table 3-43. Sage grouse nesting habitat by subwatershed. 

Subwatershed Acres 

Antelope Creek 341 

Barnes Valley 1,568 

Ben Hall 181 

Buckmaster 58 

Dry Prairie 2,149 

East Gerber Frontal 123 

Horse Canyon 600 

Long Branch 500 

Miller Creek 682 

Pitch Log 706 

Rock Creek 1,338 

Upper Lost River Frontal 188 

West Gerber Frontal 266 

Willow Valley 33 

Total 8,734 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Deciduous Riparian Habitat 

Approximately 9,670 acres of riparian and wet meadow habitat exists within the watersheds. Table 3-44 

shows that only 68.5 acres of aspen are present on BLM land. There is likely as many or more acres of aspen 

on the Fremont-Winema National Forest sections of the watersheds, however, no information is available. 

Aspen stands tend to be relatively small and scattered throughout the analysis area where conditions are 

suitable. Distribution is generally restricted to moist/wet sites associated with riparian areas or seasonally 

wet areas. These stands seem to be tied to specific sites within other plant communities where moisture is 

sufficient and in drainages, riparian zones or depressions. Many aspen stands are decadent, with heavy 

conifer/juniper encroachment, and little regeneration. Other than the species discussed below, there are 

numerous wildlife species in the analysis area that utilize aspen/riparian habitats exclusively or periodically 

during the year. 

Table 3-44: Acres of Aspen by Sub-Watershed 

Subwatershed Acres 

Antelope Creek 3.3 

Ben Hall 2.6 

Dry Prairie 2.6 

East Gerber Frontal 10.6 

Long Branch 19.8 

Miller Creek 4.5 

Pitch Log 16.8 

Rock Creek 0 

West Gerber Frontal 6.3 

Willow Valley 0 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 105
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total 68.5 

Red-naped/Red-breasted Sapsucker - These sapsuckers are found in variety of coniferous forest communities 

that contain an aspen component. They also can be detected using riparian woodlands with healthy 

deciduous trees. These birds have very similar feeding habits in that they both drill holes in deciduous trees 

and feed on the cambium and sap, as well as the insects that are attracted to the sap (Csuti et al 1997). 

Both the red-naped and the red-breasted sapsuckers have been documented within the analysis area. 

Typically, the red-breasted is seen and heard more often than the red-naped. 

Late and old aspen clones, the preferred habitat of both red-naped and red-breasted sapsuckers, are 

distributed throughout the watershed. Many clones are in a mature, declining to overmature, or decadent 

condition with little regeneration evident. The limited regeneration displays light to severe damage from 

cattle grazing and/or ungulate browsing. Many clones are being overtopped and out competed by conifers/ 

junipers, further contributing to the decline of the stand (USFS, 2000). Many aspen areas show no or limited 

regeneration due to changes in the fire regime. 

American Beaver - The American beaver is a large, aquatic rodent that can live throughout the watersheds 

nearly anywhere there is permanent water. They are strict herbivores and aspen and willow are its preferred 

foods. Potential habitat occurs in riparian areas with deciduous vegetation and low gradient streams. Beavers 

are known for modifying their environment by building dams across waterways to create ponds. 

No formal surveys to determine beaver presence have occurred within the watershed. Documented evidence 

of beaver activity and anecdotal information indicates beaver presence within both the Gerber and Willow 

Valley watersheds, though colony locations have not been determined. Colony locations may be difficult to 

determine as some beavers have been shown to use banks as denning sites, rather than the traditional 

damming and lodge building activities normally associated with beaver presence. 

Other Terrestrial Species 

Herptiles - A herpetological survey is ongoing in the Gerber Watershed area. Numerous species of reptiles 

and amphibians have been documented by this study (see Table 3-45). There are 18 potential herptile species 

in the Gerber watershed. Ten herptile species were detected in the Gerber watershed in 2002. Plans to 

conduct an inventory in the Willow Valley watershed have been made. 

Osprey - The osprey is a bird specialized for catching fish. It nests and typically roosts in areas within close 

proximity to lakes, rivers and other bodies of water and waterways. It requires suitable nest sites such as 

large dead or dying trees or artificial nesting platforms. 

There are currently (2001) eight known osprey nest sites that are considered active. There are ten historic 

nest sites that have unknown status or where nests or nest structures have been degraded to the point of nonuse (Table 3-46). Ospreys have been known to rebuild/reuse nests in the same area year after year or build a 

nest in the same area in a different specific location. No information is available for the Modoc NF portions 

of the watersheds. 

Table 3-45. Herpetofauna of the Gerber Watershed – Potential/Documented. 

Herpetofauna of the Gerber Watershed Species detected Species previously documented 

Common name (Scientific name) in 2002 (all survey methods) 

Amphibians 

Western toad (Bufo boreas) X 

106 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) X
 

Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)2 X
 

Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana)
 

Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)
 

Reptiles 

Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) X 

Western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) X 

Short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi) 

Northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) X 

Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) X 

Rubber boa (Charina bottae) X 

Yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor) X 

Western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridus) X 

Night snake (Hypsiglena torquata) 

Striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) 

Gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) X 

Western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans) X 

Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) X 

Table 3-46. Osprey Nest Sites in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watersheds. 

Nest Site NameOwnership Nest Status-2001 Watershed 

Stan H Springs I BLM Nest gone Gerber 

Stan H Springs II Private Active Gerber 

Stan H Springs III BLM Nest gone Gerber 

Stan H Springs IV BLM Active Gerber 

Miller Creek I BLM Nest gone Gerber 

Miller Creek II BLM Nest gone Gerber 

Miller Creek III BLM Active Gerber 

Miller Creek IV BLM Active Gerber 

Round Valley Res. I BLM Nest gone Gerber 

Round Valley Res. II BLM Active Gerber 

Upper Midway BLM Unknown Willow Valley 

Barnes Valley I BLM Active Gerber 

Barnes Valley II BLM Unknown Gerber 

Adobe Flat Private Unknown Willow Valley 

Rock Creek BLM Unknown Willow Valley 

Long Branch BLM Unknown Gerber 

Antelope Reservoir BLM Active Willow Valley 

Landbirds - The predominant habitat type in the Gerber Watershed and in most subwatersheds is shrubsteppe/juniper. Within this major type, sagebrush communities - particularly those associated with deeper 

soils - are of concern because their extent and health have been affected by a variety of factors including fire 

suppression, grazing, noxious weeds (cheat grass), and climate change. These vegetation communities 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 107
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

provide the structural complexity needed to support a greater variety of bird species than the low sage 

community occurring in the scab-rock flats; however, both communities are important for their own suite of 

bird species. Sagebrush obligate songbird species include Brewer’s sparrow and sage thrasher. Some 

songbird species are associated with open or patchy shrub habitats due to the presence of native grasses upon 

which they depend. Species associated with native perennial grasses include Vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, 

horned lark, and western meadowlark. Other important habitat relationships include the ecotonal edges of 

herbaceous, shrub and tree habitats, and old growth juniper habitats. Lark sparrows tend to be associated 

with habitats where there is an interspersion of shrubs and juniper. Gray flycatchers are associated with 

shrubs and mature juniper. Shrub communities dominated by mountain mahogany and bitterbrush are 

important for species including the green-tailed towhee. 

Bird census stations are present in several shrub and juniper sites in the Gerber and Willow Valley 

Watersheds. The goal of this study is to collect baseline data and establish monitoring for juniper harvest 

management. Objectives include determining which shrubland obligate bird species are present in shrub 

habitats with different degrees of juniper invasion and determining bird species diversity after juniper 

management. Results to date indicate that of the sagebrush obligate species with potential to occur in the 

area, Brewer’s sparrow, vesper sparrow, and gray flycatcher do occur. Green-tailed towhee and lark sparrow 

were also detected. Riparian dependent species detected included song sparrow and black-headed grosbeak. 

A point count route was established in the Gerber Watershed within juniper and sage habitat in 1998. The 

point count route is surveyed under a cooperative study with the Redwood Sciences Lab (RSL) and the 

Klamath Bird Observatory (KBO). 

A constant mist-netting station was set up along Barnes Valley Creek and other sites in 1998 and has been run 

annually between May and October by the RSL and KBO personnel. The purpose of this station is to 

determine bird species diversity, abundance, and trend during both the breeding and migration seasons, 

especially for riparian dependent species. Another objective of this mist-netting station is to determine how 

the riparian habitats within the watershed function for songbirds during the migration season. Riparian 

dependent bird species captured at the site, not previously detected during point count censusing, include 

orange-crowned warbler, calliope hummingbird, yellow warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, willow flycatcher, 

Wilson’s warbler, and Lincoln’s sparrow. 

IV. Human Uses 

Timber 

Refer to the “Management” discussions in the Vegetation – Forested Upland section under “Ponderosa Pine” 

and “White Fir/Mixed Conifer” subsections. 

Grazing 

As the livestock grazing use is discretely administered on the National Forest and BLM lands, they will be 

addressed separately in this section. 

BLM Administered Lands - (The “Gerber Block”) 

There are 18 grazing allotments that lie all or partially within the BLM administered portions of the analysis 

area. They vary in size, forage allocation, season-of-use, etc., though all are permitted for cattle grazing use 

(except for the Campbell Allotment, which is horse permitted). The following table outlines the basic 

parameters for the grazing use of each of the allotments: 

108 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-47. BLM Grazing Allotments and Authorized Use. 

Allotment Permitted Use**(AUMs) Acres Administered 

Name # Season-of-Use* Active Suspended BLM Private 

“J” Spring 0803 5/1 - 6/30 7 0 320 260 

Paddock 0844 5/1 - 6/30 31 0 440 240 

Yainax*** 0861 7/1 - 9/30 120 0 2,520 0   

Bear Valley 0876 7/1 - 8/7** *** 475 0 5,018 4,780 

Bumpheads 0877 4/21 - 6/30 420 265 9,220 220 

Campbell 0878 5/1 - 10/26 47 13 1,465 3,140 

DeVaul 0879 5/1 - 8/30 12 15 240 320 

Goodlow 0881 5/1 - 8/31 32 52 285 640 

Horsefly 0882 4/15 - 6/30 2,656 2,075 26,356 4,779 

& 10/1 - 11/15 

Horton 0883 4/21 - 5/20 58 211 800 342 

Pankey Basin 0884 5/15 - 8/31 43 39 282 508 

Dry Prairie 0885 5/1 - 9/15 642 358 7,231 3,624 

Horse Camp Rim0886 5/1 - 7/31 445 331 9,180 40 

Pitchlog 0887 5/10 - 6/30 434 796 9,280 1,040 

Rock Creek 0888 5/1 - 5/31 216 639 2,750 1,200 

Timber Hill 0889 6/21 - 7/31 270 134 2,937 760 

Willow Valley 0890 4/15 - 6/30 1,320 444 20,460 887 

Williams 0892 5/1 - 5/31 75 0 1,790 0 

* Season-of-use as currently leased/permitted.
 

** As listed in the 1995 Klamath Falls Resource Area ROD/RMP, Appendix H. One AUM (Animal Unit Month)
 

equals one cow/calf - or equivalent - grazing for one month. Suspended AUMs (resulting from a 1958 range survey)
 

can not be used.
 

*** Only a portion of this allotment is within the analysis area, though the acreage figure is for the entire allotment.
 

  The Yainax allotment is several parcels of BLM lands, immersed in a huge block of USFS and private land,
 

though no private was listed in the ROD/RMP. See allotment specific write-up.
 

** *** Use of the predominately private Bear Valley flat pasture occurs after the normal season-of-use in late August to
 

September. See allotment specific write-up.
 

Overall grazing within the Gerber Block is currently at levels much lower than during the “free range” period 

that extended from significant settlement of the area in the 1870’s up to the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(TGA) in 1934. By the 1880’s in some locales, and over the entire West by the early 1900’s, it was 

commonly acknowledged that virtually all of the public domain was tremendously overstocked with cattle, 

sheep, and horses. Even though the rangeland overuse problems were well known, federal legislation to 

remedy the problem was delayed for decades due to a public (and legislative) inability to move beyond the 

now idealized homesteader era (all the truly arable farming lands were taken by the 1880’s) and an 

entrenched public dislike for the “cattle barons”, who were perceived (inaccurately) as the only beneficiary 

of public rangeland control legislation. In the end, the primary blame was usually assigned to the itinerant 

sheep bands - including in the analysis area - though all the grazing users had blame proportional to their 

grazing use. However, the politics of the public land use situation invariably favored local land owners. 

Thus, it was the roaming livestock operators that were the primary target of and almost totally excluded by 

passage of the TGA (Peffer 1951). 

Although the precise levels of livestock grazing are largely unknown during this period, immediately after 

passage of the TGA a list of “Potential Allottees and Livestock Ownership - Grazing District No. 1” noted 

that there were 26,708 head of sheep and 6,772 head of cattle being grazed within the Gerber block during 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 109
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the accessible seasons; a season that generally averages from mid-March to mid-November. High as this 

figure is, it did not include the “...itinerant herds which, in former years, had passed through the area in 

search of food.” (Beckham 2000) 

A conservative estimate of the pre-TGA grazing use in the BLM Gerber Block would be 30,000 to 40,000 

AUMs yearly, and very likely it was often twice that level of use. (As a comparison, the neighboring 

Fremont National Forest (FNF) has documentation showing that in 1915 approximately 500,000 AUMs were 

being utilized yearly on 850,000 acres of FNF land. Currently, about 50,000 AUMs are being actively used 

on an expanded 1+ million acres of FNF.) Overgrazing damage inflicted during the “free range” era is still 

evident in parts of the analysis area, particularly in the southwestern portion of the Gerber Block; an issue 

that is discussed at length elsewhere in this analysis. 

In 1937-1938, a rangeland forage survey was completed by the Grazing Service (precursor to the BLM) for 

the Gerber Block. The purpose of this survey was to appropriately allocate forage to qualified, local private 

property owners (a process known as “adjudication”) and attempt to get the actual grazing use in tune with 

the capacities of the land. This resulted in dramatic decreases in the numbers of livestock (horses, sheep, and 

cattle) on public lands and began the era of federal control over the public domain. Specifically, 

approximately 15,000 AUMs of active grazing use was adjudicated to the grazing permittees by 1940. 

Another range survey was performed in the 1958 for the “Bonanza Unit”, which included all the section 3 

grazing lands within or immediately adjacent to the Gerber Block. Based on that survey, substantial grazing 

reductions were made effective starting with the 1960 grazing year. Livestock use by this time was virtually 

all cattle. Though the average reduction of grazing use in the Gerber Block was 43% from the post-TGA 

adjudications, the actual amount in a given allotment ranged from no reduction to almost 80%. Currently, as 

a comparison to the previously noted pre-TGA grazing levels, there are no sheep grazing permits in the 

Gerber Block and the total maximum number of cattle permitted is 2300 to 2400 head with an average season 

of use of about 3 months. There is a total of 7170 AUMs currently permitted in the analysis area, which is 

slightly more than half of the KFRA total. 

The BLM grazing allotments within the analysis area vary in importance from the highest priority in the 

KFRA - the endangered sucker consultation allotments in the north Gerber Block - to some of the lowest. 

This latter group usually consists of small BLM parcels intermingled with private lands making management 

difficult at best. In the early 1980’s and again in the early 1990’s, all the grazing allotments in the KFRA 

were ranked according to importance, based on a set of resource and social criteria. The most recent ranking 

was done during the KFRA RMP/EIS process, which was ultimately affirmed and accepted by the subsequent 

KFRA ROD/RMP, issued in June 1995. The ranking of allotments for the purpose of concentrating 

management efforts on the places that can benefit most is still BLM policy. Allotments are ranked in order of 

descending importance as either “I” category (for “Improve”), “M” category (for “Maintain”), or “C” (for 

Custodial) - “C” being the lowest management classification. See the KFRA ROD/RMP, Appendix H, pages 

H-69-70, for more information on allotment categorization. 

The RMP process also outlined by allotment, “Identified Resource Conflicts/Concerns” - both known and 

suspected - with a related “Management Objective” for each Conflict/Concern. These are summarized by 

allotment in the KFRA ROD/RMP, Appendix H, pages H-5 through H-64. Some allotments have many 

Conflicts/Concerns and Objectives identified for them; others have none. A list of all the pertinent ones are 

included below, with each grazing allotment‘s write-up referencing which ones pertain to it: 

Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns Management Objectives 

1. Under current management the range Maintain or improve rangeland condition and
 

productivitycondition, level or pattern of utilization, through a change in grazing management practices,
 

and/or season-of-use may be unacceptable; timing, and/or level of active use.
 

or carrying capacity may be exceeded.
 

110 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

2. No forage allocations for elk use in the 

allotment have been made. 

3. Critical deer winter range occurs 

of in allotment. 

4. Special status species and/or habitat exists 

within the allotment. 

5. Wetlands habitat in less than satisfactory 

condition. 

6. Riparian or aquatic habitat is in less than 

good condition. 

7. Water quality may not currently meet the 

Department of Environmental Quality water 

quality standards for beneficial uses, as specifically 

established by the Department of Environmental 

Quality, where BLM authorized actions are having 

a negative effect on water quality. 

8. Grazing management system established but not 

formally documented. 

9. Potential for grazing/recreation conflicts within 

the allotment. 

10. Potential Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) within this allotment. 

11. Active erosion occurs in the allotment. 

Allocate forage to meet elk forage demands. 

Management systems should reflect the importance 

deer winter range. 

Prevent significant risk to well-being of special status 

species and/or habitat from BLM- authorized actions. 

Grazing use and management will be consistent with 

the biological opinion for the allotment. 

Improve wetlands habitat condition to satisfactory or

better condition. 

Maintain or improve riparian or aquatic habitat in 

good or better condition. 

Maintain and improve water quality on public lands 

to meet or exceed standards for beneficial use. 

Revise existing allotment management plan. 

Grazing management should consider recreation 

concerns. 

If designated, grazing management will be consistent 

with the ACEC management plan. 

Maintain or improve erosion condition in moderate or 

better erosion condition. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP also outlined allowable use level objectives that would generally be applied to the 

grazing use within the Resource Area - both upland and riparian. The allowable use levels were developed as 

a set of definitive criteria to assist in the managing rangeland vegetation on a sustained yield basis. The table 

was intended to be a guideline that would be tempered by site-specific information and judgment. The tables 

from the KFRA ROD/RMP are reiterated below. (See ROD/RMP pages H-74 through H-77 for more 

information.) 

Table 3-48. Degree of Allowable Use (Percentage) for Upland Vegetation 

Plant Category Spring Summer Fall Season-Long 

Perennial grasses & grasslike 50 50 60 50 

Perennial & biennial forbs 50 50 60 50 

Shrubs, half shrubs & trees 30 50 50 45 

Annual grasses & forbs No annuals are expected to be key species 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 111
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 3-49. Degree of Allowable Use (Percentage) for Riparian Vegetation 

Utilization Standards in Riparian­ Proper Functioning Condition At Risk or Non-functioning 

Wetland Areas Herbaceous Woody Herbaceous Woody 

Riparian Areas with Management 50 50 0-40 0-35 

Riparian Ares without Management 40 30 0-30 0-25 

Various levels of rangeland monitoring studies have been initiated and continue to be read on most of the 

high priority allotments in the analysis area. The lower priority allotments in the analysis area have widely 

variable amounts of monitoring information collected on them, including nothing on several. Grazing related 

vegetation monitoring includes various types of upland trend, condition, and/or utilization studies, as well as 

a mix of riparian/meadow related studies. These rangeland monitoring studies for the Gerber Block are fully 

explained, and the schedule for their implementation and reading found, in the KFRA’s Coordinated 

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Grazing Allotments. This plan, located in the KFRA office, was 

completed in 1994 and is updated at least once yearly. An analysis of the pertinent monitoring information 

collected to date, by allotment, is included in Step 5, the “Human Uses - Grazing” section. As noted earlier, 

an Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) survey was also completed for the Gerber Block in 1997-1998. This 

survey provides a “snapshot” of the current ecological conditions of the area (vegetation and soils) as well as 

descriptions or estimates of the site potential for all the major vegetation types. ESI is covered more 

comprehensively the Vegetation section. 

In some allotments with little or no previous monitoring, rapid qualitative condition assessments have been 

completed on representative upland areas. This recently developed process for uplands - similar to the 

riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments - is outlined in the just issued (late 2000) 

Interagency Technical Reference TR-1734-6, titled Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. To quote 

that reference, “This technique, in association with quantitative monitoring and inventory information, can be 

used to provide early warnings of resource problems on upland rangelands.” It more specifically provides 

“...a preliminary evaluation of soil/site stability, hydrologic function and integrity of the biotic community (at 

the ecological site level).” Numerous indicators for “Soil Site Stability”, “Biotic Integrity”, and “Hydrologic 

Function” are observed in the field and rated during this process as to similarity/departure from an 

appropriate baseline (i.e. ecological site description or a “good” to “excellent” condition reference area). The 

process consummates ultimately in an overall ranking within each of the three categories and an overall 

estimate of upland resource functionality. In areas with no monitoring information, this procedure provides a 

logical process for quickly estimating if significant problems exist. If so, and the area warrants the increased 

attention, additional studies/monitoring would be implemented to identify the cause(s) of resource problems 

and provide increased information from which to make future informed management changes. This 

procedure and subsequent documentation will be referred to in this analysis, for lack of an official name, as 

an “upland PFC assessment”. (NOTE: The draft version of TR-1734-6 was used for the field assessments 

completed during the fall of 2000.) 

In August 1997, the “Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington” was 

signed by the Secretary of Interior and implementation begun. This and other pertinent policy guidance 

requires that all BLM grazing lands be assessed to see if the current grazing management is meeting the 5 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. The 5 Standards are as 

follows: 

Standard 1: Watershed Function - Uplands 

112 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Standard 2: Watershed Function - Riparian/Wetland Areas 

Standard 3: Ecological Processes 

Standard 4: Water Quality 

Standard 5: Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species 

An assessment uses existing information to determine if the grazing management is meeting, or moving 

towards meeting, all of the Standards for Rangeland Health. The assessment also determines if the grazing 

management is in conformance with the Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. A guideline is “...a 

practice, method, or technique determined to be appropriate to ensure that standards can be met or that 

significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard. Guidelines are tools such as grazing systems, 

vegetative treatments, or improvement projects that help managers and permittees achieve standards...” 

(USDI BLM 1997) 

If not meeting, or making significant progress towards meeting all the Standards and the Guidelines, then 

grazing management would be changed in order to begin making sufficient progress. For many of the 18 

allotments in the analysis area, this watershed analysis will function as the Rangeland Health Standards 

Assessment; and such is noted by allotment below. However, most of the higher priority allotments have 

already had assessments completed in 1999-2000. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment portions of 

this watershed analysis will follow the general procedural guidance found in BLM Manual H-4180-1 -

Rangeland Health Standards (USDI BLM 2001). (Note: A full copy of the Oregon/Washington Standards 

and Guidelines information and guidance is found at the following URL - http://www.or.blm.gov/ 

Rangelands/s&gfinal.htm) 

The following section contains brief, allotment specific narratives, which provide more pertinent details for 

each of the 18 allotments in the analysis area. This includes grazing systems, resource priorities, and other 

facts and issues of importance. The discussions will also note which allotments will have this analysis 

function as its Rangeland Health Standards Assessment: 

“J” Spring Allotment (0803) 

This allotment is located just to the northeast of Gerber Reservoir in the northern portion of the Gerber 

Block. It is a low priority (“C” category), late spring use allotment which was grazed in common with a 

similar sized parcel of private lands - where the actual “J” Spring is located. However, in 1999, the private 

lands were fenced separately leaving the BLM as a discrete pasture. The KFRA ROD/RMP did not identify 

any specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” related to the livestock grazing on this allotment. 

Due to the low priority of the allotment, typical rangeland monitoring studies have not been established/read 

on this allotment. However, the ESI survey and an upland PFC assessment were done relatively recently. 

The information from these efforts will be presented in Step 5. Note: This watershed analysis will serve as 

the Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment. 

Paddock Allotment (0844) 

This allotment is located north of Gerber Reservoir, in the extreme northern portion of the Gerber Block. It 

is also a low priority “C” category, late spring use allotment that for many years was grazed in common with 

a portion of the Gerber Ranch private meadow lands. Because it was grazed in common with private, 

grazing use always extended beyond the permitted season-of-use end date of 6/30. In 1996, a division fence 

was constructed on the eastern private/BLM boundary, effectively eliminating the unauthorized (after 6/30) 

use and allowing for discrete grazing use of the BLM lands. The KFRA ROD/RMP did not identify any 

specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” related to the livestock grazing on this allotment. Due to 

the low priority of the allotment, typical rangeland monitoring studies have not been established/read on this 

allotment. However, the ESI survey and an upland PFC assessment were done relatively recently. The 

information from these efforts will be presented in Step 5. Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment. 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 113
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Yainax Allotment (0861) 

This allotment is located on the extreme north end of the analysis area, on and around Yainax Butte and the 

adjacent Klamath Forest Estates area. At least half of this fragmented allotment lies outside the watershed 

boundaries; only the BLM lands on the south side of Yainax Butte proper are within the analysis area. It is a 

medium low priority “M” category allotment that is included as a minor component of the Yainax Butte 

Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) area. This 118,000 acre CRMP area is 70% U.S. Forest 

Service lands with large blocks of intermingled private lands (21%) and a relatively small amount (6%) of 

BLM administered lands, of which an even smaller part is in this analysis area. The Yainax Butte CRMP is a 

cooperative planning effort that guides the management efforts on these lands, regardless of ownership. 

Grazing use of the area was the primary driving force in the initiation of the CRMP about 20 years ago. The 

plan was extensively revised in the early 1990’s. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed two specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #3 & #10 off the previously itemized list. Some limited 

monitoring information has been collected on this allotment through the years and Ecological Status 

Inventory was completed in late 2002. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment is 

scheduled for completion in 2004 and not as part of this analysis, though this document will assist in the 

preparation of that Assessment when done. 

Bear Valley Allotment (0876) 

This mid-summer grazing use allotment is located in the southeastern portion of the Gerber Block around the 

private Bear Valley meadow (a large Ephemeral Lakebed ecological type). It is a moderately high priority 

“I” category allotment that has a high percentage of unfenced, privately owned lands, intermingled with the 

BLM administered lands. The allotment is divided by fencing into three pastures - North, South, and Bear 

Valley. The North and South pastures are grazed on a deferred rotation system, with the predominantly 

(~80%) private Bear Valley pasture always being used as the third and last pasture in the late summer into the 

early fall. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1, #6, #7, & #11 off the previously itemized list. In addition 

to the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had an ample amount of monitoring data collected on 

it over the past 25 years, including trend and condition information, utilization, and riparian photo points. The 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for Bear Valley was completed in 2000 and found that the overall 

current grazing use was appropriate (more fully covered in Step 5). Most of the private lands in the allotment 

outside of the separately fenced Bear Valley (which is owned by the grazing permittee) are owned by a 

private timber company. The private lands are grazed in common with the BLM permitted lands, though the 

grazing permittee does not have a separate lease for these lands; a legal occurrence under the state’s “open 

range” laws. This is a fairly common occurrence in portions of the analysis area with intermingled private 

lands. 

Bumpheads Allotment (0877) 

This mid to late spring use allotment is located in the southwestern portion of the Gerber Block. It is a 

moderately high priority “I” category allotment that is divided into three pastures (West, North, and South ­

in order of increasing size) that are grazed on a deferred rotation system. This allotment has virtually no 

intermingled private lands but does adjoin private lands owned by the grazing permittee along its entire 

western boundary. Bumpheads has approximately one-half of its acreage in the watershed analysis area, 

though it must be considered as a whole for continuity of grazing analysis. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1, #3, #8, & #9 off the previously itemized list. In addition to 

114 Current Conditions, Step 3 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had an ample amount of monitoring data collected on it 

over the past 25 years, including various trend and condition information, utilization, and riparian photo 

points. This information has shown some variably degraded ecological conditions in portions of the 

allotment, particularly in the Woolen Canyon area (far western 1/3 of the South Pasture) and in much of the 

small, West pasture. However, most of the allotment is in acceptable ecological condition with the trends 

static to upwards (more fully covered in Step 5). Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the Rangeland 

Health Standards Assessment for the Bumpheads allotment. 

Campbell Allotment (0878) 

The Campbell allotment is located north of Lorella, in the extreme northwestern BLM portion of the analysis 

area. It is a low priority “M” category allotment where the BLM lands are combined with a much larger area 

of privately owned lands and probably grazed at various times throughout the season. All of the BLM lands 

are in the extreme northern portion of the allotment and physiographically divided into two parts - above and 

below Goodlow Rim. The portion above the Rim (about 2/3 of the BLM administered lands) has historically 

received limited grazing use, largely in conjunction with the adjacent Fremont NF lands. The portion below 

the Rim (approximately 1/3 of the BLM) is grazed in common with the private lands owned by the permittee. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed one specific “Identified Resources Conflict/Concern” and related “Management 

Objective” for this allotment - #6 off the previously itemized list (riparian habitat). This objective pertains to 

the BLM administered portion of Pankey Lake (about half is BLM, and half USFS). Pankey Lake is a 

spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) dominated “pothole” meadow (Ephemeral Lakebed ecological site). The only 

allotment specific vegetation/monitoring data was collected via an upland PFC assessment completed during 

October 2000 in the area above Goodlow Rim and to the west of Pankey Lake. The information from that 

evaluation will be presented in Step 5. Note: This watershed analysis will not serve as the Rangeland Health 

Standards Assessment for this allotment; it is being prepared independently as a separate document. 

DeVaul Allotment (0879) 

This small late spring and summer use allotment is located on the extreme northwestern edge of the Gerber 

Block. It is a low priority “C” category allotment that, due to lack of division fencing, is grazed in common 

with the private meadow lands in and around DeVaul Lake. The BLM administered lands are primarily 

ponderosa pine and juniper dominated uplands with limited livestock grazing use, though cattle may be 

present on the BLM into the fall. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed one specific “Identified Resources Conflict/Concern” and related “Management 

Objective” for this allotment - #6 off the previously itemized list. This objective pertains to a small corner of 

BLM administered land which edges into DeVaul Lake and is not fenced separately from the majority private 

lands. DeVaul Lake is a spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) dominated “pothole” (Ephemeral Lakebed ecological 

site). Besides the ESI survey, the only allotment specific vegetation/monitoring information was collected 

via an upland PFC assessment completed during October 2000. The information from that evaluation will be 

presented in Step 5. Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the Rangeland Health Standards Assessment 

for this allotment. 

Goodlow Allotment (0881) 

Goodlow is a late spring and summer use allotment located immediately north of the DeVaul allotment, on 

the extreme northwestern edge of the Gerber Block. It is also a low priority “C” category allotment that is 

immediately adjacent to private lands, but was largely fenced separate several years ago. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP did not identify any specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” related to the 

livestock grazing on this allotment. Besides the ESI survey, the only allotment specific vegetation/ 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 115
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

monitoring data was collected via an upland PFC assessment completed during October 2000. The 

information from this evaluation will be presented in Step 5. Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment. 

Horsefly Allotment (0882) 

Horsefly is located in the center north portion of the Gerber Block and is the largest (acres and AUMs) and 

probably most important grazing allotment in the KFRA. As such, it is also one of the highest priority “I” 

category allotments. It has a dual season of use - mid spring to early summer and again in early to mid fall 

(see previous table). It is one of three allotments that has been under formal section 7 (Endangered Species 

Act) consultation since 1994, due to the presence of the endangered shortnose suckers in Gerber Reservoir 

and its tributaries - particularly Barnes Valley and Long Branch Creeks. The allotment is grazed on a 9 

pasture, “flash” (high intensity, short duration) rest-rotation grazing system where cattle are moved relatively 

quickly from pasture to pasture, with 2-3 pastures rested during the growing season each year. The fall use in 

October is concentrated in the artificially seeded and irrigated Round Valley Water Spreader pasture with 

rotating trail use areas for the cattle movement back to the ranch in November. Important riparian areas are 

either exclosure fenced (Long Branch Creek) or fenced into separate riparian pastures (Barnes Inlet and 

Barnes Valley Riparian Pastures) with extremely limited and infrequent licensed use (i.e. for the B.V. 

Riparian Pasture it is 5-10 days once every three years). Casebeer Creek, in the Norcross pasture of the 

Horsefly Allotment, is almost completely contained within privately fenced pasture (including some portions 

on BLM land). There is one small watergap in the fence which is on BLM land. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed nine specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1 through #9 off the previously itemized list. This allotment 

has had extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read on it over the past 30+ years; 

and in particular, during the past 8 years due to the consultation requirements. These include various 

condition and trend studies, utilization, and a mix of riparian related studies in addition to the ESI survey. 

The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in 1999. That assessment and 

the section 7 consultations, have affirmed that the current grazing management continues to be appropriate 

(discussed in Step 5). 

Horton Allotment (0883) 

The Horton allotment is located north of Lorella, in the extreme northwestern BLM portion of the analysis 

area. It is also another low priority “C” category allotment that is grazed in the spring in conjunction with 

private lands to the west of the allotment. The livestock water for this allotment is provided by an irrigation 

ditch on those private lands. The BLM lands have received extensive juniper control activities (cutting, 

piling, and burning) and bitterbrush planting over the past several years directed towards improving habitat 

conditions for wildlife. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1, #3 & #9 off the previously itemized list. Other than one 

year of utilization pattern mapping (2000), the only allotment specific vegetation/monitoring data was 

collected via an upland PFC assessment completed during October 2000. The Rangeland Health Standards 

Assessment for this allotment, completed in 2002, affirmed that current grazing management continues to be 

appropriate (discussed in Step 5). 

Pankey Basin Allotment (0884) 

The Pankey Basin allotment is located on the northwestern edge of the Gerber Block and is another low 

priority “C” category allotment. It is a mid spring through summer use allotment that is intermingled and 

used in conjunction with a larger amount of private land. Most of the water for the allotment is on private 

lands, with the rougher and steeper lands surrounding the private being the BLM permitted areas. The BLM 

lands appear to receive only limited use even though they are not fenced separate from the private. A short 

116 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

stretch of Pankey Creek does flow across BLM lands, in an area of cattle accessibility, and may have some 

riparian condition issues. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed two specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #6 & #7 off the previously itemized list. Besides the ESI 

survey, the only allotment specific vegetation/monitoring data was collected via an upland PFC assessment 

completed during October 2000. The information from this evaluation will be presented in Step 5. Note: 

This watershed analysis will serve as the Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment. 

Dry Prairie Allotment (0885) 

Dry Prairie is located in the northwestern quarter of the Gerber Block and is one of the larger and more 

important grazing allotments in the KFRA. As such, it is also one of the highest priority “I” category 

allotments. It does, however, have a relatively high amount of intermingled private lands, most of which are 

either owned or leased by the grazing permittees. The season of use is mid-spring through summer and is 

one of the three allotments that have been under formal section 7 (Endangered Species Act) consultation 

since 1994, due to the presence of the endangered shortnose suckers in Gerber Reservoir and its tributaries. 

The allotment is permitted as a 6 pasture, rest-rotation grazing system where at least one major pasture is 

fully rested each year for rangeland health enhancement. The important riparian area - Ben Hall Creek - is 

fenced into a separate riparian pasture with extremely limited and infrequent licensed use (i.e. 10 days once 

every three years). 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed eight specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1 - #3 and #5 - #9 off the previously itemized list. This 

allotment has had extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read on it over the past 

30 years; and in particular, during the past 8 years due to the section 7 consultation requirements. These 

include various condition and trend studies, utilization, and a mix of riparian related studies, in addition to 

the ESI survey. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment, completed in 1999, and the 

section 7 consultations have affirmed that the current grazing management continues to be appropriate (more 

fully discussed in Step 5). 

Horse Camp Rim Allotment (0886) 

The Horse Camp Rim allotment is located in the geographical center of the Gerber Block and has a 

moderately high priority “I” ranking. It permitted season of use is mid-spring to mid-summer and is grazed 

as a 5 pasture, rest-rotation grazing system where at least one pasture is fully rested each year. The five 

pastures are widely variable in size and production and two (Midway and Dog Hollow) have small portions 

devoted as artificially seeded/irrigated “water spreaders”. These areas have the potential when irrigated, to 

produce several times what the native range would otherwise produce and produce it much later in the 

season. Because of this, the Dog Hollow pasture is the last scheduled pasture in the rotation (i.e. mid to late 

July). This allotment was in non-use for some years during the late 1980’s into the mid 1990’s, at which 

point the allotment resumed regular use, though at less than the half the permitted use levels; a grazing level 

that has continued to date. However, full grazing use could occur at any point. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #2, #6, #7, & #8 off the previously itemized list. In addition to 

the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had an ample amount of monitoring data collected on it 

over the past 25 years, including various trend and condition information, utilization, and riparian photo 

points. All this survey/monitoring information indicates that the current grazing management continues to 

be appropriate (more fully covered in Step 5). Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the Rangeland 

Health Standards Assessment for this allotment. 

Pitchlog Allotment (0887) 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 117
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The Pitchlog allotment is located in the northeastern quarter of the Gerber Block and is one of the larger and 

most important grazing allotments in the KFRA. As such, it is also one of the highest priority “I” category 

allotments. It does include some private lands along the extreme eastern edge, most of which are owned by 

the grazing permittee. The season of use is mid-spring to early summer. Pitchlog is one of the three 

allotments that have been under formal section 7 (Endangered Species Act) consultation since 1994, due to 

the presence of the endangered shortnose suckers in Gerber Reservoir and its tributaries - particularly Barnes 

Valley Creek. The allotment is permitted as a 4 pasture, “flash” (high intensity, short-duration) rest-rotation 

grazing system where one major pasture is fully rested each year for plant health/vigor purposes. In addition, 

the two important riparian areas - Barnes Valley and Pitchlog Creeks - are both within the NE pasture, though 

with the exception of one exclosure on Pitchlog Creek, they are not fenced separate from the surrounding 

uplands. The NE pasture is an equal use unit in the grazing rotation system and in years that it is grazed (3 

out of 4 years for 16 days) it is always the first pasture (mid to late May). This is done so for several reasons: 

the creeks are at a relatively high water level discouraging cattle use; the upland vegetation is as green and 

attractive as the riparian areas; and it allows ample time for substantial riparian regrowth after the cattle are 

removed. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed seven specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1- #3 and #5- #9 off the previously itemized list. This 

allotment has had fairly extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read on it over 

the past 27 years; and in particular, during the past 8 years due to the section 7 consultation requirements. 

These include various condition and trend studies, utilization, a mix of riparian related studies, in addition to 

the ESI survey. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in 1999. That 

assessment and the section 7 consultations, have affirmed that the current grazing management continues to 

be appropriate (see also Step 5). 

Rock Creek Allotment (0888) 

The Rock Creek allotment is located in the extreme southeast corner of the Gerber Block and although it is a 

“C” category allotment, it is a relatively important one due to size and location. It has a mid to late spring 

season of use and is grazed as one big pasture having no internal division fencing. This allotment also 

contains a substantial amount of intermingled private lands that are used in common with the BLM, and are 

owned by various entities including the permittee. Grazing on the allotment is done under the Rock Creek 

Grazing Plan (a defacto CRMP), originally completed in 1983 in cooperation with the neighboring Fremont 

and Modoc National Forests. This CRMP has historically allowed the allotment some periodic rest, although 

during most of the 1990’s the allotment was used yearly due to wildfire-related deferment of some of the 

adjacent USFS lands. The CRMP was recently revised by the USFS and includes the restoration of periodic 

rest. The allotment was rested in 2002. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #2, #6, & #7 off the previously itemized list. In addition to the 

recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had some monitoring data collected on it over the past 25 

years, including various trend and condition information, utilization, and riparian photo points. All this 

survey/monitoring information indicates that the current grazing management was and continues to be 

appropriate (covered in Step 5). Note: This watershed analysis will serve as the Rangeland Health Standards 

Assessment for this allotment. 

Timber Hill Allotment (0889) 

Timber Hill is a mid-summer grazing use allotment located in the southeastern portion of the Gerber Block. 

It is a moderately high priority “I” category allotment that also has a significant amount of unfenced, 

privately owned, lands intermingled with the BLM administered lands. It has a limited (5-6 weeks) season 

of use that does not start until after the herbaceous vegetation has completed most or all of its growth 

requirements. Though not fenced into separate pastures, the allotment is run on a quasi-deferred rotation 

118 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

system, in that permittee begins the cattle use on opposite ends of the allotment in an alternating sequence; 

i.e. start on the north one year, south the next. Timber Hill has little if any riparian on BLM administered 

lands. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1, #2 & #6 off the previously itemized list. In addition to the 

recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had monitoring data collected on it over the past 25 years, 

including trend and condition information, and utilization. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for 

this allotment was completed in 1999 and found that the overall current grazing use was appropriate (covered 

in Step 5). 

Willow Valley Allotment (0890) 

This mid-spring to early summer grazing use allotment is located in the southern and southwestern portions 

of the Gerber Block. It is a one of the highest priority “I” category allotments in the KFRA and second only 

in size to the Horsefly allotment. There is very limited private lands intermingled with the BLM in this 

allotment. The north half of the Woolen Canyon pasture is actually out of the watershed analysis area, 

though it must be considered as a whole for continuity of grazing analysis. The Willow Valley allotment is 

permitted as a 4 pasture, rest-rotation grazing system which has been variably followed through the years for 

a variety of reasons. It has numerous scattered upland areas, primarily in the Woolen Canyon and Chaining 

pastures, with long term condition problems which emanate from the pre-Taylor Grazing Act, uncontrolled 

grazing era, as noted in the introduction to this section. Then in 1937, a catastrophic fire burned through 

much of this area, which in conjunction with the still relatively high grazing levels in the years after burning, 

caused the problem areas that are still obvious today. It is unknown whether these areas, which are now 

dominated by annual weeds and grasses, have the potential to improve significantly regardless of the level of 

grazing use. 

Antelope Creek, which flows through the middle of the allotment to end at Willow Valley Reservoir, has 

been largely fenced separately in the Duncan Springs exclosure. This area has perennial water from several 

spring sources and has dramatically improved in condition since fencing in the late 1980’s. A smaller portion 

of the drainage, above the CCC or Alkali Spring road, still has uninhibited livestock access and some riparian 

condition issues. The two eastern pastures - Antelope and Notch Corral - are both in generally good 

vegetative conditions with few of the problems noted above in the two western pastures. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed seven specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment - #1, #2, and #4 through #8 off the previously itemized list. In 

addition to the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had extensive amounts of monitoring data 

collected on it over the past 33 years - as long as studies have been collected in the resource area. These 

include various trend and condition studies, a mix of riparian studies, several types of utilization, and others. 

The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in late 2000 and found that 

the recent grazing management, though within the sustained yield capacity of the majority of the allotment, 

may still not be appropriate for improving the poorer condition areas (covered in Step 5). The Assessment 

made numerous recommendations which are being implemented already and are summarized in Step 6. 

Because of the long-term condition problems and its size, the Willow Valley allotment is probably the 

KFRA’s most challenging resource problem area related to livestock grazing. 

William’s Allotment (0892) 

The William’s allotment is located north of Lorella, in the extreme northwestern BLM portion of the analysis 

area. It is a spring use, medium low priority “M” category allotment, which is included as a minor 

component of the Yainax Butte Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) area. This 118,000 acre 

CRMP area is 70% U.S. Forest Service lands with large blocks of intermingled private lands (21%) and a 

relatively small amount (6%) of BLM administered lands, of which an even smaller part is in this analysis 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 119
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

area. The Yainax Butte CRMP is a cooperative planning effort that guides the management efforts on these 

lands, regardless of ownership. Grazing use of the area was the primary driving force in the initiation of the 

CRMP about 20 years ago. The plan was extensively revised in the early 1990’s. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP did not identify any specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” related to the 

livestock grazing on this allotment. Due to the low priority of the allotment, typical rangeland monitoring 

studies have not been established/read on this allotment. However, during the fall of 2002, ESI was 

completed. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for William’s is scheduled for 2003 and not as part 

of this document, though this analysis will assist in the preparation of the Assessment when done. 

USFS Administered Lands 

Fremont National Forest - There are nine Forest Service allotments lying adjacent to the “Gerber Block” on 

the west, north, and east sides. Seven of these allotments are administered by the Bly ranger district and 2 by 

the Lakeview ranger district. The following table identifies the allotments. The first seven are on the Bly 

district and the remaining 2 are on Lakeview. The Dent Creek allotment is not included in this table due to 

the insignificant amount of acreage within the watershed and it corresponding capacity. 

Table 3-50. Fremont National Forest Allotments/Authorized Use 

Allotment Permitted Numbers Season of Use 

Arkansas 152 pair Term Permit, 21 pair Term on/off Permit 6/1 – 9/30 

Barnes Valley 517 pair Term Permit, 33 pair Term private land Permit 6/16 – 7/14 

Bly Ridge Vacant 

Horsefly 402 pair Term Permit, 148 pair Term private land Permit 7/7 – 9/30 

Privy Springs 11 pair Term on/off Permit 6/16 – 7/15 

Pitchlog 47 pair Term Permit, 5 pair Term private land Permit 7/1 – 9/30 

Yainax Butte 375 pair Term Permit, 612 Term on-off Permit, 9 pair Term 5/15 – 9/30 

private land Permit 2 months 

Fort Spring 350 pair Term Permit 6/16 – 7/15 

Wildhorse 412 pair Term Permit 6/1 – 9/30 

The following are some brief narratives on the allotments describing more specific aspects of their 

management: 

Arkansas Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district east of the Gerber Block with the watershed boundary being this 

allotment’s eastern boundary. This allotment is grazed under 2 pasture rest rotation system by cows with big 

calves. The calves are separated from the cows about half way through the season and the cows stay on the 

allotment through the end of the season. 

Barnes Valley Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district east of the Gerber Block and it is estimated almost half of the allotment 

is within the watershed boundary. This allotment is grazed for approximately a month at the first part of the 

season then the cattle are moved to the Horsefly allotment. 

Bly Ridge Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district north of the Gerber Block with about 1/3 of the allotment within the 

watershed boundary. This allotment has been vacant since 1995 and was grazed under a temporary permit for 

80 or 100 pair, issued yearly, from 1989 to 1994. In 1995 the district ranger decided not to issue the 

temporary permit pending the completion of environmental analysis for grazing. As of yet this analysis has 

not been done. 

120 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Horsefly Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district just north of the Gerber Block with over half in the watershed 

boundary. This allotment is grazed under a 4 pasture deferred system. 

Privy Springs Allotment 

This small allotment lies on the Bly district north of the Gerber Block and is grazed for one month. 

Pitchlog Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district east of and adjacent to the Gerber Block. Cattle come on to this 

allotment from the BLM Pitchlog allotment. This allotment contains a riparian pasture along Barnes Valley 

Creek and an upland pasture containing Pitchlog Creek. This allotment has been grazed under a 2 pasture 

deferred system. 

Yainax Butte Allotment 

This allotment lies on the Bly district north and west of and is adjacent to the Gerber Block. This is the 

largest allotment containing 11 pastures, with 8 being totally or partially within the watershed boundary. 

This allotment is grazed under an 8 pasture deferred rotation system. 

Fort Springs Allotment 

This allotment lies southeast of the Gerber Block on the Lakeview district. This allotment is part of a 

coordinated grazing plan with the BLM KFRA, Fremont and Modoc National Forest. This allotment has one 

pasture with early season use. 

Wildhorse Allotment 

This allotment lies south and east of the Gerber Block on the Lakeview district. This allotment is grazed 

under a 3 pasture deferred system with incidental use allowed on a 4th pasture. The Bear Valley pasture was 

converted from an allotment to a pasture in 1999. This pasture was a sheep allotment up until 1992 when the 

permit was cancelled due to violation of terms of the permit. 

Desired Future Condition Desired Future Condition 

The desired future condition, as stated in the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

(1989) page 119, is “Permitted livestock grazing on the Forest will remain at current levels. Range 

improvements will increase in an attempt to manage cattle grazing more effectively, especially in riparian 

areas. Change on the range will result in using livestock as management tools to manipulate vegetation and 

enhance other resources such as, increased palatability of forage for wildlife, plantation release, and noxious 

weed control. 

Modoc National Forest 

The following information was provided by Brad Reed, Resource Officer for the Doublehead Ranger 

District, Modoc National Forest, and is pertinent to those portions of the watershed that lie south of the 

Oregon/California border: 

There are two grazing allotments with one permit on each. The Clear Lake allotment is currently permitted 

for 750 head (cows/calf pairs), 4/16-10/15. The Modoc is beginning to implement a management system that 

would allow 805 head as follows: 

Falvey Unit, Clear Lake Allotment 270 hd. 4/16-10/15 

Stateline Unit, Clear Lake Allotment 135 hd. 5/01-10/15 

Rimrock Unit, Clear Lake Allotment 400 hd. 5/16-10/15 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 121
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The Falvey Unit consists of three pastures on the west side of the allotment (partially within the watershed). 

The Stateline Unit consists of two pastures north of Lost River/Rock Creek (entirely within the watershed). 

The Rimrock Unit consists of four pastures on the east side of the allotment (partially within the watershed). 

This new grazing management system will be in completely in place by 2002. 

The Warm Springs allotment is included within the Rock Creek Grazing Plan, noted in the BLM’s Rock 

Creek allotment previously. It is a coordinated plan that also includes the Fremont and Modoc National 

Forests. Within the Warm Springs allotment, 350 cattle are permitted with the grazing season varying by 

year depending on the grazing plan, though it generally amounts to approximately 1300 head months 

beginning 5/1 and ending 10/15. 

Recreation 

Recreation use in the area was extremely limited until the development of logging roads and vehicles that 

could travel on these primitive roads became available, sometime in the early part of the 20th century. 

Recreation use in the area remained limited, but started to increase after WW II, with the advent of more 

rugged off-highway vehicles. As road conditions improved and disposable incomes increased, more people 

used the area for camping, fishing and hunting trips. Gerber campground and the nearby primitive campsites 

were originally developed in the 1960s by the BLM. Recreation use has remained fairly steady over the past 

decade, with an estimated 15,000 visitor use days annually in the Gerber area. 

Recreation activities at Gerber campground are primarily fishing, camping, hunting and general sight seeing/ 

wildlife viewing. Fishing remains the most popular day use activity, along with picnicking. Visitor use 

numbers for the campground are generally low to moderate, with weekends and holidays during the summer 

months exhibiting the greatest demand. Use numbers are also reflected in reservoir levels and fishing 

success. Higher reservoir levels and greater fishing success consistently bring in greater numbers of visitors. 

Dispersed camping areas are most frequently used during weekends during summer months, and during the 

hunting season in the fall. 

The primary developed recreation facilities are located at Gerber south and north campgrounds, which 

provide potable water and an RV dump station and charge fees for day use or overnight camping. Several 

outlying campsites (hunter camps) are available for free. The BLM and Forest Service both allow dispersed 

camping in the Gerber area, however during the summer fire season camp fires are limited to designated 

campsites. The USFS has no developed facilities in the watershed. Camping is limited to 14 days at one 

time at one campsite. 

Cultural Resources 

Archaeology 

The Gerber/Willow Valley area is rich in both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. A “cultural 

resource” is defined as objects, sites and information of historic, prehistoric, archaeological, architectural, 

paleontological or traditional significance. The term includes places of cultural or religious importance and 

artifacts associated with them. 

Archaeological evidence clearly confirms that humans have occupied the region at least ca. 12,000 years 

(O’Neill et al. 2001:13). At the time of Euro-American contact, the area was occupied by the Modoc Indians. 

Today remnants of prehistoric use of the area abound, appearing in the form of rock features (i.e. rock rings, 

rock alignments, bedrock mortars, rock cairns), rock art, and lithic scatters. To date only one extensive 

122 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

archaeological excavation has been conducted within the boundaries of the watershed. That excavation was 

conducted in 1986 by the University of Oregon at the Peninsula Site (35KL87) located in the Gerber 

Reservoir region. Excavated materials suggested a seasonal occupation of the site where plant and animal 

food processing took place. The age of the site extends back to 4000 BP (Silvermoon 1994). 

Historically, ranching, logging, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) have left their marks in the form 

of can dumps, fences, roads, reservoirs, and wooden structures. For example, the CCC built a telephone line 

along Willow Valley Road (also known as Stateline) that is still standing (Figure 3-11 and 3-12). 

Figure 3-11. Photo of telephone pole built along Willow Valley Road. (Photo by Robert Mutch, 2002.) 

Figure 3-12. Historic photo of Antelope telephone line built by CCC Co. 557. (Photo by CCC.) 

 Current Conditions, Step 3 123
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

To date, the BLM has surveyed 51% of BLM managed lands, the Fremont NF has surveyed 36% of their 

lands, and the Modoc NF has surveyed 24% of their lands (Map 3.5, Appendix E). Via these inventories, the 

BLM has formally recorded approximately 404 prehistoric sites, approximately 54 historic sites, and 

approximately 17 multi-component sites on public land. The Fremont National Forest has recorded 

approximately 148 prehistoric sites, approximately 35 historic sites, and no multi-component sites. The 

Modoc National Forest has recorded approximately 181 prehistoric sites, no historic sites, and approximately 

4 multi-component sites. (Refer to Appendix B, List of Inventoried Cultural Sites and Appendix E, Map 3.5 -

Surveyed Area within the Watershed.) 

Traditional Cultural Context 

Traditional cultural properties are defined as a property associated with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that are rooted in that communities’ history and are a part of that communities’ cultural identity 

(Parker, 1998). Evidence of traditional use by Native Americans in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed 

extends back for thousands of years before the arrival of Euro-Americans. Although documentation of current 

use is limited, members of the Klamath Tribes consider the area to be important for hunting, fishing, gathering 

plant resources, and spiritual activities. According to Gerald Skelton, Klamath Tribes Culture and Heritage 

Director: 

“The Horsefly (Gerber)/Willow Valley area is culturally significant to the Klamath Tribes. In addition to the 

Tribes oral history, the number of tribal cultural sites located in the area provides tangible (archaeological) 

evidence that easily proves it is a significant area. The intangible value of the area is great in that it is still an 

area used by tribal families for prayer, vision quests, and spiritual guidance. 

In addition, the Horsefly (Gerber)/Willow Valley area continues to be an important area for the fisheries (my 

Grandfather caught a land-locked salmon there in the late 70s early 80s) as well as an important area for 

hunting and gathering. The area is also a migration corridor for the mule deer. There is also a significant 

number of antelope in the area as well. The Horsefly (Gerber)/Willow valley area continues to provide, 

directly and indirectly, significant resources to The Tribes in the form of fisheries, wildlife/fowl, plant, and 

other forms such as but not limited to mineral resources”. (Skelton, personal communication, 2003) 

Cultural Plants and Subsistence Hunting and Fishing 

Members of the Klamath Tribes continue to harvest plants (i.e. epos) and big game from the Gerber/Willow 

Valley watershed area. Twice, within the past five years, KFRA archaeologists have fulfilled requests to 

personally escort a group of Klamath Tribal elders to epos digging areas around Willow Valley Reservoir. 

Native plant resources are in good condition within the watershed boundaries. Hunting and fishing continue 

to be an important part of the Tribal diet, especially mule deer along the northern boundary of the watershed. 

Managing to maintain mule deer habitat and populations is important to preserving this integral part of the 

Klamath Tribes’ culture. 

Administrative Facilities 

The Gerber reservoir area has several permanent facilities related to the construction of Gerber Dam. The
 

USBR (Bureau of Reclamation) house, located next to the south Gerber campground, is maintained by the
 

BLM for use as a recreation administrative site. The house is historically significant, having been built as a
 

residence for the Bureau of Reclamation’s dam keeper/attendant.
 

The BLM has several facilities used by the fire program, including a guard station, crew bunk house, several 

work shops and outbuildings. In addition support facilities including several domestic water wells and pump 

houses are scattered between the Gerber campground areas. 

124 Current Conditions, Step 3 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

 Current Conditions, Step 3
 125
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

126 Current Conditions, Step 3
 
 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 4. REFERENCE CONDITIONS 

The purpose of Step 4 is to describe ecological conditions prior to change over time as a result of human 

influence and natural disturbance. Such conditions are termed “reference” conditions. Establishing reference 

conditions allows the comparison between reference and current conditions to be presented in Step 5 

“Synthesis and Interpretation”. The Reference Conditions step is presented with the premise that ecosystems 

adapted over extended time periods and that the greatest probability for maintaining future sustainability will 

require management practices which mimic or borrow from natural components, processes and structures. 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Uplands/Soils 

Since 1899, the climatic events that drive erosion and plant growth have been part of soil surveys in the 

United States. Erosion rates on a landscape basis vary with ecological site conditions that are identified in 

soil and vegetation survey for Gerber’s catchment. The survey provides descriptions of reference species 

composition for rangelands and understory forest vegetation that provide effective ground cover (Soil Survey 

Staff, 2002). Similarly, bank erosion conditions are identified by ecological status (condition) of the riparian 

ecological types (sites) (Riegel et al., 2002). In the Gerber catchment, most upland range sites are currently 

in late condition, which implies direct similarity to reference conditions, and most forest sites are in the lower 

mid condition, which implies more deviation from reference conditions (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). The 

discussion in this section will concentrate on the latter. 

Local ecological site inventory data (Soil Survey Staff, 2002) was used to locate sites on a condition gradient 

in the Pine - Fescue sites for a comparison of infiltration rate and ground cover. Prior to the infiltration test 

surface soils were pre-wet with a liter for comparable among site moisture. Water flow into a soil was 

regulated with a Constant Head Permeameter set at 10 cm of suction (Amoozegar, A. 1992). For each test, 

400 ml of water was applied in an auger holes (25 cm deep by 5 cm wide). Mean infiltration rate in milliliters 

per seconds is based on 12 tests run at a site. Ground cover (hits) were sampled at each meter along a 20 

meter transect. Litter in the early-mid condition sites was mostly un-decomposed pine needles, while the 

litter in the late condition site is a dark and decaying mix of needle and leaf matter. There was scattered grass 

cover in the early-mid sites, but the cover was insufficient to form grassy mats, which register as vegetation 

hits. A positive correlation between grassy cover and infiltration rate in Pine Fescue sites was also found and 

is shown in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1: Comparison of percent ground cover and mean infiltration rate (ml/second) 

Condition Classes 

Early* Early-Mid** Mid** Late** 

Bare (%) 100 15 1 13 

Litter (%) — 85 91 70 

Vegetation (%) — — 6 16 

Infiltration (ml/s) 6.4 7.7 7.9 8.2 

*High intensity burn site 

**A condition gradient from early mid to late seral in Pine Fescue ecological sites is shown. (Most 

vegetation hits are grass plants.) 

Recent sampling along transects within forest vegetation show soil tilth, indicated by soft granular texture, is 

better developed in forest openings where grassy vegetation such as Ross sedge and or Idaho fescue occurred. 

At mid condition, the understory forest vegetation is poorly developed, except in forest openings. And 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 127
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

nitrogen-fixing plants, such as squawcarpet (Ceanothus sp.) and lupine were spotty. With incomplete 

understory plants the sites face a risk of humus decline, which is an erosion risk to the “life in the soil.” 

Humus and microbial functional decline is an issue for forest growth. In eastside pine Busse et al. (1996) 

shows understory vegetation growth drives the humus and the nutrient processes for sustained forest 

overstory growth. And the better soil tilth observed with forest grass and sedge shows there is an opportunity 

to improve the soil life. 

In summary, the reference forest in Gerber was a grassy landscape with large well-spaced pines with 

sufficient understory to sustain the soil, a balanced forest overstory and understory (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). 

In reference (or late seral) conditions, effective groundcover would have provided proper soil tilth and 

optimal infiltration. Under these conditions, with mild Pacific storm intensities and gentle topography, soil 

erosion was apt to be minimal. The frequent, low intensity fires that would have maintained this open forest 

would not likely produce the post fire hydrophobicity (resistance to water infiltration) associated with high 

intensity crown fires. Soil compaction, which primarily results from the use of heavy machinery, would not 

have been an issue. 

Hydrology
 

(The format of the following section is based on watershed processes rather than land management issues.)
 

Watershed Processes 

Precipitation in the watershed provided recharge to local, intermediate and regional groundwater systems. 

The recharge occurring in the uplands generates groundwater flow to ephemeral lakes and wetlands and base 

flow to surface water systems. During precipitation events, rainfall that does not infiltrate into the soil will 

flow out of the basin as runoff. Lowering the infiltration rate of a soil can increase the amount of runoff 

generated, thereby increasing the frequency and magnitude of flooding events. In addition, the runoff will 

leave the local system as surface water flow, decreasing the available amount of water to the local system 

after the precipitation event. 

Infiltration 

Prior to Euro-American settlement, plant communities were generally at least late serial stage, which
 

suggests dominance by perennial grasses in the rangelands. The presence of perennial grasses in the
 

rangelands would have increased infiltration as discussed in the Chapter 4 Soils section. In addition, the
 

presence of sufficient organic litter would have minimized the impacts of sediment mobilization due to
 

raindrop impact.
 

As discussed in the Chapter 4 Vegetation section, uncontrolled, heavy grazing that occurred during the first 

50-60 years of Euro-American settlement caused profound changes in the vegetation communities. Grasses 

were heavily grazed; suppressing vigor and giving competitive advantage to the less grazed or non-grazed 

plants (more woody species such as sagebrush and juniper). These changes in plant communities from 

grasses to shrubs decreased the infiltration rate of the soil by decreasing the fine root mass. 

During the past 70 years vegetation conditions have been trending upward with improved grazing 

management. Many areas have returned to PNC or late seral stage vegetation communities. This 

improvement in vegetation community would increase the infiltration rate of the soils. It is unlikely that the 

infiltration rate of these soils has returned to pre-settlement conditions; however the vegetation communities 

are in an upward trend. 

In addition, prior to Euro-American settlement in the Gerber watershed, the vegetation was adapted to
 

frequent and low intensity fires. The forests were uniformly spaced stands of trees with openings ranging
 

from 1⁄4 to 40 acres at irregular intervals across the stands. This open forest structure had an understory
 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 128 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

component of grasses and shrubs. This groundcover vegetation increased the infiltration rate of the soils in 

the forest. 

Frequent fire in the rangelands prevented the encroachment of juniper into meadows and rangelands. Juniper 

out-competes shrubs and grasses for sunlight and nutrients; therefore an increase in juniper vegetation is 

followed by a decrease in both shrubs and grasses. The presence of juniper decreases infiltration and 

decreases overland flow (Rick Miller, personal communication, 2002). Therefore, prior to Euro-American 

settlement large portions of the analysis area would have had increased infiltration rates and decreased 

overland flow than currently exists. 

Evapotranspiration 

A number of areas within the Gerber watershed that are now reservoirs historically functioned as wetlands. 

Wetlands generally have high evaporation rates. However, evaporation rates from wetland areas are lower 

than evaporation rates from the open lakes created by reservoir development in the watershed. In addition, 

the historic structure of open forests in the Gerber watershed would have had a lower rate of 

evapotranspiration than the current, overstocked stands. Rangelands were vegetated by shrubs and grasses 

rather than juniper. Historically, the vegetation in the rangelands would not have transpired during the winter 

months, as juniper does currently (Bedell, et al, 1993). Therefore, the amount of water loss to the atmosphere 

was lower historically than at present. 

Runoff 

The presence of openings in the forest canopy increases the snow catch in those openings (Troendle, 1982). 

In openings of 3 acres and less, there is significant shading to delay the timing of snowpack melt (Baker, 

1988). In larger canopy openings there is an increased amount of solar radiation that can cause earlier 

snowpack melt to occur (Baker, 1988). Historic canopy openings of 1⁄4 to 40 acres were present in the 

forested areas of the Gerber watershed. The snowmelt from these openings would have influenced the timing 

of peak flows in the watershed as well as the amount of late season base flow in the streams. 

Streamflows 

The role of shallow aquifers in storing and releasing water was likely much greater prior to Euro-American 

settlement. Wetlands, valley floor and hillslope wet meadows, and floodplains would have been inundated on 

a fairly regular basis (on the order of once a year) for varying lengths of time. The vegetation communities 

and soils in these areas would slow the water and allow it to infiltrate over time. Water that was recharged 

into these aquifers would either move out of the analysis area through groundwater flow paths or, more 

likely, would have followed hydraulic gradients through the soil subsurface and gradually emerged 

downstream as seeps. The general effect of such processes would have been to decrease flood peaks and 

increase the volume and persistence of summer low flows. The past extent of these shallow aquifers is 

unknown, although they would have been most likely to occupy alluvial valley bottoms (such as occur in 

Casebeer, Ben Hall, Pitch Log, and numerous other creeks in the analysis area). 

Spring fed streams - Many stream segments in the analysis area receive substantial inputs from springs and seeps 

that occur within, adjacent to, or in close proximity to streams or wetlands. The relative effect of these inputs 

is largest in small catchments that do not have drainage area substantial enough to otherwise supply flow 

except for short-lived periods during snowmelt or storm runoff events. Streams in these catchments (which 

include Casebeer and Barnes Creeks; the drainages heading at O’ Shea, J, Wagon Road, and the Pankey 

Springs; and numerous other small catchments) likely had well developed Rosgen-E channels, stable 

geomorphology, abundant riparian vegetation, and high water quality. Streamflow likely persisted yearround, although seasonal and annual variation would be expected as a function of evapotranspiration rates 

and precipitation inputs. This variability was probably highest in springs that had relatively low discharge 

rates, as these springs are, in general, recharged from shallow local groundwater systems (controlled 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 129
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

primarily by topography) rather than deep intermediate or regional groundwater systems (controlled 

primarily by lithologic contacts). 

Headwater and trunk streams - Numerous streams in the analysis area, such as Barnes Valley, Long Branch, Pitch 

Log, Ben Hall, or Rock Creek, drain moderate-sized watersheds. Streamflow in these systems was driven by 

interactions between storm and snowmelt runoff, springs, and baseflow release from wetlands and alluvial 

aquifers. Runoff from uplands was likely somewhat high in some areas, as a result of low organic matter 

content in clay-rich soils. Overland flow generated on hillslopes was routed into streams in one of two ways: 

as stormflow which contributed to peak flows, or as throughflow which entered into shallow groundwater 

systems and was slowly released. 

Large meadow areas adjacent to some streams (such as Ben Hall and Barnes Valley Creeks) likely used a 

large volume of water through evapotranspiration, thereby reducing baseflows from late spring through 

autumn. General Land Office survey notes from late summer of 1868 indicate that flow in Barnes Valley 

Creek near the upstream limit of BLM ownership was perennial, but spatially interrupted (i.e., water was 

found only in pools). 

Large streams - Large streams in the analysis area, such as Miller Creek, the East Branch of the Lost River, and 

the Upper Lost River, would be expected to have different hydrologic regimes than streams draining smaller 

areas. The upstream presence of wetlands and wet meadows would tend to attenuate annual hydrographs, 

while the sheer size of contributing drainage areas would favor the occasional occurrence of large floods. 

Miller Creek had low summer streamflows prior to development of Gerber Reservoir, and perennial flows 

may have been “spatially interrupted” during the summer months (it appears that flow measurements did not 

occur during the summer in some years). Depending on the type of water year, flows became quite low 

(approximately 1 cfs) sometime between April and July and did not resume until November or December 

(Figure 4-1). The late onset of flows in early winter suggests the extent of water storage capacity available in 

wetlands and uplands. Large floods were recorded in 1907, and inferred for 1867. Estimations made using 

recent Gerber Reservoir inflow data also indicate that large peak flows would occur in Miller Creek were it 

not for Gerber Dam. Watershed characteristics and the nature of runoff-generating processes caused the 

onset and recession of high flows to occur rapidly. 

Flows from Duncan Springs may have sustained the East Branch of the Lost River, although it is possible 

that much of this water was absorbed by valley floor soils or utilized by vegetation. In any case, summer 

flows would have been much lower than the present irrigation releases, and peak flows likely would have 

been higher. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 130 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

 Figure 4-1. Discharge data for Miller Creek near Lorella, from water years 1910 to 1912. 

0.1 

1 

10 

100 

1000 

10000 

Discharge (cfs) 

10/1/1909

4/1/1910

10/1/1910

4/1/1911

10/1/1911

4/1/1912

10/1/1912

4/1/1913

10/1/1913

4/1/1914

10/1/1914

4/1/1915

10/1/1915

4/1/1916

10/1/1916

4/1/1917

10/1/1917

4/1/1918

10/1/1918 

Date 

(Note logarithmic scale. Data from USBR Klamath Basin Area Office, unavailable for 10/1/1912 and 10/1/
 

1917.)
 

(Note that homesteading had begun by this period and hydrologic and channel alterations had likely
 

occurred.)
 

Stream Channels 

Channel Shape and Bank Stability 

Few stream channels in the analysis area are in “reference condition.” Using assumptions about landscape 

processes that would have occurred prior to the historic period, and historical maps and documentation, it is 

possible to describe the general form that streams would have taken prior to European settlement. While 

these descriptions provide context for understanding landscape history, they also provide an idea of important 

channel features and processes, thereby providing a target for private and public land managers to aim for as 

they conduct resource management activities across the landscape. 

Historically, a mix of Rosgen B, C, and E stream types occurred in the analysis area. B stream types would 

have occurred were they occur now, although the extent of these stream types may have been slightly lower 

than at present. Rosgen C and E stream types were likely much more abundant historically than at present. 

These streams would have occupied low gradient unconfined valleys and wet meadow areas. Rosgen F 

stream types, which are widespread currently, would have occurred rarely prior to European settlement. 

Rosgen C and E stream types are characterized as having high sinuosity, low width-depth ratios, and a high 

degree of channel-floodplain connectivity. As discussed below in the subsection – Wetland and Riparian 

Conditions, it is likely that deeply-rooted perennial grasses and shrub thickets provided more bank stability 

than at present. Due to the presence of stable banks and functioning floodplains, stream channels would have 

been more resilient during flood events. Although some channel adjustment would inevitably occur during 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 131
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

floods, streams would have been more likely to transport floods while maintaining channel dimensions, planform patterns, and longitudinal profiles. As a result, stream channels would have been more narrow, and 

have more and deeper pools, as well as more abundant overhanging banks. Over time, as streams migrated 

across floodplains, off-channel features such as oxbows and isolated pools would have formed. 

The total length of the stream network may have been lower historically than at present. Gullies and small 

ephemeral channels draining upland areas were likely less common than they are currently. Conversely, 

more miles of larger streams would have occupied low-lying areas that are currently inundated by reservoirs 

(primarily Gerber and Willow Valley) (Table 4-2). The character of the inundated streams was likely a mix 

of E or C stream types in unconfined areas (such as near the Gerber Homesite) and B stream types in 

confined areas (such as the area near Gerber Dam). 

Table 4-2. Approximate length of streams inundated by Gerber Reservoir. 

Stream System Estimated inundated length* (miles) 

Barnes Valley 4.9 

Casebeer 0.3 

Barnes 2.0 

Ben Hall 2.3 

Unnamed tributary (Round Valley) 1.2 

*Estimated based on 1967 USBR “Gerber Reservoir Topography” map. These values are likely 

underestimates, since meanders are not adequately represented at the 1:36000 map scale. 

Bed Material 

It is not possible to describe specific reference conditions for bed material characteristics in the analysis area. 

Given that the magnitude of erosion and runoff from uplands was lower than at present, as were bank erosion 

rates, it can be assumed that the proportion of fine sediments (silt and sand) in stream beds would have been 

much lower than at present. Rather than settling out in the stream bed as peak flows receded, fine sediments 

would have been filtered out as streams flowed through meadow areas or as peak flows inundated floodplain 

areas. 

Historically, bed materials in Rosgen B and C channels would have likely been composed primarily of sand, 

gravel, and cobbles. Lower gradient E channels would have had a higher proportion of sand and a lower 

proportion of cobbles. Boulders would have occurred in stream channels, but their occurrence would have 

been lower than at present. Reduced abundance of fine sediments would have been resulted in “cleaner” 

gravels on riffles and the lower portion of point bars. Fines would have accumulated primarily on the upper 

portion of point bars and on floodplains. 

Stream reaches that currently have on-stream dams located upstream may have had higher rates of bedload 

input in the past, depending on upstream landforms. For instance, the supply of sand and gravel to Miller 

Creek may have been higher, since the streams inundated by Gerber Reservoir appear to have had sufficient 

gradient to transport bed material. 

In-Stream Large Wood Recruitment and Retention 

The rate at which LWD historically entered streams is likely different than at present, although the magnitude 

and net effect of this difference varies with stream type, valley form, and ecological type. 

For E type streams (currently C, E, and F streams), LWD delivery to streams was likely infrequent. These
 

streams flowed across unconfined valleys or meadows that supported few conifers and bank erosion rates
 

were lower than at present. As a result, fewer trees were available and the processes responsible for
 

delivering trees to streams were not as active as at present. That said, some LWD was delivered to these
 

streams from riparian hardwood stands or adjacent hillslopes.
 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 132 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

In B and C type streams that flowed near or adjacent to forested hillslopes, the rate at which large LWD was 

delivered was likely similar to or higher than at present. As discussed in the Forested Upland section, large 

trees were more common than at present. In general, frequent underburns and the general lack of large-scale 

mortality would have caused trees to be delivered to riparian areas steadily over time (rather than during 

intense but infrequent episodes). In areas affected by patches of high severity fire or rare stand replacement 

fires, short-lived episodes of high LWD delivery rates may have occurred, followed by periods during which 

delivery rates were diminished. 

Large pines, upon being delivered to riparian areas and stream channels, would have tended to persist over 

fairly long time periods (decades) due to moist conditions that would lessen the impacts of frequent fires. 

White fir, which would have been less abundant, is less resistant to decay and would have lasted for shorter 

periods. The size and species composition of instream LWD would have caused individual pieces to be fairly 

stable once they reached streams. Large pieces would have been key structural elements of jams formed as 

smaller pieces were transported downstream. 

These jams, along with higher levels of beaver activity, would have created pools and backwater areas. 

These low gradient areas would have forced water onto floodplains and into shallow aquifer systems. In 

addition, they would have reduced stream energy causing sediment to accumulate. Beaver activity was likely 

highest in low gradient valleys that had perennial streamflow, deep soil, and abundant riparian shrubs and 

deciduous trees. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Wetland and Riparian Condition 

In order to estimate the wetland/riparian conditions in the watershed in “reference conditions”, an 

understanding of natural disturbance processes is necessary. A classic landform reference for floodplain 

riparian habitats in fairly large watersheds is Fluvial Process in Geomorphology (Leopold et al, 1964). This 

landform reference provides theory and examples of hill-slope, floodplain, and stream land patterns shaped 

by water flow. For example, stream riffles and associated gravel bars occur at 5 to 7 channel widths along a 

stream, and the radius of the gravel bar is 2 to 3 channel widths long, so on average a gravel bar occurs at 6 

channel widths with 2 to 3 width new bars along the channel bank (Leopold et al., 1964). Along the whole 

12 channel widths of a stream meander length, riparian habitats are apt to be composed of an even mix of low 

status habitats on the new gravel bar deposits, mid status habitats on the older upper bar(s) and high status 

habitats on floodplain and cut banks. 

In comparison, findings from a wide range of upper watershed riparian habitats in Nevada and California 

were almost evenly mixed between low, moderate and high ecological status (Weixelman et al, 1996). The 

distribution of cold willow habitats was 24 percent low, 64 percent moderate and 11 percent high ecological 

status (Weixelman et al., 1996, 1999). Along wet stringer meadows, Carex nebrascensis habitat distribution 

was of 16 percent low, 68 percent moderate and 16 percent high (Weixelman et al., 1996). So in both cold 

willow and wet meadow habitats, the distribution found was close to a normal distribution. A normal 

distribution has 67 percent in the central group and 16 percent in each tail (Mendenhall et al 1990). 

Leopold et al. (1964) characterized floodplains in the lower watershed, while Weixelman et al. (1996) 

characterized floodplains and habitats in the upper watershed. Similarly, the National Riparian Service Team 

asserts proper function condition of riparian habitats occurs in a mid seral stage and moderate status 

(Prichard, 1998). (Seral stage and status are related, but not synonymous. A sere requires a succession 

history at one or many sites, while condition and status are based on sampling a wide range of habitat 

conditions. An example of how status varies between ecological types is Juncus balticus, which is associated 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 133
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

with mid ecological status in wet meadow habitats, but with high status in moist meadow habitats
 

[Weixelman et al., 1996]).
 

So for historic reference – depending on watershed position – the distribution of different ecological statuses 

in riparian habitats was likely to be fairly even. Wetland reference conditions are identified in soil and 

vegetation survey for Gerber’s catchment (Riegel et al., 2002, Soil Survey Staff, 2002). The survey provides 

reference species composition for ecological status (condition). 

Extent of Wetland and Riparian Distribution 

In reference condition, stringer forests along Gerber’s draws were probably mostly meadows. Meadow 

losses are a striking part of forest vegetation change from historic vistas (Gruell, 2001). In Yosemite Valley 

there may now be less than 25 percent of the extensive meadows and black oak, which occupied much of the 

valley floor in 1899. Forested draws in Gerber may have experienced a similar fate to draws in Markleeville, 

which were stringer meadows and with scattered aspen in 1925 that have changed to wooded pine draws in 

the late 1900’s. Prior to human influences of livestock grazing and fire suppression, conifer expansion into 

riparian habitats would have been uncommon. 

Emergent wetlands were more abundant prior to construction of dams, roads, stock ponds, and other
 

modifications. It is estimated that roughly 550 acres of various wetland habitats have been inundated by
 

Gerber Dam alone (see Figure 3-3).
 

Water Quality 

Temperature 

Water temperature is a function of physiographic variables, such as riparian conditions, flow volume and 

timing, and channel conditions, and climate variables, principally air temperature. It is likely that water 

temperatures in the past were substantially lower than those observed recently. As discussed in the 

Hydrology, Stream Channels, and Riparian Vegetation sections, stream flows were higher during the warmest 

months, streams were narrower and deeper, and riparian vegetation was more abundant. As a result, the rates 

at which water warmed as it flowed downstream were lower than at present. 

Regardless of the effects of more extensive riparian vegetation, generally higher summer flows, and narrower 

channels, the unaltered thermal regime in portions of some streams in the analysis area still may not have met 

state water quality standards. Streams flowing through dry rangelands, such as in the southwestern portion of 

the analysis area (e.g., Antelope Creek upstream from Duncan Springs), would have had very little shade, for 

instance. In particular, streams flowing across southern aspects at relatively low elevations would have been 

most likely to have elevated summer water temperatures. 

Analysis to be conducted during the development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations will
 

provide insight into unimpaired (reference condition) and potential future temperature regimes of streams.
 

Springs and shallow groundwater discharge areas would have provided thermal refugia from naturally high
 

water temperatures. It is assumed that the discharge from these springs was higher prior to increases in the
 

density of juniper and conifers.
 

Sedimentation 

As discussed in the Stream Channels section, bank erosion rates were likely lower historically than they are 

at present. In addition, two major sources of sediment from uplands – roads and rangelands with high 

degrees of juniper encroachment – were not present or extensive prior to European settlement. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 134 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Nutrients 

Nutrient loading in the analysis area was likely lower in the past than it is currently, although some 

subwatersheds may have periodically received pulses of nutrients. Natural background levels of phosphorous 

may have been elevated due to small amounts of phosphate-laden apatite, which occurs in many types of 

volcanic rocks. 

Natural rates of nutrient loading were driven by contributions from soil erosion, groundwater leaching, and 

biochemical cycles. Soil erosion would have occurred occasionally across a large portion of the analysis area 

during overland flow events, and would have increased for short periods over small areas subsequent to brush 

and forest fires (DeBano et al, 1996). Stream channel processes (bank erosion in particular) also contributed 

to nutrient loading. Nutrient laden waters passing through well-vegetated riparian areas and wetlands likely 

experienced a reduction in nutrient loads. 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

Overview 

In general, aquatic species habitat in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed is assumed to have evolved under 

similar climatic and hydrologic inputs as we experience today. Although direct accounts of species 

distributions and habitats are not available, it is possible to make inferences based on well-documented 

natural processes such as plant succession, stream channel evolution, and aquatic species life history 

strategies. Additionally, we have legacy features (trees, floodplain terraces, soils deposits) and accounts of 

early surveyors and homesteaders. Furthermore, archaeological evidence provides some clues as what food 

resources were available for exploitation. 

An additional tool we have available for assessing departure from the historic condition is the reference 

reach. A reference reach is defined here is a stream segment that represents a stable or “undisturbed” channel 

with a particular valley morphology and a hydro-geomorphic function. By collecting physical and biological 

data in the reference reaches and converting the data to dimensionless ratios (e.g. # pools per mile as a 

function of stream width), we can use reference reach data to compare watersheds and streams of varying 

sizes. 

In this section we will describe, in a general sense, watershed process that would have shaped the habitat for 

aquatic species and influenced their distribution and abundance. In section 5 we will use direct evidence as 

well as inference based on the reference reach values to compare probable habitat conditions prior to euroAmerican settlement to the existing condition Section 3). Parameters for this analysis were chosen based on 

the ability to infer from reference data and their importance as potential limiting factors for the species of 

concern (namely redband trout and Klamath sucker species) in the watershed. Selected parameters are: 

- Fish passage and distribution. 

- Stream temperature 

- Spawning habitat 

- Habitat complexity (amount of large woody debris and # pools/mi) 

Species Distribution and Abundance 

No exotic species would be present in the reference condition (Table 4-3). There were far less permanent 

lacustrine (lake-like) habitats historically. However, there were more emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands, 

which have either been drained to facilitate irrigation systems, flooded for water storage or have had channel 

incision leading to lowered water tables and dissociation with frequent flooding. Because of Gerber 

Reservoir, lake dependent species such as shortnose suckers have probably increased in abundance over the 

reference condition. Constructed reservoirs throughout the analysis area have allowed for the establishment 

of warm water species such as yellow perch, crappie, and largemouth bass. None of these species would 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 135
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

have flourished in the reference condition because of the lack of deep lacustrine habitat. The lower portions 

of East Branch of the Lost River and Miller Creek were likely used as migration and spawning stream for 

fish living in the Wetlands in the South end of Langell Valley. 

Table 4-3. Assumed historic species list for the Gerber/ Willow Valley watershed.
 

Common Name Scientific Name
 

Marbled sculpin Cottus klamathensis
 

Speckled dace Rhynichthys osculus
 

Klamath largescale sucker Catastomus snyderi
 

Shortnose sucker Chastmistes brevirostris
 

Lamprey Lampetra similis
 

Pit-Klamath Brook lamprey Lampetra folletti (syn. L. lethophaga)
 

Tui chub Gila bicolor
 

Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
 

Although there is no documented reference to fish species occurrence and distributions prior to the 

construction of Gerber Dam, reference stream and wetland conditions would have supported populations of 

native stream fishes including shortnose sucker, largescale sucker, Klamath redband trout, Klamath speckled 

dace, marbled sculpin, and migratory parasitic and non-parasitic lamprey species. The long distance from a 

large lake habitat coupled with some steep stream gradients in Miller Creek canyon, probably precluded Lost 

River Suckers, lake dependent sculpin species, blue chub, and adfluvial forms of redband trout from all but 

the lower reaches of Miller Creek an the East Branch of the Lost River. Tui chub could have been present in 

low numbers in year round marshes such as the one that existed at the bottom of Barnes Creek and in Barnes 

Valley proper. 

A reasonable explanation for the current distribution of shortnose suckers, Klamath largescale suckers, and 

tui chub is that the marsh at the bottom of Barnes Creek supported these species, albeit in relatively low 

numbers, prior to the dam (USDI-FWS, 1992). Even if these marshes did not support resident populations 

because they periodically dried up, it is reasonable to assume that some migrating adult and juvenile suckers, 

or stream resident suckers, could have been trapped behind the dam upon its construction and developed into 

adfluvial sub-populations within Gerber reservoir. Stream resident suckers are routinely observed by BLM 

in Long Branch Creek. The same explanation for the presence of redband trout is also plausible although, 

there have been numerous supplemental stockings of hatchery raised trout which could also explain their 

current distribution. An alternative explanation is that neither suckers nor trout were present in the watershed 

and both were at some point transplanted into Gerber. However, given their life history and habitat 

requirements, and accounts of early homesteaders (Sobel et al, 1992) it seems unlikely that suckers and trout 

were not present in the watershed during the construction of Gerber dam. Additionally, migratory trout and 

suckers were known to inhabit the Lost River (Ray 1963). The reservoir then provides an opportunity to 

express an adfluvial life history strategy. The ability of redband trout and potentially some sucker species to 

switch from resident to fluvial or adfluvial strategies is inherent and not easily lost to selection, even after 

many generations. 

The following general description of interior basin redband trout life history excerpted from ODFW (1995) is 

appropriate for the Gerber/ Willow Valley historic condition: 

“In most basins, it appears the redband trout established adfluvial life histories, migrating among highly 

productive rearing areas in lakes with adjacent marshes and spawning areas in streams or among productive 

marshes and streams. The marshes and lakes connected various populations that entered them from different 

drainages in the basins. During drought episodes that caused complete desiccation of the lakes and marshes, 

streams provided refuges for populations that returned to the lakes when they refilled” 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 136 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Fish Passage 

No culverts, dams, diversions or road crossings would have inhibited free passage and migration of fish. Fish 

lost due to reaches periodically dying out would have readily re-colonized from the Lost River and headwater 

perennial streams such as Lapham Creek, Casebeer Creek, and Barnes Creek. Pre-dam flow records from the 

mouth of Miller Creek suggest that that stream periodically became intermittent; however, flow was recorded 

as “zero” in only three of the 10 consecutive years of record (Figure 4-1). It is not known how much early 

homesteaders had altered flows by these dates. General Land Office surveyor notes (September 1868) 

indicated and “water holes” and “sloughs” present is several of the Barnes Valley Creek section line 

crossings. Marshes were noted by the early GLO surveyors in Langell Valley, Barnes Creek and Barnes 

Valley proper. These may have also provided refugial habitat. It is apparent that low flow would have 

inhibited free passage for much of the year in the larger streams. 

Stream Temperature 

High stream temperatures probably did not limit distribution of suckers, lamprey, sculpin and other chub and 

minnow species because these species have a relatively high metabolic tolerance compared to salmonid 

species. However, temperature effects of dissolved oxygen and other water quality dynamics such as 

biological oxygen demand could indirectly cause problems for these species. Results of recent redband trout 

tolerances to high stream temperature suggest that redband trout have a higher tolerance for temperatures 

above 64 F than do hatchery strains (Rodnick et al draft manuscript 2002). Redband trout were likely 

abundant as resident life history forms in the perennial spring fed tributaries such as Casebeer Creek, Barnes 

Creek, and Lapham Creek. Year-round occupation of redband trout in Barnes Valley Creek is possible but 

may have depended on base flows sufficient to moderate summer temperature extremes. Evidence from 

surveyor notes in the Gerber Reservoir area in 1868 suggests that in September of that year Barnes Valley 

Creek and Miller Creek had perennial but interrupted flows, that is some areas were described as “sloughs”, 

streams, and some as “water holes” Given that several spring fed tributaries entered in the area that is now 

Gerber, it is likely that cold water inputs were sufficient to sustain resident population in those tributaries and 

in the perennial sections of Barnes Valley Creek and Miller Creek. Additionally, the larger tributaries (Miller 

Creek and East Branch Lost River) may have been migratory and rearing habitat for fluvial or adfluvial 

redband trout from the Lost River and associated lakes. Large trout are currently seasonally present in lower 

sections of Miller and East Branch Lost River. A comparable situation exists in the Sycan watershed where 

the headwater streams are perennial and stream reaches below a large wetland are somewhat intermittent. 

Throughout the Klamath basin, small spring-fed headwater streams are productive resident trout streams and 

provide important refugia areas during periods of drought. 

Trout often occupy positions in the stream that are much colder than the average stream temperature. These 

hyporeic zones are areas where groundwater exchange provides areas of relatively cool water. 

Large Woody Debris 

Large woody debris for the 50 th and 75th percentile of natural and near natural streams in the northern Great 

Basin (Quigley et al 1997) is suggested as a benchmark for historic conditions. Since this data was collected 

in primarily forested streams it may suggest higher values than were historically attained in the Gerber/ 

Willow Valley area which has a high percentage of streams in range areas. 

For this assessment, LWD is defined as being 20 inches in diameter on the small end and greater than 35 feet 

long in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites. The natural or near natural frequency is determined using the 

table below, and the formula for desired numbers per mile = table value x 5280/average riffle width in feet 

(Quigley et al 1997). For example, a stream with a 10-foot average riffle width and a slope of 2-4% would be 

expected to have 11 pieces of LWD/mile at the 50th percentile and 45 pieces at the 75th. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 137
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 4-4 - Natural or Near Natural Frequency of LWD in Northern Great Basin Streams 

Large Woody Debris/Mile 

Slope Class 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 

All 0.019 0.062 

<2% 0.006 0.025 

2-4% 0.02 0.085 

>4% 0.02 0.067 

Pools 

he number of for 50th and 75th percentile of natural and near natural streams in the northern Great Basin 

(Quigley et al 1997) is suggested as a benchmark for historic conditions. The natural or near natural 

frequency is determined using the table below, and the formula for desired numbers per mile = table value x 

5280/average riffle width in feet. For example, a stream 10 feet wide with a slope of <2% would be expected 

to have 14 pools/mile at the 50th percentile and 28 pools/mile of at the 75th percentile. Pool width/depth 

ratios are another measure of habitat quality that is applicable in a dimensionless ratio. 

Table 4-5 - Natural or Near Natural Frequency of Pools and mean width/ max depth ratio in Northern 

Great Basin Streams (Quigley et al 1997). 

Pools/Mile (all pools) Mean width/max depth 

Slope Class 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 

All 0.027 0.049 5.6 4.2 

<2% 0.027 0.053 

2-4% 0.029 0.044 

>4% 0.030 0.051 

Spawning Gravel Fines 

The reference level of fines for each particular geologic type has not been identified; however, analysis 

shows that a level of less than 30% fines is generally attainable in the top four inches of spawning substrate 

throughout the Fremont National Forest. In Antelope Creek, values were between 18.5 and 26.3 in the 

reference reach. Based on this information and values from Quigley et al (<25% fines) we can compare 

assumed historic condition and existing condition. 

II. Vegetation 

The best information available on the historic vegetative types in the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed comes 

from the 1946 and 1947 Fremont National Forest Timber Type Maps. While the terminology used in this 

historic mapping differs from designations currently in use, the information can be used to provide a 

comparison of historic and current forest vegetation conditions. The table below summarizes the information 

contained in the 1946 and 1947 Timber Type Maps. National Forest lands and adjacent lands are included, 

together, in the data. Similar data is not available for BLM or Modoc National forest lands, but the 

vegetative condition shown can be assume to also represent these ownerships. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 138 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 4-6. 1946-47 Vegetation Condition on Fremont National Forest 

Vegetation Type Approximate Acres % of Inventoried Area 

Ponderosa Pine - Large 39,400 17 

Ponderosa Pine – Small 8,200 3 

Ponderosa Pine - Seedling, Saplings and Poles 12,800 5 

Mixed Pine - Large 2,800 1 

Mixed Pine – Small 1,200 0.5 

Mixed Conifer – Large 5,900 3 

Mixed Conifer – Small 4,700 2 

Mixed Conifer – Seedlings, Saplings, Poles 8,200 3 

White Fir 80 <1 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland 13,700 6 

Lodgepole 100 <1 

Juniper 39,000 17 

Deforested 1,600 0.7 

TOTAL FORESTED 137,800 59 

Grass, Sagebrush, Brush 92,000 39 

Water 5,400 2 

TOTAL FOREST and NON-FOREST 235,200 100 

Forested Uplands 

Historically, the size, structure, composition, and spatial arrangement of the three basic forest plant
 

community types that exist within the Gerber Watershed (ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, western juniper)
 

were mainly the product of natural fire frequency and intensity. Other disturbance factors were locally
 

important, but fires were the main driver of composition and plant succession. Aboriginal burning in this
 

area was likely practiced but was not significant on a landscape basis.
 

Three important concepts of fire ecology are as follows:
 

There is an inverse relationship between fire frequency and intensity.
 

There exists a direct relationship between the degree of deviation from historic variability and the number of
 

“fire cycles” skipped due to artificial pressures. Skipped fire cycles tend to accelerate “biologic” plant
 

succession.
 

Not only is there variability of fire frequency and intensity between plant associations, but the frequency has
 

also varied over time (Agee 1993).
 

Ponderosa Pine 

Ponderosa pine forests are fire dependent communities. Denied a fire every 5 to 25 years, fuels build up, and 

probability of catastrophic stand replacement fires greatly increases (Stephen Pyne 1996). Frequent light 

surface fires with a low degree of variability characterized the natural fire regime for ponderosa pine. 

Historic fire return intervals of 1 to 25 years have been measured within similar watersheds. In other words, 

based on core sample research throughout the region, these stands burned on a regular basis with a high 

degree of predictability. Stand replacement fires were very rare. The average ponderosa stand today has 

skipped approximately 10 fire episodes and shows the greatest departure from reference conditions. 

1. Spatial Arrangement 

Naturally occurring fire maintained ponderosa pine type stands at different spatial arrangements on the 

landscape than exist today. Historically, ponderosa pine forests grew in clumps of even-aged, relatively 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 139
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

uniformly spaced trees, a condition that was sustainable in a fire dependent ecosystem. Fires crept through 

the understory consuming branches, litter, grass and forbs on the forest floor. Ponderosa pine tended not to 

expand out through the sage and grass communities as today. Looking at the edge of most grass/sage 

“meadows” there typically is a band of young ponderosa pine, 100 to 300 feet wide in front of the Late or 

Old Successional (LOS) ponderosa stand. This band of younger trees has typically encroached into the 

meadow as a result of the elimination of fires this century. 

Unlike the ponderosa invasion into the drier end of its range, ponderosa pine has been displaced by true fir at 

the wetter end. These stands are progressing in biological plant succession. In general, most of today’s 

mixed conifer plant communities, on all aspects below 6000 feet, and on south and west aspects above 6,000 

feet were dominated by ponderosa pine with a fire frequency pushing the higher 25-year interval. 

Ponderosa pine stands tended to be large and extensive across the landscape. Gaps and patches occurred at 

irregular intervals across these stands. They probably ranged from 1/4 acre to as large as 40 acres (Hopkins 

1993). Fragmentation across the landscape would have been considered low at the large scale yet some 

stands may have contained a higher degree of patchiness at a finer scale. Other disturbance factors had little 

effect on the large-scale spatial arrangement of ponderosa pine types. Due to the uneven-aged/even-sized/ 

low stocked nature of the canopy, these stands were highly resistant to large-scale mortality. Insect activity 

was light. Infestations at the stand level would have been rare due to the fact that the fire regime wouldn’t 

allow stand densities to grow to a high-risk condition. Trigger factors for bark beetle attacks would have 

been at the singular tree or small group level; i.e., lightning and fire scars or a patch of age related mortality. 

2. Size/Structure 

When John C. Fremont explored this region in 1843, he reported finding vast stands of timber typically 

described as “open” or “park-like.” There were few, well-spaced trees of mammoth size (Hopkins 1993). In 

general, the ponderosa pine types tended to have LOS, single stratum characteristics, maintained for long 

periods of time by low intensity surface fires. Amounts of shrubs and large down wood was variable but 

tended to be sparse. The multi-strata structures we see today couldn’t exist long in this historic fire regime. 

Though the stands where single stratum, there was a great variance in ages within the canopy. Pulses of 

regeneration would escape the understory in patches ranging from 1/4 acre to as much as 40 acres then 

maintain as co-dominants in the canopy. 

The ponderosa pine forests tended to look “park like” and carry much less stocking than the stands of today. 

It is estimated that these forests produced as much as 30% less biomass than today (Hopkins 1993). These 

uneven-aged /even-sized stands tended to be resistant to most other disturbance factors. Insect, wind, or 

disease mortality was largely restricted to individuals or small groups of trees. The larger gaps allowed shade 

intolerant ponderosa to regenerate. Due to the single-stratum structure, dwarf mistletoe was less prevalent. 

Frequent fires would have eradicated heavy infections and aided in creating gaps for regeneration. Root 

diseases would have been opportunists infecting the oldest and weakened trees. Their virulence may have 

been kept low due to the resistance of the pine species. Comandra blister rust is a little known pathogen. 

Ecologists suspect that up to 10 percent of trees exhibited spike tops caused by the disease (Hopkins 1993). 

This process helped maintain snag habitat in an environment where true snags burned up quickly. Ponderosa 

pine plant communities today exhibit the greatest departure from reference conditions. 

Reference Condition Seral Stage Distribution in the Ponderosa Pine Type*
 

Early to Mid (unstocked to small sawtimber) 20% (95% single story, 5% multi story)
 

Late (medium sawtimber and greater) 80% (95% single story, 5% multi story)
 

*Data interpreted from the 1994 REAP Report and the 1947 timber type map.
 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 140 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Mixed Conifer 

The natural fire regime for mixed conifer types is characterized by a highly variable range of intensities 

ranging from infrequent severe surface fire to long return crown fires. The associated fire return frequencies 

range from 25 to 300 years. Fires burned on an irregular basis with a low degree of predictability. The 

average mixed conifer stand today may have skipped 1 to 2 fire cycles. Wildfires today probably cover more 

acreage and burn hotter than they did in the past but inherent variability has prevented generalizations about 

fire and its ecological effects. In general, the mixed conifer stands have not changed as radically as have the 

ponderosa pine type. 

1. Spatial Arrangement 

In general, mixed conifer stands have expanded aggressively into the drier ponderosa pine. A patchwork of 

even-aged and uneven-aged stands result from the variability of past fire intensities. 

True mixed conifer stands tended to be variable in size but remained somewhat fragmented. Many of the 

mixed conifer patches were actually stands that functioned as ponderosa pine types. 

2. Size/Structure 

In general, the mixed conifer stands tended to be small and variable exhibiting a gradient of seral conditions 

across the stand as well as the landscape. The younger end of this gradient tended to be even-aged/evensized “pioneer” species such as ponderosa pine. As the stands developed under a naturally long fire return 

interval, they became more uneven-aged and multi-storied as the shade tolerant “climax” species developed. 

Vertical diversity developed as gaps opened up and shade-tolerant fir advanced. Stands tended to look 

“jumbled up” with complex structure. Reference period density is generally less than what we see today, 

although not as drastic (on the average) as what has occurred in ponderosa pine types. 

Other disturbance factors were more significant in the mixed conifer than they were in ponderosa pine. With 

longer fire return intervals, stands tended to reach target densities attractive to fir engraver and bark beetles. 

Mistletoes had the time and stand structure to build up to heavy levels. Root diseases would not have been 

present at current levels but would have persisted as opportunists. There would have been much more 

disease activity in the mixed conifer stands than would have been expected in the ponderosa pine type 

keeping in mind that much of what we recognize today as mixed conifer, functioned as ponderosa pine during 

the reference period. This mosaic of ponderosa pine/mixed conifer/fire frequency brought a certain level of 

resiliency on a landscape scale. 

Reference Condition Seral Stage Distribution in the Mixed Conifer Type*
 

Early to Mid (unstocked to small saw timber) 40% (95% single story, 5% multi story)
 

Late (medium sawtimber and greater) 60% (5% single story, 95% multi story)
 

*Data interpreted from the 1994 REAP Report and the 1947 timber type map.
 

Juniper Communities 

(Refer to the following Non-Forested Uplands section for a discussion of Western juniper communities.) 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 141
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Non-Forested Uplands 

BLM Administered Lands - (The “Gerber Block”) 

As discussed earlier, the BLM administered lands within the Gerber Block had an Ecological Site Inventory 

(ESI) performed on them during the 1997 and 1998 field seasons. The existing conditions, as determined by 

the ESI, were covered in Step 3. This section will briefly describe the best estimate of ecological conditions, 

by ecological site or group of sites, that existed prior to significant Euro-American settlement (i.e. prior to 

about 1865-70). These plant communities are what was believed to have occupied these sites pre-settlement 

and as such, are considered a relatively stable state assortment of plants that evolved on and with the 

particular ecological site. Since no specific vegetation information actually exists from the pre-settlement 

era, the current estimates of the Potential Natural Community (PNC) are based on relict area observations 

(i.e. areas that are relatively undisturbed) and the professional judgment of the ecological site description 

author(s). Some of this reference condition information was addressed in Step 3, since the ESI found 

portions of many major ecological sites classifying as PNC and upper late seral condition (see Table 3-24 in 

Step 3). Step 5 - Synthesis and Interpretation will compare existing conditions (Step 3) to the reference 

conditions (this section) and analyze the differences relative to pertinent resource objectives. Step 5 will also 

summarize the data from existing rangeland monitoring studies (where such information exists) to help 

ascertain the causes of undesirable differences between the existing and reference conditions. This will all 

lead into Step 6, which will recommend potential management changes. 

As noted in Step 3, one primary concept can be stated about what determines the seral stage or condition of 

most ecological sites in the analysis area, which is: The higher the proportion of perennial grasses present on 

a given site, the higher the seral stage and relative condition class. All of the non-pine ecological sites in our 

area were dominated by native perennial grasses, making up 40-70% of the community in the higher seral 

stages, which would include communities in PNC and the upper end of the late seral category (i.e. >65% 

similarity to the currently approximated PNC). This span of condition class variation is believed to represent 

the composition of the majority of the pre-disturbance vegetation communities. Wild fires, drought, insects 

infestations, wild herbivore population fluctuations, and other “natural” environmental pressures or 

variations would have caused some percentage of the landscape to be in a sub-PNC condition class even 

before Euro-American settlement. Impacts from the activities of Native Americans also caused localized 

suppression of ecological conditions, e.g. human induced fire and vegetation gathering activities. 

As discussed earlier in this analysis, the uncontrolled, heavy grazing pressures that this area received during 

the first 50-60 years of settlement (free-range period) invariably caused profound changes in the vegetation 

communities. The primary pressure for livestock induced ecological change was (and is) the selective 

preference of domestic grazing animals (cattle, sheep, and horses) for herbaceous vegetation - particularly 

grasses - over the more woody species like the sagebrush and juniper. Grasses were grazed heavily and 

season-long, severely suppressing their vigor and giving a competitive advantage to the less grazed or nongrazed plants. With continued heavy grazing pressure, the woody vegetation increases and the remaining 

grasses receive even more grazing and competitive pressure, accelerating their diminishment in the plant 

community. Eventually, the sagebrush and juniper dominate the site, and given the competitive edge of 

juniper over sagebrush, particularly the big sagebrush species, juniper can eventually overwhelm a site. In 

the absence of fire to remove the thick juniper, some sites can reach a stable, juniper dominated equilibrium 

that cannot be altered without large-scale artificial removal or catastrophic fire. Since early settlement, fire 

has diminished as an element in controlling vegetation ecosystem conditions, due primarily to fire control 

activities and the removal of the herbaceous vegetation by grazing, making the spread of fires less likely, or 

extensive. 

There are, however, some variations on the above themes that are thought to be at work in the Gerber Block. 

The naturally thin, clay dominated soils - which may have become thinner because of erosion during the 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 142 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

intense grazing pressures of the free-range days - appear to suppress or slow down the domination of juniper 

in most of the “old juniper” ecological sites; sites which comprise about 45% of the Gerber Block. This is 

not true in the deeper, loamier soil areas like the private lands along the edges of Langell Valley where 

juniper is dominant in areas which big sagebrush and bunchgrasses naturally dominated. 

In addition, most of the Gerber Block is at a higher elevation with a higher average precipitation amount than 

the lower lands to the west (Langell Valley), but not so high that conifers can dominate like the USFS lands 

to the east. This relatively high precipitation has allowed rangeland conditions to restore more quickly than 

the lower areas. Specifically, the average yearly precipitation at Gerber Reservoir (4850') is over 18", 

whereas the average in Klamath Falls is just over 13", which is about the same as Langell Valley receives. 

This extra amount of average precipitation is enough to equate to a substantial increase in vegetation 

response potential, compared to the lower areas. Anecdotal information persuasively indicates that 

vegetation conditions at passage of the TGA in 1934 were highly degraded throughout the area, though no 

specific data exists to quantify the levels of deterioration. The noted “wetter” conditions, in conjunction with 

the post-Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) livestock controls, are the primary reasons that 83% of the Gerber Block 

ESI classified as either PNC or late seral conditions. Given the high current condition ratings, there has 

invariably been dramatic improvements in conditions, albeit slowly, over the past 65 years. Conversely, the 

lower (<4700') and drier (13"-15") areas in the southwest corner of the Gerber block have not made the 

dramatic improvements that the higher areas have, though these areas are thought to have improved modestly. 

There are, however, differing vegetation types and potentials throughout the Gerber Block. Specific 

reference conditions (PNC in ESI parlance) are covered in the following narrative on an ecological sitespecific basis. More detailed information about each ecological site in various seral stages is found in Step 3. 

This section will be structured like Step 3, but briefer. Much of the information for this section is derived 

from the draft Klamath and Shasta Valleys and Basins (MLRA D-21) Rangeland Ecological Site Descriptions 

(USDA-NRCS 2000). 

A few general statements can be made that pertain to these communities in pre-settlement, PNC condition. 

They are as follows: 

There would be no exotic annual grasses and forbs present in the communities because they did not exist in 

the area until the influx of Euro-American settlers imported them, inadvertently or intentionally. 

Native annual forbs and grasses, like willow herb and annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides), would 

be minor components of the plant communities except in areas of natural disturbance such as recent wild fire 

areas or wild ungulate concentration areas in meadows or at watering locations. 

PNC vegetation conditions did not dominate all or even a majority of any given area during pre-settlement 

days, nor should it be expected to absolutely dominate today. Even in pre-settlement days there was 

inevitably wide latitude in plant community and species composition within each currently defined and 

distinct ecological site. It is the human penchant for classifying and categorizing that forces these plant 

communities into a relatively few, discrete units - communities which in nature existed and still exist on an 

infinite continuum of gradations. The ranges built in to the PNC species descriptions try to account for this 

latitude, but can only to a degree. In any event, the current ecological site descriptions represent the best that 

can be estimated of past, pre-disturbance conditions from this juncture in time. 

(Note: The species percentages (in parenthesis) in the following descriptions refer to its relative abundance in 

the total community based on typical year’s growth.) 

Meadow Communities 

Meadow communities total 2.7% of surveyed area. As noted in Step 3, the ESI did not specifically classify 

riparian/wetland type areas, with the exception of the three sites that follow. Another survey was envisioned 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 143
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

to classify the riparian areas to the degree befitting their importance. See the Riparian Section for more 

information on riparian vegetation. 

Dry Meadow (0.8% of surveyed area) - This site is widespread throughout the Gerber Block, but not in much 

quantity. At PNC, this ecological sites’ visual aspect would be dominated by silver sagebrush (10-15%) with 

the understory dominated by Nevada bluegrass (50-60%); both species a reflection of the seasonally 

saturated soils. There would also be 10-20% composition of other native perennial grasses and up to 10% 

native forb species. Yearly production could exceed 1000 lbs/acre. Juniper did not generally invade this 

ecological site due to the seasonally saturated soils. Fire occasionally encroached late in the season when 

conditions were typically dry and may have helped keep silver sagebrush as a production sub-dominate to the 

perennial grasses. Silver sagebrush is, however, an aggressive post-fire resprouter, so fire would be only 

partially effective in limiting it abundance. 

Ephemeral Lakebed (1.8% of the surveyed area) - This ecological site is also widespread in relatively small 

parcels throughout the Gerber Block. At PNC, this site was dominated by spikerush (60-70%), with a few 

other grass and grass-like species (rushes and sedges) present in smaller amounts (10-20% total). Twin 

arnica (Arnica sororia) and aster (Aster spp.) would be the primary forbs, though others could be present up 

to a total of 10% composition. Due to the relatively deep soils and ample moisture, this site typically 

produces 1200-1500+ lbs/acre yearly. These same soil conditions also make juniper invasion virtually 

impossible. Fire was probably a minor factor in the overall composition of this site, though likely did 

occasionally burn through in the fall, reducing the senescent growth (“thatch”). As with the other two 

meadow sites, fire was a function of the flammability of the surrounding upland vegetation types; i.e. the 

more the surrounding uplands burned the more likely the meadows burned. 

Semi-Wet Meadow (<0.1% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is an extremely minor vegetation component of 

the Gerber Block. This site is also seasonally saturated similar to the Dry Meadow site, but tends to be found 

as small inset pockets within larger upland areas. At PNC, it would be dominated by California oatgrass 

(75%) with a mix of other species like Nevada bluegrass, sedges, and rushes making up most of the 

remaining composition. Forbs may be as high as 10% and shrubs were rare if present at all. 

Shrub/Bunchgrass Communities 

Shrub/Bunchgrass communities total 31.4% of surveyed area. 

a. Low Sagebrush Dominated Communities - As noted in Step 3, low sagebrush is by far the most 

abundant shrub species in the Gerber Block; a function of the shallow soils. Four ecological site descriptions 

cover all of the non-juniper, low sagebrush vegetation types, though the first two cover 97% of low sagebrush 

classified acres. 

Shallow Stony 10-20" (18.1% of surveyed area) - This is the most common of the non-juniper ecological sites in 

the Gerber Block. At PNC, this community was dominated by Sandberg’s bluegrass (60-65%) and low 

sagebrush (5-15%). Common sub-components of this site include single-spike oatgrass (up to 10%), 

bottlebrush squirreltail, Idaho fescue, and bluebunch wheatgrass (up to 15% composition in total). Native 

forbs totaled about 10%, with a surprisingly rich species diversity (Miller, et.al. 1999). Shrubby buckwheat 

(Eriogonum spp.) was also common though usually <5% composition. Due to the thin soils (<12") the 

production potential is very limited, averaging 250-300 lbs/acre of growth per year. Biotic crusts were 

probably very abundant on this site and still are to large extent. Juniper was and is slow to encroach in to 

these sites because of the shallow soils. Due to the very limited production, fire is an infrequent occurrence 

in these areas, with a cycle that was probably 100-200 years. Even though infrequent, it was probably 

frequent enough that in conjunction with the thin soils, significant juniper invasion was rare. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 144 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Stony Claypan 14-20" (10.3% of surveyed area) - The Stony Claypan ecological site is also common throughout 

the Gerber Block, though more so in the higher northern and eastern portions of the area. At PNC, this 

community is typically dominated by Idaho fescue (40-45%) and low sagebrush (10-20%), with significant 

sub-components of Sandberg’s bluegrass (10-15%), single-spike oatgrass (up to 10%), and bottlebrush 

squirreltail (2-5%). Forbs can total up to 10% of the community and like the Shallow Stony site, can have 

rich species diversity. At the drier end of this sites environmental latitude, bluebunch wheatgrass can be 

common (up to 5%). Average yearly production potential is 800-1000+ lbs/acre depending on site-specific 

rockiness and soil depth. Due the relatively high production, fire probably exerted a significant influence on 

the structure of this community, periodically reducing the shrubs and juniper encroachment. Since this site is 

essentially a Juniper Claypan 16-20" without the trees and somewhat less rocky, it could be considered a fire 

climax version of that Juniper site. Conversely, if the Stony Claypan site were to avoid fire for an extended 

period and a significant number of juniper reach 150 years of age, it would be classified as the Juniper 

Claypan ecological site. 

Claypan 14-20" & Claypan Bottom 12-18" (1.0% of surveyed area) - Both of these ecological sites are found 

infrequently in the Gerber Block, but are similar enough to be considered together, as they occupy similar 

locations on the landscape. At PNC, both sites are dominated by Idaho fescue (30-50%), a mix of other 

perennial grasses totaling 15-20%, and low sagebrush (10-20%). The primary difference between the two is 

that the Claypan Bottom will have a significant component of Nevada bluegrass (up to 15%), reflecting it’s 

somewhat wetter nature, whereas the Claypan will not. Both sites have a diverse mix of forbs up to about 

10% composition and have a relatively high production potential of 1000-1200 lbs/acre. Since these sites 

have much similarity to the Stony Claypan (just slightly moister), fire was also a significant factor. 

Specifically, fire probably exerted a moderate to high influence on the Claypan site and low to moderate on 

the Claypan Bottom site, keeping the sagebrush canopy relatively sparse and limiting juniper presence and/or 

density. 

b. Big Sagebrush/Bitterbrush Dominated Communities (totals 2% of surveyed area) - Only one 

subspecies of big sagebrush is commonly found within the Gerber Block - mountain big sagebrush. Big 

sagebrush and bitterbrush, though common throughout the Gerber Block, are rarely abundant enough to define 

an ecological site. Additionally, bitterbrush was and is present in virtually all of the non-riparian/wetland 

ecological sites in the analysis area, though probably at levels somewhat lower than during the pre-settlement 

era (which is probably somewhat true of big sagebrush also). 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" (0.8% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is found sporadically through the center and 

northern portions of the Gerber Block. This site is co-dominated by mountain big sagebrush and bitterbrush 

(10-15% each), with a significant understory of Idaho fescue (35-50%), Sandberg’s bluegrass (5-10%), and 

other perennial grasses (10-15% total). A healthy, diverse, mix of perennial forbs was also present up to 10% 

composition. Due to the deeper soils on this site, production potential is relatively high and can reach 1000­

1200 lbs/acre. Fire was a determining factor in community structure, with frequencies estimated in the 20-40 

year average interval range. This relatively frequent burning kept the shrubs in check, because neither big 

sagebrush nor bitterbrush are adept as resprouters. Even more importantly, frequent fires keep the increase of 

juniper to low levels. Currently, encroachment of juniper and subsequent crowding out of site-typical shrubs 

and (to some extent) grasses is a major concern on these sites. 

South Slopes 14-18" (0.9% of surveyed area) - The South Slopes ecological site is found in the central and 

southern portions of the Gerber Block. At PNC, this site is typically dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass 

(40-60%) with significant amounts of Idaho fescue (Up to 10%) and a shrub overstory of mountain big 

sagebrush (5-10%) and bitterbrush (2-10%). A mix of other shrubs and forbs, totaling up to 10% for each 

category, would also be present. Juniper would be a small component of the community (<2%) at PNC. 

Annual production potential is 900-1200 lbs/acre. As with the Shrubby Loam site, fire was a primary factor 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 145
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

in maintaining community structure, with frequencies probably in the 20-40 year average interval range. 

(See the Shrubby Loam write-up for details.) 

North Slopes 14-18" (0.1% of surveyed area) - This is the only ESI defined bitterbrush site, though the Shrubby 

Loam site has it as a co-dominant. At PNC, this site’s aspect would be visually dominated by bitterbrush (5­

10%), with some mountain big sagebrush (2-5%), an understory of Idaho fescue (50-70%), and a diverse mix 

of other perennial grasses (totaling as much as 30% if the fescue is at the lower end of its composition range). 

Forbs would only make up about 5% of the composition, though overall annual site production would be 

high - 1000-1500 lbs/acres. As with the above two sites, juniper would largely be excluded from this 

ecological site by relatively frequent fires. 

c. Mahogany Communities - As discussed in Step 3, mountain mahogany is a common, though rarely 

a distinctly dominant species within the Gerber Block. One ecological site is defined by mountain mahogany 

- the Mahogany Rockland 10-20" site (0.2% of the surveyed area). Though this site is highly variable, in 

PNC this site would typically have mahogany and bitterbrush as co-dominates (5-10% each) with a mixed age 

structure of both species and little of the collapsing (dying) mahogany we have seen in recent years. (See 

Step 3 for more information on this subject.) There would also be a wide array of other shrub/tree species 

present, including mountain big sagebrush, chokecherry and Klamath plum, snowberry, serviceberry, 

gooseberry/currant, ponderosa pine, western juniper, and other species in lesser quantities, but totaling as 

much as 15-20% of the overall composition. The understory would be dominated by Idaho fescue (35-45%) 

with many other perennial grass species potentially present up to a combined total of 30-35%. Forbs would 

be diverse but only totaling about 5% of the annual production, which would range from 1000-1200 lbs/acre. 

Production is, however, largely dependent on the amount of rock present which can be high. This vegetation 

community has probably had a relatively low dependency on fire, as most of the shrub and tree species are 

killed by fire and both mahogany and bitterbrush are weak resprouters. However, fire may have been 

necessary to inhibit the dominance of juniper and/or pine, open the canopy up for bitterbrush and mahogany 

to reseed, and/or stimulate see germination. 

Juniper Communities 

Juniper communities total 44.6% of surveyed area. Historically, true western juniper potential vegetation 

communities have made up the largest single class of ecological sites within the Gerber Block. (See the 

Juniper section in Step 3 for more information.) 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" (15.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant “old growth” juniper site in 

the drier, southwestern and south central portions of the Gerber Block. The PNC areas are visually 

dominated by old juniper trees scattered out in a “savannah” type pattern, with an average of 8-15 old (>150 

years) trees per acre. The understory is dominated by Idaho fescue (30-40%), bluebunch wheatgrass (15­

35%), Sandberg’s bluegrass (5-10%), and single-spike oatgrass (1-5%). Low sagebrush would be 5-15% of 

the composition, intermingled with a diverse mix of forbs totaling up to 5%. Annual production would be 

moderately high - 800-1000 lbs/acre - though production is highly dependent on the rockiness of the site (i.e. 

lots of rocks, less production). Fire would have historically exerted a relatively low influence in these sites, 

as indicated by the presence of very old juniper trees, which are often 500-1000+ years old. Young junipers 

would have been relatively sparse in the old tree interspaces, as the competition from the lightly grazed 

herbaceous plants would have been intense. 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" (23.8% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant “old growth” juniper site in 

the moister, northern and eastern portions of the Gerber Block. This site was and is the most abundant 

ecological site in Gerber, making up almost one quarter of the ESI classified acreage. At PNC - which twothirds of this type is still today - the vegetation community would be dominated by Idaho fescue (40-50%) 

and low sagebrush (10-20%), with the overall aspect visually dominated by scattered old juniper trees (5­

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 146 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

10+/acre). Several other perennial grasses would be in significant quantity - particularly Sandberg’s 

bluegrass (10-15%) and single-spike oatgrass (up to 10%). Bluebunch wheatgrass, which was very common 

in the 12-16" site, would be scarce here, being found only in the driest landscape positions (e.g. south slopes 

or rocky ridges). Sites would typically have a diverse array of forbs totaling up to 10% of the community 

and site production would average about 800-1000 lbs/acre, again depending on the rockiness of a given site. 

As with the previous site, the presence of numerous old and very old trees indicates that fire has not been 

common in this site historically and must be considered a minor influence on community composition. 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" (1.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is found only in the extreme southwest 

corner of the Gerber Block. At PNC, this site would be visually dominated by a scattered stand of juniper 

trees, with patches of old trees intermingled with patches of younger trees. The understory would be 

dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass (35-45%), Idaho fescue (10-20%), Sandberg’s bluegrass (5-10%), with 

several other perennial grasses totaling another 10-15%. The dominant shrub may have been mountain big 

sagebrush in some areas, though in the Gerber Block, it is believed to be a tall variant of low sagebrush (or a 

hybrid between the two, as discussed in Step 3). Forbs would, once again, be very diverse though only total 

up to 5% of the yearly production, which because of the deeper soils would be relatively high at 1200-1400 

lbs/acre. This ecological site would be moderately dependent on and susceptible to fire as a communitydetermining factor. Because of the topography and/or surface rock, fires unevenly burned these sites 

resulting in the mosaic of young and old trees at PNC. 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (0.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site was newly described for the Gerber 

ESI in 1998. It is very similar to the following site except pine is absent. Since it is rare and probably a pine 

free derivative of the following site, the Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue site will not be discussed further; the 

following discussion will suffice. 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" (3.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the driest of the sites with a significant 

ponderosa pine component and occurs in the southeast and south central portions of the Gerber Block. At 

PNC, the visual aspect of this site is co-dominated by a somewhat open stand of juniper and pine (30+% 

foliar cover of larger overstory trees), with a mid-story of juniper and pine reproduction (up to 10% 

composition of each). The understory would be dominated by perennial grasses, with Idaho fescue (15-30%), 

bluebunch wheatgrass (10-25%) and Sandberg’s bluegrass (5-10%) being the most abundant. Shrubs would 

be primarily bitterbrush (5-15%), curlleaf mountain mahogany (5-10%), with minor amounts of many other 

species possible. Annual production would range from 1000-1200 lbs/acre with forbs being diverse, but 

again only 5% of the total. The actual composition and production of this site would have been highly 

variable and dependent on the amount of tree cover (i.e. more cover, less understory). Fire would have been 

a moderate factor in this community, periodically sweeping through the understory removing the shrubs and 

younger trees, but having minimal effect on the grasses or larger trees. Occasional stand replacing fires (i.e. 

fires that killed the bigger trees also) would set the burned portions of these communities back to mid/late 

seral for an extended time, until the shrubs and trees became substantially re-established. 

Pine Communities 

Pine Communities total 20.9% of surveyed area. Pine areas are more comprehensively addressed in the 

Forested Uplands section and will only be addressed here from the perspective of the Ecological Site 

Inventory data. One general comment is that both the pine sites are highly variable in plant community 

structure and species composition and quantity and cannot be particularly well classified by the ESI, as noted 

in Step 3. 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (6.1% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is a distinct transition between the true 

pine and old juniper potential areas. It is functionally a slightly higher and moister equivalent to the Juniper 

Dry-Pine site above and is found in the northern and eastern Gerber Block. At PNC these communities 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 147
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

probably had highly variable plant communities, but generally the understory was dominated by Idaho fescue 

(35-40%), Ross’s sedge (up to 10%), and various other perennial grasses totaling another 10-15%. Forbs, 

though diverse, were only a minor component of this site, usually comprising 5% or less the composition. 

Shrub species are diverse but comprising a widely variable percentage of the composition, though often up to 

45% of the total plant community. Species would be the same mix that would be found on the previously 

described Juniper Dry-Pine sites, with the addition of snowberry, manzanita, and snowbrush reflecting more 

precipitation. Annual production was in the 1000-1200 lbs/acre range but was highly variable depending on 

the thickness of the pine and juniper overstory, which would be at least 30-40% foliar cover. Pine 

reproduction would be up to 10% of the mid story composition reflecting the added precipitation boost to 

pine success, with juniper a minor component (up to 3%). Fire importance in this community would be the 

same as that discussed for the Juniper-Dry Pine site. 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" (14.8% of surveyed area) - The Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site is the most pinedominated site found within the Gerber Block, occupying the deepest, non-meadow/riparian soils. It is also 

one of the more abundant ecological sites. Though again widely variable, at PNC these areas were 

dominated more by trees and shrubs than by grasses - a function of shading and duff accumulation. The 

composition of perennial grasses was dominated by Idaho fescue (15-25%), Ross’s sedge (10-15%) and other 

species in lesser quantity. Shrubs were highly diverse with almost any species besides low sagebrush being 

possible. Dominant species would be snowberry (5-10%), mountain mahogany (3-5%), bitterbrush (up to 

5%), squaw carpet and manzanita (up to 3% each), and many others as minor (<1-2%) components. Annual 

production would be approximately 800-1000 lbs/acre, but with wide deviation from this range. The 

overstory and mid story cover of trees would total at least 65% and primarily of pine; juniper would have 

been scarce or absent in most of these areas. 

As with the prior two sites, fire would be of at least moderate importance and frequency in these sites. In this 

site, the fires would normally keep the understory fairly clear and understory production low - a “park like” 

appearance. Though infrequent, stand-replacing fires would allow the grasses and shrubs to be dominant for 

extended periods where annual production, in the absence of tree competition, could be twice the figure 

noted above. 

FS Administered Lands 

The ESI site descriptions would also apply equally to the Fremont and Modoc National Forest vegetation 

communities, as they lie within the same ecological province (MRLA D-21) as the BLM administered lands. 

Thus, no separate reference condition narrative is needed. 

Noxious Weeds 

All of the noxious weed species that occur within the watershed are exotic (introduced) to North America, 

mostly from Eurasia. Some native plants may have been undesirable to animals and/or humans, but would 

not have been considered noxious by the current definitions and standards. Therefore, these species were not 

present before Euro-American settlement, and the effects they have on species composition and relative 

abundance of species within invaded communities, and on the ecosystem processes that support those 

communities were not present. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species 

Little is known concerning the historic distribution of special status plant species within the watershed. 

Many special status species are naturally rare within the communities in which they occur, or are restricted to 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 148 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

particular, uncommon habitats even if they are abundant within those habitats. Species are classified into one 

of the special status categories when human activities alter relative abundance and species composition of 

plant communities or further reduce the abundance of uncommon habitats. 

The long-bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) grows in meadows, 

including low areas or drainages within low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) scablands. These areas produce 

forage that is attractive to livestock. Therefore, long-bearded mariposa lily has most likely been reduced in 

abundance and distribution due to the impacts of livestock grazing and other human activities. 

Baker’s globe mallow (Iliamna bakeri) commonly grows on dry hilltop sandy soils with little or no 

overtopping canopy, and seems to be adapted to frequent fire. Therefore, fire suppression, both directly and 

indirectly through consumption of fine fuels by livestock, has reduced habitat for Baker’s globe mallow. 

However, timber harvest practices that open the canopy in these forests may have partially offset these 

impacts to some extent. Overall it is likely that Baker’s globe mallow has been somewhat reduced in 

abundance and distribution relative to reference conditions due to the impacts of fire suppression, livestock 

grazing and other human activities. 

Profuse-flowered mesa mint (Pogogyne floribunda) grows in seasonal (vernal) wetlands characterized by 

silver sage (Artemisia cana). Therefore, under reference conditions, this species would be expected to occur 

in similar habitats throughout the analysis area. However, surveys of similar habitats in the Gerber area have 

not documented additional populations. The additional moisture produced forage that would attract livestock 

to these sites. Therefore, this species has probably been reduced in abundance and distribution relative to 

reference conditions due to livestock grazing and other human activities 

Blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus) populations, which are adapted to natural disturbance in the 

lodgepole pine forest type, were more than likely present in early to mid seral succession lodgepole pine 

forests in reference times. As the overstory canopy closes in, habitat quality for blue-leaved penstemon 

declines. Therefore, fire suppression, both directly and indirectly through consumption of fine fuels by 

livestock, has reduced habitat for blue-leaved penstemon. However, timber harvest practices that open the 

canopy in these forests may have partially offset losses of habitat due to other human activities. Thus, blueleaved penstemon may be present in abundance and distribution similar to reference times. 

Fringed campion (Silene nuda ssp. insectivora) is found in relatively deeper soils of the sagebrush-steppe 

habitat, often associated with vernal streams and washes. The deeper soils and additional moisture produced 

forage that would attract livestock to these sites. Therefore, although fringed campion is probably somewhat 

tolerant of disturbance, it has probably been reduced in abundance and distribution relative to reference 

conditions due to livestock grazing and other human activities. 

Fire and Fuels 

Fire was historically the major disturbance in the Gerber/Willow Valley watersheds and all the major 

vegetation types in this watershed evolved with recurring fire. Other natural disturbance patterns, such as 

insects, disease, and windfall, are often related to fire. Forest Service fire exclusion policies were largely 

effective starting after 1920. However, heavy sheep and cattle grazing in the 1800s and early 1900s may 

have reduced fire occurrence even prior to implementing fire exclusion policies (Beckham, 2000). A lack of 

periodic fires since the late 1800’s has resulted in high tree densities (25 – 50 historically; now can be as 

much as 400 – 1200 per acre), lots of in-filling with firs, and a fuel structure that ladders from the ground to 

the crowns. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 149
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

In the lower elevation ponderosa pine communities, which were dependant on frequent surface fires, historic 

fires occurred on 8 to 12 year intervals. Early Native American and nineteenth century settlement burning 

shortened this frequency to 2 to 5 years. Studies indicate historic fire return intervals in juniper to be 

between 10 and 25 years, but may be considerably longer on isolated patches of juniper. Vast areas of 

grassland burned frequently whenever early season rainfall produced bumper crops of surface vegetation. 

Range fires historically controlled the spread of juniper trees throughout the Great Basin. Fire histories are 

extremely difficult to determine in sagebrush, but historical fire return intervals were probably between 10 

and 50 years, depending on the site productivity. Even the high elevation true fir associations were shaped 

by fire, which occurred at approximately 40-year intervals in the Gerber Block (USDI-BLM 1994). 

The size of historic fires varied depending on vegetation type, elevation and slope. On level terrain, fires 

were generally small but numerous. Large fires occurred when climate or weather conditions were favorable. 

Larger fires were more typical at higher elevations and on steeper slopes. The dry climate of South Central 

Oregon retarded the biotic breakdown of dead material that accumulated on the forest floor, creating a 

continuous cured and flammable fuel bed. Thunderstorms ignited the fuels, which then burned under a 

variety of weather conditions. 

The vegetation on the forest floor was historically made up of forbs and grasses with pine needle and duff 

layers of less than 1⁄2 inch (typical fuel weight would be <14 tons/acre, including down logs). Historic 

accounts state that large woody material was essentially absent, being consumed by frequent surface fires. 

Snags were also subjected to the effects of fire, falling to serve as down logs (typically 50 linear feet of >12" 

material per acre at lower elevations). At upper elevations, where fire intervals were longer, fire events killed 

larger numbers of trees, which resulted in larger amounts of down woody material. Live trees were recruited 

by fire and insects to serve as replacement snags. Many green trees had dead “spike tops”. The “pristine” or 

“park like” look of the historic forest was often noted in writings of the past (USDI-BLM 1994). 

Stand replacing wildfires occasionally occurred in the past, but they were atypical for the geographic area. 

Fuel succession had a short time interval at lower elevations. Each fire consumed much of the accumulated 

fine fuel and there was little time for fuel to accumulate before the next fire. Large fuels were consumed 

progressively by successive fires. Natural mortality and downfall of old trees was slow and scattered. 

Where patches of old trees died, it was generally a result of insects and blowdown. Grasses and possibly 

some forbs were stimulated somewhat selectively. Gradual replacement of the dominant, fire resistant trees 

with like species occurred. Fires were usually not intense enough to kill mature trees. Fires spared 

occasional seedlings of fire resistant species, which filled in openings caused by mortality of dominants. 

Fires were frequent enough to eliminate most reproduction of less fire-resistant species. 

In the absence of naturally recurring wildland fires, the fuel on the forest floor deepens and needles become 

draped on shrubs. Shrubs become decadent, containing much dead wood. The volume of windfall increases 

and is accelerated by human activities, such as some types of logging and other silvicultural practices (i.e., 

precommercial thinning). Tree reproduction increases, often with species that are not fire resistant. 

Increased shade and wind resistance inhibit drying of fine dead fuels. The tree thickets themselves become 

fuel. Overstocked stands are more susceptible to the effects of drought and then insect attack. Mortality 

increases in the overstory because of an overstocked understory. Dead trees become aerial fuels that 

eventually fall and become surface fuels. Fire behavior changes while intensity increases. Fires under these 

conditions are likely to kill the entire timber stand, have a more severe effect on the site, and lead to evenaged forests (plantations). A fire ignition under dry fuels conditions is almost certain to become a crown fire; 

trees with fire scars going back 500 years are killed; soils are more deeply heated and damaged; many soils 

are made water-repellent by high heat driving volatile organics down into the cooler soil, where they congeal 

and seal; subsequent rains cause major erosion; and sites are seriously degraded as a result. These are fuels 

conditions far beyond the historic range, resulting in fire intensities, behavior, and size well above the 

historic range, and the risk of long term - if not permanent - ecosystem damage is high. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 150 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

The number of acres of major habitat types has changed from pre-settlement conditions. Water, in the form 

of reservoirs, has increased which, in turn, decreased riparian-wet meadow and shrub-steppe habitats. Due to 

fire suppression, grazing, and other management practices, juniper has encroached into previously sagebrush 

and grassland dominated areas, reducing the amount of those habitats for shrub and grass obligate species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Bald Eagle – (Threatened, Proposed for De-listing) – No historic information on Bald Eagle abundance and 

distribution exists. Roosting habitat was probably more abundant and of higher quality prior to 1945. The 

predominance of late seral and old growth ponderosa pine in open park-like stands provided preferred roost 

sites and were relatively stable and resistant to catastrophic wildfire. Habitat security for eagles and upland 

prey populations were probably high due to low road densities and lower incidence of human use (USFS, 

2000) 

Bald eagles and their nests were likely less abundant prior to the construction of the numerous reservoirs that 

provide fish and waterfowl habitat. Gerber Reservoir, where most of the eagles currently nest, was a large 

meadow at the time of settlement. Bald eagles could have been in the area occasionally, feeding on carrion or 

rodents. It was very likely that bald eagles used ponderosa pine forests and stringers on the western edges of 

the watersheds for roosting areas as they foraged on waterfowl, etc., in Langell valley. 

American Peregrine Falcon - (R-6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List; recently De-listed from 

Endangered) - No historic peregrine sightings or nest sites are recorded in the watersheds. In many areas in 

Oregon, peregrines populations were highly reduced prior to the ban of DDT in the late 1970’s. This pesticide 

accumulation caused eggshell thinning and had extreme detrimental effects on peregrine nest success. 

The quality and quantity of nesting habitat was probably similar to what occurs at present. Therefore, 

peregrine populations within the analysis area were likely historically low, as they were limited by number of 

nest sites. The cliff sites classified as potential nesting habitat may or may not have been occupied 

historically. The predominance of LOS open, park-like ponderosa pine stands provided only fair to marginal 

habitat for prey species (USFS 2000). Prey was probably common especially along meadow edges. Habitat 

security was higher due to low road densities and lower incidence of human use. 

Northwestern pond turtle - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - It is likely 

that pond turtle populations were historically low within the analysis area. Prior to the construction of the 

numerous reservoirs that currently provide potential habitat, the area was likely dominated by tributaries and 

various types of meadows. The Lost river system and Langell Valley to the west of the watersheds probably 

provided good pond turtle habitat. Turtles probably dispersed from the Lost River into the drainages of the 

Gerber and Willow Valley watershed. 

The average elevation of the analysis area exceeds the typical elevational range of northwestern pond turtles 

in Oregon. Historic population numbers were likely limited by this factor alone (Brown et al, 1995). 

Bats - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Tracking Species in Oregon) - Silver-haired, long-legged and 

long-eared bats likely had more robust historic populations in the analysis area prior to the decline of LOS 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 151
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

forests and associated snags. Silver-haired bat populations have declined in Oregon due to the loss of older 

Douglas-fir forests and associated snags. Long-legged and long-eared bats are associated with coniferous 

forests and cliffs; therefore, historic populations in the analysis area were likely only slightly higher than 

current numbers. 

The pallid bats population within the watersheds was likely larger and more stable due to its known 

intolerance of disturbance. This bat readily abandons roosts when disturbance occurs. 

Since the Yuma myotis readily uses buildings and other man-made structures for roost and maternal colony 

sites, populations of this bat may have increased since European settlement of North America. 

Great Gray Owl - (BLM Survey and Manage Species, State Sensitive Vulnerable in Oregon) - The 

geographic location of the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds may have historically been outside the range 

of the great gray owl. This owl is expanding its range in Oregon, taking advantage of openings within forests 

created by timber harvest practices. 

Big Game 

Mule Deer – Historically, populations of mule deer were likely variable. Mule deer were likely uncommon 

around the turn of the twentieth century. Historical accounts of the Interstate mule deer herd describe it as 

being small and scattered in the early 1900’s. About 1930, deer numbers began to increase. By the mid 

1940’s range damage due to deer overuse was noted. The Interstate Herd was estimated at 14,000 to 14,600 

deer in 1946. Reasons for the increase beginning in 1930 are not clear, but contributing factors probably 

include predator reductions, decreases in cattle and sheep grazing, weather variations, protection from 

hunting, and shifts in the fire regime leading to increased production of shrubby forage. Seasonal distribution 

of deer was most likely similar to what occurs today as deer traditionally use the same seasonal ranges over 

time. 

Prior to 1870, deer ranges in lower elevations were probably dominated by shrubs with scattered or clumpy 

distribution of bunchgrasses. Distribution and density of both curl leaf mountain mahogany and bitterbrush 

were less than what they are currently. Heavy livestock grazing and later fire suppression combined to 

gradually increase shrub densities on all seasonal ranges. Consequently browse conditions increased in 

quality and quantity. By the 1930s and 1940s, deer numbers had increased to a point exceeding carrying 

capacity on most ranges and forage conditions began to degrade. Poor forage conditions on seasonal ranges 

were reported in the early 1940s (USFS, 2000). 

Hiding cover prior to 1870 was probably adequate in most areas above 5,500 feet elevation, and poor over 

much of the range below 5,500 feet where more open ponderosa pine stands dominated. Fire suppression 

during the twentieth century has resulted in dense stands of mixed conifer and regeneration thickets of 

ponderosa pine increasing available hiding and thermal cover. 

Elk - No presettlement or historic information on elk population numbers or seasonal distribution in the 

watershed is available. Elk were less common within the analysis area before populations were enhanced by 

transplanted animals. Annual wildlife reports for the Fremont National Forest from 1926 - 1933 show no elk 

present on the Forest. Ten elk were reported on the Forest for the period from 1943 - 1945. Prior to 1980, no 

recreational hunting of elk was allowed in the Interstate unit due to the low population numbers (USFS, 

2000). 

Pronghorn Antelope - Historically, pronghorn populations were likely higher and more widespread. 

Pronghorn habitat quality, quantity, and security declined with the onset of heavy grazing in both upland and 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 152 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

riparian areas from 1860’s through 1945. High deer numbers on sagebrush ranges beginning around 1930 and 

wildfire suppression leading to juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitats accelerated the decline of 

preferred pronghorn habitat. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late /Old Growth Successional (LOS) Habitat 

General 

The abundance, distribution, connectivity, and quality of suitable habitat for wildlife species associated with 

LOS forest habitats and associated characteristics was significantly greater during the period prior to 1947 

than what exists under current conditions. The forested landscape below 5,500 feet elevation was dominated 

primarily by a contiguous late/old seral ponderosa pine forest. A lesser area of LOS mixed conifer forest 

occurred at the higher elevations, predominately above 5,500 feet. Average, maximum, and range of patch 

sizes were large and most of the patches were of high quality interior habitat relatively unaffected by edge. 

Large diameter live trees, snags, and down wood were probably more common on average than what 

currently exists. Late/old seral white fir probably existed only rarely as large area blocks because stands 

were constantly broken down by insect outbreaks and regenerated by stand replacing fires (USFS, 2000). 

Gaps and fragmentation occurred which normally consisted of areas of insect outbreak, burns and natural 

openings, but overall fragmentation was much less than under current conditions. The contiguous forest 

matrix facilitated species dispersal, colonization, and genetic interchange throughout the watershed. Species 

associated with LOS open ponderosa pine conditions were undoubtedly more numerous due to the abundance 

of suitable habitat. The exceptions may be the pileated woodpecker and American marten, which have 

benefited from the increase in densities and multi-storied forest. 

Northern Goshawk - Goshawks were likely more common in the pine and mixed conifer prior to logging. 

Nesting habitat conditions were more suitable prior to 1945 when contiguous open LOS forest matrix and 

interior habitat dominated the forested landscape. The preponderance of open, park-like ponderosa pine LOS 

forest cover and more area in mature aspen clones provided a greater abundance of and more suitable habitat 

conditions for goshawk nesting. A greater abundance of prey species associated with LOS forest cover and 

dead wood would have been present, especially species associated with the high cone production 

characteristic of open, large tree ponderosa pine forest. The smaller scale horizontal and vertical structural 

diversity created from natural disturbance within the forested landscape provided diverse habitat for prey 

species at more of a micro scale than the macro scale regeneration units present today. Habitat security would 

have been relatively high with lower road densities and less incidence of human use or timber harvest activity 

(USFS, 2000). 

Pileated Woodpecker - Pileated woodpeckers were likely more common in the mixed conifer in the higher 

elevations of the watershed prior to logging. 

Pileated woodpecker habitat prior to 1945 was more extensive and contiguous throughout the watershed, but 

was probably somewhat less suitable than what presently exists. Forest cover dominated by more open parklike, single story LOS ponderosa pine lacked the structural complexity (down logs, dense canopy, and snags) 

and densities of the more suitable forest cover (mixed conifer) that provides preferred pileated woodpecker 

habitat. Highly suitable habitat, however, would have existed above 5,500 feet in areas dominated by mixed 

conifer where large contiguous blocks of mixed conifer LOS with snag and down wood components intact 

were likely prevalent (USFS, 2000). 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 153
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

American Marten - The only known historic records of marten on the Fremont National Forest are shown 

below. 

Year Numbers 

1929 300 

1939 240 

1940-45 300 

Marten habitat prior to 1945 was more extensive and contiguous throughout the watershed, particularly in the 

upper elevations of the watershed, but was less suitable than present conditions. Forest cover dominated by 

more open park-like, single story LOS ponderosa pine lacked the structural complexity (down logs, multistoried canopy, and snags) and moist site conditions that provide preferred marten habitat. Also, habitat 

conditions for prey species associated with riparian areas deteriorated significantly between 1870 and 1945 

(USFS, 2000). 

Black-backed/White-headed Woodpecker - Black-backed woodpeckers were likely more common in the 

mixed conifer in the higher elevations of the watershed. There is no information available on black-backed or 

white-headed woodpecker for lands within the watershed for the period prior to 1945. Habitat conditions for 

black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers were likely less suitable at the turn of the century than those 

that existed 50 years ago and still exist today. The lack of large blocks of mature coniferous forest would 

have created marginal home ranges for this species on a long-term basis. The more prevalent, younger pine 

and mixed conifer stands lacked the snag and down wood densities characteristic of older stands present 

today. However, periodic large fires, disease or insect infestations that swept through stands of ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer would have created ideal short-term foraging conditions. Distribution and abundance 

of these birds would have shifted relatively often in response to these events. The single story, parklike LOS 

ponderosa pine stands that dominated the landscape provided suitable habitat except snag habitat was less 

prevalent due to the healthier forest conditions. Populations of black-backs were probably smaller in 

numbers, more stable, and less irruptive than what currently exist (USFS, 2000). 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat 

General 

Historically, the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds likely had substantially more acres considered 

sagebrush steppe habitat. The ratio of low sagebrush to big sagebrush dominated habitats was probably close 

to current conditions as past habitat alterations to both types have been similar. Big sage stringers containing 

deeper soil characteristics have been heavily infiltrated by western juniper since fire suppression. Low sage 

plateaus typically having shallower soil and more rock have also experienced juniper encroachment, but large 

juniper-free areas still exist. 

Sagebrush habitat within the analysis area probably contained some western juniper and/or ponderosa pine 

clumps or stringers prior to European settlement. However, the natural fire regime likely excluded extensive 

juniper or pine encroachment. Native forbs and grasses were more diverse and abundant as a component of 

healthy sage habitat prior to the intensive grazing that came with settlement. These large expanses of 

sagebrush steppe habitat probably provided for healthy and stable populations of sage obligate species other 

than the two discussed below. 

Western Sage Grouse - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Sage grouse 

population densities have fluctuated throughout history, depending on many variables. The only historic 

grouse information available for the Fremont National Forest is for the period 1938 through 1941 when 400 ­

1,600 grouse were estimated to occur on the Forest. No other information on historic sage grouse distribution 

or lek location is available for the watersheds. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 154 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Sage grouse habitat quality, quantity, and security declined with the onset of heavy grazing in both upland 

and riparian areas from 1860’s through 1945. High deer numbers on sagebrush ranges beginning around 

1930 and wildfire suppression leading to juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitats accelerated the 

decline of preferred grouse habitat. 

Pygmy Rabbit - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Pygmy rabbits were 

historically restricted to the northern parts of the Great Basin. Generally its range largely coincides with 

withy that of Great Basin or big sagebrush (Csuti et al, 1997). 

Prior to loss of favorable habitat to agriculture, over-grazing, noxious weeds, roads and cleared areas, this 

rabbit was likely widespread in suitable areas. Like any rabbit, the historic populations of pygmy rabbits 

were subject to major fluctuations for multiple natural reasons. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat 

Aspen in varying age classes was likely more common along riparian areas prior to the onset of livestock 

grazing and the exclusion of fires. No historical information is available on the occurrence of aspen forest 

over the landscape. However, it can be speculated that with more frequent, low intensity and larger, high 

intensity wildfires, lower coniferous stand densities, and higher water tables along riparian areas, the 

abundance, distribution and successful regeneration of aspen clones was likely greater prior to the era of fire 

suppression, heavy livestock grazing and high deer numbers during the first half of this century (USFS, 

2000). 

Red-naped/Red-breasted Sapsucker - More aspen in a diversity of age classes and distribution over a larger 

area would have provided more available and suitable habitat conditions for aspen associated wildlife species, 

including the red-naped and red-breasted sapsuckers. As aspen distribution decreased across the landscape, 

populations and distributions of aspen associated species also declined. 

American Beaver - No assessment of beaver populations prior to 1935 is available; however, beaver were 

undoubtedly more plentiful prior to Euro-American settlement. Fur trapping in the 18th and 19th centuries 

decimated beaver populations throughout the west. The effects of heavy livestock grazing from 1870 to 1945 

and later fire suppression on riparian deciduous vegetation adversely affected the quality and quantity of 

beaver habitat. 

Other Terrestrial Species 

No non-game or Neotropical migrant landbird species assessments are available for the period prior to 1945. 

However, wildlife species dependent on sagebrush stands with a diverse grass and forb understory, riparian 

area dependent species, and species favoring open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine undoubtedly had more 

suitable habitat conditions prior to Euro-American settlement and eventual introduction of livestock grazing 

and suppression of fire. 

Herptiles - Historic reptile and amphibian populations were probably more stable and robust. Habitat 

degradation, exotic species introductions and harvest are some of the factors that have effected herptile 

populations since Euro-American settlement. Healthy riparian zones adjacent to aquatic systems without 

introduced predatory fish and bullfrogs probably contained a higher diversity and larger populations of 

herptiles 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 155
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Osprey - Osprey were likely uncommon in the watersheds area because of the lack of open, fish-bearing 

habitat prior to the construction of the numerous reservoirs in the area. Lower Miller Creek and perennial 

areas of Barnes Valley Creek may have historically had adequate foraging opportunities for osprey. 

Landbirds – Since the golden-crowned kinglet, pine siskin, and pygmy nuthatch favor larger ponderosa pine 

and ponderosa pine snags, they were likely more abundant prior to settlement versus current conditions. The 

olive-sided flycatcher, which favors mixed conifer edges and burned areas, were likely also more abundant. 

Species associated with native perennial grasses like the Vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, horned lark, and 

western meadowlark were probably more abundant prior to fire suppression and excessive livestock grazing. 

Historic shrub communities dominated by mountain mahogany and bitterbrush likely supported species 

including the green-tailed towhee. Sagebrush obligate song birds including Brewer’s sparrow and sage 

thrasher were likely widespread in healthy sage habitats. 

Lark sparrows tend to be associated with habitats where there is an interspersion of shrubs and juniper. Gray 

flycatchers and associated with shrubs and mature juniper. It is possible that these two species are as 

successful today as they were under reference conditions. Bird species dependent on riparian vegetation like 

willow flycatcher, orange-crowned warbler, calliope hummingbird, yellow warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, 

black-headed grosbeak, song sparrow, and Lincoln’s sparrow probably suffered with the decline of properly 

functioning riparian habitat. 

IV. Human Uses 

Prehistory 

The Gerber/Willow Valley watershed lies within the territory of the Modoc Indian Tribelet called Kokiwas’, 

literally, “people of the far out country” (Ray, 1963). These Penution speakers practiced a semi-sedentary 

lifeway following a “seasonal round” of hunting and gathering. Thus they migrated to various locales as 

food resources became available in the warm months and lived in permanent village settlements during the 

cold months (Ray, 1963). Today remnants of their occupation abound, especially around water resources. 

Evidence of occupation appears in the form of rock features (i.e. rock rings [Figure 4-2], rock alignments, 

bedrock mortars, rock cairns [Figure 4-3]), rock art, and lithic scatters (concentrations of flaked stone debris 

and tools). 

Modoc ethnographic accounts describe a politically egalitarian society. Their material culture was 

characterized by mat or earth covered semi-subterranean winter lodges, twined baskets, and food processing 

implements such as monos, metates, mortars and pestles. They hunted with bow-and-arrow technology, and 

harvested fish with dip nets, fish spears, fish hooks, and traps (Ray, 1963). 

Their diet relied heavily on roots and grass seeds (Silvermoon, 1994). Before the construction of Gerber 

Dam, Modocs were drawn to the area known today as Gerber Reservoir. The reservoir was once a vast wet 

meadow supporting abundant camas (Camassia quamash) crops. In forest openings and rocky areas they 

gathered epos or ipos (Perideridia sp.) (Cannon 1984, 1985; Ray 1963). Mr. and Mrs. Orval and Bee DeVaul 

remembered Modoc elders digging epos and hunting “yellow tailed” marmots until the 1940’s in the Barnes 

Valley area during an interview in 1992 (Sobel et al, 1992). In late summer/early fall, they gathered seeds 

from tarweed (Madia glomerata), and balsam root (Balsamorhiza sagittata) by beating the plants with a 

tennis racket-shaped basket (Ray, 1963). 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 156 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

 Figure 4-2. Example of a rock ring feature. 

Figure 4-3. Example of a rock cairn. 

Fishing, hunting, and berry gathering supplemented their diet. They fished for shortnose suckers (Chasmistes 

brevirostris) at spawning times, trout (Salmonidae sp.) chubs (Gila sp.), various minnows, lampreys 

(Lampetra tridentatas), and collected freshwater shellfish (Ray, 1963). They hunted big game, such as mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and coyote (Canus latrans), and small game, such as rabbits (Lepus sp. and 

Sylvilasus sp.) and squirrels (Spermophilus sp.). They also gathered serviceberries (Ribes sp.), western 

chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and blue elderberry (Sambucus sp.) (Ray, 1963). 

The Modoc world view stressed interdependency between humans and the natural world. Humans were 

instruments of the spirits. Only shamans could wield spirit power, but prayer played a significant role in the 

Modoc religion. Sweat lodges served as prayer alters (Ray, 1963). They also practiced “vision questing”. 

Ray (1963) noted that a vision quest or crisis quest was sought during commemorative events or life crises. 

He wrote that, 

“certain crises in the life of the individual were occasions for observance of a quest involving fasting, 

isolation, strenuous artificial activities, and ritual bathing.....The basic ritual pattern was identical for 

all....The framework of the ritual was a quest in which the individual wandered about the woods and hills in 

areas isolated from human settlements. That which was sought in the quest was a prophetic and satisfying 

dream....[During this time] rocks were piled in a typical manner: a large one at the base, a somewhat smaller 

one surmounting that, continuing thus until the pile was as high as could be built.” 

Rock cairns, the physical embodiment and remains of a vision quest, are today found throughout the 

watershed. The Modoc also practiced cremation of their dead. Yainax Butte located along the northwestern 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 157
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

boundary of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed is religiously significant to the Klamath Tribes (personal 

communication, Gerald Skelton 2002). Ray notes that there was a Modoc summer village, named Ya’inaks, 

near Keno Springs, south of Yainax Butte, “where ceremonial and gambling activities took place” (Ray, 

1963). 

History 

Early Euro-American explorers never explored Gerber/Willow Valley because, as Beckham wrote, it “lay 

beyond primary routes of travel and exploration” (2000). The 1846 Fremont Expedition and the WilliamsonAbbot Expedition of 1855 traveled past the watershed to the west (Gates 1982). However, Beckham notes 

that a band of “free trappers”, led by Old Bill Williams, explored the Lost River region in 1843. Williams’ 

group confronted the Modocs in a skirmish at a spring someplace east of Langell Valley (Beckham, 2000). 

By the end of the 19th century, Oregon’s exploration era had come to an end and intense settlement spurred 

on by the Homestead Act of 1862 had commenced. The Modocs, along with the Klamath and Yahooskin 

Band of Snake Indians, ceded their lands to the United States in 1864. However, according to land claim 

records, Euro-Americans didn’t settle the area until 1875 (Beckham, 2000). Before settlement, a few 

traveled through the area via early emigrant routs such as the Applegate Trail of 1846. 

Commissioned by the South Road Company, the Applegate brothers, Lindsay and Jesse, and Levi Scott 

blazed the Applegate emigrant trail from Willamette Valley, Oregon Territory, to the California-Truckee road 

in northwestern Nevada. On the way the trail crossed just north of Clear Lake just within the southern 

boundary of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed. In the first year, 90-100 wagons followed the Applegate 

Trail to Oregon. Over the next 10 years the trail was rarely used and finally abandoned shortly after 1855 

(Gates, 1982). 

Before the Applegate Trail was abandoned, it was patrolled by organized volunteers and Army troops to 

assure the safety of emigrants from Indian attacks. Little fighting took place prior to 1852 when, as Gates 

(1982) wrote, “the Modocs, alarmed at the growing encroachment on their land, decided it was time to stop 

the flow of emigrants.” The events that followed set the stage for the future Modoc War that started 

November 29, 1872. The war ended with the capture of the Modoc leader, Captain Jack, on June 1, 1873 at 

Willow Creek, east of Clear Lake and just south of the southern boundary of the Gerber/Willow Valley 

Watershed. Before his capture, Captain Jack lead his pursuers from Clear Lake, California, north into 

Langell Valley, Oregon (within the watershed area), and finally back to California (Gates, 1982). The 

Modocs who survived the war were shipped to exile, first to Wyoming, then Nebraska, then Kansas, and 

finally Oklahoma. The Modocs that did not participate in the war remained on the Klamath Reservation 

(Adkison, 1998). 

By the turn of the 20th century, the new way of life brought by the Euro-American settlers was well 

entrenched and had brought significant changes to the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed landscape. The 

economic welfare of the settlers revolved around livestock grazing (i.e. sheep and cattle), thus the area was 

developed for ranching. 

Evidence of historic sheep herding is present in aspen groves throughout California, Nevada, and Southern 

Oregon such as Tamarack Spring in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed. From the 1860s to the early 1970s, 

Basque sheepherders carved arborglyphs or tree carvings into the soft bark of aspen trees. The Basque were 

emigrants from the western Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France (Mallea-Olaetxe, 2000) 

By 1935, the Gerber family, the first to establish a ranch in the Gerber Reservoir area in 1880, grazed 1,200 

cattle (Beckham, 2000). Another early settler, Jesse Carr established a ranch in the area of Clear Lake in 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 158 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

1875. Adkison, 1998) wrote that “by the time of his death in 1903, Carr had amassed a holding of 35,000 

acres.....Carr hired Chinese laborers who ..... constructed a stone wall encompassing 90,000 acres of public 

domain and other grazing land around Clear Lake.” This includes the southern portion of the Gerber/Willow 

Valley watershed below the stateline. According to Gerald Gates, Modoc Forest Archaeologist, Carr’s Wall is 

the largest enclosed feature in the state of California (personal communication, 2003). 

In the beginning, grazing practices consisted of annually allowing livestock to roam free on public domain 

lands and essentially fend for themselves. The burden on public domain lands mounted and tensions between 

cattlemen and sheep raisers grew into range wars (Bach, 1981). On occasion, the conflicts lead to bloodshed. 

On April 20, 1918, cattle drovers murdered sheepman O.T. McKendrie at Dry Prairie (Beckham, 2000). The 

need for land management began to be recognized. The Fremont Forest Reserve was established September 

17, 1906 by proclamation signed by President Theodore Roosevelt (Bach, 1981). The Modoc Forest Reserve 

was created in 1904 (Adkison, 1998). In addition, thanks to local residents concerned about rangeland health, 

the first grazing district in Oregon and the United States was established for the area in 1934, under the 1933 

Taylor Grazing Act (Figure 4-4) (Beckham, 1984). 

In 1946, Congress merged the Grazing Service with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). Since then the BLM has managed 112,000 acres of public lands in the Gerber/Willow 

Valley watershed (Beckham, 2000). Like the Forest Service, the BLM manages the land for multiple uses, 

including timber harvest. A few locals dabbled in commercial logging in the early 1900s. The Noble family 

established a saw mill on Goodlow Mountain in 1927 which was later moved to Barnes Valley where it 

ultimately burned in the 1930s (Beckham, 2000). 

Figure 4-4. Bonanza Grazing District map. 

Additional land changes came in 1925 when the Bureau of Reclamation built the Gerber Dam on Miller Creek 

as part of the Klamath Project (Figure 4-5). The subsequent reservoir became known as Gerber Reservoir 

(Beckham, 2000). Other land improvements (i.e. roads, spring developments, bridges, telephone lines, fences, 

stock ponds, corrals) existing today were built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. The 

CCC established a camp in Langell Valley called Camp Bonanza. Camp Bonanza managed projects 

conducted in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed area (Beckham, 2000). 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 159
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Figure 4-5. Construction of Gerber Dam. 

The interesting history of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed came to a climax in World War II, when the 

Navy selected the area for a gunnery range under the War Powers Act of 1943 (Beckham, 2000). For 

instance, targets were erected in various places within the watershed (including islands within Gerber 

Reservoir) and fighter pilots training for combat would practice their shooting skills. Practice bombs and 

50mm casings continue to turn up during archaeological surveys. 

Today the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed area continues to be a rural setting with emphasis on livestock 

ranching, limited farming, and commercial logging. 

 Reference Conditions, Step 4 160 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 5. SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION 

The purpose of Step 5 is to compare current and reference conditions of specific ecosystem elements and to 

explain significant differences, similarities, or trends - and their causes. Information from the previous four 

steps is interpreted. The interactions of biological, physical and social processes are explained. The 

capability of the system to achieve management objects is discussed. 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Uplands/Soils 

The WEPP erosion estimates and the infiltration test (Table 4-1) show that water in the forest is apt to runoff 

rather than recharge the soils, which enhances erosion risk. Gerber’s dense and mid-seral forest areas are apt 

to be the principal erosion source areas as opposed to late and PNC rangelands. This is contrary to the 

“effective precipitation” erosion model that was identified prior to the decline in forest ground cover 

(Biswell, 1989, Debano et al 1998, Satterlund, 1972). Probably the most telling and useful forest structure 

number comes from Aldo Leopold’s big game observation in the 1930’s. For elk habitat 60 percent opening 

and 40 percent forest cover was the optimum observed by Aldo Leopold and researched forty years later by 

Thomas (1998). It is instructive to learn that 60 percent opening were common habitat conditions in moist, 

rocky mountain forests. Similarly in the Sierra Nevada, Church (1912) identifies open honeycomb forest 

structure in Sierra Nevada in snow surveys in the early 1900’s. In Gerber’s semiarid habitats, 70 to 80 

percent opening and 30 to 20 percent tree cover may characterize the historic erosion limiting stand structure 

for single-story LOS (Late/Old Structure) in the Ponderosa Pine and Pine Associated types. 

The local opportunity or problem to balance forest overstory and understory for erosion control and humus 

conservation is part of a larger forest conservation issue. With the advent of extensive fire control in the 

1920’s forest understory vegetation began to decline. In an extensive photographic essay of historic vistas, 

Gruell (2001) shows the extensive decline in open forest structure and well-developed understory vegetation 

growth in the Sierra Nevada that is problematic in the entire eastside pine zone. Now rather then sustaining a 

beneficial open structure, wildfires have become lethal as western forests became thickets. In the recent past, 

a few percent of high intensity burn area was common in a wildfire report, now it is common to report a 

wildfire emergency with 30 percent or more high intensity burn. 

Altered forest habitats are one of the unintended consequences of fire control that yields regional losses of 

forest savanna and meadow habitats (Gruell, 2001). Forest ecological sites in the Gerber catchment are 

generally overstocked, so erosion risk is great. Forest habitats are composed of two forest structures the older 

and larger multiple-limbed ponderosa pines grass savanna and a younger fir and pine thicket, which have 

displaced the grass savanna vegetation. As overstocked forest without well-developed ground vegetation and 

natural forest openings, the most common forest condition classes are mid condition. 

Forest sites lack shrubs and grasses identified in Hopkins’ (1979) plant association guide and the ecological 

sites by the Natural Resource Conservation Service with the Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Resource 

(Soil Survey Staff, 2002). After forest fires, there is often a grass then shrub relay (Biswell, 1989, Debano et 

al 1998), so shrubs are considered later seral. The current prescribed under burns shifted the undergrowth 

composition to grass. Yet current grass composition is out of balance. Within the forest there is a lack of 

Idaho fescue, Festuca idahoensis, which is indicative of ineffective snow catch. So from a soil erosion and 

catchment point of view the grass composition and cover after the under burns indicate decline in soil water 

functions—the forest openings are too small to support the Idaho fescue, a key part of the ecological sites. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 161 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

In eastside semiarid forest, openings with well developed under growth sustain the desired high infiltration 

rates and spongy humus, which is a recurring goal in forest conservation (Rawley, 1994). And with a full 

complement of plants forestland and rangelands are absorbent wildlands with rough surfaces that slow and 

catch sediment. 

On the other hand rangelands identified in individual soil map units have recovered from consumptive uses 

of the early 1900’s. The majority rangeland sites (17 of 20 sites) and rangeland areas have high or late seral 

rangeland vegetation cover and composition. 

Transects across Gerber’s low sagebrush and western Juniper rangeland show abundant sod binding plants. 

Among the rock garden, there is an ample cover of grasses such as Idaho fescue, Sandberg bluegrass, Blue 

bunch wheatgrass and Onespike oatgrass. The biological production and diversity is evident in early spring 

with a profuse mix of forbs: Agoseris sp, cinquefoil, bighead clover, lupine, penstemon, and Yampa. 

Generally the northerly ecological sites in the Gerber drainage with frigid soil temperatures and snowfall of 

16 to 20 inch precipitation have well developed vegetation for soil catchments. Yet in the mesic soil 

temperature zone southwest of Duncan Spring that drains in to Lost River, grass cover diminishes from 

ample to acceptable cover of mid condition classes. But at the California state line grass cover recovers for 

late condition classes to the south; the contrast in Idaho fescue abundance across the state line fence is eye 

catching. 

Two grasses are associated with key parts of the soil climate and erosion processes in Gerber watershed. 

Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) abundance is associated with effective snow catch, which enhances 

coldwater recharge and limits erosion. Onespike oatgrass (Danthonia unispicata) abundance is associated 

with vernal pools and heavy clay soils. These shallow clay soils act as seasonal wetlands that are recharged 

to saturation by snow melt water then drain as the growing season progresses. Abundant moss and lichen 

cover aids the seasonal wetland nutrient dynamics. So with the re-establishment of sod plants, such as fescue 

and oatgrass, wind and water erosion rates are apt to be minimal. 

Generally the Juniper woodland rangeland ecological sites are too open to carry a crown fire. Yet the warmer 

mesic sites have had a few historic crown fires—such as the Bump Head from a Civilian Conservation Corp 

campfire. So erosion rates in the rangeland and woodlands are apt to be associated with low intensity ground 

fires. And with heavy clay soils, post fire hydrophobicity (water resistant soils) are apt to be minimal 

(Debano et al., 1998). 

Compaction 

Local opportunity or problem to balance forest overstory and understory for compaction recovery is part of a 

larger forest conservation issue. With the advent of extensive fire control in the 1920’s forest understory 

vegetation began to decline, which slows ground cover based soil recover processes. With the recovery of 

shrubs and grasses identified in Hopkins’ (1979) plant association guide and the ecological sites by the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service with the Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Resource (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2002), the compaction recovery after harvest is apt to be timely. Shrink-swell clay soils have a 

self-plowing recovery with wetting that improves the recovery rate from traffic or compaction. So grass 

ground cover and shrink-swell clay mineralogy contribute to native site recovery in these forest soils. 

Currently the compaction condition is moderate using a landscape example with a data distribution estimate 

and a conservative high/low estimate with finding values of 2% or14%, which are less than the 20 percent 

index in Forest policy (Forest Service, 1998). 

Compaction effects on soil-plant-water relations may be less in the future than in the past, with traffic effects 

with the movement to low ground pressure logging equipment and seasonal controls to limit optimum 

162 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

compaction mechanics. Forest cultivation as thinning from below for a historic large tree structure facilitates 

the grass ground. As historic forest communities are reestablished the fescue and oatgrass growth and residue 

cover are apt to be indices of soil structure recovery that is growing out of the plates as in croplands 

(Lamarca, 1996). 

Hydrology 

The effects of land management activities on watershed processes are complex and interactive. The spatial 

distribution of management activities varies, as does the timing and intensity of specific actions, making it 

difficult to determine the specific cause of observed or inferred changes in hydrologic or fluvial processes. 

That said, resource managers and scientists have documented the typical effects of common land 

management activities and the factors that either enhance or mitigate those effects. That information, when 

compared to current and past land use in the analysis area, provides insight into the “trajectory” of watershed 

and the processes. 

Grazing 

The hydrologic impacts of grazing are related primarily to the infiltration and runoff components of the basin 

water budget. Livestock grazing affects watershed properties by alteration of plant cover and by soil 

compaction from the physical action of animal hooves. Reductions in vegetation cover and litter may increase 

the impact of raindrops, decrease soil organic matter content, destroy soil aggregates, and increase the extent 

of surface crusts. These effects may, in turn, decrease water infiltration rates. 

At present, there is likely a larger percentage of the watershed exposed as bare soil than existed prior to EuroAmerican settlement. This is a result of the combined effects of historic range management, juniper 

encroachment, and ongoing livestock grazing. Large areas of BLM-administered land (those areas with low 

precipitation and shallow soils) probably had extensive bare ground historically. The role of biotic crusts was 

especially important in such areas. Bare ground may be increasing in areas that are currently experiencing 

juniper encroachment. 

As infiltration rates decrease, precipitation or snowmelt that previously might have entered the soil is 

transported instead as overland flow, or runoff. This may cause larger flood discharges, because soil storage 

is not accessible to absorb some of the water volume. Conversely, because not as much water is being stored 

in and gradually released from soils, summer low flows may be reduced. 

Increased runoff can increase upland sheet and rill erosion rates, resulting in increased sediment delivery to 

streams. Increased peak runoff can also increase stream energy available for bank erosion and channel 

incision. The latter may lead to gully formation. These effects are amplified when riparian zones and 

wetlands have been heavily grazed or altered in such a way that they no longer provide “hydraulic 

roughness” (such as resilient bank vegetation, woody debris, or channel plan-form complexity) to decrease 

the energy of floods. 

Diversions and Impoundments 

Depending on how and when they are operated, streamflow diversions can have the effect of decreasing flood 

magnitudes, decreasing summer low flows, or both. If diversions transfer flow to other streams, rather than to 

reservoirs, the opposite effects may occur in the receiving streams. Diversions that decrease peak flows may 

reduce soil recharge in riparian areas (due to decreased floodplain inundation), causing an indirect reduction 

of summer low flows. In general, diversions of the type occurring in the analysis area have a greater effect on 

moderate and low flows, and a relatively minor effect on large peak flows. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 163 
d d

Summer 

baseflow may 

be increased, 

winter 

baseflows 

may be 

Reservoi 

Downstream 

flows may be 

reduced by 

 Reservoir 

Summer 

baseflow 

reduced, 

peak flows 

unaffected 

Effects on 

summer 

baseflows 

depend on 

operations

 Diversion 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The two general types of impoundments (on-stream and off-stream) have different impacts on streamflow 

patterns (Figure 5-1). Because they are designed to store flows during the wet season and release flows 

during the dry season, on-stream reservoirs can decrease flood peaks and winter flows. During the irrigation 

season, on the other hand, reservoir releases can cause summer flows to be artificially high for sustained 

periods, especially when an off-stream reservoir is releasing water into a basin other than that tributary to it. 

Due to evaporation losses from reservoir and stock pond water surfaces, impoundments cause basin water 

yield to be reduced even if all stored water is released (Reid, 1993). The effects of flow reductions may be 

mitigated in some streams by contributions from springs, groundwater seepage, dam seepage, or tributaries 

(Williams and Wolman, 1984). 

Figure 5-1. General effects of two types of impoundments on streamflow. 

On-Stream Off-Stream 

Forest management 

Logging practices and forest management objectives vary by landowner and have changed over time. In the 

past, clear-cut logging and selective removal of the largest trees was common. Recently, management of 

forests on public lands has focused on meeting multiple resource objectives and restoring altered stand 

conditions. The effects of clear-cut logging were likely to increase early winter peak flows and the 

magnitude of rain-on-snow events. As clear-cut areas have recovered these impacts have been reduced. 

Dense stands have resulted from fire suppression and a lack of density management in young and middle age 

stands (see Vegetation – Forested Uplands section). These stands transpire more water than more open 

stands, and the lack of understory grasses reduces infiltration rates. While the stand structure and 

composition may not be affecting peak flows, these stands are causing reductions in water yield. 

Water use can be estimated using surface area calculations, since evaporation and transpiration (“ET”) water 

consumption varies with surface area. For easy comparison between grass cover and conifer cover surface, it 

is assumed that a circle represents an area of grass and a cone represents a conifer. 

Surface area of a circle = (Π) (radius) (radius) 

Surface area of a cone = (Π) (radius) (slope length) 

The difference in surface areas between a cone and a circle is the ratio of “slope length /radius.” For a mid 

size conifer with a 15-foot radius and 60-foot sloping height to treetop the slope length /radius ratio equals 4. 

This 4 to 1 potential ET ratio shows why tree density has such a great effect on water use. 

164 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Relative water use by trees and grass can be estimated by comparing the proportions of “cone” and “circle” 

surface areas across a given area. An acre can hold 49 cells composed of 15-foot radius tree cones or grass 

circles. In historic condition with 60 percent opening and 40 percent tree cover (Thomas, 1998), 20 of the 49 

cells would have tree ET cones in an acre. In Fremont National Forest stands with historic single-story LOS 

(Late/Old Structure) of old growth, Hopkin’s (1979) identifies 14 large trees per acre, which is about 30 

percent tree cover, or 14 of the 49 cells. In semiarid habitats such as portions of the analysis area, 20 to 30 

percent tree cover with well-developed ground cover may have characterized forest habitats. 

Currently, the historic proportion is reversed for 80 percent tree cover for a 20/80 ratio in some areas (the 

causes of this are discussed in the Vegetation sections). As stand densities increase, the surface area of 

vegetation (the surrogate measure of ET) increases. For many stands, there is 1.5 to 2 times more vegetation 

surface area currently than there was historically. The following table illustrates estimated vegetation 

surface area (“Evaporation/Transpiration surface units”) for areas with varying ratios of grass and trees. 

% Grass % Trees ET Surface Units 

80 20 76 

70 30 94 

60 40 109 

20 80 166 

Regardless of the exact ratio, it is very likely that stands converted from LOS conditions to dense young 

forest conditions are experiencing higher ET rates. 

With the addition of white fir among the pines in Ponderosa Pine and Pine Associated types within historic 

single-story LOS (Late/Old Structure) evaporation has a dramatic increase. Unlike Ponderosa Pine, which is 

able to effectively regulate water use, white fir has needles with little water regulation capability (Smith, 

1985). White fir has higher rates of soil moisture depletion than montane pines (Royce and Barbour, 2001). 

As a result, increased white fir abundance causes transpiration rates in excess of historic values, even during 

dry periods. The reduced extent of forest openings in many areas also affects snow accumulation (these 

processes are discussed in Step 3 – Hydrology). These changes have accentuated the impacts of increased 

tree abundance on water availability. 

Roads 

Because they are extensive impervious surfaces, roads can impact the routing of water from hillslopes to 

streams, and may cause peak flows to increase. In order to increase peak flows, roads must be hydrologically 

connected to the stream network. Road systems can extend the drainage network directly, via the road surface 

and ditch lines (Harr et al., 1975), and indirectly, via the incision of channels downslope from culvert outlets 

(Montgomery, 1994) and other drain points (such as waterbars). Road construction may require slope 

excavation, which can result in the concentration of subsurface flows on the road surface, further enhancing 

drainage network extension (Harr et al., 1975). Riparian roads quickly deliver precipitation inputs and 

intercepted subsurface flows to adjacent waterbodies. 

Juniper encroachment 

General Effects - The physiological characteristics of individual juniper trees and the structural characteristics 

of juniper stands may cause decreased basin water yield, decreased soil surface cover, and decreased 

infiltration. The onset and rate of transpiration in juniper stands may be early and high, especially relative to 

other plant communities that could potentially occupy sites that are presently juniper-dominated. 

Additionally, fast growth rates, dense canopies, and extensive root systems allow juniper to efficiently 

intercept precipitation and compete for light and nutrients (Eddleman and Miller, 1991). 

In concert with grazing, the competitive superiority of closed canopy juniper stands may result in a decline in 

understory vigor (Miller et al., 1999). If vegetation cover and organic litter production are reduced, 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 165 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

precipitation reaching the ground surface may be less likely to infiltrate and more likely to generate runoff. 

This, in turn, may cause soil erosion and decreased soil water storage. Together, increased runoff and 

decreased soil water storage capacity can lead to decreased groundwater recharge and decreased water yield 

(Eddleman and Miller, 1991). 

Annual water use by transpiration of juniper depends on water availability and site characteristics (elevation, 

soil properties, tree sizes, number of trees, etc.). Water use in western juniper is limited during the late 

summer due to low soil moistures and in winter due to low air and soil temperatures. Research measuring 

actual water use by juniper shows that water use is variable, but is in the general ranges of 4 to 10 inches 

annually and 0.5 to 1.5 inches from November through March (Table 5-1). The values presented by Angell 

and Miller (1994) are likely the most applicable to the analysis area due to the nearby study location and 

similarities in climate and stand structure. However, their study area has lower annual precipitation and these 

values may be underestimated for the Gerber/Willow Valley area. 

Table 5-1. Measured transpiration in juniper communities. 

Authors Species and State Annual (inches) Dormant Season (inches) 

Angell and Miller, 1994 Western Juniper, Eastern OR 5.6 0.4 

Leffler et al., 2002 Utah Juniper, UT 5.0 – 7.8 1.5 

Lane and Barnes, 1986 Pinyon-Juniper, AZ 2.7 - 14.2 1.8 

Potential Effects of Juniper Encroachment in the Analysis Area - A review of ESI data collected for BLMadministered lands suggests that the number of juniper trees per acre has increased (Table 5-2). These 

increases are evident for the six dominant ecological types (that account for 88% of BLM-administered 

lands) as well as for the ecologically important Shrubby Loam ecological type. 

The table was developed by summarizing Ecological Site Inventory data for BLM-administered land in the 

analysis area. During ESI field inventories, abundance of various size classes (such as “0 to 3 feet”, 3 to 6 

feet”, etc.) of juniper trees was estimated using categories (such as “0 to 5 trees”, “5 to 10 trees”, etc.). The 

“trees per acre” values in this table were calculated by assuming a mid-range value for abundance (e.g., 2.5 

trees, 7.5 trees, etc.), then summing those mid-range values for the two size classes (<12 feet and >12 feet). 

Synthesis of precipitation, soils, and vegetation data suggests that juniper encroachment (and subsequent 

increases in interception and dormant season transpiration) does indeed affect the availability of water for use 

by other plants, groundwater recharge, or streamflow. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize these relationships for 

major vegetation types and soil series. 

In general, juniper uses a substantial portion of annual average precipitation across large areas of BLMadministered land and thereby affects water available for other resources. As shown in Table 5-4, the 

magnitude of water use by juniper is variable, primarily as a result of varying degrees of encroachment in 

different ecological types (and their associated soil series). Water use during the dormant season is lower, but 

may still affect plant growth and soil recharge. Juniper also uses water during April, which is the period 

when other plants are just beginning to break dormancy. 

166 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 5-2. Number of old growth and non-old growth (encroaching) juniper trees per acre, by 

ecological type and condition class. 

Ecological 

Type 

(number of 

samples) 

Number 

of old 

growth 

JUOC 

trees 

per acre 

(range) 

Height 

category 

Condition Class 

PNC Late Mid Early 

Average 

# of nonold 

growth 

JUOC 

per acre 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

# of nonold 

growth 

JUOC 

per acre 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

# of nonold 

growth 

JUOC 

per acre 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Average 

# of nonold 

growth 

JUOC 

per acre 

(range) 

Number 

of 

samples 

Shrubby Loam 

16-20” (6) 

1 

(0-5) 

<12’ 16 (8-25) 6 >12’ 25 (5-65) 

PineMahoganyFescue 16-20” 

(15) 

2 

(0-5) 

<12’ 18 

1 

17 (8-23) 

13 

28 

1 >12’ 28 25 (5-40) 15 

Stony Claypan 

14-20” (17) 

<1 

(0-5) 

<12’ 2 (0-8) 9 6 (0-13) 8 >12’ 2 (0-8) 1 (0-5) 

Juniper 

Claypan 16­

20” (24) 

7 

(0-30) 

<12’ 15 (8-35) 

14 

13 (8-23) 

8 

13 (8-18) 

>12’ 17 (5-28) 18 (5-28) 13 (10-15) 2

Juniper 

Claypan 12­

16” (15) 

8 

(0-30) 

<12’ 11 (8-13) 

3 

18 (8-30) 

5 

27 (13-68) 

5 

19 (8-30) 

>12’ 22 (10-40) 13 (3-28) 27 (15-40) 21 (15­ 2

28) 

Shallow Stony 

10-20” (27) 

1 

(0-5) 

<12’ 0 3 5 (0-18) 22 15 (13-18) 2 >12’ 0 1 (0-5) 10 (5-15) 

Pine-SedgeFescue 16-24” 

(19) 

<1 

(0-5) 

<12’ 10 (0-30) 

10 

6 (0-13) 

>12’ 8 (0-28) 6 (0-15) 9

Table 5-3. Characteristics of major soils series on BLM-administered lands. 

Depth of A, B, and C ESI 

average horizons, or 

ESI Association with *depth (inches)to available water 

Soil Series major ecological types Surface texture duripan capacity 

Norcross Stony claypan (14-20); V. Cobbly loam 20* 2.9 

Juniper claypan (16-20) 

Devaul Shrubby loam (16-20) Cobbly loam 56 8.0 

Schnipps Pine-mahogany-fescue (16-20) V. Stony loam 49 7.3 

Bumpheads Pine-mahogany-fescue (16-20) V. Stony loam 34 4.6 

Pankeybasin Stony claypan (14-20) Loam 23* 2.7 

Dranket Juniper claypan (16-20) V. Cobbly loam 25* 3.8 

Woolencanyon Juniper claypan (12-16) V. Stony clay loam 12* 1.8 

Notchcorral Juniper claypan (12-16) V. Cobbly loam 22* 3.3 

Casebeer Shallow stony (10-20) V. Cobbly loam 14* 2.2 

Wonser Shallow stony (10-20) Ex. Cobbly loam 13* 1.7 

Benhall Pine-sedge-fescue (16-24) Cobbly loam 38 5.4 

Mound Pine-sedge-fescue (16-24) V. Stony loam 42 5.7 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 167 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Since it is based on estimates of average annual values, Table 5-4 does not account for interannual climate 

variability or the variable extent of encroachment in a given ecological type. The relative effects of water use 

by juniper on the growth of other plants are likely increased in dry years, since juniper can utilize water 

before other plants (Angell and Miller, 1994). 

Table 5-4. Estimated annual water availability and usage for soil series associated with ecological types 

experiencing juniper encroachment. 

ESI Soil Series 

ESI Average 

precipitation 

(inches) 

Dormant 

season 

Precip. in 

Excess of 

AWC 

(inches) 

Assumed 

Canopy 

Interception** 

(inches) 

Assumed 

Transpiration 

(inches)*** 

Water Use by 

Juniper**** 

(inches) 

% of 

average 

annual 

precip. used 

by juniper 

% of 

dormant 

season 

precip. used 

Annual Nov- by juniper Mar* Annual NovMar* Annual NovMar* Annual NovMar* 

Norcross 18 10.8 7.9 1.5 1 4 0.3 5.5 1.3 31% 12% 

Devaul 18 10.8 2.8 2 1.3 6 0.5 8 1.8 44% 17% 

Schnipps 18 10.8 3.5 2 1.3 6 0.5 8 1.8 44% 17% 

Bumpheads 18 10.8 6.2 2 1.3 6 0.5 8 1.8 44% 17% 

Pankeybasin 18 10.8 8.1 1 0.7 2 0.1 3 0.8 17% 7% 

Dranket 18 10.8 7.0 1.5 1 4 0.3 5.5 1.3 31% 12% 

Woolencanyon 15 9.0 7.2 1.5 1 4 0.3 5.5 1.3 37% 14% 

Notchcorral 15 9.0 5.7 1.5 1 4 0.3 5.5 1.3 37% 14% 

Casebeer 18 10.8 8.6 1 0.7 2 0.1 1.7 0.8 9% 7% 

Wonser 15 9.0 7.3 1 0.7 2 0.1 3 0.8 20% 9% 

Benhall 19 11.4 6.0 1.5 1 6 0.5 7.5 1.5 39% 13% 

Mound 19 11.4 5.7 1.5 1 6 0.5 7.5 1.5 39% 13% 

Notes: *For the analysis area, the dormant season generally occurs from November through March. Approximately 60 percent of
 

annual precipitation occurs during this period;
 

**adjusted from Bedell et al, 1993;
 

***Derived from review of Angell and Miller (1994) and site characteristics in the analysis area;
 

****sum of canopy intercerption and transpiration. (Based on literature review and ecological surveys of non-old growth 

juniper.) 

Juniper Removal 

Studies carries out in the southwestern United States suggest that juniper removal appears to have a marginal 

affect on basin water yield (Collings and Myrick, 1966; Schmidt, 1987). Treatment effects are highly 

variable, and depend not only on the type and extent of treatment applied, but on the past, present, and future 

management of the site. After juniper is removed, the vegetation that remains or becomes re-established 

following treatment may increase in size, density, or cover and can use up any “savings” realized (Pyke, 

1994). Conversely, there is anecdotal information suggesting that flow from springs can increase after 

removal of juniper around the spring source. 

The beneficial impacts of juniper treatment are likely most profound at the scale of hillslopes and small 

catchments. Recovery of herbaceous plant communities following juniper removal can lead to an increased 

supply of organic litter, decreased exposure of bare soil, increased infiltration capacity, and decreased runoff 

generation and erosion potential. The recovery of soil surface cover and infiltration rates following treatment 

is affected by site-specific factors such as soil texture, slope, aspect, and soil condition. 

168 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The methods used to manage juniper can have detrimental effects on watershed processes. If mechanical 

treatments are employed, the risk of compaction in some areas may be high, especially if cut juniper is 

gathered and removed. The same can be said for the risk of soil displacement. If cut juniper is burned or 

otherwise removed, nutrient loss can occur. Shrub and grass communities may be damaged, at least in the 

short term, by mechanical treatments, gathering, and burning. 

Prescribed fire 

Through the removal of organic litter and living plants, prescribed fire can directly affect infiltration, 

interception, and transpiration rates, as well as soil water storage and snow melt processes, and therefore has 

an indirect effect on runoff rates and water yield. The type and magnitude of fire effects on hydrologic 

processes depends on the extent and intensity of the burn, proximity of stream channels, soil characteristics, 

and slope gradient and aspect. The effects of low-severity prescribed fires are likely less profound and less 

persistent than the effects of large wildfires. The cumulative effects of fire and the effects on burning in 

riparian areas have not been adequately assessed (DeBano et al., 1996). 

In general, short-term increases in runoff and water yield can be expected following fire. Loss of living plants 

reduces transpiration rates, and the loss of living and dead plant material reduces interception and infiltration. 

Reduced transpiration demand increases the amount of water stored in the soil, thereby making more water 

available for groundwater recharge and streamflow (DeBano et al., 1996). Decreased canopy cover following 

severe fires can lead to decreased canopy snow interception, melt, and sublimation, making snow 

accumulation more likely. Intense fires can cause hydrophobic (water repellent) organic compounds to 

develop within soils, thereby decreasing infiltration in sandy soils. The short-term impacts are balanced by 

improved understory vigor. 

In ponderosa pine forests, runoff typically increases following fires, and may remain elevated for two to 15 

years, with higher intensity burns having more persistent effects (DeBano et al., 1996). In a study of fire 

effects in shrub- and grass-dominated areas, Hester and others (1997) found that infiltration rates decreased 

following prescribed burns in juniper, oak, bunchgrass, and shortgrass sites. This was attributed to loss of 

organic matter cover, development of impermeable soil crusts as a result of raindrop splash, and development 

of hydrophobic layers. 

In all types of vegetation communities, hillslope transport of sediment and nutrients increases following fire 

(DeBano et al., 1996; Hester et al., 1997). This is a consequence of decreased ground cover and increased 

runoff. Minor post-burn increases in nutrient concentrations are due to the movement of nutrients adsorbed to 

sediment and processes of volatization and nitrification (Gottfried and DeBano, 1988). As with runoff, 

enhanced sediment and nutrient yields diminish over a relatively short recovery period. 

Hillslope soil loss 

Upland soils play important roles in storing and releasing infiltrated water. The pore space of soils (the 

volume between soil particles) can hold water during wet periods and release water during dry periods. Such 

soil storage is lost when soils are compacted or eroded. 

As discussed in elsewhere in regards to soils and watershed processes, those land management activities that 

affect infiltration rates can also affect surface runoff, which in turn affects erosion rates. In steep portions of 

the landscape, or where soils are shallow, land management activities may cause substantial soil loss. Soil 

compaction can occur as a result of roads, skid trails, and concentrated livestock passage. Due to its 

amorphous structure, organic matter, or humus, has an important role in soil water storage. The loss of soil 

organic matter, either through grazing or increased stand density (over the long term) or burning can decrease 

infiltration or water storage. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 169 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Recovery rates of soil water storage are variable. Storage lost as a result of erosion may require 

reestablishment of soil horizons, a long-term proposition, at best, in semi-arid regions. The effects of 

compaction and organic matter depletion may be felt for many decades. As discussed in the Soils section, 

recovery from compaction is variable. Reduced utilization in rangelands allows organic matter to accumulate, 

at rates commensurate with the reduction in use. 

Channel and valley floor morphology 

Channel cross-section form adjusts to changes in streamflow caused by climatic or anthropogenic alterations 

to the watershed hydrologic cycle. Altered cross-section form can itself affect hydrologic processes, 

particularly with regards to channel-floodplain interactions and streamflow-groundwater interactions. The 

same can be said for altered riparian zones, floodplains, and wetlands, as well as the loss of beaver activity 

that causes flooding. 

Incised, over-widened, or straightened channels may have sufficient cross-sectional area to convey floods 

that might have otherwise overflowed onto floodplains. As a result, flood energy is concentrated within the 

stream channel rather than being dissipated across the floodplain, causing further channel widening or 

incision. Reduced floodplain wetting can create conditions unfavorable for riparian plant communities, such 

that less bank stabilization, vegetative roughness, and woody debris is available to slow future floods and 

reduce bank erosion. 

In alluvial valley bottoms such as are common in the analysis area, the stream water surface is generally 

equivalent to the local water table depth. Incised streams may “drain” the water table, thus reducing the 

amount of water available for slow release as summer baseflow. Channelization of wetlands has a similar 

effect, as well as the effect of potentially reducing the capability the hydrologic system to dampen flood 

peaks and recharge soil water storage. 

Riparian exclosures and riparian pastures are managed to control the detrimental effects of cattle grazing on 

riparian vegetation and streambank stability. Other strategies, such as early spring grazing, are also used to 

limit damage to riparian vegetation. Degraded vegetation communities may respond beneficially to ripariansensitive management relatively quickly (e.g., Kauffman et al., 2000). Channel response to riparian-sensitive 

management varies. Exclosed areas tend to have more stable banks but channel properties and watershed 

processes may limit recovery of pool depth, substrate, and width to depth ratios. Recovery of pool depths 

may be limited by pool filling caused by upstream sedimentation and by the time required for riparian trees 

to grow and be recruited into the stream channel. Floods may impair bank stability improvements in areas 

that are recovering from previous grazing damage (Myers and Swanson, 1996). 

Stream Channels 

1. Channel Shape and Bank Stability 

Effects of Land Management 

The current shape of stream channels is a reflection of changes in features and processes that occur at broad 

scales (riparian vegetation, runoff patterns), small-scale human-caused alterations that affect 

disproportionately large areas (dams, roads, etc.), or both. Stream networks in the analysis area have incised 

and widened during the historic period. The proportion of the stream network comprised of narrow, sinuous, 

deep channels that are well connected to their floodplains has been reduced. The proportion of wide, 

straight, shallow streams that do not interact with substantial floodplains has increased. 

Streams flowing through meadow areas with deep soils were most vulnerable to these adjustments. Because 

of structural features (bedrock, large boulders) that provide vertical and lateral stability, streams that flow 

170 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

through confined areas have not adjusted as much as have streams that flow through more open settings. The 

presence of basalt fields under valley-fill sediments appears to have prevented channel incision below five or 

six feet (and at shallower depths in many locations). 

During the historic period, intensive livestock use resulted in decreased bank stability. These impacts were 

aggravated by other disturbances to stream banks, such as channel realignment at bridges or culverts and 

tractor yarding in riparian areas. Inadequately designed road-stream crossings can alter channel hydraulics 

directly (by requiring channel realignment – such as occurred at Rock Creek and Pitch Log Creek) or 

indirectly (by concentrating flows within culverts or under bridges, rather than allowing peak flows to spread 

out across floodplains). Bank stability in stream reaches that are seasonally inundated under reservoirs is 

reduced due to the limited amount of vegetation that can grow in such conditions. 

Livestock grazing and other management activities occurring throughout this period also affected watershed 

hydrologic processes in ways that led to increased peak flows that had greater potential to erode stream 

banks. When vegetation is lacking along an E stream type, lateral (bank) and vertical (downcutting) erosion 

may lead to progressive stages of channel adjustment, resulting in altered channel dimension, pattern, and 

profile. As a result of the bank erosion and downcutting, the channel becomes wider and shallower, resulting 

in a higher width/depth ratio (a conversion from an E to C stream type). During downcutting events, the 

channel becomes an incised gully, straighter and steeper than the original channel—a G stream type. In 

doing so, the channel abandons its original floodplain, resulting in a lowered water table. In seeking to 

establish a new “base level,” gullies can migrate upstream and downstream as a consequence of flow 

hydraulics over headcuts. 

Although rates of downcutting eventually subside, lateral erosion continues because flood energies are 

confined within the incised channel. As vertical banks are undercut and erode, the width-to-depth ratio 

continues to increase, creating a wide, shallow, and entrenched stream with no floodplain (an F stream type). 

The lateral erosion will continue until a floodplain is developed that is wide enough to dissipate flood 

energies. The development of a floodplain will only occur with good riparian vegetation that is resistant to 

flows and able to trap sediments and build banks. This will continue until the stream reaches a condition 

where it is naturally stable and in balance with the landscape setting. At this desired state (an E stream type), 

the stream is able to accommodate the flow and sediment produced by its watershed while maintaining its 

dimension, pattern and profile. 

The magnitude of changes in channel shape due to land management varies, and not all streams are at the 

same stage in channel evolution. To a large degree, current land management practices are reversing past 

trends, and stream channels are beginning to stabilize. Recovery of channel form and processes will take 

many decades, however, as streams must create “meander widths” sufficient to accommodate peak flows and 

channel migration. This is accomplished by bank erosion, which is actively occurring. In upper watershed 

areas, downstream effects of channel incision are still being felt, and combine with watershed changes (roads 

and juniper encroachment) to increase fluvial erosion and gully development. 

Effects of Dams and Reservoirs 

The patterns of channel response upstream and downstream of large dams and reservoirs (Gerber and Willow 

Valley) within the analysis area reflect processes in addition to those described above. Channel responses are 

determined partly by valley width and gradient, substrate material, and the depth, seasonality, and duration of 

inundation (by reservoirs or augmented streamflows). 

Streams tributary to reservoirs with water levels that vary over a wide range typically transform into C and F 

stream types over time. Riparian vegetation can become established in the areas of tributary streams that are 

subject to relatively shallow (and short duration) inundation (see Figure 5-2). Bed load sediment transported 

by streams is deposited preferentially in these areas when reservoir water levels are high. Due to the bank 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 171 
 Stream Channel 

Shallow, short duration, drawdown 

by early summer 

Deeper, longer duration, drawdown 

between early summer and fall 

Deep, long duration, exposed in dry 

water years 

General Inundation Pattern 

Barnes Valley 

Creek 

Casebeer 

Creek 

Unvegetated, Fine 

Grained 

Finer textured, shallow-rooted 

perennials and annuals 

F and C stream types 

Coarser textured, deeperrooted shrubs and grasses 

C and F stream types 

Average High Water 

Average Low Water Headcut, barrier, 

or natural grade 

control feature 

B. 

A. 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

stability provided by riparian vegetation and point bar development associated with deposited material, C 

stream types can develop in these areas. Headcuts migrating upstream from degraded downstream reaches 

could eventually affect these areas. 

Figure 5-2. Generalized plane views (A) and longitudinal profiles (B) of channel and riparian features 

associated with varying reservoir inundation. 

In areas where water depths during the growing season exceed a few feet, perennial vegetation cannot persist 

and riparian areas become dominated by species that provide little bank stability. These areas are exposed to 

high flows during the late winter or early spring (when reservoir water surface levels are fairly low). 

Historically, it is probable that headcuts migrated upstream through these channels, lowering the channel 

grade and causing subsequent channel widening and development of F stream types. Because these areas 

have lower energy gradients (due to inundation) than upstream areas, fine sediments are a larger proportion 

of bed material, further degrading habitat quality. 

The effects of Gerber Dam and Willow Valley Dam on streamflows, riparian vegetation, and bedload 

transport shape channel processes in Miller Creek and the East Branch of the Lost River. As discussed 

above, annual high flows in these streams typically occur in the summer months (except in years when spill 

occurs). These flows cover wide portions of the stream channel, preventing the establishment and growth of 

172 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

riparian vegetation. When peak flows (in excess of irrigation deliveries) are released (during periods when 

reservoir capacity is exceeded), bank erosion occurs due to the lack of riparian vegetation. In the upper 

portion of these streams, sediment moved downstream by bank erosion and other transport processes is not 

replenished at the same rate it is removed, since the dams trap bedload (and, to a lesser degree, clay and silt) 

from upstream sources. The downstream extent of these effects and the associated “bed armoring” (the 

dominance of coarse cobbles and boulders over finer gravels and sands) is not known. These effects likely 

occur even though the magnitude and duration of peak flows has been reduced. If larger peak flows were to 

occur, silt might be flushed from the system and the supply of sand and gravel replenished, at least 

temporarily. 

2. Bed Material 

Two general types of changes in the character of bed materials can be inferred: (1) the proportion of fine 

particles (silt, clay, and sand) has increased, and (2) the proportion of large materials (cobbles and boulders) 

has increased. The distribution of gravel is therefore diminished. 

Fine Particles - The increased abundance of fine particles can be attributed to two main sources – bank 

erosion and delivery of eroded materials from uplands. Historic livestock use and other management impacts 

set the stage for increased rates of bank erosion as a consequence of bank disturbance and over-utilization or 

removal of riparian vegetation. As discussed above, these impacts set in motion a chain of events that led to 

channel incision and subsequent re-development of meander belts (which occurs through bank erosion and 

channel widening). This channel evolution process is still ongoing (and is in fairly early stages in some 

areas) and will be for quite some time. In addition, heavy livestock use along streams in some portions of the 

analysis area continues to contribute to the supply of fine sediment. 

Upland sediments are supplied to streams via ephemeral hillslope channels, gullies, and roads. A number of 

processes are responsible for increased in sediment production from hillslopes. As discussed in the Uplands 

and Hydrology sections, reduced infiltration rates and other impacts have caused runoff generation to occur 

quicker and more frequently. Increased runoff caused increased rill erosion and gully development. This is 

especially true in areas in which the extent of bare ground has increased (due to juniper encroachment, heavy 

livestock utilization, high intensity fire, etc.) (Buckhouse and Mattison 1980; Buckhouse and Gaither 1982; 

NRCS 2001). 

Road networks also supply fine sediment to streams. As discussed in the Water Quality – Step 3 section, 

there are nearly 700 road drainage features that connect road segments to streams. These connections are 

pathways for sediment delivery. In addition, the road network affects sediment delivery indirectly, by 

concentrating flow paths and, in some cases, helping initiate gully development. 

Coarse Materials - For moderate and high gradient streams (A, B, and C stream types), high proportion of 

cobbles and boulders are a reflection of landscape characteristics and stream energies capable of transporting 

smaller material. In lower gradient channels found in open valleys, however, the high proportion of these 

materials in some F stream types appears to be related to channel changes caused by watershed alterations. 

These streams have incised into alluvial valley-fill materials that had accumulated on top of basalt flows that 

are much coarser than the overlying sediments. The basalt layer prevented further incision and is now 

expressed over extensive portions of stream channels, especially in Pitch Log, Long Branch, and Barnes 

Valley Creek. 

In Miller Creek, the large bed material size in the lower reach is due primarily to the steep walled canyon 

setting. The upper reach has a lower gradient, and therefore a higher proportion of finer material. There is 

anecdotal evidence that reductions in the supply of bedload due to Gerber Dam are reflected in the 

composition of stream substrates in the upper reaches of Miller Creek. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 173 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

4. Large Woody Debris 

The input rate and character of LWD is changed by land management activities. Logging near streams 

(within one site potential tree height) can reduce the long-term supply of LWD, especially if large 

proportions of large diameter trees are removed and stand densities are not managed to ensure the 

regeneration of large trees. Changes in forest composition (in terms of species and structure) due to fire 

suppression or other factors also affect LWD dynamics. Denser stands of small trees tend, in the long term, to 

deliver smaller LWD to stream channels. 

Roads constructed near streams have a similar effect, though it may be longer lasting. Analysis of road 

inventory data yields a conservative estimate of about 60 miles of road within 120 feet (the height of one site 

potential tree) of stream channels. Many of these roads are located in rangeland vegetation types that would 

not supply LWD in any case. Of greatest concern are roads that traverse forested areas, such as in the 

northern portion of the analysis area and adjacent to Barnes Valley and Pitch Log Creeks. Roads that run 

through meadows near streams are also of concern, as LWD that falls across these roads is likely to be 

removed. 

In the past, “stream cleanout” resulted in removal of LWD from streams in the PacifiC Northwest. 

Recognition of the functional importance of LWD led to the cessation of this practice, although streams are 

only gradually recovering from the detrimental effects. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Wetlands 

Native wetlands that characterize the ecoregion drain a dry and wildfire prone upland and depend on the 

recharge from the adjacent forest and rangeland. Yet tree crowns, which rarely touched in historic woodland 

patterns now touch and effectively compete for the limited water resource (West and Young, 2000). So there 

is a growing risk to the pluvial lake basins and wetlands with the closed forest structure. Wetland risks are 

estimated by comparing changes in transpiration among forest and woodland structures. 

In eastside semiarid forest, openings with well developed undergrowth sustain the desired high infiltration 

rates and spongy humus, which is a recurring goal in forest conservation (Rawley, 1994). And with a full 

complement of understory plants forestland and rangelands are absorbent wildlands, which recharge 

wetlands. And with attention to forest understory the water caught can be recharge that sustains the wetlands 

that characterize the Klamath/Goose Lake ecoregion. With attention to forest structure for snow catch, the 

forest can be economically managed for wood and water (Krutilla et al., 1983). 

In rangeland forest there is a more developed history of researching species composition and functions, than 

in rainy forest. So there is enough information to build an awareness of the ill effects of tree density and their 

inhibition of litter humus processes (West and Young, 2000). Ecological weight should be given to forest 

encroachment, which was identified in and around Gerber (Riegel et al., 2002), Soil Survey Staff, 2002, b). 

Status is more a function of understory plants (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000, West and Young, 2000). And in 

Gerber’s riparian habitats, ecological status was correlated with species composition, surface litter, humus 

accumulation, soil infiltration rate, and rooting depth (Riegel et al., 2002). To sustain Gerber’s wetlands, the 

focus should be on forest and wetland ground conditions. Vigilance in needed to limit the adverse effect of 

forest encroachment and density on wetland. The playas depend on the recharge of thrifty forests. 

Playas status or condition is not simplistic; it oscillates with wet and dry year runoff. The recharge and runoff 

process is evident in the vernal onespike oatgrass, Danthonia unispicata, communities associated with heavy 

174 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

clay soils. The communities act as seasonal wetlands on shallow clay soils that are recharged to saturation by 

snow melt water then drain as the growing season progresses. Down drainage, water ponds on the playas in 

Ephemeral Lakebeds ecological sites. Playas distributed across the Gerber drainage have ephemeral 

springtime sea of spike rush, Eleocharis, and rush, Juncus balticus. Riegel et al., (2002) identified the 

common spike rush as Eleocharis palustris in iconological types similar to the Ephemeral Lakebeds 

ecological sites (Soil Survey staff, 2002). These spike rush and rush plants are resilient rhizomatous plants, 

which fit the wetland ecology of dominating in early to late conditions (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). If 

spike rush and rush plants dominate with wet year runoff recovery the site condition is apt to be mid or 

higher status. 

Water flow to the wetlands in wet and dry years varies with water competition, snow catch, and site 

infiltration, because surface water and ground water are a single resource. In “Streams and Ground Waters,” 

Jones and Mulholland (2000) begin the synthesis among disciplines that study drainage basin to show the 

effects of biogeochemistry (soils) and bedrock environments (geology) that affect stream ecology (fisheries 

and water science). The nature and extent riparian zone is a key focus as is arid land process. 

The connection between abundant wetland the adjacent rain shadow sagebrush and woodland vegetation 

conditions is emphasized by West and Young (2000). 

Grasses are a key parts of the soil climate and wetland processes in Gerber. For example, Idaho fescue, 

Festuca idahoensis abundance is associated with effective snow catch, which enhances coldwater recharge. 

Yet Idaho fescue is in short supply in the overstocked forest of Goodlow and Yainax Mountains. And the 

current overstocked condition is inconsistent with the well-developed opening of historic frequent light 

surface fire regime in Ponderosa pine forest (Agee, 1993) and the frequent fire starts in and adjacent to 

Gerber (Fremont Forest Fire Staff, 2002). 

The local opportunity or problem to balance forest overstory and grasses for water competition is part of a 

larger forest conservation issue. Altered forest habitats are one of the unintended consequences of fire control 

that yields regional losses of forest savanna and meadow habitats (Gruell, 2001). 

Water Quality 

Temperature 

The primary environmental factors that influence stream temperature include local air temperature, direct 

solar radiation, stream depth, groundwater inflow, and riparian canopy (Adams and Sullivan, 1990). 

Although the relative importance of these factors is difficult to determine without constructing a watershedspecific heat budget, Brown (1969) identified net solar radiation as the main source of heat for streams. The 

important factors determining solar energy loading to a stream are the stream surface area exposed to solar 

radiation, the amount of riparian vegetation regulating solar inputs and the amount of discharge present in the 

streams (Brown 1969, 1983). Generally, wide shallow streams, when exposed to sunlight, tend to heat up 

more quickly than narrow streams with the same discharge. In other words, heat gained is directly 

proportional to stream surface area. Further, for the same solar energy input and surface area, the temperature 

change for a low discharge stream will be greater than that of a high discharge stream (Beschta et al., 1987). 

Because direct solar radiation is the primary energy input to smaller streams, the condition of the riparian 

canopy and it’s ability to regulate solar radiation is important for moderating the solar energy input to 

streams, especially during the summer months (Beschta et al., 1987). A structurally intact continuous riparian 

canopy is highly effective at reducing inputs of solar radiation to streams (Brown and Krygier, 1970) and 

regulating stream temperatures. Intensive grazing and fire suppression have altered the character of riparian 

vegetation within the Gerber watershed, decreasing the ability of the riparian vegetation to shade streams and 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 175 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

regulate stream temperature. However, recent grazing management has created an upward trend in riparian 

vegetation within the watershed. 

Channel conditions help determine the amount of solar radiation a stream receives, and can be a significant 

influence on stream temperature patterns. Increased width to depth ratios of channels as a result of channel 

widening is a major factor in determining the thermal regime of streams. Within the Gerber watershed, many 

stream channels have widened and lost their floodplains. Stream channels within the watershed have 

downcut in response to disturbances, losing connection with floodplains. Floodplains function to help 

dissipate streamflow energy as streams go over their banks. The loss of connection to the floodplain changes 

the amount of streamflow energy within the channel and can result in streambank erosion and subsequent 

channel widening during high flow events. These widened stream channels expose more surface area to solar 

radiation, increasing the temperature of the streams. 

Stream discharge is another controlling component of stream temperature. Temperature change in a low 

discharge stream will be higher than in a high discharge stream with the same surface area exposed to solar 

radiation. Water infiltrated into soils is an important component of stream recharge, particularly in the warm 

summer months. This recharge is often cooler temperature water than the stream flow, and also increases the 

discharge in the stream. Changes in vegetation, such as juniper encroachment and overstocked forest stands, 

have decreased the infiltration rate of the soils within the Gerber watershed. Thereby decreasing the amount 

of temperature-moderating recharge to streams in the warm summer months. 

The relationships between streamflow and water temperature are illustrated by data from Miller Creek 

(Figure 5-3). During periods of low streamflow (before and after the irrigation season) water temperatures 

are sensitive to hourly and daily fluctuations in air temperature. This is reflected in spikes in the seven-day 

averages and a wide range between daily maximum and minimum values. When streamflows are high, 

variability due to weather is quite low. Besides illustrating this key relationship, temperature patterns in 

Miller Creek indicate the potential impacts of reduced flows during periods when air temperatures may be 

high and resident fish are sensitive to high water temperature (discussed further in the Aquatic Habitat 

section). 

Sedimentation 

Current conditions of sedimentation to streams are much higher than in reference conditions. Roads are often 

a chronic source of sediment within a watershed. A number of subwatersheds within the Gerber watershed 

have high road densities and are likely contributors of sediment to the stream channels. Changes in 

vegetative condition have also resulted in higher sedimentation to stream channels. Decreased infiltration 

rates as the result of juniper encroachment and overstocked forest stands result in greater overland flow and 

more exposed bare ground. The combination of bare ground and increased overland flow allow more 

sediment to become entrained and transported to streams. 

Nutrients 

As discussed in Current Conditions, Step 3 - Water Quality section, sediment movement can transport 

nutrients such as phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen. Additionally, nitrogen can dissolve in surface and 

groundwater and be transported with the flowing water. Land management activities have likely increased 

the amount of nutrient loading to the surface water system. Increased runoff and bare ground within the 

watershed lead to increased sediment transport, thereby increasing nutrient loading of sorbed nutrients 

(nutrients chemically bonded to sediment particles) to surface water systems. 

176 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Figure 5-3. Seven-day running averages of maximum, mean, and minimum water temperatures, 

plotted with average daily discharge from Gerber Dam.

 Data from BLM files and USBR Klamath Basin Area Office. 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

1/1/00 

Water Temperature (F) 

3/1/00 4/30/00 6/29/00 8/28/00 

Maximum 

Mean 

Minimum 

Miller Creek at Round Valley Road (MR4760) 

Miller Creek 

Discharge 

10/27/00 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

Discharge (cfs) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

1/1/00 

Water Temperature (F) 

3/1/00 4/30/00 6/29/00 8/28/00 

Maximum 

Mean 

Minimum 

Miller Creek near Mouth (MR4320) 

Miller Creek 

Discharge 

10/27/00 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

Discharge (cfs) 

Stream energy dissipates upon encountering a reservoir of standing water. Once the energy has dissipated, 

suspended sediment settles out of the water column. In this manner, the reservoirs act to trap some of the 

nutrients in the reservoirs and isolate them from the rest of the stream system. However, nitrogen is weakly 

bonded to soil particles and may remain in the water column. The nutrients in the reservoirs may still be 

available for plant uptake, therefore the prolific growth of aquatic weeds in many reservoirs is likely the 

result of high nutrient loadings. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 177 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Reservoir Water Quality 

The abundance of phosphorous and nitrogen in reservoirs leads to seasonally high rates of aquatic plant and 

algae growth and decay. These eutrophic conditions impact pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Chemical 

reactions that occur during photosynthesis in nitrogen-fixing plants can enhance pH levels, especially near 

the water surface. Decay of plant material results in the consumption of dissolved oxygen, especially where 

material settles near the bottom of reservoirs. This consumption can be offset somewhat by plant respiration, 

but only during the daylight hours. 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

Overview 

In general, aquatic species habitat in the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed are subject to highly variable water 

levels seasonally and an over larger time scales (5-10 year drought cycles). Native species employ flexible 

life history strategies that allow them to take advantage of a existing habitat types to carry out spawning, 

nursery and rearing, and over-wintering. 

In this section historic conditions in Step 4 are used as basis for describing how current conditions have 

shaped current distribution and abundance. The same parameters are discussed as they relate to population 

viability for the selected species (redband trout, Klamath Basin suckers). 

Selected Parameters: 

Fish passage and distribution 

Stream temperature 

Spawning habitat 

Habitat complexity (amount of large woody debris and # pools/mi) 

Exotic species 

Species Distribution and Abundance 

A reasonable explanation for the current distribution of shortnose suckers, Klamath largescale suckers, and 

tui chub is that the marshes at the bottom of Barnes Creek and in Barnes Valley proper supported these 

species, albeit in relatively low numbers, prior to the dam. Even if these marshes did not support resident 

populations because they periodically dried up, it is reasonable to assume that some migrating adult and 

juvenile suckers or stream resident suckers could have been trapped behind the dam upon its construction and 

developed into adfluvial sub-populations within Gerber reservoir. This theory is supported by the fact that 

stream resident suckers are routinely observed by BLM in Long Branch Creek. Additionally, stream resident 

trout have been observed in the spring-fed tributaries. The alternative explanation is that neither suckers nor 

trout were present in the watershed and both were at some point transplanted into Gerber Reservoir; however, 

given their life history and habitat requirements, and accounts of early homesteaders (Sobel et al, 1992) it 

seems unlikely that suckers and trout were not present in the watershed during the construction of Gerber 

dam. Additionally, both migratory trout and suckers were apparently abundant the Lost River near Bonanza 

in the late 1800s (Ray 1963, Helfrich 1972). The ability of redband trout and potentially some sucker species 

to switch from resident to fluvial or adfluvial strategies is inherent and not easily lost to selection, even after 

many generations (Messmer, personal communication, 2000). 

Because of Gerber Reservoir, lake dependent species such as shortnose suckers and exotic fish have probably 

increased in abundance over the reference condition. Gerber reservoir has allowed for the expression of 

adfluvial life history strategies in trout and suckers locally in Gerber tributaries. Because of the amount of 

habitat afforded by lake environments and favorable conditions for growth, fish attain larger size and have 

higher fecundity. Constructed reservoirs throughout the analysis area have allowed for the establishment of 

warm water species such as yellow perch, crappie, and largemouth bass. None of these species would have 

178 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

flourished in the reference condition because of the lack of deep lacustrine habitat. The lower portions of 

East Branch of the Lost River and Miller Creek were likely used as migration and spawning habitat for fish 

living in the Wetlands in the South end of Langell Valley. 

Fish Passage 

Channel degradation (particularly lateral incision leading to increase width/depth ratios), and reduced low 

base flows are the primary factors contributing to fish passage limitations in the Gerber /Willow Valley 

watershed. These same factors also contribute to water quality barriers that affect fish passage and survival 

(discussed below). Some road-crossing barriers were identified on BLM and Forest Service lands. We lack 

understanding of the role that downstream fish passage at Gerber Reservoir, and upstream passage from 

Miller Creek affects sucker and trout populations in Miller Creek. Some combination of these migration 

factors is the mechanism that re-seeds Miller Creek when it periodically dries up due to reservoir 

management during drought periods. Other diversions and reservoirs that exist on fish bearing streams on 

public and private lands warrant further study. 

Stream Temperature 

High stream temperatures associated with low flow, rocky substrate (increases convective heat input) in the 

watershed probably severely limits distribution of trout in the Gerber Willow Valley watershed. The effects 

of temperature on dissolved oxygen could indirectly cause problems for other species (see Gerber Reservoir 

water quality discussion). Redband trout are at risk in the perennial spring fed tributaries because of flow 

diversions and channel degradation leading to excessive warming. Miller Creek trout are at risk of periodic 

extirpation of because drought and low flow conditions. Channel condition, in this case, excessive stream 

width, can cause extremes in stream warming when low flow occurs during hot weather. An alternative 

analysis that was not conducted would be to apply the higher tolerance values for redband trout suggested by 

Rodnick et al (2002). High temperatures during the spawning window for trout may be a significant limiting 

factor for successful spawning and incubation. Low reproductive success for trout during average and below 

average water years is apparent from Gerber Reservoir fish investigations (USBR 2003 review draft). 

Large Woody Debris 

Large woody debris for the 75th percentile of natural and near natural streams in the northern Great Basin 

(Quigley et al, 1997) is suggested as a benchmark for historic conditions. Since this data was collected in 

primarily forested streams it may suggest higher values than were historically attained in the Gerber/ Willow 

Valley area, which has a high percentage of streams in rangeland areas. 

Table 5-5. Frequency of LWD 20 inches in diameter for Northern Great Basin Streams (Quigley et al, 

1997) compared to existing conditions in Barnes Valley Creek and Miller Creek. 

Reach Slope Stream Large Wood (> 20" diam) 

Length Class Width Recom Applied Actual Large Boulders 

Stream Name Reach # (miles) (%) (Ft) Value Value Pieces/mi (>1.4 ft diam) 

Barnes Valley* 1 0.4 <2% 49.2 0.025 2.7 0.0 209 

Barnes Valley 2 2.4 <2% 32.8 0.025 4.0 6.4 1304 

Barnes Valley 3 2.7 <2% 19.7 0.025 6.7 1.6 80 

Barnes Valley 4 0.5 <2% 26.2 0.025 5.0 0.0 0 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 0.025 2.5 12.9 1625 

Miller Creek 2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 0.085 8.5 9.7 2784 

Miller Creek 3 2.7 <2% 62.3 0.025 2.1 14.5 2028 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs and therefore condition was influenced by the 

reservoir 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 179 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

For this assessment, LWD is defined as being 20 inches in diameter on the small end and greater than 35 feet 

long in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites. The natural or near natural frequency is determined using 

the table below, and the formula for desired numbers per mile = table value x 5280/average riffle width in 

feet. For example, a stream with a 10-foot average riffle width and a slope of 2-4% would be expected to 

have 11 pieces of LWD/mile at the 50th percentile and 45 pieces at the 75th. 

An important consideration when interpreting these results is that comparison values were calculated are a 

function of stream width. If watershed impacts have resulted in wider stream channels relative to the 

reference or historical condition, we will underestimate the frequency of large wood for the reference 

condition. Since actual stream widths were used, we may have underestimated the reference condition for 

number of pieces of wood in Gerber stream. An alternative analysis would have been to calculate a reference 

stream width value for a reference channel based on regional curve data for width as a function of drainage 

area. These values would yield a higher large wood frequency if stream reference width values were less 

than existing conditions. 

In Barnes Valley Creek, only one reach (Reach #2) had a higher frequency than the suggested reference 

condition. Boulders, which can function like large wood to provide channel resistance, cover, and scour 

features, were also lacking in all reaches except Reach #2. Overall, Barnes Valley Creek lacks complex 

habitat feature that provide high quality fish habitat. 

In Miller Creek, existing stream width is much higher than the current flow regime (controlled reservoir 

releases) would suggest under natural conditions since peak flows are captured behind the dam. Therefore, 

the results are difficult to interpret. It appears that the amount of large wood is consistent with desired values 

based on current stream width. Large boulders are abundant throughout the canyon and are the dominant 

features controlling channel resistance, providing cover and scour features. 

Pools 

The number of pools per mile for the 75th percentile of natural and near natural streams in the northern Great 

Basin (Quigley et al, 1997) is suggested as a benchmark for historic conditions. The natural or near natural 

frequency is determined using the table below, and the formula for desired numbers per mile = table value x 

5280/average riffle width in feet. For example, a stream 10 feet wide with a slope of <2% would be expected 

to have 14 pools/mile at the 50th percentile and 28 pools/mile of at the 75th percentile. Pool width/depth 

ratios are another measure of habitat quality that is applicable in a dimensionless ratio. 

Pool Frequency 

As was the case for large wood, an important consideration when interpreting these results is that comparison 

values were calculated as a function of stream width. If watershed impacts have resulted in wider stream 

channels relative to the reference or historical condition, we will underestimate the pool frequency that the 

reference condition would have. Since actual stream widths were used, the reference condition for pool 

frequency may have been underestimated. 

Results of the pool frequency analysis are mixed with some units having more than the reference values and 

some less. In Barnes Valley Creek, only one reach (Reach #2) had a higher frequency than the suggested 

reference condition. Boulders, which can function like large wood to provide channel resistance, cover, and 

scour features, were also lacking in all reaches except Reach #2. 

Pool width to maximum depth ratio 

From a fish habitat perspective, this is another measure of the relative habitat complexity and amount of 

cover provided by water depth. It can also be an indicator of sediment supply problems (too much or too 

little), channel degradation, or flow regime changes. Both Barnes Valley Creek and Miller Creek have high 

180 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

ratios—that is they are below values suggested by Quigley et al (1997) and Gerber reference condition. It 

should be noted that the reference condition (w/d ratio 7.05) is relatively high compared to recommended 

values of 4.2-5.6 (Quigley et al, 1997). Either Antelope Creek is below potential or streams in this are 

perhaps not able to achieve low ratios due to geology or some other constraint. Miller Creek existing 

condition values are two to three times higher than the reference condition. This is likely a result diminished 

peak flows and the lack of ability to build and maintain channel banks because peak flows do not recede 

during the growing season. Additionally, Miller Creek lacks material (sediment supply) to build banks even 

the hydrologic regime was adequate. 

In general, streams in the analysis area are significantly below reference values for width/ depth ratios. Either 

pools have filled in with excessive sediment or the stream is widened over potential. The latter is the best 

explanation since there are few indicators of channel morphological changes due to excessive sediment load 

(e.g. channel braiding). 

Table 5-6. Number of Pools per mile (as a function of stream width) and Pool width /maximum depth 

ration for streams surveyed in 2001. 

Reach Slope Stream

 Reach Length Class Width Pools/mile Pool W/D Ratio 

Stream Name # (miles) (%) (feet) Desired Existing Refer Desired Existing Refer 

Barnes Valley* 1 0.4 <2% 49.2 5.7 11.1 8.0 5.6 - 4.2 7.9 7.1 

Barnes Valley 2 2.4 <2% 32.8 8.5 62.5 12.0 5.6 - 4.2 9.2 7.1 

Barnes Valley 3 2.7 <2% 19.7 14.2 5.8 20.0 5.6 - 4.2 5.8 7.1 

Barnes Valley 4 0.5 <2% 26.2 10.7 15.5 15.0 5.6 - 4.2 7.7 7.1 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 5.3 12.1 7.5 5.6 - 4.2 13.9 7.1 

Miller Creek 2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 4.4 10.1 x 6.2 - 4.6 12.7 x 

Miller Creek 3 2.7 <2% 62.3 4.5 10.1 6.3 5.6 - 4.2 22.0 7.1 

Antelope* 1 0.2 <2% 4.3 65.4 34.6 92.1 5.6 - 4.2 8.1 7.1 

Antelope 2 0.2 <2% 6.0 46.4 40.4 65.3 5.6 - 4.2 7.9 7.1 

Antelope** 3 1.0 <2% 5.6 50.0 47.1 70.4 5.6 - 4.2 7.0 7.1 

Antelope** 4 1.0 <2% 7.9 35.5 68.3 50.0 5.6 - 4.2 7.1 7.1 

Antelope 5 0.3 <2% 14.8 19.0 30.8 26.7 5.6 - 4.2 9.9 7.1 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs and therefore their condition was influenced by the reservoir 

**reaches were used for the “Gerber\Willow Valley reference condition” 

Values are compared to recent literature (Quigley et al, 1997) and to the Gerber “Reference condition” (Antelope 

Creek). 

Spawning Habitat 

The reference condition level of fines for each particular geologic type has not been identified. Since 

geology is similar throughout the analysis area, it is reasonable to compare the Antelope Creek values to 

other streams in the watershed. Less than 30% fines is generally attainable in the top four inches of spawning 

substrate throughout the Fremont National Forest (Upper Sycan Watershed Analysis). In Antelope Creek, 

values were between 18.5 and 26.3 in the reference reach. Based on this information and current research 

(Quigley et al, 1997) recommendations (<25% fines), we can compare assumed historic condition and 

existing condition. 

The limitations of the substrate composition methodologies were described in Section 3 and suggest that 

percent fine sediment was probably underestimated. Bulk sieve analysis of the surface and subsurface layers 

in a riffle is a more accurate and appropriate methodology. Using our own reference reach data from Antelope 

Creek (14.7% fines), only one reach (Antelope Reach 1, 35.5%) has values that are higher than the reference 

condition. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 181 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 5-7. Percent fine substrate (<2mm diameter) and percent gravel (2mm - 64mm) in riffles for 

survey reaches. 

Reach Slope Stream Fines in Gravel in 

Reach Length Class Width Riffles Riffles Reference Reach 

Stream Name # (miles) (%) (feet) (%) (%) % Fines % Gravel 

Barnes Valley* 1 0.4 <2% 49.2 5.0 20.0 14.7 22.4 

Barnes Valley 2 2.4 <2% 32.8 7.0 25.0 14.7 22.4 

Barnes Valley 3 2.7 <2% 19.7 x x 14.7 22.4 

Barnes Valley 4 0.5 <2% 26.2 x x 14.7 22.4 

Miller Creek 1 1.2 <2% 52.5 1.0 12.0 14.7 22.4 

Miller Creek 2 3.4 2-4% 52.5 5.0 35.0 14.7 22.4 

Miller Creek 3 2.7 <2% 62.3 7.0 19.0 14.7 22.4 

Antelope* 1 0.2 <2% 4.3 35.5 32.6 14.7 22.4 

Antelope 2 0.2 <2% 6.0 14.4 37.7 14.7 22.4 

Antelope** 3 1.0 <2% 5.6 14.9 26.3 14.7 22.4 

Antelope** 4 1.0 <2% 7.9 9.2 18.5 14.7 22.4 

Antelope 5 0.3 <2% 14.8 10.5 31.9 14.7 22.4 

*reaches were within in the full pool area of reservoirs and therefore condition was influenced by the reservoir 

**reaches were used for the “Gerber\Willow Valley reference condition” 

Suitable substrate for spawning depends not only on composition but also on distribution and the amount of 

embededdness - that is, how much of the fines are packed around the gravel preventing fish from building 

viable redds. Shortnose and Klamath Largescale suckers, although they do not build nests, also need 

substrate which is not embedded and has adequate water exchange. Embededdness has not been measured in 

the watershed but has been documented by stream surveyors in many locations. Additionally, substrate data 

was not collected by ODFW surveyors in some reaches because there were no apparent riffles (ODFW 1997). 

A general lack of typical spawning areas (gravel bed riffles and pool tail-outs) is apparent in the watershed. 

This is perhaps, in part, a function of the dominant basalt parent material, which erodes as small sand and silt 

particles from large cobble and boulder. This bimodal distribution of particle sizes is apparent in many 

streams in the watershed (see pebble count data). This can also be and indicator of high bank erosion rates 

because banks are composed of mostly fine material. 

In Miller Creek, spawning gravel does not necessarily occur in places with adequate flow and depth for 

spawning. Rather, it is distributed in the low velocity channel margins and small pockets behind boulders. 

This aerial distribution may significantly reduce the spawning habitat quality and may be a function of 

stream width. 

Exotic Fish 

The presence and abundance of exotic fish and bullfrogs in the watershed appears to be a function of pond 

and lake habitat that did not exist prior to euro-American settlement. There are no indications in fish 

population trends that indicate non-native fish are displacing native fish as a result of predation of 

competition. Furthermore, the ability to dry out, intentionally or not, of many of the ponds and reservoirs 

allows managers to control species composition and abundance if necessary. Management of stream habitats 

that mimic historic conditions should prevent non-native species from acquiring a competitive advantage 

over native species. 

Population viability 

Population viability addresses the continued existence of well-distributed populations or subpopulations over 

specific time periods (Marcot and Murphy 1996). To evaluate population viability for suckers and trout in 

182 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed, the relative effects of various watershed functions and process are 

integrated and assessed as they relate to the biological requirements of the species in question. Furthermore, 

health and viability of native aquatic species can be used as an indicator for watershed health, being linked to 

upland, riparian, and channel conditions. If watershed conditions are conducive to long-term native fish 

population viability, then the desired watershed attributes should occur across the landscape. Those attributes 

include good water quality, food production, good fish and wildlife habitat, and connectivity within and 

between drainages. Recognizing the connection between uplands, riparian areas, stream channels, and 

habitat for aquatic species, the following integrated assessment is presented to address population viability 

for suckers and trout. 

Not enough information is available to conduct thorough population viability analysis. In general, the 

Gerber/Willow Valley watersheds fish populations are interrupted by severe habitat barriers (low flow and 

water quality) and man-made physical barriers such as Gerber Dam. Population viability is dependent on the 

ability of subpopulations to have genetic exchange with neighboring populations. Additionally, 

subpopulations within a watershed need to be of a sufficient number of and of a sufficient size such that, 

under periods stress or disturbance, some individuals or subpopulations survive to colonize new areas or recolonize after habitat conditions improve. These populations must have enough genetic diversity such that 

some individuals are able survive during periods of changing environmental conditions. Because Gerber 

Dam is a 100% barrier to upstream migration, the populations of suckers and redband trout upstream of the 

dam do not fit the definition a fully functional meta-population. Therefore, they may not be viable and selfsustaining in the in the long term. 

In Miller Creek, there is the potential for fish to re-colonize from Gerber Reservoir or from the Lost River. If 

the assumption that this can occur readily is valid, population viability is more dependent upon favorable 

conditions occurring of sufficient duration and frequency that it is advantageous and adaptive for the 

population fish to colonize and exploit the area for growth and production. 

Limiting factors related to migration included barriers, associated with low flow, coupled with high stream 

width and potential freezing in winter (also associated with low flow). Minimum flows during the spawning 

and migration period and a lesser minimum flow to prevent freezing, would allow this population to persist 

assuming there was a viable adjacent fish population (Gerber or Lost River) to re-colonization after dry 

periods resulting from extended drought. However, the assumption that Gerber or Lost River can be viewed 

as a reliable source population may not be valid. An alternative perspective could be that Miller Creek, 

because it has an apparent capacity to be productive for rearing and recruitment, is a necessary subpopulation 

in the Lost River meta-population structure. In that context, population viability in the Lost River could be 

dependent on relatively stable populations in Miller Creek. 

Willow Valley reservoir has not been colonized with suckers or redband trout likely because there are few 

years with sufficient water during the spawning season to allow migration; and the dam is likely a barrier for 

upstream fish migration. Fish populations are lost in Willow Valley Reservoir periodically during extended 

drought periods (e.g. 1992). However, the watershed may be able to support these populations if significant 

barriers were removed or retrofitted and minimum flow levels established. 

Integrated Assessment 

Not enough population specific information is available to conduct thorough population viability analysis. 

Therefore this assessment is qualitative and relies on professional judgment. In general, the Gerber/Willow 

Valley watersheds fish populations are interrupted by severe habitat barriers (low flow and water quality) and 

man-made physical barriers such as Gerber Dam. In many fish populations, long-term viability is dependent 

on the ability of subpopulations to have genetic exchange with neighboring populations. Additionally, 

subpopulations within a watershed need to be of a sufficient number of and of a sufficient size such that, 

under periods stress or disturbance, some individuals or subpopulations survive to colonize new areas or reSynthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 183 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

colonize after habitat conditions improve. Meffe (1996) states that genetic variability of a population 

determines its fitness or ability to respond and adapt to environmental changes, and low genetic variability 

may result in decreased adaptability. Populations of a few 100 individuals or less are apt to have low genetic 

variability. Low populations of redband trout are apparent in Gerber Reservoir and its tributaries. Because 

Gerber Dam is a 100% barrier to upstream migration, no genetic exchange is provided from downstream 

populations and re-colonization following extinctions cannot occur without human re-introduction. 

Fire exclusion 

A portion of the watershed’s forest stands have dense fuel levels resulting from nearly 100 years of fire 

exclusion. Prior to the early 1900’s, the natural fire return interval maintained relatively open forest stands 

with less understory fuels to carry a fire from the ground to the canopy layers. Dense and early-to-mid-seral 

stands are at high risk of catastrophic fire which could result in added sediment and altered flow regimes in 

watershed streams. 

The cumulative and confounding effects of fire exclusion, grazing, and channel incision have permitted 

conifers and juniper to expand into meadows and other riparian areas, promoting competition with riparian 

plants (sedge, rush, willows, aspen, and cottonwood,) necessary to maintain bank stability and proper stream 

types. In addition, junipers are expanding into the drier, deeper-soil pine sites in the riparian stringer portions 

of the watershed. This continued expansion could lead to more areas in juniper woodlands, replacing other 

native vegetation types, leaving the soils prone to erosion, and probably reducing late summer stream flows. 

Roads and soils 

High road densities relative to stream density (Table 3.3) is another reason why the watershed is functioning 

below potential in some subwatersheds for native fish viability. Many of the roads within the watershed 

parallel and/or cross stream channels, increasing the drainage network. Additionally, the effects of timber 

harvest activities and grazing on soil resources have increased compaction and altered flow patterns. The 

road network and detrimental soil compaction have likely modified the timing, magnitude, and frequency of 

peak flows. Higher peak flows can prevent natural healing of unstable banks, as well as influence the amount 

of sediment reaching stream channels. Sedimentation can lead to silting in of spawning gravel, low food 

production, and pool filling. 

Channel condition 

The relative proportion of Rosgen F and G stream types (39%, table 3-6) suggest that a significant proportion 

of the watershed may be in a state of disequilibrium. These channel types usually provide poor quality 

habitat and can be associated with high bank erosion rates. At some locations identified in the rangeland 

assessments, continued livestock grazing may be negatively influencing the ability of the stream channel to 

re-vegetate and form stable banks. Elsewhere, artificially constricted streams at road crossings and 

impoundments are preventing floodplain and riparian vegetation recovery. 

When compared to reference conditions, the stream survey data suggests that habitat complexity (pool 

quality, LWD), is lacking in many of the stream reaches within the watershed. This may partly be a function 

of the small size of many of the streams, and the flashiness that is characteristic of the landforms within the 

watershed. 

Stream Temperature 

An additional reason for concern regarding redband trout viability is high stream temperatures throughout the 

watershed, including high temperatures during the spawning and incubation periods. These temperatures can 

be stressful or lethal to native fish, negatively affecting growth and development in all life stages. In 

addition, large willows or overhanging grassy/sedge vegetation that could provide shade are lacking along 

many of the meadow reaches. Also, many reaches have width-to-depth ratios that are significantly higher 

than potential, which increases the water surface area exposed to solar radiation. 

184 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Migration barriers 

Migration barriers including low flow, high stream temperature, dams, culverts, diversions, and habitat 

quality barriers (excessive width) exist throughout the watershed, disrupting connectivity and inhibiting free 

movement of fish within and amongst drainages. Movement is necessary for spawning, access to cool water 

refugia, and emigration from degraded habitat into good habitat. 

In Miller Creek, there is the potential for fish to re-colonize from Gerber Reservoir or from the Lost River. If 

the assumption that this can occur readily is valid, population viability is more dependent upon favorable 

conditions occurring of sufficient duration and frequency that it is advantageous and adaptive for the 

population fish to colonize and exploit the area for growth and production. 

Limiting factors related to migration included barriers associated low flow coupled with high stream width 

and potential freezing in winter (also associated with low flow). Minimum flows during the spawning and 

migration period and a lesser minimum flow to prevent freezing, would allow this population to persist 

assuming there was a viable adjacent fish population (Gerber or Lost River) to re-colonization after dry 

periods resulting from extended drought. However, the assumption that Gerber or Lost River can be viewed a 

reliable source population may not be valid. An alternative perspective could be that Miller Creek, because it 

has an apparent capacity to be productive for rearing and recruitment, is a necessary subpopulation in the 

larger Lost River which is part of the Klamath Basin metapopulation structure. Noss et al. (1997) defines a 

metapopulation as a group of subpopulations, spatially distinct but connected by at least occasional dispersal. 

Because Miller Creek redband are part of the larger Klamath Basin populations, they are considered a part of 

this metapopulation. Applying the metapopulation concept to the Gerber Watershed, each subwatershed may 

host a separate subpopulation. 

Willow Valley reservoir has not been colonized with suckers or redband trout likely because there are few 

years with sufficient water during the spawning season to allow migration; and the dam is likely a barrier for 

upstream fish migration. Fish populations are lost in Willow Valley Reservoir periodically during extended 

drought periods (e.g. 1992). However, the watershed may be able to support these populations if significant 

barriers were removed or retrofitted and minimum flow levels established. 

Conclusion 

Currently, the less than desired conditions of these elements inhibit the watershed from functioning 

appropriately to assure survival and persistence of native redband trout. Klamath basin suckers have less 

stringent requirements for substrate, stream temperature, and habitat complexity. Furthermore, the majority 

of the sucker populations spend relatively little time in the stream environment and are there only during high 

flow conditions. The population age structure and spawning distribution surveys are indicative of semiregular recruitment and genetic variation within the populations is high. High genetic variability will help 

ensure the viability of populations (Meffe 1996). Thus, population viability for Gerber sucker populations is 

heavily dependent on conditions conducive to survival in the reservoir environment rather that the stream 

environment. Improvements in water quality in Gerber Reservoir should be realized as a result of positive 

trends in riparian and upland conditions. These improvements will increase the likelihood of survival and 

persistence during extended drought provided that adequate lake levels are maintained that prevent 

overcrowding. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 185 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

II. Vegetation 

Forested Uplands 

The two main contributors to the difference between current and reference conditions of the forested 

communities are timber harvest methods, and the alteration of the natural fire regime. Effects of insects and 

diseases are closely connected to these two overwhelming forces. 

1. Past Management Practices 

Fire protection and widespread harvest of large ponderosa pine has led to a change in landscape patterns, 

species composition, stand structure, and resistance to insects and diseases. What were extensive, open and 

park like stands of ponderosa pine have turned into dense, multistory structures with weakened overstories 

and high fuel levels. Conifer seedlings and shrubs have replaced grass species in many under stories. Mixed 

conifer stands have closed into more homogenous structures with a species composition shift to white fir. 

Fine fragmentation has shifted to coarse and blocky due to the even-aged management, (mainly over story 

removals and clear-cutting on private industrial lands), and large, stand replacing wildfires. 

With fire protection and heavy grazing practices, dense understories began to develop under ponderosa pine 

canopies. These understories were pine and juniper at the lower/drier end and white fir at the upper/wetter 

end. Conifers have steadily encroached into meadows and riparian areas. Following WWII, harvest intensity 

ran the spectrum from removal of single “high risk” trees to clearcutting of entire stands. The fine scale 

fragmentation inherent within these stands was being replaced with a coarser “blocky” pattern. Early seral 

components within the larger historic stands were becoming their own stands. Species composition shifted 

from pure ponderosa pine to mixed conifer heavy to shade tolerant white fir. Repeated salvage operations 

resulted in many stands being entered several times. Unacceptable levels of soil compaction are being 

observed across many areas. Basalt derived soils, common in this area, are at highest risk. Recent clearcutting has further added to the coarser, “blocky” landscape pattern. 

2. Insects and disease 

Recent symptoms of poor forest health are being blamed on the combination of multiple logging entries, 

unnaturally high densities and the shift to shade tolerant species. Increases in the virulence of annosus and 

armillaria root diseases are linked to soil compaction and denser stands. Dwarf mistletoes have expanded, in 

part, due to the creation of multi-storied stands of a single species (resulting from partial overstory removals). 

Frequent natural fires functioned as a control to dwarf mistletoe infections. Fire prevention has allowed 

mistletoes to easily spread in multistory stands. The degree of change is linked to the number of fire cycles 

missed. Expansion is most notable in ponderosa pine and high energy mixed conifer communities. Bark 

beetle mortality is directly related to the size class and high densities that are occurring in these post-fire 

dependent stands. Extensive outbreaks of fir graver in the 1990’s were made possible by the increase of 

white fir on dry pine sites, and their stressed condition from drought. 

3. Fire Ecology 

The alteration of the natural fire regime has affected ponderosa pine types at the regional scale. fire 

management strategy during most of the 20th century included prevention, detection, and suppression, and 

altered a reference condition fire regime which had promoted the development of open parklike stands. The 

speed at which stands have shifted from single to multistory structures seems remarkable until one realizes 

that on average, based on historical fire return interval, up to 10 fire cycles have been missed in ponderosa 

186 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

pine communities. With the change in stand structure and density comes a change in how these ecosystems 

are reacting to natural disturbance events. Due to the absence of “maintenance fires”, wildfires today are 

more likely to produce “stand replacement” events. Newly developed shrub/seedling understories increase 

fuel loadings and create ladders into canopy crowns. Under such conditions, large, stand replacing fires are 

far more common than they ever were historically. Soil damage from such an event is severe and at a 

landscape scale. Soils may take only two to three years to recover from a light fire, but an intense, hot fire 

that burns through the deep duff and “cooks” the soil may take centuries to recover (Pyne 1996). 

Fire prevention efforts, livestock grazing, and timber harvest has driven the most drastic changes within 

ponderosa pine stands. Understories of “second growth” ponderosa have developed in the absence of 

frequent natural burns. These multistory stands are taxing the growing space provided on most sites. 

Higher elevation mixed conifer has not been as radically altered by fire suppression, as have the ponderosa 

pine and lower elevation mixed conifer. What was historically a somewhat patchy, coarse fragmentation is 

today very homogenous. Stands are becoming less structurally diverse, broken only by plantations and 

overstory removal units. In fact, not accounting for structural stage distribution, some clear-cut harvested 

areas resemble what a fragmentation pattern may have looked like in mixed conifer types. Mid seral 

structure is slowly disappearing. The future mid seral stands are still sapling-sized plantations and define the 

lag time in seral distribution. 

Old Growth, LOS and Historic Range of Variability 

As reported in Step 4, page (4-10), the best information available on the historic vegetative types in the 

Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed comes from the 1946 and 1947 Timber Type Maps. The current structural 

classes have not been mapped, which represents a data gap in the analysis. The harvest layer is also not 

complete. This results in a lack of data to compare historic late/old seral stages in a historical and current 

context with a high level of confidence. However, based on the level of agreement between 1946-47 timber 

types and current GIS ecoclass acreages, an adequate comparison of historic and current conditions in some 

areas can be made. 

From the data and inspection of current stand conditions, it can be concluded that the ponderosa pine forested 

types are below the historic range of variability for LOS single storied stand structure. This conclusion is 

based on the age classes of the understory vegetation that are not presently old enough to have been a 

significant component of the pre-1900 stands. Hopkins describes historical old growth ponderosa pine stands 

(pre-1900) as having approximately 20 – 30 trees per acre in the 17 inch and larger diameter classes with 

fewer than 5 seedlings per acre and less than one downed log per acre. Numerous spike topped trees 

occurred in these stands. 

Open Forest Communities 

The open pine associations such as ponderosa pine-juniper/mountain mahogany-bitterbrush-big sagebrush/ 

fescue, ponderosa pine-quaking aspen/bluegrass and ponderosa pine/mountain big sagebrush/bluegrass have 

been affected by the interrupted fire regimes that once kept their understory vegetation in a park-like 

condition. Ponderosa pine communities with a big sagebrush understory were maintained in an early to mid 

seral condition that favored herbaceous species and a highly dispersed pine overstory. This herbaceous/forb 

understory ecosystem has been largely replaced with mature brush species and conifers in varying degrees of 

regeneration. Turn of the century grazing also attributed to this increase in seedling survival by reducing 

herbaceous plants ability to compete and provided favorable seedbed conditions through trampling and litter 

displacement. Understory forested vegetation in the ponderosa pine type exceeds historic density. 

The absence of fire has allowed juniper densities to increase in both open forested communities and in shrub 

communities. This has lead to a decrease in grasses, forbs, and shrubs and an increase in the severity of fires. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 187 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Non-Forested Uplands 

BLM Administered Lands - (“The Gerber Block”) 

Previously in this document, the differences between existing conditions (Step 3) and reference conditions 

(Step 4) have been discussed. The Non-Forested Uplands” and Human Uses – Grazing” sections have jointly 

outlined the history and effects of high grazing pressures within the analysis area - including the effects on 

the vegetation communities - prior to passage of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) in 1934. Also briefly 

described were the post-TGA controls and management that have been implemented over the past 65 years 

that have lead to ubiquitous improvements in rangeland vegetation conditions, albeit variable in scale. This 

section will bring together (“synthesize”) all the Step 3 and 4 upland vegetation information, add some 

information and discussions about rangeland vegetation monitoring studies (though most of the monitoring 

information is covered in this Step under “Human Uses – Grazing”), analyze the information sufficient to 

arrive at cause and effect conclusions, and interpret the significance of the conclusions. The information in 

this Step will lead into the management recommendations to be put forth in Step 6. 

This section on non-forested upland vegetation will address the assortment of broad vegetation communities 

present in the Gerber Block with minimal regard to allotment boundaries. The Step 5 section “Human Uses – 

Grazing” will also expand somewhat upon the information found here by addressing ecological conditions on 

an allotment specific basis. Since a grazing allotment is the basic “unit” for grazing management, it is 

necessary to address conditions within the boundaries of the allotments. This will result in some redundancy, 

as it is difficult to disconnect the vegetation conditions analysis from the grazing use and rangeland 

monitoring analysis. 

Information outlined by allotment is also necessary because this analysis will include complete “Rangeland 

Health Standards Assessments” for 8 allotments in the watershed analysis area. This information must be 

allotment specific at some point so that a “met” or “not met” determination can be made and allotment 

specific management formulated. The combination of both Step 5 sections should paint a picture of 

vegetation condition and trends that helps to focus management on the areas that need additional or changed 

management, and as importantly, where current management is appropriate and should be continued. 

As noted in Step 3, the Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) determined that vegetative conditions for the uplands 

(and most meadows) in the Gerber Block are proportionally as follows: 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community (PNC) 28.6%
 

Late Seral 53.7%
 

Mid Seral 17.1%
 

Early Seral 0.6%
 

In general, it is thought that all of the vegetation communities in PNC, and probably all of those in Late 

Seral, have properly functioning plant communities, which implies overall proper functioning biotic and 

physical conditions. Proper functioning can be thought of as a state or condition where the majority of the 

rangeland health attributes or ecological processes are functioning similarly to the ecological site description 

parameters, to an appropriate ecological reference area, or other suitable benchmark - given the normal range 

of variability associated with the site and climate. The “normal range of variation” is defined as “...the 

deviation of characteristics of biotic communities and their environment that can be expected given natural 

variability in climate and disturbance regimes”. (USDI-BLM 2000) Ecological processes include the water 

cycle (the capture, storage, and redistribution of precipitation), energy flow (conversion of sunlight to plant 

and animal matter), and nutrient cycle (the cycle of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus through the 

physical and biotic components of the environment). 

188 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Ecological processes functioning within a normal range of variation will support specific plant (and animal) 

communities. Direct measures of site integrity and status of ecological processes are difficult or expensive to 

measure due to the complexity of the processes and their interrelationships. Therefore, biological and 

physical attributes are often used as indicators of the functional status of ecological processes and site 

integrity. The plant communities in the analysis area are defined by the Ecological Site Descriptions – BLM 

accepted benchmarks for vegetation community comparison. A comparison of the current vegetation 

composition to the Ecological Site Description parameters is our primary indicator method for determining 

ecologic integrity. 

The following narrative is ecological site specific and based on the above premises and assumptions. (Also, 

see the Step 5 “Human Uses – Grazing” section for allotment specific ESI information on vegetation types 

and conditions. That section includes a summary of rangeland monitoring information; information that can 

help to explain some of the analysis and interpretations presented in this section.) 

Meadow Communities 

a. Dry Meadow (0.8% of surveyed area) - The ESI identified 865 acres of Dry Meadow ecological 

site scattered in small parcels throughout the Gerber Block. 8% was PNC, 69% Late Seral, 19% Mid Seral, 

and 4% in Early Seral. These sites have historically received above average grazing use by livestock due to 

herbaceous productivity, typical proximity to water, and little slope. Fortunately, most of this site (77%) is in 

Late Seral or better condition, where due to the higher effective moisture, the opportunities for condition 

improvement (i.e. upward trends) are high with appropriate grazing management. The lack of slope probably 

limits the erosion potential somewhat, though this site is often found near a drainage way where the benefits 

may be muted by the proximity of high spring flows and/or increased grazing pressure. 

Some of the mid seral sites were “down graded” due to the encroachment of otherwise desirable plants - like 

single-spike oatgrass (Danthonia unispicata) and other sedges/rushes - that are not accounted for in the 

ecological site description and as such are not “counted” in the numerical condition rating. The plant 

diversity is a function of the transitional nature of meadow sites between upland and riparian vegetation and 

its nature as somewhat of a “catch all” description for transitional sites that don’t fit elsewhere (see Step 3). 

These mid seral areas are considered functional in the sense that adequate, appropriate, plant cover is present 

to minimize erosion and provide relatively stable conditions. The one small early seral area is an old 

breached (dike broken) reservoir in the Horsefly allotment where the weed-dominated condition is a function 

of the reservoir’s inability to retain water. (This old reservoir site was probably a small spikerush meadow 

during pre-settlement days (next section) but was irreversibly altered by the dike.) Overall condition trends 

within this ecological site are variable, but are generally static to upwards, based on ESI observations. 

Overall, this site is functioning adequately with current management. 

b. Ephemeral Lakebed (1.8% of the surveyed area) - This ecological site was found on over 2000 

acres in the Gerber block, though there is also a large amount of this type on inholding private lands that were 

not ESI surveyed. Virtually all (92%) of the Ephemeral Lakebed areas in the Gerber Block are classified as 

PNC, with the rest (8%) in late seral condition class. All of the Ephemeral Lakebed areas have historically 

received higher than average grazing pressure for the same reasons listed for the Dry Meadow ecological site. 

However, spikerush is an exceptionally resilient native species that is largely immune to livestock grazing 

pressure, as long as the lengthy seasonally saturated conditions persist and it is not grazed season long 

(though many of the private lands are grazed throughout much of the season and the spikerush persists). 

Current conditions and functionality are compatible with current management. Vegetation trends are static at 

these sites since the vegetation is already in elevated ecological condition with little room for improvement. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 189 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

c. Semi-Wet Meadow (<0.1% of surveyed area) - As noted previously (Step 3), this ecological site is 

a rare vegetation component in the Gerber Block (total of 28 acres) and too small to be specifically managed 

for. The only classified site in the Gerber Block was rated as PNC and considered functional and stable. 

Shrub/Bunchgrass Communities 

a. Low Sagebrush Dominated Communities – As noted in Step 3, low sagebrush is by far the most 

abundant shrub species in the Gerber Block reflecting the naturally shallow soils. Four ecological site 

descriptions cover all of the non-juniper, low sagebrush vegetation types, though the first two described 

below cover 97% of low sagebrush classified acres. 

Shallow Stony 10-20" (18.1% of surveyed area) - This is the most common of the non-juniper, sagebrush 

dominated ecological sites in the Gerber Block, with almost 20,000 acres classified. Of this total, the ESI 

classified 11% as PNC, 85% as late seral, and the remaining 4% as mid seral. Since these sites are very thin 

soiled and often very rocky, they have very limited production potential and typically a large percentage of 

the area has no vegetation (i.e. rocks, gravel, bare ground, etc.). As such, these sites often appear to the 

uninitiated to be in poorer condition than they actually are. The PNC areas, by definition, are as good of 

vegetation communities as these sites can support or attain and are assumed to be fully functional. These 

areas have very limited potential for juniper invasion due primarily to the thin soils and possibly springtime 

inundation. 

The late seral communities are believed to be at least adequately functional and usually within the normal 

range of variation that would have been found on these sites during pre-settlement times. It would be 

expected though, that the late seral areas might have more risk of functionality problems if improperly 

managed (e.g. over-grazed). The ESI determined apparent trends were typically static and the erosion 

condition class determinations (Soil Surface Factor or SSF) tended to be in the slight to moderate range. The 

Shallow Stony areas tended to have some of the higher SSF ratings found in the Gerber Block. These 

relatively elevated ratings are thought to be partially a function of the high clay related natural “pedestaling” 

of the grasses and the limited production potential to supply litter – two of the five primary SSF rating 

categories. However, the natural lack of vegetation cover does appear to make these areas somewhat more 

vulnerable to erosion, though this is at least partially offset by the inherent rockiness. Fortunately, the typical 

slope of the Shallow Stony areas is 0% to 2%, with none found over 4%; a fact that indicates minimal risk of 

extensive water erosion. (In fact, these areas are typically totally saturated for several weeks in the early 

spring, with standing water in the open interspaces that appears to dissipate more by evaporation than 

runoff.) 

The ESI classified all of the mid seral Shallow Stony areas (791 acres total) in the southwestern portion of 

the Gerber Block - primarily in the Adobe pasture of the Horsefly allotment, both pastures of the Bumpheads 

allotment, and the Woolen Canyon and Willow Valley Chaining pastures of the Willow Valley allotment. 

These areas will be discussed more in the “Human Uses – Grazing” section of Step 5, as it is better addressed 

in conjunction with the rangeland monitoring studies information. However, in short, these mid seral areas 

are intermingled with the larger expanses of mid seral Juniper Claypan 12-16" areas that are a result of the 

1937 wildfire (discussed earlier) of which the effects are still apparent today. 

Stony Claypan 14-20" (10.3% of surveyed area) - The Stony Claypan ecological site is also common 

throughout the Gerber Block, with over 11,300 acres classified. The ESI determined that 64% of this site 

was late seral and 36% was PNC; none was classified as mid or early seral. This site is 2 to 3 times more 

productive than the Shallow Stony ecological site due to the slightly deeper soils. Because of this higher 

production potential the Stony Claypan sites probably have more natural resiliency than the Shallow Stony 

sites, though they both have similar rockiness and slope. The late seral areas as well as the PNC sites are all 

thought to be fully functional due to the diversity and abundance of the vegetation – particularly the high 

190 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

levels of native perennial bunchgrasses – and the relatively high production and ground cover levels. The 

ESI found the apparent trends all static to upwards and the erosion condition class (SSF) to be slight; both 

indicators of appropriate current management. One possible area of concern is that the Stony Claypan 

ecological site does have moderate potential for juniper encroachment, which is occurring in some areas. 

However, as noted in Step 3, due to the similarity between the Juniper Claypan and Stony Claypan sites, it is 

difficult to differentiate an invaded Stony Claypan site from a Juniper Claypan with younger trees (i.e. due to 

removal by past wild fire). 

Claypan 14-20" & Claypan Bottom 12-18" (1.0% of surveyed area) - Both of these ecological sites are found 

infrequently in the Gerber Block but are enough alike to be considered together as they occupy similar 

locations on the landscape. In combination, the two sites total 1045 acres in the Gerber Block, which is 

broken down into the following ecological condition classes: 21% PNC, 66% late seral, and 13% mid seral. 

Both of these types are typically found near - and are very similar to - the Stony Claypan ecological site 

described above. They also have approximately the same productivity potential. The condition and 

functionality statements for the Stony Claypan in PNC and late seral hold true for these two sites also, with 

the exception that the Claypan and Claypan Bottom sites have almost no surface rockiness. 

All of the mid seral acres (139) were ESI typed in the Copeland pasture of the Horsefly allotment, north of 

Copeland Reservoir. The vegetation actually classified as late seral, but was downgraded to mid seral due to 

lower than average production. The diminished production is likely due to historic use and juniper invasion. 

This area is very close to water and probably received high, extended season grazing use prior to the current 

short duration rest-rotation grazing system. This site is not considered of significant management concern 

due to its limited area, lack of slope, largely acceptable vegetation community composition, probable 

upwards trend, and the fact that the majority of this pasture (79%) is in PNC or late seral. 

In general, juniper encroachment is a minor (Claypan Bottom) to moderate (Claypan) concern on these sites. 

But because of the limited area of both, it is not a major issue, though some increases were noted during the 

ESI. Condition trends in these sites appear to be largely static based on ESI observations; consistent with the 

majority of these sites being in elevated ecological status. 

b. Big Sagebrush/Bitterbrush Dominated Communities (totals 2% of surveyed area) Mountain big 

sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush are commonly found throughout the Gerber Block, but both are rarely 

abundant enough to define an ecological site. They primarily exist as minor components of other, deeper 

soil, ecological sites - particularly the pine sites. 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" (0.8% of surveyed area) - This relatively scarce ecological site is found sporadically 

within the central and northern portions of the Gerber Block. The ESI classified 842 acres as this ecological 

site; 91% was in late seral with the remainder (9%) mid seral. The late seral areas typically have a healthy 

mix of proper plant species with high production. Late seral sites are considered functional, though 

encroachment of juniper - which will crowd out the desired site typical shrubs and grasses (in that order) - is 

a major concern. In fact, these sites have some of the highest potential for undesirable juniper invasion of 

any in the area and need to be closely monitored, since in the absence of juniper control, these sites will 

slowly degrade over time regardless of the grazing use. 

The mid seral condition site was located in the Dry Prairie allotment scattered between the Campground, Ben 

Hall, and Dry Prairie pastures. This area actually ranked out as late seral, but was rated down due to 

suppressed production, which appears to be the result of two factors. The first is the juniper invasion 

crowding out the more desirable native perennial grasses, and in particular, the big sagebrush, bitterbrush, 

and mountain mahogany. The other factor is that this area is just north of Ben Hall Creek, where prior to the 

current grazing management (which includes the rest-rotation system with separately fenced riparian pastures 

on the creek), cattle congregated and inevitably heavily grazed the area. Since the creek is now separately 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 191 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

fenced, the livestock are not negatively impacting the area anymore (based on use pattern mapping), though 

the juniper increases are an ever-continuing problem. 

South Slopes 14-18" (0.9% of surveyed area) - The South Slopes ecological site is found in the central and 

southern portions of the Gerber Block. During the ESI, almost 1000 acres were classified. Most (81%) of 

the South Slope sites were determined to be in mid seral condition, with smaller amounts in late seral (9%) 

and PNC (10%). These latter condition classes would be considered fully functional. 

As noted in Step 3, the mid seral condition sites in the Gerber Block have the following characteristics: a 

relatively high canopy cover of invasive juniper; relatively low production, which at least partially reflects 

the juniper competition; and a herbaceous understory that has a relatively high percentage of weedy species 

like cheatgrass, willow herb, medusahead, and others. As the name implies, these sites are situated on south 

facing slopes, which is the driest landscape setting. These sites are chiefly located in the areas known to 

have historically (late 19th and early 20th centuries) received high levels of grazing use from uncontrolled 

sheep, cattle, and horses. Since these south facing sites warmed up first in the early spring, the earliest plant 

growth commenced here, resulting in the earliest herbaceous “green-up” areas which attracted the first 

grazing pressure of the season. Grazing certainly continued throughout the season with the south slopes the 

last to be snow covered in the late fall/winter. This sustained, heavy grazing pressure resulted in apparent 

soil loss and also reduced the competitive advantage of the site typical grasses and shrubs, allowing juniper 

to encroach. Even though the ESI rated these areas with static to upward trends, the current combination of 

drier conditions, juniper and annual plant invasion, and likely past soil loss, may not allow vegetative 

conditions to ever fully restore - like the known condition improvements that occurred on the adjacent cooler 

and higher effective moisture areas. However, due to the apparent upward tends, limited spatial distribution 

of this site, historically diminished grazing pressure, and appropriate current grazing management (i.e. rest 

rotation grazing systems), these areas are of limited management concern. 

North Slopes 14-18" (0.1% of surveyed area) - This is the only ESI defined bitterbrush dominant site, though 

the Shrubby Loam site has it as a co-dominant. The North Slope ecological site was only classified in one 

location in the Willow Valley allotment below Willow Valley Reservoir – a total of 78 acres. It was found to 

be in late seral condition with an apparent upward trend and would be considered as proper functioning. 

c. Mahogany Communities – As discussed previously, mountain mahogany is a common, though 

rarely dominant species within the Gerber Block. It is commonly found as a significant component in the 

juniper and pine ecological sites, with a particular affinity for the deeper soil, mixed tree areas (i.e. pine and 

juniper together). However, one ecological site is defined by mountain mahogany - the Mahogany Rockland 

10-20" (0.2% of the surveyed area or 173 acres). This is a highly variable site depending on landscape 

position, topography, slope, aspect, and rockiness. During the ESI, this ecological site was found throughout 

the analysis area, though usually as very small, unmeasured inclusions in the pine and/or juniper dominated 

areas. All of the specific ESI classified acres were in late seral condition, which is thought to be a fully 

functional plant community on these sites. 

Current livestock grazing management in these areas is considered a negligible condition factor due to 

natural factors (topography, limited forage, and/or rockiness), which discourage extensive livestock use. Fire 

exclusion and more distantly past grazing pressures were probably the major factors allowing juniper 

densities to reach site atypical levels. The increase in juniper has apparently been the primary cause of the 

reduction of mountain mahogany as a significant sub-component in the pine/juniper sites; a concern that was 

discussed in Step 3. 

Juniper Communities 

True western juniper potential vegetation communities (versus communities with invasive juniper) make up 

the largest single class of ecological sites within the BLM managed portions of the analysis area. The ESI 

192 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

classified approximately 50,000 acres within 5 juniper potential ecological sites, though 88% of the acreage 

fell within the first two Juniper Claypan ecological sites described next. 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" (15.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant old growth juniper 

site in the southwestern and south central portions of the Gerber Block. This site has the widest latitude of 

current ecological conditions with 27% in PNC, 31% in late seral, 38% in mid seral, and 4% in early seral. In 

fact, this Juniper Claypan site accounted for 94% of all the early seral vegetation and 63% of the non-pine, 

mid seral vegetation. The reasons for these depressed ecological conditions were covered in Step 3, though 

some bears reiterating here. 

Both the PNC and late seral areas are thought to be as functional as these sites can attain. As noted in Step 3, 

many of the PNC and late seral areas have good plant species diversity, but lower than site typical 

production. These low production/high seral state communities are actually thought to be an indicator of the 

ecological condition improvements made since the pre-Taylor Grazing Act (1934) grazing abuses that 

resulted in significant and irrevocable loss of the already shallow soils. The natural vegetation composition 

has and continues to be properly re-establishing, but the higher productivity potential was permanently lost 

with the soil. (Similarly, all of the early seral areas actually classified as mid seral condition, but were 

downgraded due to low production.) 

The mid and early seral communities are found largely within the previously noted 1937 wildfire area. The 

south Gerber Block is also believed to have received some of the highest, pre-Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), 

grazing pressures of all the BLM administered lands. Since the TGA controls were just being implemented 

on the ground in 1937, these areas were still being variably overgrazed and in poor condition from decades of 

abusive grazing pressure. After the 1937 fire, these areas were probably still being heavily grazed, though at 

levels less than pre-TGA. These pressures in combination, led to soil and vegetation resource impacts that 

were extreme enough so as site productivity and potential were permanently compromised. The area’s 

current grazing management with its emphasis on multi-pasture rest-rotation systems, has and will continue 

to help these plant communities restore their diversity of native species over time. However, this will be a 

slow process and, practically speaking, site productivity will never return to its pre-settlement condition. 

Given all this, management of these areas is believed appropriate and adequate at this time; future rangeland 

monitoring studies and/or ESI re-surveys would determine when additional management changes would be 

needed. 

Both Juniper Claypan sites – this and the following moister site – as well as the other minor juniper sites, are 

experiencing variably increased levels of juniper density atypical for these sites (i.e. as compared to preEuropean settlement). Though juniper is a natural component of these ecological sites, the combined effects 

of long term fire suppression and past heavy grazing pressure have allowed juniper to increase in density 

beyond the presumed natural range of variation. At this point in time, the increase has not significantly 

degraded the condition of the two dominant (Juniper Claypan) ecological sites as classified by the ESI. 

However, the trends are distinct and juniper will become an ever-increasing concern over the next few 

decades (see Step 6). 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" (23.8% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the dominant old growth juniper 

site in the northern and eastern portions of the Gerber Block. It is also the most abundant ecological site in 

Gerber Block; comprising almost one quarter of the total ESI classified acreage (over 26,000 acres). This site 

also has some of the most elevated ecological conditions of any in the Gerber Block with 66% in PNC, 31% 

in late seral, and only 4% in mid seral. In fact, this ecological site accounts for 55% of all the classified PNC 

acres. These excellent ecological conditions – as compared to the Juniper Claypan 12-16" site above - are 

probably due to the additional 3-4" of average precipitation that these slightly higher elevation areas receive, 

and possibly due to the generally less southerly aspect. The Juniper Claypan 16-20" areas also received high 

levels of pre-TGA grazing use, but probably less than did the more southern areas. In hand with the 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 193 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

additional resiliency due to the increased moisture, these areas have faired better ecologically. The ESI 

found the late seral and PNC areas to have static to upward trends and both are thought to be fully 

functioning plant communities. Current management appears appropriate for maintaining these elevated 

ecological conditions. 

The mid seral areas were found to have late seral species diversity, but significantly suppressed production, 

resulting in the lowered rating. These areas are primarily located just below the south end of Goodlow Rim, 

in the extreme west central portion of the Gerber Block, immediately adjacent to private ranch lands 

(primarily in the Adobe pasture of the Horsefly allotment). Unlike the mid and early seral Juniper Claypan 

12-16" areas, this area was not part of the 1937 burn area. Instead, it was (and still is to a lesser degree) a 

major trailing conduit for livestock coming into and leaving the BLM grazing lands. However, like the midseral Juniper Claypan 12-16", this area inevitably received very high grazing pressures during the early, 

unregulated grazing days, which resulted in a permanent degrading of ecological potential due primarily to 

soil loss. However, monitoring studies in recent years has shown this area’s grazing utilization to be 

relatively light and these areas appear to have very slow, upward condition trend. The current rest-rotation 

grazing system is thought appropriate to continue the trend towards reaching whatever level of optimum 

functionality this site can still attain. 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" (1.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is found only in the extreme 

southwest corner of the Gerber Block and entirely within the Willow Valley Chaining pasture of the Willow 

Valley allotment (see Step 3 for more information). This site totaled 1762 acres. The chained/seeded area ­

which makes up 59% of this site’s acreage - is in “good” condition for a seeding. A good condition seeding 

is the functional equivalent of late seral for native communities, except it is based on percent of the desired 

forage species. The primary objective for the Chaining continues to be providing forage for both the 

migratory deer herd and livestock grazing. Recently, additional manipulation of the Chaining has occurred 

as follows: it was partially prescribed burned during the fall of 1998; planted with thousands of bitterbrush 

seedlings during the spring of 1999 and 2000; and a large amount of the post-chaining juniper reproduction 

was hand cut during the fall of 2000. The end result of all this activity was to increase the amounts of 

perennial grasses - the native species and the seeded wheatgrass; effect a significant decrease in less desired 

brush species (sagebrush and rabbitbrush); and gain a major increase in small bitterbrush plants. The 

ultimate success of the bitterbrush planting is impossible to judge at this time, but much of it still survives in 

most planted areas. 

In the 41% of this ecological site that was not chained, conditions were rated as mid seral. The species 

diversity and proportions rated the area in the lower end of the late seral condition class, but like the mid 

seral Juniper Claypan sites, the ultimate rating was downgraded to due to low production. This lessened 

production is a function of the often-noted heavy livestock grazing in the early settlement days – stresses that 

led to soil loss and created the conditions for weedy annual forbs, grasses, and a site atypical overabundance 

of juniper to dominate the site. Portions of this area were also burned in the 1937 wild fire. These mid seral 

areas are probably what the Chaining area looked like prior to treatment. Monitoring and evaluation of this 

area in recent years (the Willow Valley Rangeland Health Standards Assessment was completed in 2000) has 

shown that livestock make little use of these non-seeded areas and are not a significant factor in their 

continued depressed condition. These areas probably have been altered to the point that recovery is not 

possible, regardless of any practical management that could be applied. Fortunately, these type areas in 

relatively poor condition are a very small percentage of the Gerber Block – in this case <0.7%. 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (0.3% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is almost identical to the 

next described site, except that ponderosa pine is absent. Most of this site was ESI rated as late seral 

condition (84%) with the rest (16%) mid seral – a total of 356 acres. It occurs as either a transition type 

between a Juniper Claypan and adjacent pine dominated site or is found along the base of the low, basalt 

escarpment rims common in the Gerber Block. Due to the similarity to the next site, similar condition class, 

and this site’s rarity, the following discussion will suffice. 

194 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" (3.6% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is the driest of the sites with a 

ponderosa pine component and occurs in the southeast and south central portions of the Gerber Block. All of 

the Juniper Dry-Pine sites (4000+ acres) were ESI classified in late seral condition. These areas have been 

extensively underburned in recent years, causing a short-term suppression of ecological conditions, due 

primarily to a reduction in native shrub species. Long term as the shrubs re-establish (a 10-20 year process), 

this burning should have a neutral to positive effect on site conditions. These areas have also had a history of 

timber harvest activities and have experienced the die-off of mountain mahogany in the understory, discussed 

in Step 3. Because of the juniper problems, these areas are prime candidates for juniper control activities. 

Outside of the juniper issue, the late seral plant communities currently found on these sites are thought to be 

at least adequately functional given the current management. 

Pine Communities 

As noted before, the true pine sites are more comprehensively addressed in the Forested Uplands section and 

will only be addressed to a limited degree here from the perspective of the ESI data. (Note: As discussed in 

Step 3, the ESI is of only limited utility as a vegetation classification system in forested areas.) 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (6.1% of surveyed area) - This ecological site is a distinct transition between 

the true pine and old juniper potential areas. The ESI rated 92% of these sites as late seral, with 8% PNC, 

and <1% mid seral. In late seral condition class, younger juniper (i.e. <100 years old) is often an increasing 

component and the mountain mahogany has significantly decreased - not coincidentally, as noted previously. 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" (14.8% of surveyed area) - The Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site is the most pine 

dominated one within the BLM’s Gerber Block, occupying the deepest soil, non-meadow/riparian areas, and 

one of the more abundant ecological sites. The ESI rated these sites almost equally between late seral (47%) 

and mid seral (53%). However, virtually all of the mid seral areas actually ranked out as late seral by plant 

species composition, but downgraded due to lowered production levels (see Step 3). 

Both of the above pine sites have been the primary targets of the Resource Area’s prescribed burning 

program. The primary ecological impact of this extensive burning has been a significant diminishment of the 

non-resprouting shrubs (most shrub species) - plants that appear to take 10-20 years to significantly reestablish. In addition, most of these sites have had some level of past timber harvest. This has also 

contributed to the decrease in the understory as a consequence of the timber harvest methods and post-harvest 

reclamation activities. Many of the pine stands have had both timber harvest and burning occur, which in 

combination, have pushed a large percentage of the Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites into the mid seral condition 

class. Unlike the juniper and sagebrush/bunchgrass areas, historic livestock grazing appears to have been a 

limited factor in the condition of the Pine sites. Utilization pattern mapping generally shows little use of the 

pine sites by cattle, largely because they have limited forage resources. The majority of the areas classified in 

the two pine sites were estimated during the ESI to have upward trends. This was principally because postburning/harvest, the herbaceous and shrub understory species have nowhere to go but upward (i.e. increasing 

in diversity and abundance). Functionality of these sites is thought to be at least adequate with current 

management; see the Vegetation-Forested Upland section for more information. 

FS Administered Lands - Fremont National Forest 

Livestock grazing has contributed to the alteration of non-forested vegetation in the watershed by interrupting 

ecological plant succession. Grazing has moved some plant communities toward early-mid seral conditions 

(rated as poor condition) while other communities have quickly moved toward late succession (rated as 

excellent or good condition). This is observable from condition and trend data (Table 5-8). 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 195 
 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 5-8. Vegetative condition and trend on a site-specific basis by allotment in the Gerber watershed. 

Allotment Location Ecological Class Year1 Forage Rating Trend 

Arkansas T39S R16E Sec 21 Wet Meadow 1970 Fair ↓ 

Barnes Valley T39S R15E Sec 16 Dry Meadow 1991 Poor ↑ 

Barnes Valley T39S R15E Sec 8 Low Sage2 1990 Fair → 

Barnes Valley T39S R15E Sec 3 Dry Meadow 1991 Poor ↓ 

Barnes Valley T39S R15E Sec 19 Juniper3 1990 Fair → 

Bly Ridge T36S R13E Sec 24 Juniper3 1990 Fair ↑ 

Bly Ridge T37S R13E Sec 6 Moist Meadow 1989 Good → 

Horsefly T38S R15E Sec 10 Wet Meadow 1989 Fair ↑ 

Horsefly T38S R15E Sec 4 Low Sage2 1989 Good → 

Horsefly T37S R13E Sec 24 Low Sage2 1989 Good ↑ 

Horsefly T37S R13E Sec 25 Wet Meadow 1989 Good → 

Horsefly T38S R13E Sec 7 Wet Meadow 1989 Good ↑ 

Privy Spring T38S R13E Sec 7 Low Sage2 1991 Poor ↑ 

Pitchlog T39S R15E Sec 22 Low Sage2 1990 Fair → 

Yainax T38S R12E Sec 29 Juniper3 1985 Fair ↑ 

Bear Valley T40S R16E Sec 2 Low Sage2 1971 Good ↑ 

Dent Creek T39S R16E S 3 Moist Meadow 1982 Poor ↓ 

Fort Spring T41S R15E Sec 14 Low Sage2 1964 Poor → 

Wildhorse T41S R16E Sec 16 Meadow 1964 Fair → 1 Most recent year condition and trend monitoring was performed at each site

 2 Low sagebrush/ Fescue-Squirreltail

 3 Juniper/Low Sagebrush/ Fescue 

Condition and Trend Data 

Range vegetation condition and trend analysis is based on succession and community dynamics (Table 5-8). 

Condition and trend are used to assess whether specific range sites within the allotment are at or depart from 

accepted standards and capabilities based on their potential for production. Range condition relates the 

current production and composition of the vegetation to the potential plant association for a given range site 

and is given a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor. Trend is the direction of change whether stable (static), 

toward (upward), or away (downward) from the site’s potential and is rated as such. 

In summary, forage ratings showed 32% of the sites measured were in good condition, 42% in fair condition, 

and 26% in poor condition (Table 5-8). Apparent trend showed, of the sites measured, 42% were moving 

toward site production potential, 42% were static, and 16% were moving away from the site production 

potential. Without an ecological status evaluation, my guess that the majority of sampled areas are moving 

toward climax or late-seral successional stages, is not well documented. The ecological status of sites will be 

performed under the scheduled range analysis and will give us the degree of departure from climax in the 

watershed. 

Some of these changes in plant communities have been caused by uncontrolled numbers of livestock and 

season long use in the allotments. Overgrazing in the past is an example of what originally altered and 

degraded the rangeland in the watershed. This historical management strategy led to problems evident today, 

such as down cut riparian systems and increases in shrub cover. Not until the 1960’s did the main portion of 

the watershed divide up into separate pastures, which enabled tighter control of livestock numbers and season 

of use that has allowed range conditions to improve. Other changes occurred due to the aggressive and 

competitive ability of introduced grass species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and downy brome 

(Bromus techtorum) to out-compete native grasses. These introduced species can quickly vegetate disturbed 

areas and prevent the establishment of native grasses thus changing the community dynamics and diversity. 

Fire suppression and a lack of reoccurring low intensity high severity fires has promoted the growth of 

sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and Juniper (Juniperus spp.) decreasing forage production for livestock. 

196 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Noxious Weeds 

Since all of the noxious weed species that occur within the watershed are exotic (introduced) to North 

America, noxious weeds were not present in the watershed during reference times. At the end of the 

reference time period, domestic livestock grazing, logging, road construction, timber harvest and other EuroAmerican ground disturbing activities led to the introduction and establishment of noxious weed species in 

the watershed. Established weed populations, domestic livestock grazing, logging, road construction, timber 

harvest, recreationists, and the resulting increased vehicle traffic in the watershed are contributing to the 

current spread of noxious weeds. Many of the existing populations are isolated, which helps to facilitate 

control, however, the potential for spread is high for many of these species. 

The objective of the noxious weed management program on BLM lands within the analysis area is to contain 

or reduce noxious weed infestations using an integrated pest management approach. Integrated pest 

management includes manual, mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods which are used in 

accordance with the Klamath Falls Resource Area Integrated Weed Control Plan (IWCP) and Environmental 

Assessment (EA)(OR-014-93-09), which is tiered to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (December 1985) and Supplement (March 1987). 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species 

Special status plant species have been affected directly by domestic livestock grazing, logging, road 

construction, timber harvest and other Euro-American ground disturbing activities, and indirectly by changes 

in vegetation structure related to these ground disturbing activities and disruption of ecosystem processes 

including natural disturbance factors such as fire. 

The long-bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) grows in areas which 

produce forage that is attractive to livestock. Therefore, long-bearded mariposa lily has most likely been 

reduced in abundance and distribution due to the impacts of livestock grazing and other human activities. 

Baker’s globe mallow (Iliamna bakeri) seems to be adapted to frequent fire. Therefore, fire suppression, both 

directly and indirectly through consumption of fine fuels by livestock, has reduced habitat for Baker’s globe 

mallow. However, timber harvest practices that open the canopy in these forests may have partially offset 

these impacts to some extent. Overall it is likely that Baker’s globe mallow has been somewhat reduced in 

abundance and distribution relative to reference conditions due to the impacts of fire suppression, livestock 

grazing and other human activities. 

Blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus) populations, which are adapted to natural disturbance in the 

lodgepole pine forest type. As the overstory canopy closes in, habitat quality for blue-leaved penstemon 

declines since this species is detrimentally affected by lower light levels and competition from other species 

when disturbance regimes are disrupted allowing canopy cover to exceed 40% (Wooley 1992). Therefore, 

fire supression, both directly and indirectly through consumption of fine fuels by livestock, has reduced 

habitat for blue-leaved penstemon. However, timber harvest practices that open the canopy in these forests 

may have partially offset losses of habitat due to other human activities. 

Profuse-flowered mesa mint (Pogogyne floribunda) grows in seasonal (vernal) wetlands characterized by 

silver sage (Artemisia cana). The additional moisture produced forage that would attract livestock to these 

sites. Therfore it has probably been reduced in abundance and distribution relative to reference conditions 

due to livestock grazing and other human activities. Suveys of similar habitats in the Gerber area have not 

documented additional populations. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 197 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Fringed campion (Silene nuda ssp. insectivora) is found in relatively deeper soils of the sagebrush-steppe 

habitat, often associated with vernal streams and washes. The deeper soils and additional moisture produced 

forage that would attract livestock to these sites. Therefore, although fringed campion is probably somewhat 

tolerant of disturbance, it is probably been reduced in abundance and distribution relative to reference 

conditions due to livestock grazing and other human activities. 

Special Areas 

At the end of the reference time period, land ownership patterns, domestic livestock grazing, logging, road 

construction, timber harvest and other Euro-American ground disturbing activities led to fragmentation of the 

landscape and disturbance of the ecosystem processes which support native plant communities on the 

landscape. Recognition of the effects of Euro-American settlement led to the perception that reference areas 

were needed with which to compare the more intensively management landscape, and certain resource values 

were deserving of special management in order to maintain those values on the landscape. 

Consequently, Research Natural Areas (RNA’s) were established to preserve and protect examples of 

relatively undisturbed biological communities and the ecological processes that support those communities. 

These areas are available for short- or long-term scientific study, research, and education, and serve as a 

baseline against which human impacts on natural systems can be measured. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) were designated to highlight an area where special 

management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or 

scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes; or to protect human life and 

safety from natural hazards. Both ACEC’s in the analysis area were designated to conserve natural processes 

or systems and other biological values. 

Similarly, the special botanical area within the analysis area was designated to protect and maintain a specific 

remnant plant community. 

Fire and Fuels 

BLM Administered Lands 

Perhaps the greatest influence on the evolution of vegetation in the arid western United States was the 

frequent fire regime that favored certain species and communities over others. Over time, the native 

vegetation communities shifted toward drought-tolerant, fire resistant species. Forests tended to be open and 

park like, brushfields burned on a regular basis, and perennial bunchgrasses dominated the grasslands. 

Native peoples added to the effect by setting frequent, low intensity fires (Agee 1993). 

After European settlement, attempts to exclude fire, primarily through fire suppression, contributed to a trend 

toward higher stocking levels, a shift toward more shade-tolerant, drought intolerant species in the forested 

areas, and invasion of meadows and grasslands by woody species. Dense thickets of young trees are now 

abundant, biodiversity has declined, and human and ecological communities are more vulnerable to 

destructive wildfires. More live vegetation that provides ladder fuels, coupled with more woody debris 

collecting on the ground, has led to a situation where wildfires are becoming more intense, harder to control, 

and more likely to destroy everything in their path. 

Ecological restoration efforts in the United States have recently been proposed for millions of hectares of 

public lands by federal, state, and local government agencies. These restoration proposals generally seek to 

198 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

thin forests with combinations of tree harvesting and prescribed burning to increase resilience to natural 

disturbance events such as fires, insects, and regional drought, and thereby reduce the risk of catastrophic fire 

events (Allen 2002). Rangeland restoration (mostly brush and grass species) is often addressed through local 

watershed analyses and Rangeland Health Standards Assessments, and usually includes juniper thinning and 

prescribed burning to restore historic vegetative communities. 

There is a national consensus that it is urgent to restore more natural conditions to public lands (USDA & 

USDI, 2000). The local dilemma is to re-introduce fire into the ecosystem in a safe manner and with 

beneficial results to the resources. Reconstructed historic reference conditions are best used as general guides 

rather than rigid restoration prescriptions. Ecological restoration aims to enhance the resilience and 

sustainability of forests and rangelands through treatments that incrementally return the ecosystem to a state 

that is within an historic range of conditions, known as the “natural range of variability”. In the long term, 

the best way to align forest conditions with ongoing climate changes is to restore fire, which naturally tracks 

with current climate. Some stands need substantial structural manipulation (thinning or mowing) before fire 

can safely be reintroduced (Allen, 2002). 

Fire is not a precise or easy tool to use, and the fire manager must be extremely careful and proficient to 

obtain positive results. Efforts must include varying combinations of understory thinning and reintroduction 

of low-intensity fires. The BLM-Klamath Falls Resource Area has been working on this problem since 1980; 

averaging 2,350 acres of fuels reduction treatments on an annual basis (see Step 3). Due to the intensity of 

prescribed fires in certain vegetation types after 80 years of fire suppression, many acres were first treated by 

mechanical methods, which lessens the flammability of the stand, but does not imitate any natural process. 

The second treatment for those acres will apply fire to partially restore the ecological balance that is essential 

to the health of the watershed. After the third treatment, a ‘maintenance level’ will be achieved that will 

leave the landscape more fire-resistant and contribute greatly to ecosystem health. Care must be exercised in 

determining where fire is utilized. Some areas below 15" precipitation and below 4900’ elevation can be 

highly susceptible to post-fire invasion by cheatgrass or other undesirable annual species. Refer to the 

discussion in the previous “Non-forested Upland Vegetation” section. 

A successful restoration is one that sets ecological trends in the right direction. The challenge is to continue 

sustaining a more natural fire cycle even after the maintenance level has been reached. Since vegetation 

continues to grow and human intervention continues to expand, the time will never come when the watershed 

will stabilize and require no further management. At some future date, the most likely scenario is for natural 

fire starts to be managed to create desired conditions (allowed to burn as long as positive results are 

obtained). In the meantime, prescribed fires and mechanical treatment of fuels will be necessary to attain the 

desired future condition of vegetation in the Gerber/Willow Valley watersheds. 

A variety of methods can be used to achieve a fire-resilient ecosystem. Treatment principles that develop 

forests and rangelands that are more adapted to fire are: reducing fuels on the ground (surface fuels), 

increasing the distance from the ground to the live crown on the trees, reducing crown density, retaining 

larger trees, breaking up the continuity of surface fuels, reducing the decadence of woody vegetation, and 

decreasing the encroachment of woody species into rangelands. Implementing one or more of these fireresilient forest and rangeland principles could reduce the threat or decrease the negative effects of an 

unplanned wildfire event (USDI, 2003). Table 5-9 (adapted from Fitzgerald, 2002) displays common 

methods used to achieve these principles and their effects on forest stands, rangelands and grasslands. Any or 

all of these methods would be used where appropriate in the Gerber Block. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 199 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 5-9. Principles and methods of developing fire-resilient forests and rangelands. 

Principle 

Reduce Surface 

Fuels in Forests 

Method 

Burning of piles, 

crushing fuel, 

Rx burning. 

Effect 

Reduces potential flame 

length and continuity of 

fuels. 

Advantage 

Control of fire is easier, 

improved safety for firefighters, less torching. 

Concerns 

Surface disturbance, 

less with Rx burning 

than other techniques. 

Increase Height 

to Live Crown 

Thinning smaller 

trees and pruning 

up to 10-12 feet, 

either manually 

or with Rx fire. 

Requires longer flame 

length before torching 

can initiate. 

Less torching, improved 

safety for firefighters. 

Opens understory, 

may allow surface 

wind to increase. 

Decrease 

Crown Density 

Thinning in 

combination 

with surface fuel 

reduction. 

Makes tree-to-tree 

crown fire less likely. 

Reduces crown fire 

potential, improves 

firefighter safety. 

Surface wind may 

increase and surface 

fuels may be drier. 

Retain Larger 

Trees 

Thinning includes 

both spacing and 

diameter limits. 

Recognizes large 

trees are more fire 

Retains thicker bark 

and taller trees that 

are more resistant to 

fire effects. 

Increases survivability 

of trees. 

Removing smaller 

trees is economically 

less profitable. 

resistant. 

Break Up 

Continuous 

Surface Fuels 

Construct fuel 

breaks and holding 

areas by mowing 

or crushing fuel, 

thinning, or Rx fire.

Reduces continuity of 

fuels to slow down 

rapid fire spread. 

Control of fire is easier, 

improved safety for 

firefighters, less torching. 

Surface disturbance, 

less with Rx burning 

than other techniques. 

Leaves much 

untreated fuel. 

Reduce 

Decadence 

Remove old, dying 

brush and small 

dead trees by 

mowing, thinning, 

or Rx fire. 

Reduces available 

tinder- dry dead wood 

and leaves vegetation 

that is more resistant 

to ignition. 

Fire behavior is less 

intense, improved safety 

for firefighters and less 

harmful to soil 

organisms. 

Brush may not 

resprout after Rx 

burning, surface 

disturbance with 

mechanical methods. 

Decrease 

Encroachment 

of Woody by 

Species 

Remove young 

trees and brush 

mowing, thinning, 

crushing, or with 

Rx fire. 

Retains more moisture 

on site and makes 

crown fires less likely. 

Restoration of stable 

ecosystem improves 

firefighter safety. 

Surface disturbance, 

compaction of moist 

soils. 

USFS Administered Lands 

Cost efficiency from a Fire Management perspective is measured by a net marginal benefit process (margin 

analysis) using expected loss. Expected loss is the cost of suppression, plus the net value change of an acre, 

times the probability of fire occurrence, computed annually for a chosen time period and discounted to 

Present Net Value. The Fremont National Forest typically uses a 20 year period for expected loss. Expected 

loss is directly proportional to fuel loading, fuelbed depth and fire occurrence. 

In order to maintain a cost efficient fuel profile, 0-3" down woody material should not exceed an average of 

10-12 tons per acre, based on current fire occurrence frequencies. When and if fuel loading exceeds this 

amount, fuel treatment alternatives will be considered and analyzed using a net marginal benefit process. 

Economically, the fuel treatment alternatives with the greatest net marginal benefit is considered the best. 

200 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Forest-wide Standards for Soils Management pertaining to fuel loading requires that 8-10 tons per acre of 0­

9" down woody material should be left on site. If 10-12 tons of 0-3" down woody material is the desired fuel 

profile, there should be no problem meeting the Soils Management Standard of 8-10 tons of 0-9" down 

woody material. 

The desired fuel profile used is an USFS—Region 6 custom fuel profile of a 4A that reflect 25 tons per acre 

of down woody material and a fuelbed depth of 0.56 feet. This is described in the National Fire Management 

Analysis System (NFMAS) reference Materials Handbook dated July 1, 1990. 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

Since European settlement of the analysis area, major changes in composition and diversity of habitat and 

associated wildlife species has occurred. Many of these changes have resulted in some species becoming less 

abundant and others becoming more abundant. Continued changes in habitat will further affect wildlife 

species in a variety of different ways. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Bald Eagle - Over time, bald eagle foraging habitat has likely increased while nesting and roosting habitat 

has decreased. The watersheds may have provided more suitable forested habitat prior to 1950. Timber 

harvest, plant succession and fire suppression has reduced the abundance, distribution and quality of potential 

bald eagle nesting/roosting habitat on the landscape since 1950. Overstory removal, partial removal and 

regeneration timber harvest treatments in LOS ponderosa pine have removed preferred nest/roost trees. Fire 

suppression has resulted in increased stand densities, which has contributed to the mortality of the large 

overstory trees. Such trees are preferred by bald eagles for nesting and roosting. In some areas, the current 

trend of large tree mortality due to high stand densities and insects and disease must be reversed if potential 

nesting/roosting habitat is to be maintained through time. In other areas, recent management of ponderosa 

pine stringers, clumps and stands for LOS condition has improved this habitat for the future. In addition, 

plant succession is causing a change from true pine to mixed conifer in many stands. Mixed conifer stands 

are less suitable for bald eagle nesting/roosting. Prey habitat suitability was marginal within the watershed 

during the historic time period (USFS, 2000). 

Populations in the watershed have likely increased since pre-settlement times. Roosting habitat quality has 

declined where open, park-like LOS pine stands have been replaced by dense, multi-story LOS stands. 

Habitat quality has declined since the 1940’s with increased disturbance from higher road densities, increased 

commercial logging activity, and greater recreational use. 

Additional bald eagle nesting is possible as conifers near reservoirs increase in size. Potential eagle nesting 

and roosting habitat characterized by Isaacs and Silovsky (1991) in the watersheds is currently being 

managed for bald eagles. 

American Peregrine Falcon - Potential nesting areas or suitable cliff sites within the analysis area have 

likely remained constant and relatively undisturbed. These sites could likely be occupied by peregrines in the 

future if associated foraging areas are suitable. 

American peregrine falcon establishment is dependent upon prey availability of marsh-related species and 

terrestrial small mammals and birds. Marsh birds are most abundant during the wet cycles that occur about 

three of every ten years in southeastern Oregon. During drought years, waterfowl and shorebird numbers are 

low and any nesting peregrines would have to rely more heavily on small mammals and landbirds. Small 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 201 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

mammal populations are cyclic with explosions and crashes. They currently appear to be rebuilding after a 

crash in population. 

Wildfires maintained the upland prey habitat for peregrines prior to 1945. Fire suppression in recent years 

has allowed juniper to dominate sites and alter small mammal and bird habitat. Some open hunting areas 

have probably been lost due to juniper encroachment, making prey detection by peregrines difficult 

especially when small mammal populations are at low levels. 

Habitat for prey species and foraging has improved where the removal of late and old seral (LOS) forest has 

increased the area of open, early seral forest cover types. Foraging habitat quantity and quality has declined 

where open, parklike LOS pine stands have been replaced by dense, multi-story LOS stands. Habitat quality 

has declined since the 1940’s with increased disturbance from higher road densities, increased commercial 

logging activity, and greater recreational use. 

Timber harvest has opened the forest canopy and gradually increased foraging habitat suitability in some 

forested areas. However, in the future, habitat for prey species and hunting would diminish if early and midstructural stands progress in succession to an eventual overstory condition. Large created forage areas 

available for this species are not likely to occur in the future under predicted land management policies. 

The possibility does exist that large forage areas will be created by wildfire. If current trends continue, large 

fires that remove forest overstory are likely to be more common in the decades ahead as the amount of acres 

in a dense vegetal state, with a high risk of stand-replacement fire, increases. Reductions in road densities 

could reduce disturbances and increase habitat security within potential habitat (USFS, 2000). 

Northwestern pond turtle - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Habitat 

conditions for northwestern pond turtles in the watersheds have changed substantially over time. 

Historically, riparian areas were likely healthy enough to provide nesting and overwintering habitat in lower 

elevation areas of the watersheds. Elevational constraints and forage quality and quantity were probably 

always a limiting factor in pond turtle distribution. 

With the creation of reservoir and other small impoundments, pond turtle habitat was likely improved. 

However in this same time period, riparian and associated water quality degradation probably limited pond 

turtle range expansion. In addition, the increased seasonal nature of the streams and reservoirs likely had 

detrimental effects. 

Bats - There have been multiple changes to bat habitats within the watersheds. Some types of roosting and 

maternal colony sites have decreased in number and suitability, whereas others have increased. The number 

and distribution of snags and suitable live trees has decreased. This has detrimentally affected the species of 

bats that prefer these types of sites. Cliffs, caves and other rock structures have remained in a relatively 

unchanged condition, having little affect on bat species that use them. The increase in buildings and other 

structures has had beneficial affects on populations that have been able to adapt to these situations. 

Bats species that prefer foraging around riparian corridors have been negatively impacted by degradation of 

these areas. However, species that typically feed over open waterholes, ponds or reservoirs have benefited 

from changes since European settlement. 

Great Gray Owl - (BLM Survey and Manage Species, State Sensitive Vulnerable in Oregon) – Over time, 

great gray owl foraging habitat has increased while nesting and roosting habitat has likely decreased. The 

watersheds may have provided more suitable forested habitat prior to 1950. Timber harvest, plant succession 

and fire suppression has reduced the abundance, distribution and quality of potential great gray owl nesting/ 

roosting habitat on the landscape since 1950. Overstory removal, partial removal and regeneration timber 

harvest treatments in LOS ponderosa pine have removed preferred nest/roost trees. Fire suppression has 

202 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

resulted in increased stand densities, which has contributed to the mortality of the large overstory trees. Such 

large trees with widely spaced limbs are preferred by great grays for nesting and roosting. In some areas, the 

current trend of large tree mortality due to high stand densities, insects and disease must be reversed if 

potential nesting/roosting habitat is to be maintained through time. In other areas, recent management of 

ponderosa pine stringers, clumps and stands for LOS condition has improved this habitat for the future. The 

number of broken top snags suitable for great gray owl nesting sites has varied through history. With current 

snag retention policies, snag numbers should remain stable in some parts of the watersheds. 

Great grays have taken advantage of foraging area that has increased since the turn of the century. Clear cuts, 

patch cuts and existing openings and meadows are suitable for foraging. As clear cuts and patch cuts fill in 

with regenerating trees and shrubs, natural openings and meadows will become increasingly important for 

these owls. 

Big Game 

Seasonal big game ranges and migration corridors on private and public lands have been altered considerably 

within the past 50 years. Agents of change, including commercial timber harvest, fire suppression, wildfire, 

plant succession, livestock grazing, transportation corridors for public and industrial access and recreational 

developments have cumulatively altered the landscape. Drought, insects, and disease in recent years continue 

to cause additional modifications to all seasonal ranges and migration corridors in all ownerships. 

Prior to Euro-American settlement, big game ranges were partially maintained by natural wildfires that 

created a mosaic of successional stages from early to climax. This provided the vigorous supply of winter 

browse, cover and early green-up grasses and forbs that is necessary for reproduction and survival. 

Fire suppression since the early 1900’s has acted as a habitat change agent and created an unnatural condition 

that has benefited browse species such as bitterbrush and mountain mahogany in the short-term. However, in 

the long term, this same protection from wildfire has created even-aged decadent stands of bitterbrush and 

mahogany with reduced reproduction and vigor. Fire suppression has also allowed western juniper to 

establish in areas where juniper was historically a minor component of the landscape. In the absence of 

natural wildfires, juniper has expanded at the expense of the understory shrubs and native herbaceous species. 

Natural fire regimes maintained stands in a mosaic of plants of various age classes and allowed vigorous 

growth and seedling establishment. 

There has been a loss of riparian deciduous vegetation (willows, aspen and shrubs) and lowering of water 

tables in riparian zones as a direct result of overgrazing through the early 1900s. This in combination with 

insect infestations and resultant timber salvage operations has altered the abundance and distribution of 

fawning, calving and rearing cover and forage. The gradual current recovery of riparian vegetation, which is 

occurring around many stream and spring areas under present livestock management, should benefit deer and 

elk habitat. 

The amount of effective cover is currently at optimum levels in most areas within the forested portion of the 

watershed. Distribution of cover, however, is poor resulting in large areas where cover is limited, thus 

reducing effective habitat. Since cover/forage ratios were not available for the historic condition, the 

relationship between historic and current cover/forage conditions is not specific. It can be assumed that more 

frequent fires historically allowed more herbaceous forage habitat in ponderosa pine habitats. Fire 

suppression throughout the twentieth century has caused a transition in stand structure from more open to 

more dense understories. This has increased hiding cover and reduced forage in historically open habitats. 

During the same period, timber harvest activities have reduced cover in higher elevation mixed conifer 

habitats. This has resulted in highly fragmented, patchy areas of cover where large, relatively unbroken tracts 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 203 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

of cover existed historically. While forage areas were created by timber harvest activities, a continued 

creation of openings by harvest has not occurred on a large scale since the late 1980s. Many man-created 

forage areas have since reforested and are transitioning to a state of cover. Generally, thinning prescriptions 

within these openings allow for short-term retention of forage but act to retard the transition to cover. 

Eventually, canopy coverage begins to retard forage production and at the same time, tree density in the 

thinned stands is generally inadequate to provide cover. In this case, the value of the stand as mule deer or 

other big game habitat is minimized. Fire suppression has also precluded creation of short-term forage areas. 

If current trends continue, loss of forage would become even more pronounced in the next several decades as 

large-scale wildfires and insect outbreaks become the sole creators of forage habitat. Prescribed fire and 

understory thinning are tools that can be used to restore foraging habitat on a more predictable schedule. 

However, restoration of forage generally corresponds to a reduction in hiding, thermal and sometimes 

fawning/calving habitat (USFS, 2000). 

Big game security has been reduced by increases in road densities in the past 50 years. Road prisms have
 

reduced the amount of available habitat and vehicle traffic has displaced big game from areas adjacent to
 

open roads. Roads have also increased vulnerability to harvest and poaching, further reducing big game
 

security. Road closures and obliterations could increase habitat availability and security.
 

Mule Deer - Juniper encroachment is reducing the quality and quantity of transition range and winter range. 

Livestock grazing, drought cycles, and insect outbreaks have also negatively affected big game range. 

Intense livestock overgrazing in the early 1900s by domestic sheep, cattle and horses created severe 

competition with mule deer for early green-up grasses and forbs and winter browse. Drought cycles that 

occurred periodically further limited grass/forb production and browse seedling establishment. Insect 

infestations contributed to the decline of browse species by limiting flower and seed production and affecting 

the overall vigor of plants. 

Maintenance of effective mule deer habitat at optimum or even minimum levels can conflict with
 

management of forested stands for optimum sustainability. At some point, if historic LOS forest stand
 

conditions are promoted on a wide enough landscape scale, ODF&W and Klamath Tribes management
 

objectives for mule deer population numbers would be negatively impacted.
 

Elk - Elk populations will likely continue to increase within the watersheds as there is currently suitable
 

summer and winter habitat. Removal of juniper will likely improve forage for elk as grasses and forbs
 

respond to treatments.
 

Pronghorn - Juniper encroachment is reducing the quantity and quality of habitat, however other factors
 

appear to be greater contributors to population trends. Pronghorns will likely benefit from low sage and
 

shrub-steppe habitat improvements that revitalize the shrubs, grasses and associated forbs in these areas.
 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late /Old Growth Successional (LOS) Habitat 

Fuels buildup due to fire suppression and forest encroachment in forested areas has increased the risk of 

stand replacement wildfire in LOS patches. The loss of old growth patches managed as dedicated old growth 

would reduce connectivity, thus reducing options for terrestrial species associated with LOS to successfully 

move across the landscape. The loss of patches would be long-term with little opportunity for replacement 

within a timeline that would be favorable to associated terrestrial species. 

Based on historic and current estimates for old growth habitats, total acres and continuity of LOS forested 

stands are currently less than what occurred historically. Acres and patch size of interior LOS have declined 

as well. Current average LOS interior patch size is minimal, whereas historically patch size probably 

averaged in the hundreds or thousands of acres. 

204 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Available and suitable LOS forest and dead wood habitat has decreased since 1945 primarily as a result of 

timber harvest activities. Insect and disease outbreaks, blowdown events, firewood cutting, hazard tree 

removal, road construction, and fire suppression have also contributed to the loss of habitat. These 

disturbance agents have removed snags, down wood and large diameter live trees, reduced patch sizes and 

connectivity, and diminished the amount of high quality LOS interior habitat and overstory canopy cover. 

Increased gaps and fragmentation have in turn increased the amount of lower quality LOS ecotone habitat. 

Insects, disease and wildfires generally increase the amount of dead wood habitat over areas that have 

burned, but follow up salvage logging can remove most of the large dead wood from the area. 

True ponderosa pine communities have experienced the greatest reduction in dead wood and LOS forest 

habitat. Past management practices of overstory and partial removals of pine, as well as fire suppression, 

have converted forest stands previously dominated by open large diameter pine to stands with dense 

understories of ponderosa pine regeneration or stands now characterized as mixed conifer with dense white 

fir understories. Large areas of LOS pine were removed by regeneration harvest treatments. As a result, 

habitat suitability has declined for species associated with open, large diameter pine stands such as whiteheaded woodpeckers and northern goshawk. Overall abundance and distribution of these species have most 

likely declined from historic levels. 

Succession of forest cover above 5,500 feet and on fir sites at lower elevations toward a mixed conifer 

composition appears to be providing more habitat for pileated woodpecker, marten and other associated 

species as these forest stands develop LOS structural conditions. Succession of early/mid-seral pine to late 

seral pine has created additional habitat for LOS associated species such as black-backed woodpecker. 

However, timber harvest activities have reduced forest cover in higher elevation mixed conifer habitats, 

resulting in highly fragmented patchy areas of forest cover in areas where large, relatively unbroken tracts 

existed historically. 

The loss and fragmentation of available dead wood and LOS forest habitat since 1945 has reduced habitat 

availability and suitability. Smaller, scattered LOS patches amid large areas of forest habitat where large 

overstory trees are uncommon or early/mid-seral forest habitat dominates may no longer meet the habitat 

needs of some LOS associated species. Such a condition applies to marten and pileated woodpecker, which 

require large areas of contiguous LOS to meet home range habitat requirements. Isolation and crowding of 

individuals and pairs into these scattered patches threatens the stability of some species. Sink populations in 

marginal habitat patches cannot maintain themselves without continuous recruitment from source populations 

in preferred habitat conditions. Even the currently improved stands for species associated with LOS mixed 

conifer, such as the marten, pileated and black-backed woodpeckers, are offset by the fragmented nature of 

LOS patches and loss of interior habitat conditions. 

Habitat security has gradually declined since 1945 as disturbances associated with a greatly increased road 

density and extensive timber harvest activities escalated through at least 1990. Future road closures/ 

obliterations and lower levels of timber harvest activities should reduce disturbances to LOS forest habitat 

and associated species. 

Prescribed underburns and thinning could help restore more open park-like stands of LOS pine habitat for 

associated wildlife species. Without treatment, existing stands of LOS forest and dead wood habitat are at 

risk to potential insect and disease outbreaks and catastrophic wildfire. The risk to higher, wetter and cooler 

true mixed conifer sites would be lower than the risk to lower elevation true pine and warm site mixed 

conifer stands. The risk for the occurrence of these events has increased in the last 50 years. 

Under an assumed forest management scenario on private lands similar to present management, LOS forest 

and dead wood habitat that has been or is eliminated and replaced by early/mid-seral forest will not return to 

the landscape. Forest habitat that matures on private lands in the future likely will be harvested before it 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 205 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

develops LOS forest characteristics. As such, it will remain marginal sink habitat for species associated with 

LOS forest and dead wood habitats. On National Forest lands, LOS forest and dead wood habitat should 

gradually increase in abundance, continuity, distribution and quality over the long term if forest management 

objectives that focus on development and maintenance of LOS continue and as tree plantations grow into 

mature forests. Edge contrast between existing LOS forest and early/mid-seral forest will slowly diminish as 

tree plantations mature over time and are managed more for forest structural diversity (USFS, 2000). 

It is unlikely that the watersheds will ever again provide LOS forest habitat within the range of historic 

variability. The intermingled ownership pattern will continue to contribute to the gaps and fragmentation of 

existing LOS forest habitat. It is also highly unlikely that open, park-like, single story ponderosa pine forest 

habitat will ever be as abundant and contiguous as it was prior to 1945. However, the acres of LOS mixed 

conifer forest are expected to increase over time. Overall, the future abundance and distribution of wildlife 

species associated with LOS forest habitat, especially ponderosa pine, will be less than occurred historically 

(USFS, 2000). 

Northern Goshawk - Goshawk habitat quantity and quality has declined where open, park-like LOS pine 

stands have been replaced by dense, multi-story LOS stands. Increases in mixed conifer LOS appear to have 

influenced goshawk territory locations. The territories within the watershed are located partially or totally 

within mixed conifer habitats. This may reflect a loss of suitable habitat in ponderosa pine habitats rather 

than a preference for mixed conifer. Goshawks appear to be utilizing the dense overstory, high canopy 

coverage, LOS mixed conifer stands for nesting activities. Insect infestations in mixed conifer and resultant 

salvage activities as well as some timber harvest activities are rapidly reducing the availability of this habitat 

for nesting goshawks. Habitat security has declined since the 1940’s in association with increased 

disturbance from higher road densities, increased commercial logging activity, and greater recreational use. 

Foraging habitat quantity and quality has declined where open, park-like LOS pine stands have been replaced 

by dense, multi-story LOS stands. Habitat for goshawk prey species and foraging has improved where the 

removal of late and old seral (LOS) forest has increased the area of open, early seral forest cover types in 

small (< 4 acres) patches and edge habitat around larger openings. Habitat quality has declined since the 

1940’s with increased disturbance from higher road densities, increased commercial logging activity, and 

greater recreational use. Potential forest regeneration treatments on private lands and smaller openings 

created by future uneven-aged treatments on National Forest lands could continue to create edge habitat for 

goshawk prey species and more suitable prey and hunting habitat for goshawks. Road closures and 

obliterations would help reduce habitat fragmentation (USFS, 2000). 

American Marten - Habitat availability and continuity have declined during the last 50 years. Habitat 

suitability however, may have increased in patches of LOS forest habitat where open, park-like LOS pine 

stands have been replaced by dense, multi-story LOS stands, and where mixed conifer has replaced or 

invaded pine stands. Such changes provide the dense conditions, increased overstory mortality and down 

wood that characterize suitable marten habitat. Sanitation and salvage logging, however, have limited the 

availability and abundance of this habitat. Additionally, the improved stand conditions that presently exist in 

LOS mixed conifer are offset by the fragmented nature of LOS patches and loss of interior habitat conditions. 

Habitat security has declined since the 1940’s in association with increased disturbance from higher road 

densities, increased commercial logging activity, and greater recreational use (USFS, 2000). 

As plantations grow into the mid-seral condition class, habitat conditions for marten prey species will 

decline. Lower marten populations could result in higher rodent populations, which will damage or kill tree 

seedlings. Smaller openings created by future uneven-aged treatments could create more suitable prey and 

hunting habitat for marten. 

Pileated Woodpecker - Habitat availability and continuity have declined during the last 50 years. However, 

habitat suitability may have increased in patches of LOS forest habitat where open, park-like LOS pine 

206 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

stands have been replaced by dense, multi-story LOS stands or mixed conifer has replaced or invaded pine 

stands. Such changes provide the dense conditions, increased overstory mortality and down wood that 

characterize suitable pileated woodpecker habitat. The improved stand conditions that presently exist in LOS 

mixed conifer are offset by the fragmented nature of LOS patches and loss of interior habitat conditions. 

Sanitation and salvage harvest prescriptions continue to reduce dead wood habitats, reducing the suitability 

of these habitats for pileated woodpeckers. Habitat security has declined since the 1940’s in association with 

increased disturbance from higher road densities, increased commercial logging activity, and greater 

recreational use (USFS, 2000). 

Black-backed/White-headed Woodpecker - Habitat availability and suitability have declined in ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer habitats. This decline can be attributed to the loss of LOS pine forest and to forest 

succession in remaining LOS forest from ponderosa pine to a more mixed conifer forest. Black-backs prefer 

true pine types and large contiguous stands rather than fragmented patches of LOS forest cover interspersed 

with early to mid seral disturbance patches. Maximum and mean patch size and interior habitat in LOS 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat have declined since 1945. Overstory mortality occurring in large 

diameter pine and fir in recent years from drought, overstocked stands, and an increase in disease and insect 

activity in all stand types have created additional snag habitat. This has improved nesting habitat conditions 

and foraging opportunity. Sanitation and salvage logging, however, have limited the availability and 

abundance of this habitat (USFS, 2000). 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat 

The Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds contain many thousands of acres of sagebrush steppe habitat. A 

large percentage of this habitat type in dominated by low sagebrush, where as a small percentage is 

dominated by big sagebrush. Other components include antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, grasses 

and an increasing amount of western juniper. Some terrestrial species of wildlife in the analysis area are 

considered sagebrush obligates, and others utilize these habitats during certain parts of the year. 

Historically, the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds likely had substantially more acres considered 

sagebrush steppe habitat. The ratio of low sagebrush to big sagebrush dominated habitats was probably close 

to current conditions as past habitat alterations to both types have been similar. Big sage stringers containing 

deeper soil characteristics have been heavily infiltrated by western juniper since fire suppression. Low sage 

plateaus typically having shallower soil and more rock have also been encroached into, but large juniper-free 

areas still exist. 

Sagebrush habitat within the analysis area probably contained some western juniper and/or ponderosa pine 

clumps or stringers prior to European settlement. However, the natural fire regime likely excluded extensive 

juniper or pine encroachment. Native forbs and grasses were more diverse and abundant as a component of 

healthy sage habitat prior to the intensive grazing that came with settlement. These large expanses of 

sagebrush steppe habitat probably gave way to healthy and stable populations of sage obligate species other 

than the two discussed below. 

Western Sage Grouse - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Sage grouse 

habitat was maintained by wildfire prior to Euro-American settlement. The quality and quantity of sagebrush 

habitat has declined with advanced plant succession and juniper/conifer encroachment. In many parts of the 

watersheds, juniper is replacing shrub habitat. Fire suppression and some historical livestock grazing have 

been the primary factors contributing to reduced habitat. The change in plant composition and structure has 

not benefited sage grouse productivity. The loss of the grass/forb component has reduced potential nesting 

and escape cover and eliminated or drastically reduced the forb component critical for rearing broods. These 

two factors in combination with weather have probably contributed to the general decline of the species 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 207 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

throughout its historical range (USFS, 2000). The existing trend is a continued reduction of and possible 

extinction of local populations. 

Pygmy Rabbit - (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) - Without historic or 

current pygmy rabbit information, population trends are difficult to determine. It is likely that pygmy rabbits 

historically existed in suitable pockets of habitat. Most of these big sagebrush pockets and stringers have 

been negatively impacted by a variety of actions. Continuing treatments of sagebrush habitat will improve 

the quality and quantity of suitable foraging and burrowing areas. It is unknown whether or not pygmy 

populations will respond to these habitat changes. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat 

Aspen is gradually being replaced by junipers/conifers, primarily as a result of plant succession and fire 

suppression. Several factors have contributed to a decrease in aspen regeneration, including: the decadent 

condition of mature aspen, the change in forest structure to dense conifer stands, encroachment of juniper/ 

conifers into meadow areas, rangelands and riparian stringers, and the buildup of debris on the forest floor. 

The regeneration that does occur is often set back by livestock grazing and big game browsing pressure. 

Where stream channels have been downcut and/or widened and the water table lowered, the site potential for 

aspen may have been significantly reduced or lost. There has been a loss of riparian deciduous vegetation 

(willows, aspen and shrubs) and lowering of water tables in riparian zones as a direct result of overgrazing in 

the early 1900s. 

Red-naped/Red-breasted Sapsucker - Habitat quantity, continuity and suitability has declined since the 

turn of the century primarily due to grazing, increases in browsing ungulate populations, fire suppression and 

lowered water tables. This loss of preferred habitat for sapsuckers, several neotropical migrant landbird 

species, beaver and other deciduous riparian vegetation dependent species is a contributing factor limiting 

population numbers and distribution of these species across the landscape. Both population levels and 

distribution of aspen and deciduous riparian associated species has declined in the watersheds. To help 

maintain population levels, management actions that minimize the effects of grazing, along with the 

reintroduction of fire and management of encroaching conifers must be implemented in order to halt the 

gradual loss of aspen and restore its presence to areas where it historically occurred (USFS, 2000). 

Beaver - Livestock grazing, fire suppression, trapping and plant succession have contributed to a decline in 

beaver habitat and numbers that probably began around the turn of the century. Fire suppression and plant 

succession have reduced the availability and abundance of some important deciduous forage species. Shade 

intolerant and fire-associated species, such as aspen and willow, have most likely declined in density and 

distribution as decadent stands are replaced by juniper/conifers. 

Historic as well as more recent livestock grazing has reduced the availability and abundance of summer 

herbaceous and winter deciduous forage species, and altered channel conditions and flow regimes. In some 

stream systems, these changes have occurred to the extent that beaver habitat requirements for water and 

food may no longer be provided. Upland timber harvest and road construction have contributed to altered 

runoff and stream flow regimes to the detriment of beaver habitat. 

Trapping harvest and transplant records indicate that direct removal of beavers has also affected populations 

and most likely distribution as well. It appears that trapping pressure was heavy from settlement time 

through around 1920, and again from 1950 to 1970. The trapping closure initiated in 1988 and in effect until 

1998 has probably protected beaver populations to some extent. However, on-going damage trapping and 

removal of beaver colonies near culverts has negatively affected beaver populations during this period 

(USFS, 2000). 

208 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

As beaver are lost from the system, wetland habitat is reduced, as is associated plant and animal diversity and 

productivity. In addition, water and sediment storage and transport are altered, and nutrient cycling and 

decomposition dynamics are changed. 

Recent riparian recovery, in areas where the loss of willow and other deciduous riparian species was limiting 

population growth, has benefited beaver populations. Recovery in local areas has allowed beaver to occupy 

new sites and be more productive in areas where they have existed throughout history. 

Other Terrestrial Species 

In general, the quality and quantity of habitat in forest and shrub communities has increased for wildlife 

species favoring advanced succession and multi-canopy layers, while decreasing for species favoring open, 

park-like forested stands or diverse age structure with grass and forb understory in shrub communities 

Shrub dependent terrestrial species have declined in distribution and numbers due to livestock grazing, fire 

suppression, and plant succession. The natural mosaic of shrublands in a variety of seral stages historically 

maintained by wildfire has been converted to juniper-dominated sites with very little shrub/herbaceous 

understory. Grazing also has removed much of the fine herbaceous understory needed to carry a fire. 

Current livestock grazing management should allow some recovery of upland shrub habitats. Full recovery 

may require the introduction of fire. 

Riparian-dependent species have also experienced declines in distribution and abundance. This is attributable 

to lowered water tables, fire suppression, juniper/conifer competition and the loss of riparian woody 

vegetation associated with livestock grazing. These species should benefit under current livestock 

management, however, where late season use allows cattle access to riparian areas and deciduous riparian 

vegetation, recovery will be impeded (USFS, 2000). 

Herptiles- Historic native reptile and amphibian populations were probably more stable and robust. Habitat 

degradation, exotic species introductions and harvest are some of the factors that have effected herptile 

populations since Euro-American settlement. Healthy riparian zones adjacent to aquatic systems without 

predatory fish and bullfrogs probably contained a higher diversity and larger populations of herptiles. 

As riparian areas and shrub-steppe habitats recover, reptile and amphibian populations should respond. 

However, with stable and robust populations of exotic predators, certain aquatic areas will remain unsuitable 

for most native, less competitive herptiles. 

Osprey - Osprey foraging habitat has likely increased while nesting and roosting habitat has decreased. 

Populations in the watershed have likely increased since pre-settlement times. Additional osprey nesting is 

possible as conifers near reservoirs increase in size and stressed, mature trees turn into snags. Ospreys will 

benefit if fish populations remain stable in reservoirs with adjacent suitable nesting habitat. . 

Landbirds – Since the golden-crowned kinglet, pine siskin and pygmy nuthatch favor larger ponderosa pine 

and ponderosa pine snags, they were likely more abundant prior to settlement versus current conditions. The 

olive-sided flycatcher, which favors mixed conifer edge and burned area, were likely more abundant. 

Continuation of current management strategies for LOS and snag retention may be beneficial to these land 

bird species. 

Species associated with native perennial grasses like Vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, horned lark and western 

meadowlark were probably more abundant prior to fire suppression and excessive livestock grazing. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 209 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Meadows have declined due to impoundment and encroachment. Continued encroachment of juniper into 

meadows will cause declines of meadow dependent species. 

Big sagebrush communities are of concern because their extent and health have been affected by a variety of 

factors including fire suppression, grazing, noxious weeds (cheat grass) and climate change. These 

vegetation communities provide the structural complexity needed to support a greater variety of bird species 

than the low sage community occurring in the scab-rock flats; however, both communities are important for 

their own suite of bird species. Historic shrub communities dominated by mountain mahogany and 

bitterbrush likely supported species including the green-tailed towhee. Sagebrush obligate songbird species 

including Brewer’s sparrow and sage thrasher were likely widespread in healthy sage habitats. Continued 

changes in habitat from shrub/grassland to juniper will reduce wildlife species that depend upon shrub and 

grassland habitats. 

Lark sparrows tend to be associated with habitats where there is an interspersion of shrubs and juniper. Gray 

flycatchers are associated with shrubs and mature juniper. It is possible that these two species are as 

successful today as they were under historic conditions. 

Riparian dependent bird species like willow flycatcher, orange-crowned warbler, calliope hummingbird, 

yellow warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, Wilson’s warbler, black-headed grosbeak, song sparrow and 

Lincoln’s sparrow probably suffered with the decline of properly functioning riparian habitat. Recent 

riparian recovery has benefited landbird populations in areas where the loss of willow and other deciduous 

riparian vegetation was limiting landbird use. 

IV. Human Uses 

Timber 

Early management of forest lands on all ownerships began in the 1870’s, when livestock operators ran large 

numbers of sheep, cattle, and horses on the forest and woodland ranges. This removed available forage, and, 

in the process, also removed ground fuels that would have “carried” periodic light ground fires under natural 

conditions. Coupled with fire suppression after about 1900, these actions reduced natural fires and allowed 

juniper and pine seedlings to become established on sites where, under natural conditions, they would not 

have survived natural burns. In addition, naturally open juniper and pine stands also experienced an increase 

in juniper and pine seedlings, resulting in the dense stands of today. Creation of National Forests and 

implementation of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 later introduced grazing regulation on these public lands. 

Timber harvest began with settlement and provided building materials for local homes, ranch buildings, and 

fences. Large scale harvest operations on private lands started after 1930 on Weyerhaeuser lands, and 

continues today under U.S. Timberlands ownership. On Fremont National Forest lands, harvests increased 

after World War II, and concentrated on removal of large, old-growth pine. Since the early 1990’s, harvest 

levels have been drastically reduced, and objectives have shifted to restoration treatments to protect existing 

old-growth trees and development of old-growth forest structures. On BLM lands, harvest of green timber 

began after 1947, with sanitation-salvage as the main objective. Harvest levels remained generally steady 

until the mid 1990’s, and have declined since. Maintenance of an overall multi-aged stand structure, 

(especially the large tree component) and reduction of stand densities by commercial thinning have been 

BLM management objectives for the last 30-40 years. Since 1980, underburning has been extensively 

applied to National Forest and BLM lands in the watershed. 

210 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Grazing 

BLM Administered Lands - (The Gerber Block) 

This section contains specific narratives, which will provide for the synthesis and interpretation of the 

previously outlined information for each of the 18 grazing allotments in the analysis area. When available, 

existing rangeland monitoring information (and/or other pertinent data) will be summarized in this section as 

it is some of the most important information necessary to ascertain whether pertinent grazing related 

objectives (KFRA ROD/RMP, Standards for Rangeland Health, etc.) are being met or not. 

Much of the BLM administered lands in the analysis area has recently (1999-2002) been assessed/evaluated 

via Rangeland Health Standards Assessments. This includes the following allotments: Bear Valley, Horsefly, 

Dry Prairie, Pitchlog, Timber Hill, Horton, Campbell, and Willow Valley. These allotments, which make up 

about 2/3rds of the BLM acreage in the analysis area, will have the monitoring analysis and conclusions 

briefly summarized and referenced - but not reiterated - in this document. Some information or data collected 

since the Assessments were completed may be briefly described and analyzed as necessary. Management 

recommendations from the completed Assessments will be brought forward into Step 6 – Management 

Recommendations in this watershed analysis. 

The allotments that are to be formally assessed via this analysis will have the available monitoring, and other 

pertinent information/data, more comprehensively addressed. These allotments are: “J” Spring, Paddock, 

Bumpheads, DeVaul, Goodlow, Pankey Basin, Horse Camp Rim, and Rock Creek. A few of these allotments 

have ample amounts of information, though most have very little; all have ecological site inventory (ESI) 

data. The ESI information was extensively summarized in Steps 3 & 4 and broadly analyzed in the 

“Vegetation – Non-Forested Uplands” portion of this Step. The analysis of ESI information in this grazing 

section, will tie into and be consistent with this latter analysis, but be focused on the allotment/pasture level. 

In addition, 7 of the allotments without significant monitoring information (“J” Spring, Paddock, DeVaul, 

Goodlow, Horton, Campbell, and Pankey Basin) had a “Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet” 

done on each of them during October 2000. This process - which is also referred informally to as an Upland 

PFC (Proper Functioning Condition) Assessment – entails a field visit and qualitative evaluation by a team of 

appropriate resource specialists. More specifically, after a general field check, a representative area (or areas, 

if necessary) is selected to evaluate via 17 different resource “attributes”, e.g. Water Flow Patterns, 

Compaction Layer, Annual Production, etc. Each of the attribute categories is ranked according to departure 

from some selected baseline, which in the case of our rankings is the Ecological Site Description (ESD). The 

amount of departure from the ESD can range from either “none” (same as ESD) to “extreme” (high deviance 

from the ESD). 

Once completed, the ratings within the 17 attribute categories are tallied to rank the area’s functionality into 

three broad “Rangeland Health Attributes” as follows (with brief explanation): 

Soil Site Stability: The capacity of the site to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources (including
 

nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water.
 

Biotic Integrity: The capacity of the site to support characteristic functional and structural communities in the
 

context of normal variability, to resist loss of this function and structure due to disturbance, and to recover
 

following disturbance.
 

Hydrologic Function: The capacity of the site to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, run-on,
 

and safely release water from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt (where relevant), to resist a reduction in this
 

capacity, and to recover this capacity following degradation.
 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 211 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

These final ratings can determine that conditions are functional or indicate that rangeland health/functionality 

problems may exist and point out the need for future studies that would confirm the rating and possibly 

isolate the cause(s). These evaluations are not to be used as “stand-alone” tools to determine the final 

“health” of an area. As per guidance, “...changes in management are not appropriate based solely on (these) 

evaluations of range health...”. However, a preponderance of “moderate” to “extreme” ratings during this 

evaluation should stimulate other actions (e.g. review or initiation of inventory or monitoring, evaluation of 

current management, etc.) that would determine the cause of the unsatisfactory rating and eventually lead to 

appropriate management changes to “fix” the resource problem. The Upland PFC process is explained in TR 

1734-6, Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (USDI BLM 2000). 

As part of the Assessment process, the grazing use on these allotments is compared to each of the 5 Standards 

for Rangeland Health – all of which are generally related to the “sustainability” Key Question in Step 2. This 

comparison is made to ascertain whether the Standard is being met; not met, but grazing management is 

making significant progress towards meeting; not met and livestock are not the primary cause; or not met and 

current livestock grazing management is the primary factor for not meeting the Standard(s). If the latter 

determination is made for an allotment or pasture, this section will identify what specific grazing related 

problem(s) exist. This section will lead into Step 6, where as necessary, recommendations will made to move 

grazing management towards meeting the 5 Standards and Land Use Plan (LUP) resource objectives. 

The 5 Standards for Rangeland Health – with brief interpretive statements from the Oregon/Washington
 

guidance (USDI BLM 1997) - are as follows:
 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - UPLANDS (Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability 

rates, moisture storage and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate and land form.) 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS (Riparian-wetland areas are 

in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and land form.) 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES (Healthy, productive and diverse plant and animal
 

populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate and land form are supported by ecological
 

processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow and the hydrologic cycle.)
 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY (Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, 

complies with State water quality standards.) 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES (Habitats support healthy,
 

productive and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status
 

species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate and land form.)
 

Existing grazing use will also be compared to the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management to ascertain if the current management practices, actions, and/or techniques are appropriate 

(guidelines were explained in Step 3). Assessment of all grazing allotments by 2008 is required by current 

BLM policy. The general direction, processes, and scheduling for the Klamath Falls Resource Area is 

outlined in the Plan for the Implementation of Standards and Guidelines dated 10/29/98, a copy of which is 

available on the KFRA’s website http://www.or.blm.gov/Lakeview/kfra/whatwedo/Range/Rangeland_Health/ 

KFRA_SG_Plan.pdf 

The following are the allotment specific narratives that will address the Key Question(s), 5 Standards, and/or 

LUP objectives as appropriate. Please note that due to the different amounts of allotment information 

available, past Assessment completion or need to do the Assessment in this document, allotment priorities, 

and other factors, each of the following allotment narratives vary substantially in size, scope, and detail. (The 

212 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

actual monitoring, survey, and other information/data summarized in the following section, is located in the 

KFRA office.) 

One final note is useful here, as it is pertinent to all of the allotments within the analysis area. The ESI 

information shows that that there have been significant, site atypical, increases in juniper density on virtually 

all of the juniper potential ecological sites in the watershed analysis area. In general, the more shallow the 

soil, the slower the juniper encroachment and/or density increases. Specifically, the deeper soil areas 

dominated by pine or big sagebrush have experienced the most pronounced juniper increases; the shallower 

Claypan sites have experienced moderate to low increases; and the shallowest, scabby sites have the least 

increase. Since this fact is common throughout the analysis area and has been extensively discussed 

elsewhere in this document, it will not be additionally addressed. (See the Step 5 section on Upland 

Vegetation for more information.) 

“J” Spring Allotment (0803) 

This small allotment is located just to the northeast of Gerber Reservoir. It is a low priority, late spring 

grazing use allotment, which historically was grazed in common with a similar sized parcel of private lands ­

where the actual “J” Spring is located. However, in 1999, the private lands were fenced separately leaving 

the BLM as a discrete pasture. This allows for controlled grazing use and enhanced management of the BLM 

lands. Due to the allotment’s low priority and apparent lack of historical resource problems, none of the 

typical rangeland monitoring studies have been established. However, some other useful resource 

information has been collected in recent years - an explanation of which follows:

 Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997 field season, ecological site inventory (ESI) information was 

collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

Total “J” Spring Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class* 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 28.89 0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 0 53.64 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 231.32 0 0 0 

Totals 260.21 53.64 0 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 99.8%, private - 0.2% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 82.9% 

Late Seral 17.1% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

As the above information shows, the entire allotment was classified as either late seral or PNC. The PNC is 

by definition a fully functional and appropriate plant community. The 17% of the allotment that was 

classified as late seral Juniper Claypan 16-20" is also thought to be functioning properly, since it was found 

to have a high percentage of native perennial grasses (49%) and site typical forbs (12%) and shrubs (33%). 

The area was mildly downgraded to the upper end of the late seral condition class because of a moderate 

overabundance of low sagebrush (30% versus a site typical 20%), slight under abundance of native perennial 

grasses (49% versus a site typical 65%), and some young juniper encroachment in an otherwise very healthy 

PNC old-growth juniper area. The ESI estimates of apparent trend on this allotment were static to slightly 

upwards; appropriate trends given the existing elevated ecological conditions. The ESI estimated Soil 

Surface Factor (SSF) ratings averaged “Slight” implying very limited current soil erosion activity. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 213 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: A Rangeland Health Evaluation was performed and Summary 

Worksheet prepared on this allotment October 3, 2000. The evaluation worksheet was done in the center of 

the dominant ecological site on this allotment – the Stony Claypan 14-20". That evaluation rated the areas 

average functionality at “slight” departure from site potential, and in fact, noted that this area could function 

well as a reference area (i.e. a good vegetation condition, ecologically functional area that other similar 

evaluation sites could be compared to). This rating strongly indicates at least adequate rangeland health and 

functionality and little, if any, risk of future degradation. 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently 

permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Met. There are 

no riparian/wetland areas on this allotment. Grazing management is currently appropriate and not 

contributing to offsite riparian/wetland problems. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation communities 

found on this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the 

hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: Standard Met. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment. 

Though there is no perennial water on this allotment (livestock water is on neighboring private lands), 

current grazing management is thought to be appropriate and not contributing to offsite water quality 

problems. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. 

Current grazing management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management. There are no allotment specific LUP objectives for “J” Spring, and thus no specific analysis 

pertinent to the LUP is necessary. 

Paddock Allotment (0844) 

This allotment is located in the north central portion of the Gerber Block, directly south of the Fremont NF 

boundary. This allotment like “J” Spring is a low priority, late spring grazing use area. For many years it 

was grazed in common with a portion of the Gerber Ranch private meadowlands, though as noted in Step 3, 

the allotment was fenced separately from the private lands in 1996. This has allowed for enhanced 

management of the BLM lands by controlling grazing use. The season long - and often heavy - grazing use 

that was common prior to the fence construction has not occurred and upland vegetation conditions have 

already distinctly improved with noticeably more numerous and vigorous native perennial grasses. 

The new fencing also controls/limits the grazing on a very small (4-5 acre) BLM meadow area in the extreme 

southeast corner of the Paddock allotment. This is a very small corner of the bigger, privately owned, Gerber 

Ranch meadow and was grazed in common with the private up until the 1996 fencing. It contains a small 

portion of the privately controlled “ditch” that allows for the flood irrigation of the entire (public and private) 

214 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

meadow with Barnes Creek water that is diverted on the private lands further upstream. This ditch may have 

created - and undoubtedly helps to maintain - the wet meadow nature of the BLM meadow area. 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997 field season, ecological site inventory (ESI) information was 

collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

Total Paddock Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 148.81 17.94 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 50.69 0 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 195.79 0 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 4.07 0 0 

Totals* 246.48 152.88 17.94 0 

*Acres breakdown is: public 99.6%, private 0.4% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 59.1% 

Late Seral 36.6% 

Mid Seral 4.3% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ESI information above shows that the vast majority of this allotment classified as late seral or PNC. All 

of the Stony Claypan and Shallow Stony ecological sites were PNC and by definition a fully functional and 

appropriate plant community. The ESI estimates of apparent trend were static to slightly upwards; appropriate 

trends given the existing elevated ecological conditions. The ESI estimated Soil Surface Factor (SSF) ratings 

were all in the low end of “Slight”, implying very limited current soil erosion activity. Now that grazing use 

levels are better controlled, these good to excellent conditions should maintain or slowly improve, though 

improvement for a PNC site is not always possible. 

Most of the Pine-Sedge-Fescue in this allotment was found to be in late seral condition with an upward 

apparent trend. These pine areas had been logged in years past and more recently, under burned. The shrub 

understory is still in the process of restoring – the reason for these sites being in less than PNC and for the 

perceived upward trends. There was a small (approx. 18 acres) strip of mid seral condition Pine-SedgeFescue in the northeast corner of the allotment. This area appeared to be a long-term, cattle-shading area 

with little existing native understory, due to this pine stand’s proximity to the private meadowlands. It has 

also been under burned in recent years causing or aggravating a cheatgrass problem. Though this is not a 

significant resource issue, this small areas condition will probably improve over time due to the currently 

enhanced cattle control. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: A Rangeland Health Evaluation was performed and Summary 

Worksheet prepared on this allotment October 10th, 2000. The evaluation worksheet was done in an open 

portion of the allotment that over time has typically received at least allotment average grazing pressure and 

is thought to be representative of this allotment. The write-up area was a complex of several low sagebrush 

dominated ecological sites (Stony Claypan 14-20", Claypan 14-20", and Claypan Bottom 12-18"). The 

evaluation rated the areas overall functionality at “slight” departure from site potential. This rating strongly 

indicates at least adequate rangeland health and functionality, and little if any risk of future degradation. 

The small BLM portion of meadow referred to above was heavily grazed for decades and the ecological 

conditions were (and probably continue to be) suppressed. An ESI rating done on the area in 1999, estimated 

the condition to be in the lower end of the late seral condition class, though the area is difficult to classify as 

to precise ecological site. The 1996 fencing effectively curtailed the excessive cattle use and is allowing for a 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 215 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

slow restoration and maintenance of a more functional meadow community. The ESI rating estimated the 

apparent trend as “upwards” and the erosion class as “slight” – both positive qualitative indicators of 

appropriate current management. However, when grazing use is made in this allotment the cattle still tend to 

congregate in the meadow corner. If this use becomes unacceptable in the future, options could be explored 

(see Step 6). 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. The one very 

small area of mid seral (Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site) is probably adequately functional, not significant 

enough to affect the allotment’s overall functionality, and the existing grazing management is allowing for 

slow upward trends. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Met, or if not 

fully met, significant progress towards meeting is being made. The small meadow area has upwards trends 

and grazing management is thought appropriate for achieving wetland functionality, if not already adequately 

functional. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation communities 

found on this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the 

hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: Standard Met. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment. 

Excluding the privately controlled ditch, there is no perennial water on this allotment (livestock water is on 

neighboring private lands or from the ditch). Current grazing management is thought to be appropriate and 

not contributing to offsite water quality problems. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. 

Current grazing use is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

There are no allotment specific LUP objectives for Paddock, and no specific LUP analysis is necessary. 

Yainax Allotment (0861) 

This allotment is located on the extreme north end of the analysis area - on and around Yainax Butte and the 

adjacent Klamath Forest Estates area - and is totally outside of the BLM’s contiguous Gerber Block. As 

noted in Step 3, Yainax is a very minor component of the Yainax Butte Coordinated Resource Management 

Plan (CRMP) area, which is comprised mostly of Fremont National Forest and private lands. In addition, at 

least half of this fragmented allotment is outside the watershed boundaries, with only the BLM lands on the 

south side of Yainax Butte inside the watershed analysis area. 

Since the Yainax allotment is outside of the Gerber Block, there was no ESI information collected at that 

time. However, in late 2002, the ESI was completed for all of the BLM lands. This information has not be 

compiled, but did find that a large majority of the area was in either late seral or PNC and in appropriate 

condition. Some limited rangeland monitoring information has been collected on this allotment over the past 

216 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

7-8 years, including a couple years of utilization mapping and/or use points and the establishment of some 

upland trend photo plots in 1999. Given the fact that the Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this 

allotment is scheduled for completion in 2003 or 2004 and not as part of this analysis, no grazing specific 

analysis of this allotment will be made. This watershed analysis will however, be a major reference when 

preparing that Assessment. 

Bear Valley Allotment (0876) 

This mid-summer grazing use allotment is located in the southeastern portion of the Gerber Block. As noted 

in Step 3, it is a moderately high priority, 3-pasture deferred rotation allotment with a high percentage of 

unfenced private lands intermingled with the BLM. The allotment’s Rangeland Health Standards Assessment 

was completed in 2000 and found that the overall current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity 

of the allotment, with the included private lands, and appropriate for maintaining the current overall good 

vegetation conditions. Though that Assessment will not be reiterated here, some of the findings and 

information will be briefly summarized in the following narrative as necessary. This includes the final 

conformance/non-conformance determinations on each of the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health, which is 

found at the end of this section. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Though no new rangeland monitoring information has been collected for Bear 

Valley since the recent completion of the Assessment, the 1997-1998 ESI information has been refined so that 

a very accurate figure is available - by pasture - for the number of acres of each vegetation type (ecological 

site) by condition class rating. The number of public and private acres by pasture has also been calculated to 

a reasonably accurate level. That information is summarized as follows: 

North Pasture - Bear Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 1444.62 252.92 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 636.60 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 365.83 57.63 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 65.24 355.82 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 912.89 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 91.43 0 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 2.24 0 252.92 0 

Totals* 524.74 3407.56 252.56 0 

*Classified acres breakdown: public - 42%, private - 58 % (Pasture also contains 152.01 acres of unclassified private 

lands not included in the totals. Total pasture size is 4337 acres.) 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 12.5% 

Late Seral 81.4% 

Mid Seral 6.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

Bear Flat Pasture - Bear Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 56.86 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 46.24 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 0 67.04 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 18.55 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 564.98 0 0 0 

Totals* 564.98 188.69 0 0 

*Classified acres breakdown: public – 23%, private – 77 %. Pasture contains 134.19 acres of unclassified private 

lands not included in the totals. Total pasture size is 888 acres. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 217 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 75% 

Late Seral 25% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

South Pasture - Bear Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 833.84 607.25 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 971.20 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 876.91 152.54 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 54.53 0 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 214.38 100.14 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine14-16" 0 587.99 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 20.10 0 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 26.83 0 0 

Dry Meadow 67.14 58.91 0 0 

Semi Wet Meadow 27.94 0 0 0 

Totals* 1261.0 2731.45 607.25 0 

*Classified acres breakdown: public – 69.2%, private – 30.8 % Pasture also contains 186.07 acres of unclassified 

private lands not included in the totals. Total pasture size is 4786 acres. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 27.4% 

Late Seral 59.4% 

Mid Seral 13.2% 

Early Seral 0% 

Total Bear Valley Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 2335.32 860.17 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 1664.66 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 587.99 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1242.74 277.21 0 0 

Stony Claypan 119.77 355.82 0 0 

Claypan 111.53 0 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 0 26.83 0 0 

Shallow Stony 214.38 1031.58 0 0 

Semi-wet Meadow 27.94 0 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 567.22 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 67.14 58.91 0 0 

Totals* 2350.72 6338.32 860.17 0 

*Allotment contains 472.27 acres of unclassified private lands not included in the totals. Total allotment size is 

10,011 acres. Classified acres breakdown*: public - 50.8%, private - 49.2 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 24.6% 

Late Seral 66.4% 

Mid Seral 9.0% 

Early Seral 0% 

218 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The ESI information above shows that the large majority (91%) of the allotment is in either late seral or PNC 

condition. As discussed in this Step’s section on “Vegetation - Non-Forested Uplands”, these seral stages are 

thought to be at least adequately functional in regards to the major attributes of rangeland health (i.e. soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the biotic community) for the ecological sites that dominate 

this allotment. All the mid seral areas were Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites that have received extensive alterations 

from past timber harvest, and more significantly, from recent (1990’s) burning activities. As noted 

previously, it takes many years for the understory shrubs to re-establish after under burning these ecological 

sites, resulting in suppressed ecological condition ratings for 10-20 years after burning. Even with these 

extensive disturbance activities, 73% of the Pine-Sedge-Fescue areas were found to exhibit late seral 

conditions, though recent (post-survey) burning on BLM lands and timber harvest activities on private lands 

in the area have probably lowered that figure. 

Other Condition Studies: A key area condition study was informally established on the allotment in 1983, in 

the now separately fenced South Pasture. That reading determined that conditions were “good” (late seral) if 

compared to the recently revised Ecological Site description. The condition information was re-read in 1996 

at the approximate location of the original reading. This reading found that conditions still remained good 

with possibly a slight increase in the condition rating. (Complete summary in the Bear Valley Assessment.) 

Trend Studies: There is one long-term photo trend study in the allotment, located near the key area where the 

above condition study was done. The Bear Valley Assessment found that “...the photo plot shows a static to 

slight upwards trend in grasses and total vegetation cover...” over the 24 years since study establishment. 

Additionally in 1996, a nested frequency trend plot was established in the South pasture. It was reread in 

2000 and, in the 4 years since establishment, Sandberg’s bluegrass had significantly increased 

And finally, observations of “apparent trend” were made during the ESI in 1997-1998. Of the 40 site 

write-ups done on the allotment 63% showed an upward trend and 37% showed a static apparent trend – 

appropriate given the good existing ecological conditions dominating the allotment. (Complete summary in 

the Bear Valley Assessment.) 

Utilization Studies: Utilization has been periodically read on the Bear Valley allotment since the mid 1980’s, 

with use pattern mapping done since the early 1990’s. Overuse was common in some areas prior to the 

construction of the pasture division fence in 1993 and the Holbrook exclosure fence in 1995. Since that time 

livestock distribution has been improved and overuse rarely occurs on public lands, though there is still some 

overuse that frequently occurs around the privately owned Deer Spring. In fact, utilization levels on the 

majority of the allotment are consistently slight to light, with some moderate in the areas with springs and 

meadows. All this is considered appropriate use. (Complete summary in the Bear Valley Assessment.) 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: During the ESI survey, Soil Surface Factor (SSF) ratings were made. 

SSF is a qualitative estimate of current soil erosion activity at a given site. Of the 40 site write-ups for the 

Bear Valley Allotment, 7 were rated as Stable, 29 as Slight, and 4 were rated as Moderate. In general, the 

majority of the allotment has little erosion due to good vegetation cover and gentle slopes. 

Riparian Monitoring: Several riparian related monitoring studies have been completed on this allotment, 

though most of the allotments riparian/wetland areas are on privately owned lands. A complete summary of 

the monitoring is found in the Bear Valley Assessment and will not be repeated in this section. Also see the 

riparian sections of this analysis. The Assessment did come to the following summary conclusion about 

riparian/wetland areas in the allotment: 

“Overall, the riparian and wetland areas on the federal lands within the allotment are in good 

condition. Some areas have received heavy livestock utilization in the past. The current pasture 

rotation system with the changes discussed under Management Recommendations (in the Assessment) 

and the fenced exclosures should allow most of the areas to maintain or improve their conditions.” 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 219 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do not 

significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health (explanation 

statements summarized from Assessment analysis): 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently 

permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Met. Though 

there have been some public land riparian/wetland problems on this allotment, grazing related management 

changes in recent years (fencing, rotation system) appear to be solving them, though long term monitoring 

will be necessary to confirm this. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation communities 

dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and 

the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: The meeting of this standard cannot be determined with the 

information available. There are no water bodies within the allotment that have been monitored for water 

quality standards. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment. Ecological conditions are high on 

both upland and most riparian/wetland areas implying that those areas are not contributing to poor water 

quality, if there is a problem. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. 

As noted in Step 3, the KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and 

related “Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately 

addresses each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting or 

appropriately moving towards the meeting of all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current 

grazing management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Bumpheads Allotment (0877) 

Bumpheads is a moderately high priority, mid to late spring use allotment, located in the southwestern 

portion of the Gerber Block. It has two primary grazing pastures that are grazed on a deferred rotation 

system. (There is also one small transition pasture that abuts the private lands to the west that is used for a 

short time at turn-on.) As noted previously, Bumpheads has approximately one-half of its acreage in the 

watershed analysis area, though it must be considered as a whole for continuity of grazing analysis. 

In addition to the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had an ample amount of monitoring data 

collected on it over the past 25 years due to its relatively high priority in the resource area. This includes 

various trend and condition studies, utilization, riparian photo points, and other vegetation information. 

Since this analysis is the formal Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment, the monitoring 

information will be evaluated and summarized here to assist in determining if current grazing management is 

appropriate. 

220 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997 and 1998 field seasons, ecological site inventory (ESI) 

information was collected for this allotment. This was part of a larger inventory that covered the Gerber 

Block of BLM-administered lands. That information is summarized as follows: 

North Pasture - Bumpheads Allotment -Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 497.4 626.8 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 935.3 819.9 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 63.6 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 84.7 152.8 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 427.8 173.6 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 20.0 27.1 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 144.8 0 

Totals* 579.1 2226.3 1165.4 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 100%, private - 0 % Pasture also contains 41.3 acres of unclassified private lands. 

These are not included in the totals above and are a combination of primarily rock outcrop and water. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 14.6% 

Late Seral 56.1% 

Mid Seral 29.3% 

Early Seral 0% 

South Pasture - Bumpheads Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 545.1 0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 237.3 1388.5 663.4 474.8 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 83.91 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 284.4 171.6 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 72.9 822.6 206.0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 12.04 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 10.73 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany /Fescue 0 41.89 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 213.0 0 

Totals* 1139.7 2531.27 1082.4 474.8 

*Acres breakdown: public – 99.2%, private – 0.8 % Pasture also contains 222.94 acres of unclassified lands – 182.61 

acres of BLM and 39.97 acres of private. These are not included in the totals above and are a combination of primarily 

rock outcrop and water. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 21.8% 

Late Seral 48.4% 

Mid Seral 20.7% 

Early Seral 9.1% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 221 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total Bumpheads Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1042.5 626.8 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 237.3 2323.8 1483.3 474.8 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 147.51 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 369.1 324.4 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 72.9 1250.4 379.6 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 12.04 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 10.73 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 61.89 27.1 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 357.8 0 

Totals* 1721.8 4757.57 2247.8 474.8 

*Acres breakdown: public - 99.1%, private - 0.9 % Allotment also contains 304.04 acres of unclassified lands ­

223.91 acres of BLM and 80.13 acres of private. These are not included in the totals above and are a combination of 

primarily rock outcrop and water. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 18.7% 

Late Seral 51.7% 

Mid Seral 24.4% 

Early Seral 5.2% 

The tables above summarize the inventory information based upon acres of the different ecological sites and 

their rated condition classes. From these tables, the data shows that approximately 70% of the allotment is in 

the Late Seral or Potential Natural Community condition classes. Approximately 25% is rated as Mid Seral 

and about 5% is Early Seral. 

The majority of the mid and early seral areas are in the Juniper Claypan 12-16" ecological site. These lower 

condition areas are located in the western portions of the allotment and below the Woolen Canyon rim. They 

are within the boundaries of a 1937 wildfire that burned almost 12,000 acres, of which 10,000 was public 

land. As discussed in previous sections, it is believed these areas were heavily used by livestock (sheep, 

cattle, and horses) before and after this wildfire – at levels far higher than those found today. This is likely 

the reason that the area declined in condition and is now inhabited by weedy exotic grasses including 

cheatgrass and medusahead. These conditions are also reflected in the photo trend and condition monitoring 

sites located in this area (discussed later). The ESI site write-ups from this area also indicate moderate levels 

of soil erosion and below average forage production levels. In the Juniper Claypan sites in the west part of 

the allotment, this appears to be due to the presence of the weedy annual grass species as noted above. These 

species have displaced the native perennials, lowering the total production of the sites. Junipers are also 

present at moderate to high levels in all age classes. As the junipers increase in size and density, the amount 

and vigor of shrubs and grasses can be negatively affected. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies have been established at four different sites in 

this allotment - BH-2, BH-3, and BH-4 in the South pasture, and BH-5 in the North pasture. These condition 

studies are performed using the ESI method that estimates the current annual production for each of the plant 

species. This information is then compared against the applicable Ecological Site Description (“climax plant 

community”) to arrive at a condition rating. The information from these studies is summarized as follows: 

Site BH-2: An ESI based condition study was conducted at this key area in 1998, repeating a condition 

rating originally made in 1983. This key area is located on the west side of the South pasture, above the 

Woolen Canyon Rim, at the BH-2 photo trend site. This study is in a Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site, 

which was used for ecological condition comparison. Compared to this site description, BH-2 rated at 

32.9%, which is considered a mid-seral ecological status. Specific data from the inventory shows that about 

222 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

10% of the total composition is comprised of weedy annual grasses including medusahead and annual 

bromes. Perennial grasses total 7% and include Sandberg’s bluegrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, and bottlebrush 

squirreltail. About 55% of the total vegetation was Epilobium paniculatum - a weedy annual forb. 

As noted, a condition rating was also done in this area in 1983. The 1983 rating appears to have been an 

ocular estimate, similar to the ESI method, of the vegetation that was present. The data sheet shows a high 

percentage (38%) of medusahead and a low percentage of Sandberg’s bluegrass (6%). An overall condition 

rating of 18% was recorded for this survey. Though this site has a high percentage of invasive grass and forb 

species, a lower current mid-seral rating (32.9%), and very low levels of perennial grasses, it appears from 

the two widely separated readings that conditions are improving, albeit slowly. 

Site BH-3: This condition study, which is located in the extreme southwestern corner of the South pasture 

below the Woolen Canyon Rim, was also originally read in 1983 and re-read – as close as possible – in 1998. 

It is at the same location as the BH-3 photo trend site discussed later. Like the previous condition study, this 

one is also in a Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site. Compared to the site description, BH-3 rated at 24.2%, 

which is the upper end of the early seral ecological category. Data from the inventory shows a high 

percentage of weedy species present in the area, with annual bromes and medusahead making up a combined 

25% of the composition and willow herb making up 46%. The primary perennial grasses - Sandberg’s 

bluegrass and bottlebrush squirreltail - comprise only 1.5 and 1.4%, respectively, of the total composition. 

In 1983, the original condition reading was completed near this site. This resulted in a condition rating of 

20%, with 10% going to both Sandberg’s bluegrass and low sagebrush. As with all of the 1983 condition 

studies, the exact methods used are not recorded, so it is difficult to compare them to the 1998 inventory. 

However, it the conditions recorded during the 1983 inventory also show a scarcity of perennial grasses and a 

high level of weedy grasses and forbs present. In short, conditions have not improved here, like they have in 

most other areas in the Gerber Block. It is thought that the extreme, pre-Taylor Grazing Act grazing pressure 

on the areas below Woolen Canyon Rim have resulted in an irreversible loss of potential for significant future 

improvement. 

Site BH-4: This condition study is located within the eastern portion of the South pasture, just northeast of 

the Bumpheads Reservoir. This study was established and read in 1998 near the BH-4 photo trend site and 

does not have a 1983 equivalent reading to compare back to. As with the two prior condition studies, this one 

is in a Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site/vegetation community. Compared to the site description for this 

ecological site, BH-4 rated at 52.2% - low late-seral ecological status. This site does not have as many 

invasive species as the other condition study sites and perennial grasses comprise about 30% of the total 

vegetation. Total production (pounds/acre) is close to 400, which is above average for the Shallow Stony 

ecological site. In summary, this site is in good condition, though the perennial grass component should be a 

higher percentage of the total vegetation. 

Site BH-5: This condition study is located in the western side of the North pasture, above the Woolen 

Canyon Rim. The study was established and read in June of 2000 and also has no 1983 reading to compare 

to. As with all the other study sites, this area is dominated by the Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site. 

Compared to the PNC for this site, BH-5 rated at 47.5%, which is in the upper end of the mid-seral ecological 

status class. The perennial grasses at this site are Sandberg’s bluegrass and bottlebrush squirreltail, which in 

total, amount to about 27% of the total vegetation. Medusahead - an exotic, invader grass species - made up 

about 7% of the total, and Festuca reflexa - an annual, native weedy grass - made up about 27% of the 

vegetation. The total production was a little above average 314 pounds/acre. In summary, this site is in good 

condition but has some weedy grasses present that could displace the native perennials over time with 

improper grazing management. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 223 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Trend Studies: Like all of the higher priority allotments in the Gerber Block, Bumpheads has several 

different trend studies. There are two frequency trend studies, both of which were established at existing 

photo trend/condition sites (BH-4 and BH-5). Both sites have only had their initial establishment readings 

completed - BH-4 on 8/11/98 and BH-5 on 6/13/00. When the sites have the second reading done at the fiveyear interval (2003 and 2005, respectively), comparisons will be made to determine the vegetation trends, 

though it often takes several readings (10+ years beyond establishment) to indicate a definitive trend in low 

response potential, arid areas such as the Gerber Block. 

The other primary trend studies are the long-established photo trend plots. There are 3 of these monitoring 

sites in the Bumpheads allotment, all located within the South pasture. At each location a view photo and a 3' 

x 3' plot photo are taken. The following summarizes this study information: 

Site BH-2: This study is in the west side of the South pasture. The initial plot was established in 1974 and 

has been re-photographed in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1993, and 1998. A plot 

data map and summary were also completed during 1974-83. The early photos and plot maps show only a 

few needlegrass (Stipa) and Sandberg’s bluegrass plants along with a couple of low sagebrush plants. 

Evidence of heavy medusahead litter and plants is seen in the photos, both the plot photos and the view 

photos. Later photos show that the perennial grasses are still there but do not appear really vigorous. The 

low sage plants did increase in size, especially one that is located in the center of the plot. It was not 

recorded on the first photo (1974), but covered the entire center square in the later photos (1993 and 1998). 

The view photos show a good size increase in the junipers that are present. Several went from less than 3 

feet to more than 10 feet in height during the 24-year photo span. Overall, this plot is in a downward trend 

due to the lack of an increase in perennial grasses, the medusahead invasion, and juniper encroachment. 

Site BH-3: Site BH-3 is located below the Woolen Canyon rim in the southwest corner of the allotment. The 

photo point was established in 1974 and re-photographed in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 

1986, 1993, and 1998. The plot photos do not contain much vegetation. The early photos show two low 

sage plants, one larger mature clump of bluegrass, and several smaller bluegrass plants. The later photos 

show that one of the low sage plants died and it also appears that the large clump of bluegrass has also 

disappeared. The view photo of the surrounding area shows a good component of low sagebrush but the 

grass component is sparser than desired for this ecological site (Shallow Stony 10-20"). Notes in the file 

indicate that cheatgrass is common in the area. An older juniper is present in the view photo with several 

more of varying sizes and apparent age classes in the background. In the immediate vicinity it does not 

appear that the junipers are increasing to unnatural levels at this site. Overall, this site is in static to 

downward trend due to the apparent scarcity of native grasses and the presence of cheatgrass. (More 

information on this particular site is found in the Condition Studies section earlier.) 

Site BH-4: Site BH-4 is located just to the northeast of the Bumphead Reservoir in the South pasture. This 

photo point was established in 1981 and re-photographed in 1983, 1985, 1988, 1993, and 1998. 

Representative vegetation in the first photo includes Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass, squirreltail, and low 

sagebrush along with several desirable native forbs, including Antennaria and Phlox. The 1998 photo shows 

an increase in size and apparent vigor of the fescue and bluegrass. The sagebrush has also increased in size 

with one plant that was barely visible in 1981 now nearly filling one of the plot squares. The view photo at 

this site shows a good sagebrush cover, though the grass cover appears to be a little sparse for the ecological 

site (Shallow Stony 10-20"). Litter cover in both the plot and view photos, also appears to be low. Overall, 

this site is exhibits a static to slightly upwards trend due to the increase in size and vigor of the plants within 

the plot frame. (More information on this particular site is found under the Condition Studies section earlier.) 

Utilization Studies: Utilization monitoring has not been completed on a consistent basis in this allotment. 

There are 13 total monitoring points throughout the allotment. Several of the monitoring points have not 

been visited in recent years due to relative inaccessibility (extremely rough country). However, the points 

224 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

that have been visited do give a good cross section of the allotment. Most readings were in the light to midmoderate range (20-50%) with only a couple of readings above 50%. Observations from the individual 

monitoring sheets mention varying levels of exotic grasses and weedy forbs. Heavy medusahead infestations 

are mainly concentrated in the extreme western and southwestern portions of the pasture (utilization points 1, 

2, 4, & 14). This is also reiterated in the Photo Trend, Frequency Trend, Condition studies and Ecological 

Site Inventory portion of this section. 

Use pattern mapping is normally completed in conjunction with utilization point monitoring. Use pattern 

maps were completed during 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1999 with the majority of the allotment showing 

slight to light use. Moderate to heavy use levels have occurred around Bumphead Reservoir. The western 

portion of the allotment, mainly below the rim of Woolen Canyon has had consistent areas of heavy use. This 

area has been noted as having large areas of annual bromes and medusahead. Heavy use was made on the 

remaining perennials. 

The narratives that accompanied the use pattern mapping discuss the weedy grass and forbs found in the 

extreme western portions of both the North and South pastures. The area below the Woolen Canyon rim is 

described as having few native perennials remaining with evidence of past heavy use. This area was 

historically used for sheep lambing in the spring, thus the name Woolen Canyon. 

Actual Use Records: In order to correlate forage utilization with livestock use in a pasture, accurate records 

must be kept of the numbers of livestock and their period of use in the separate pastures. A review of past 

Actual Use records shows a need for better reporting. 

Standards for Rangeland Health 

A determination of the status of the Bumpheads allotment in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health 

can be made based upon this analysis of monitoring data and other information contained in this watershed 

analysis: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - UPLANDS – This standard is being met on the Bumpheads 

Allotment. Based upon the ESI, approximately 70% of the upland vegetation in this allotment is in PFC or 

late seral condition. The small areas that are in mid or early seral conditions are the result of past disturbance 

events – early livestock overgrazing and the 1937 wildfire. The current grazing system on the allotment is 

not causing a continued decline in these conditions. Utilization monitoring data and use mapping has shown 

slight to light use throughout the allotment with some limited heavier use areas near livestock water sources – 

an unavoidable and acceptable impact related to livestock grazing. 

The western portions of the allotment do have some areas that have been invaded by weedy grass and forb 

species. There are also high amounts of juniper trees in all age classes throughout the allotment. The current 

grazing management is not having a significant effect upon these conditions. Past disturbance events 

including the large 1937 wildfire, which was preceded and followed by heavy grazing, have helped 

contribute to the current conditions. A change in these conditions would require mechanical manipulation 

including juniper removal and reseeding. The current grazing utilization levels have been mainly in the light 

to moderate range and not contributing to continued degradation. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS - This Standard is not being 

met on the Bumpheads Allotment and current livestock grazing is a contributing factor. There is 

approximately 0.3 mile of Antelope Creek that flows through the extreme eastern edge of the South pasture. 

In 1996, a Proper Functioning Condition survey found this section of the creek to be in “Non-functioning” 

status. Notes from the survey checklist indicate that the stream section is wide and shallow with wetland 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 225 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

vegetation present only in areas where water pools. Areas of raw banks with active lateral erosion were 

observed. The streambed has cut down to bedrock in this stretch. 

Woolen Canyon is an intermittent drainage in the southwest corner of the allotment. Part of the spring runoff 

through this drainage is diverted to an irrigation reservoir on private land. There are a couple of small 

springs within the canyon above the drainage, but they do not contribute much to total flow. Due to the low 

total flow, riparian vegetation is limited to areas below the springs. 

The intermittent drainages that flow into Bumphead Reservoir have been partially channelized in the past, 

and in some areas created, to facilitate water delivery to the reservoir. These channels normally only flow 

during spring snowmelt. Most of the channels have no riparian vegetation due to the lack of long-term water. 

Bumphead Reservoir, located in the southeast portion of the allotment, has a storage capacity of 

approximately 500 acre/feet. The water rights are privately held, so the BLM has no control over the amount 

of water in the reservoir. In recent years, the landowner has been draining most of the water to fill an 

irrigation reservoir on his private land although some water remains in a dugout area that is below the outlet 

works for the reservoir. This provides adequate water for livestock during most years. This has resulted in 

less than optimum conditions for maintaining fisheries in the reservoir. The riparian vegetation around the 

reservoir is also sparse due to the fluctuating water levels. There is a small wetland area that has formed 

below the reservoir dike due to leaks in the structure. This area was fenced from livestock in 1995 and the 

conditions in this “artificial” wetland have improved. 

There are several small waterholes that have been developed in the allotment. These are usually on small 

ephemeral drainages that fill the waterholes during spring runoff. Riparian vegetation around these 

waterholes is largely nonexistent as these are the main water sources for livestock when they are in the 

allotment. Most of these waterholes tend to dry up by mid summer. 

In summary, most of the riparian and wetland resources in the allotment are either being manipulated for 

irrigation uses on private lands below the allotment or have been created for livestock water within the 

allotment. Although, the current livestock grazing management is not having a significant detrimental effect 

on the majority of the riparian and wetland resources in the allotment, the short stretch of Antelope Creek 

needs to be fenced from livestock if conditions are to improve (see Step 6). 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES - This Standard is being met on the majority of the allotment. 

The Ecological Site Inventory completed on this allotment shows that approximately 70% of the allotment is 

in the late seral or Potential Natural Community (PNC) condition classes. Approximately 25% is rated as 

mid seral and about 5% is early seral. The late seral and PNC classes represent plant communities that have 

the composition and structure necessary to efficiently carry out the ecological processes of nutrient cycling 

and energy flow. The mid seral and early seral areas generally have lower production due to past 

disturbances. These areas also have some exotic annual grasses that are displacing the native perennials. 

These sites are not as efficient as the late seral and PNC sites in carrying out the ecological processes. . 

The ESI write-ups also give information on ground cover and soil movement. Most of the sites had a good 

litter component and stable soil surfaces. The hydrologic cycle in the allotment has been manipulated 

through constructed channels and reservoirs for irrigation needs. This has led to the “de-watering” of some 

of the intermittent channels. As this water is controlled by private water rights, it cannot be managed by the 

BLM. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY - This Standard is considered to be not met because Antelope Creek 

does not meet Oregon water temperature standards and is 303(d) listed. See Standard 2 above for an 

explanation as riparian conditions are integrally linked to water quality. As riparian conditions improve (due 

226 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

to management recommended in Step 6) the BLM land related impacts will be reduced and progress will 

made towards meeting this Standard. 

Water quality is currently monitored downstream from the Bumpheads allotment. As noted above the main 

sources of long-term water within the allotment are Bumphead Reservoir, a short stretch of Antelope Creek, 

several constructed waterholes, and a couple of developed springs. As stated previously, the water rights to 

Bumphead Reservoir are privately held and most of the water is annually run downstream to an irrigation 

reservoir on private land. During years when the reservoir water is used for downstream irrigation, late 

summer water levels are low. The actual flow amounts cannot be controlled by the BLM as irrigation 

diversions above this point have changed the seasonal flows. However, riparian and stream bank conditions 

can be affected by the BLM authorized livestock grazing within the allotment. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES - This Standard is being met on 

the Bumpheads allotment. The meeting of this Standard is based largely upon the conditions expressed in the 

previous Standards. With 70% of the ecological sites in late seral or better condition, the habitat needs of 

dependent native plants and wildlife are probably being met. No special status species or species of local 

importance are known to be within the Bumpheads allotment. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Campbell Allotment (0878) 

The Campbell Rangeland Health Standards Assessment was completed as a “free-standing” document in 

early 2002. It determined that the overall current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the 

allotment and appropriate for maintaining the current overall good vegetation conditions. That Assessments 

format was different than the others referenced in this Step. Since the Assessment was relatively short, it is 

incorporated in the following as finalized, with only minor editing changes: 

“Campbell is located about 5 miles west of Gerber Reservoir just touching the extreme western edge of the 

analysis area. It has about 1,465 acres of BLM land and about 3,140 acres of intermingled private lands. The 

Goodlow Rim splits the allotment into two distinct portions. Throughout this assessment the two 

geographically disconnected portions of this allotment will be referred to as the “upper portion” and the 

“lower portion.” The upper portion is the area above the Goodlow Rim and the lower portion is the area 

below the Goodlow Rim. Campbell is a “C” category allotment for monitoring purposes and as such, there 

are no current range monitoring studies established. The information and observations from the completed 

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheets and the input of resource specialists was used to 

determine whether this allotment is meeting the five Standards for Rangeland Health. 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION-UPLANDS - An Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) has not been 

completed on this allotment. The upper portion of the allotment would likely have multiple ecological sites 

as defined by the ESI. These would include: Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20", Shrubby Loam 16-20", 

Ephemeral Lakebed, and possibly a Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20"site. The Ecological Sites in the lower 

portion of the allotment would likely include Shallow Stony 10-20", Shrubby Loam 16-20", and Juniper 

Claypan 16-20". 

The upper portion of the allotment supports a very healthy mountain big sagebrush community with a 

vigorous perennial grass component dominated by Idaho fescue. Other common shrub species in the area 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 227 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

include mountain mahogany and antelope bitterbrush. Throughout the upper portion there are also ponderosa 

pine stands of varying densities with mountain mahogany and an understory of Idaho fescue, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, several bluegrass species, and various forbs. Scattered throughout both the sagebrush and pine 

communities are western junipers of various age classes. There is what would be considered “old growth” 

junipers present, but there appears to be an increasing level of young junipers that are beginning to have 

negative effects on the vegetation communities. In the big sage areas, the increase in younger junipers is 

resulting in a decrease in the sage as evidenced by the higher amounts of dead sage remnants. Throughout 

the upper portion, there is little evidence of recent livestock use, timber harvest or other surface-disturbing 

activities. One small area has had some of the junipers removed from a mountain mahogany stand within the 

last 3-10 years. With the good vegetation conditions and general lack of disturbance, there is more than 

adequate protection for the soil resource in the upper portion of the allotment. The vegetation community is 

providing good plant cover and litter distribution, which in turn is supplying organic matter to the soil. No 

soil erosion problems were noted during the field observations. 

The lower portion of the allotment has both low and big sagebrush communities. The big sage community 

basically parallels the bottom of the Goodlow Rim. Both pine and juniper trees are found throughout this 

stretch in varying densities. Most of the area would be a Shrubby Loam 16-20" ecological site with some 

areas of Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20". Both of these potential sites are invaded and negatively affected by 

junipers. In areas of dense juniper, the shrub component is either missing or only barely hanging on. There 

were lots of dead sagebrush and mahogany remnants in these areas. Perennial grass species were also very 

sparse in these areas. In the more open areas that lacked juniper, there were good stands of mountain big 

sagebrush with perennial grasses including bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bluegrass species. In 

the few pine areas without many junipers, there were good stands of mountain mahogany with some antelope 

bitterbrush scattered throughout and a good understory of mixed perennial grasses. 

The changing vegetation communities within the dense juniper areas are negatively affecting the soil 

resources. There are large bare soil areas within these juniper stands with some cover of juniper needles 

immediately under the trees. The lack of shrubs and grasses in these areas is resulting in increased potential 

for soil loss. The root structures of the shrubs and grasses would provide soil holding capabilities as well as 

additional litter cover. The water flow patterns and potential infiltration are also being negatively affected by 

the dense overstory of junipers. 

The low sage community is located to the west of the Goodlow Rim in portions of sections 13 and 14. Most 

of this area would be classified by ESI as either Shallow Stony or Juniper Claypan. The vegetation in these 

areas is dominated by low sagebrush and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Many areas have been invaded by exotic 

annual brome species (i.e. cheatgrass). There are also areas with native annuals including Vulpia and annual 

hairgrass (Deschampsia) at higher than desired levels for these ecological sites. These annual species, both 

native and exotic, appear to be having a negative effect on the amount and vigor of the low sagebrush. Soil 

loss in these areas does not appear to be a problem. The species that are present are providing good surface 

protection. The surface also has a high amount of rocks and gravels that armor the soils from raindrop 

impact and runoff. 

Current livestock grazing in the allotment is not having a negative impact on the uplands. The water sources 

below Goodlow Rim are all located on adjacent private lands. The BLM lands are receiving minor use as the 

animals trail through. The upper portion of the allotment does not appear to receive much grazing by 

livestock due to the physical barrier of the rim. 

This Standard is currently being met on this allotment. The increase in junipers is beginning to have a 

negative impact on some of the vegetation communities and active management of these areas should be 

pursued. Current livestock use in the allotment is not creating significant impacts. 

228 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION-RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS - Within the Campbell 

allotment, there are a limited number of riparian areas. In the upper portion, Pankey Lake is a shallow 

reservoir that appears to hold water into early summer in average years. About 1⁄2 of the reservoir is on BLM 

lands with the remainder on Forest Service land. The current vegetation in the reservoir bottom is in good 

condition, dominated by spikerush and sedge species. There are also several small intermittent and 

ephemeral drainages in the allotment. Some of these have had waterholes constructed across them on the 

private lands. These drainages generally lack any riparian vegetation due to the short duration of the spring 

runoff periods. Most of the channels in the lower portion have low gradient channels with vegetation similar 

to the adjacent uplands and many are well armored by rock. These physical characteristics in combination 

with the short runoff periods result in relatively small, stable channels. No Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC) surveys have been completed for any of the stream segments or wetlands in the allotment. The only 

stream segment that may support riparian vegetation would be the one that drains out of Pankey Lake. This 

segment was not visited during the evaluation. Considering the excellent conditions of the surrounding 

uplands and the relative lack of disturbance factors, this channel is likely in good condition. However, a field 

survey of this channel could be completed in the near future. 

This Standard is currently being met on this allotment. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES - As discussed under Standard 1, most of the vegetation 

communities in this allotment have good plant composition and community structure. A small portion of the 

allotment below the Goodlow Rim is being invaded by junipers, which are having some negative effects on 

both the composition and structure. This is also having a negative effect on the soils in this area. With the 

declining amounts and varieties of shrubs and grasses in these thick juniper stands, there is a corresponding 

decrease in the surface litter and organic matter being incorporated into the soil and the root occupancy in the 

soil profile. The decreased diversity of species within these stands is also negatively affecting the total 

biological activity including plant growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect and microbial activity. In the upper 

portion of the allotment the vegetation communities are presently in late seral or PNC condition. There are 

small junipers that are starting to invade some of the pine and sagebrush vegetation communities. If these 

areas are not managed to slow the juniper increase, a shift in conditions to a lower ecological state may occur. 

The majority of this allotment is meeting this Standard. Good vegetation communities are present that are 

allowing the various ecological processes of energy flow and nutrient cycling to occur. There are also no 

known populations of noxious weeds in the allotment. The small area with the dense juniper stands should 

receive treatment in the near future to recover the community structure and composition. Treatment of the 

junipers in the upper portion should also be considered. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY - As stated under Standard 2 above, there are a limited number of 

surface water features in the Campbell allotment. Pankey Lake, a shallow reservoir in the northeast corner of 

the upper portion of the allotment is filled by snowmelt during the spring runoff period. In an average year, it 

would have some water until mid-summer. Most of the year, due to its shallow nature, it would be classified 

as a seasonal wetland. The vegetation community is in good condition and dominated by spikerush and 

sedge species. There appears to be little livestock use of this area due to its position above Goodlow Rim. 

Most livestock activity is below the rim. Some of the intermittent drainages in the allotment have water 

catchments on them on the private land. These have minor effect on the BLM portions of these drainages. 

These small drainages flow in response to snowmelt and spring runoff and then dry up for the remainder of 

the year. Due to these short-term flows, these drainages have vegetation that is similar to the surrounding 

uplands. 

No water quality studies have been completed on the allotment due to the short-term nature of the water 

features. This Standard is being met on the Campbell allotment. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 229 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, AND LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES - The different plant 

communities discussed under Standard 1 are all in good condition, except for a small area that is being 

affected by increasing juniper populations. The composition, age class distribution, and productivity of these 

communities are providing a range of habitats to support the animal and plant species that depend upon them. 

The lower portion is considered big game winter range. Treatment of the invading junipers to maintain a 

healthy sage and mountain mahogany community would benefit these species. There are no known Special 

Status species in the allotment. This Standard is being met in the Campbell allotment. The current livestock 

use in the allotment is not having a negative affect on the plant and animal communities.” 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed one specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

DeVaul Allotment (0879) 

DeVaul is a small, low priority allotment located on the extreme northwestern edge of the Gerber Block. Due 

to a lack of effective division fencing, this allotment is grazed in common with the private lands in and 

around DeVaul Lake. The BLM administered lands are primarily pine/juniper-dominated uplands with 

limited livestock grazing appeal or use, though cattle may be present into the fall. The public land areas are 

primarily used to trail through or for shading during the day. Due to the allotment’s low priority, apparent 

lack of past resource problems, and intermingled ownership, typical rangeland monitoring studies have not 

been established. However, some other useful resource information has been collected in recent years - an 

explanation of which follows: 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997 field season, ecological site inventory (ESI) information was 

collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

Total DeVaul Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 352.56 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 146.81 0 0 

Stony Claypan 16.65 3.38 0 0 

Shallow Stony 15.81 77.97 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 7.26 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 62.21 0 0 0 

Totals* 94.67 587.98 0 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 55.4%, private - 44.6 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 13.9% 

Late Seral 86.1% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

As the above table shows, the entire allotment was classified as either late seral or PNC. The PNC 

Ephemeral Lakebed area is primarily private land (57.6 acres of the 62.2 acre total) but was judged to be in 

excellent condition and thus “functional”. The majority of the allotment – public and private – is comprised 

of the two pine sites: Pine-Sedge-Fescue and Pine-Mahogany-Fescue. Though rated as late seral, both sites 

on this allotment were found to have ecological conditions depressed due to recent under burning (which has 

230 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

removed most of the understory shrub component), less recent timber harvest activities, and probably past 

grazing use. These sites have also experienced some of the mountain mahogany die-off noted elsewhere in 

this analysis. The ESI estimates of apparent trend were static to upwards; appropriate trends given the 

vegetation types and relatively elevated existing ecological conditions. The ESI estimated Soil Surface 

Factor (SSF) ratings were “Stable” to “Slight” implying very limited current soil erosion activity. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: A Rangeland Health Evaluation was performed and Summary 

Worksheet prepared on this allotment October 24, 2000. The evaluation worksheet was done in an area that 

is a mix of the two pine ecological sites. That field assessment rated the soil site stability and hydrologic 

function at “none to slight” departure from site potential. The biotic integrity, however, was estimated as 

moderately departing from site potential for reasons, to quote the assessment, that were “...primarily 

attributable to the under burning and to a more limited degree, past logging and grazing use.” The memo 

accompanying the Worksheet also stated the following: 

“A minor component of the area are (sic) scattered patches – in between the pine areas – of Juniper Claypan 

16-20” ecological site vegetation. These areas varied in condition from mid seral to late/PNC. The one 

juniper area near our Health Assessment was in mid-seral with too many annuals and a paucity of perennial 

grasses. Others noted in our loop around drive looked to be in better condition. Other observations:

 -Early seral (“pioneer”) mosses were in evidence, particularly out in the open areas.

 -Cheatgrass was ample, though not thick; particularly under the burned pine areas. 

Overall, the BLM lands in this allotment exhibit suppressed conditions – little of which appears attributable 

to current livestock grazing...” 

Overall, the Summary Worksheet ratings indicate at least adequate - and probably better - rangeland health 

and functionality, and little if any, risk of future degradation with current livestock grazing management. 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently 

permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Met. The only 

riparian/wetland area on this allotment is DeVaul Lake, which is on private lands. The ESI found the 

conditions to be excellent implying a high degree of functionality. Based on the elevated upland conditions, 

grazing management appears appropriate and not contributing to offsite riparian/wetland problems. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation communities 

found on this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the 

hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: Standard Met. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment. 

There are no perennial waters on the public lands in this allotment - livestock water is provided on the private 

lands. In addition, the elevated ecological state of the current vegetation implies that grazing management is 

appropriate and not contributing to offsite water quality problems. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 231 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Current grazing management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management. As noted in Step 3, the KFRA ROD/RMP listed one specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/ 

Concerns” and related “Management Objectives” for this allotment. It dealt with riparian habitat and was 

relevant to the small corner of BLM administered land, which edges into DeVaul Lake. As already noted, 

this area was determined during the ESI to be in excellent condition. This Land Use Plan objective is 

considered as being met with current grazing management. 

Goodlow Allotment (0881) 

This is a small, low priority allotment that is located immediately north of the DeVaul allotment. For years 

this allotment was unfenced from the private lands and grazed in common with it throughout the season. In 

the mid 1990’s the privately owned lands were fenced, allowing for more off-season control of the livestock. 

Since there has been no livestock water available on the BLM lands, the gates between public and private 

have been left open during the season of use and cattle allowed to drift in and out. However, during the fall 

of 2000 a catchment water hole was dug on the extreme north end of the BLM and appears to be a viable 

water retaining facility. This should allow for discrete use of the Goodlow allotment in the future. Due to 

the allotment’s low priority, apparent lack of past resource problems, and historically intermingled 

ownership, typical rangeland monitoring studies have not been established. However, some other useful 

resource information has been collected in recent years - an explanation of which follows: 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997-98 field season, ecological site inventory (ESI) information was 

collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

Total Goodlow Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 159.83 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 66.55 0 0 

Stony Claypan 129.99 0 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 495.45 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 89.15 0 0 

Totals* 129.99 810.98 0 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 35.3%, private - 64.7 % Allotment also contains 47.96 acres of unclassified private 

lands not in the totals. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 13.8% 

Late Seral 86.2% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ecological conditions of this allotment’s vegetation communities - public and private combined - are all 

late seral/PNC. All the allotment’s ecological sites in these condition classes are believed to be appropriately 

functional upland communities. More specifically, if considering just the BLM administered lands in 

Goodlow (approximately 350 acres according to the GIS data base), 10% of the vegetation was PNC and 

90% was found to be late seral. The late seral areas were determined to be primarily Shallow Stony 10-20" 

and a smaller mix of the two pine sites. The Shallow Stony areas had a high percentage composition (59%) 

of native perennial grasses, appropriate amounts of native shrubs (25% composition), and an exceptionally 

high diversity/quantity of native forb species (21 species and 15% of the composition). This is exceptional 

biotic diversity that implies a high level of hydrologic function and soil site stability. The pine sites would be 

as described for DeVaul and in appropriate condition. The small, scattered areas of the Stony Claypan 

ecological sites were in PNC condition and exhibiting full upland functionality (see next section). The ESI 

232 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

estimates of apparent trend were static to upwards; appropriate trends given the vegetation types and elevated 

existing ecological conditions. The ESI estimated Soil Surface Factor (SSF) ratings for all the sites were 

“Stable” to “Slight” implying very limited current soil erosion activity. 

One other ESI related observation is associated with the Shrubby Loam 16-20" ecological site area, located 

along the eastern edge of the allotment. This area is a mix of public and private lands split by the south 

allotment fence. The area was ESI classified during the summer of 1998 and then the BLM portion (about 

half of the site) north of the fence was burned (prescribed fire) during the fall of 1998. Prior to burning the 

condition was late seral (almost PNC) with very high productivity and a very nice stand of mountain big 

sagebrush (18% composition), bitterbrush (17%), and mix of native perennial grasses (39%). After burning, 

virtually all of the shrubs were eliminated and are not expected to fully return for many years since neither 

big sagebrush nor bitterbrush are very successful respouters. The grasses have resprouted nicely though an 

increase in annuals was noted the following year. This area will be informally monitored (i.e. field 

observations with a view photo point) to see how the conditions respond over time; the unburned area south 

of the fence will act as a comparison area. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: A Rangeland Health Evaluation was performed and Summary 

Worksheet prepared on this allotment October 24, 2000. The evaluation worksheet was done in the northwest 

portion of the allotment in an area that is primarily the Stony Claypan 14-20" ecological site. That field 

assessment rated all three of the allotments “Rangeland Health Attribute” categories (soil site stability, biotic 

integrity, and hydrologic function) at “none to slight” departure from site potential; in other words, the 

allotment is in excellent condition overall. The only aberrations noted were an increase in juniper in the 

vicinity and the presence of some limited tarweed (Madia) – a native, weedy, increaser species. 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently 

permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Met. There are 

no riparian/wetland areas on the BLM administered lands (all on the now separately fenced private lands). 

The elevated ecological state of the current vegetation implies that grazing management is appropriate and 

not contributing to offsite riparian/wetland problems. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation communities 

found on this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the 

hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: Standard Met. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment. 

Historically, there has been no perennial livestock water on the public lands in this allotment - livestock water 

was provided on the adjacent private lands. However, the recent pond construction changes that, though this 

small dug out pond should not significantly change water quality in the area. In addition, the elevated 

ecological state of the current vegetation implies that grazing management is appropriate and not contributing 

to offsite water quality problems. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 233 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Current grazing management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management. The KFRA ROD/RMP did not identify any specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/ 

Concerns”related to the livestock grazing on this allotment 

Horsefly Allotment (0882): 

The Horsefly allotment is the largest (over 12% of the Resource Area) and probably most important grazing 

allotment within the KFRA. As noted in Step 3, this allotment has a 9-pasture, rest-rotation grazing system 

with the permitted use split into two seasons: spring/early summer (70%) and fall use (30%). It is also under 

section 7 consultation relative to the endangered shortnose sucker. (See Step 3 for more grazing 

information.) The allotment’s Rangeland Health Standards Assessment was completed in 1999 and found 

that the overall current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the allotment and appropriate 

for maintaining the current overall good vegetation conditions. Though that Assessment will not be 

reiterated here, some of the findings and information will be briefly summarized as necessary in the 

following narrative. This includes the final conformance/non-conformance determinations on each of the 5 

Standards for Rangeland Health, which is found at the end of this section. Some additional monitoring 

information has also been collected since completion of the Assessment and will be discussed. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Since Assessment completion, the ESI vegetation information has been refined so 

that a very accurate figure is available - by pasture - for the number of acres of each vegetation type 

(ecological site) by condition class rating. The number of public and private acres by pasture has also been 

calculated to a reasonably accurate level. That information is summarized as follows: 

Schnipps Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 572.13 73.92 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 15.2 796.33 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 846.77 615.57 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 42.49 3.37 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 17.70 456.01 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 34.81 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 7.65 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 31.77 0 0 

Wet Meadow 0 31.00 0 0

 Totals* 922.16 2548.64 73.92 0 

*Classified acres breakdown: public – 100%, private - 0 % Allotment also contains 25.42 acres of rock not included 

in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 3570 acres. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 26.0% 

Late Seral 71.9% 

Mid Seral 2.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

234 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Adobe Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 7.72 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 62.0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 688.15 1174.18 88.17 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 0 764.12 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0 173.95 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 122.5 0 218.04 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 136.94 0 0 0 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 543.06 0 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 26.44 133.93 0 

Totals* 947.59 1444.29 1204.26 0 

*Allotment also contains 74.22 acres of rock not included in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 3670 acres. 

Acres breakdown: public - 100%, private - 0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 26.3% 

Late Seral 40.2% 

Mid Seral 33.5% 

Early Seral 0% 

Copeland Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 19.02 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 22.22 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1460.25 1663.18 891.27 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 54.57 38.56 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 57.94 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 1.49 445.27 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 0 139.36 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 17.88 11.00 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 121.37 68.74 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 122.1 0 0.56 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 0 0.56 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 41.58 28.92 0 

Claypan Bottom 0 52.42 0 0

 Totals* 1583.11 2565.48 1109.11 0.56 

*Acres breakdown*: public - 100%, private - 0 % *Total pasture size is approx. 5258 acres. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 30.1% 

Late Seral 48.8% 

Mid Seral 21.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 235 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Round Valley Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 177.25 26.99 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 579.34 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 2729.85 268.81 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 5.34 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0.95 1045.87 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 8.84 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0.48 304.13 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 13.95 24.53 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 52.12 0 38.89 

Mahogany Rockland 0 20.23 0 0 

Totals* 2745.23 2486.46 29.99 38.89 

*Allotment also contains 10.08 acres of rock not included in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 5310 acres. 

Acres breakdown: public – 98.4%, private – 1.6 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 51.8% 

Late Seral 46.9% 

Mid Seral 0.6% 

Early Seral 0.7% 

Wild Horse Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 0 3.48 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 2.88 0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 391.46 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 1.49 550.11 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 5.23 631.83 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 121.37 68.74 0 0 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 7.47** 0 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 2.58 0 0 

Totals* 408.52 1184.52 3.48 0 

*Allotment also contains 1.29 acres of rock not included in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 1598 acres. Acres 

breakdown: public - 100%, private - 0% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 25.6% 

Late Seral 74.2% 

Mid Seral 0.2% 

Early Seral 0% 

236 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

 Round Valley W.S. Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 26.45 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 30.9 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 149.56 22.08 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 108.4 224.66 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 379.93 262.21 0 0 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 543.06** 0 0 0 

Totals* 1180.96 566.3 0 0 

*Total pasture size is approx. 1747 acres. Acres breakdown*: public - 100%, private - 0 %
 

**The rating for the irrigated Stony Claypan is actually a forage composition condition rating of the seeded and
 

irrigated areas within this pasture, rating the dominance the desired seeded vegetation compared to total vegetation
 

composition; in this case at least 75% of the total composition and thus the PNC – or “excellent” – condition rating.
 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 67.6% 

Late Seral 32.4% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

Norcross Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 4.64 2169.01 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 39.98 867.67 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 837.75 567.97 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 518.25 446.58 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 36.93 950.91 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 14.9 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 40.27 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 92.29 0 0 

Totals* 1432.91 2985.23 2169.01 0 

*Within the Long Branch exclosures there are also 12.52 classified upland acres and 31.86 acres of unclassified BLM 

riparian acres not included in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 6631 acres. Acres breakdown*: public – 85.2%, 

private – 14.8 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 21.8% 

Late Seral 45.3% 

Mid Seral 32.9% 

Early Seral 0% 

Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition 

Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 170.55 170.74 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 78.27 160.14 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 126.25 41.70 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 36.29 69.69 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 85.72 0 0 

Totals* 240.81 527.8 170.74 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 99.8%, private – 0.2% Allotment also contains 25.42 acres of unclassified BLM 

riparian not included in the totals. Total pasture size is approx. 939 acres. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 237 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Barnes Inlet Pasture - Horsefly Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 81.56 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 237.44 1066.39 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 0.9 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 106.5 15.33 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 119.89 0 0 

Totals* 343.94 1284.07 0 0 

*Allotment also contains 1.44 acres of unclassified BLM riparian not included in the totals. Total pasture size is 

approx. 1629 acres. Acres breakdown*: public – 89.8%, private – 10.2 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 78.9%
 

Late Seral 21.1%
 

Mid Seral 0%
 

Early Seral 0%
 

Total Horsefly Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 1059.32 2445.70 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 136.33 2519.91 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 7377.52 5457.97 979.44 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 54.57 802.68 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 151.13 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 5.34 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 908.63 2946.84 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 8.84 139.36 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 562.77 2835.43 229.04 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 272.26 108.17 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 249.30 0 39.45 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 550.53 0.56 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 41.58 28.92 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 34.09 133.93 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 54.58 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 0 52.42 0 0 

Totals* 9808.04 15580.05 4759.07 39.45 

Acres breakdown: public - 93.1%, private - 6.9 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 32.5% 

Late Seral 51.6% 

Mid Seral 15.8% 

Early Seral 0.1% 

(Allotment also contains – according to GIS - 111.01 acres of defined rock outcrops, 1254.42 acres of unclassified 

private lands, 15.52 acres of unclassified BLM lands, and 97.58 acres of unclassified riparian along stream courses ­

all of which are not included in the totals.) 

The ESI information above shows that the large majority (84%) of the allotment is in either late seral or PNC 

condition. As discussed in this Step’s section on “Vegetation - Non-Forested Uplands”, these seral stages are 

thought to be at least adequately functional in regards to the major attributes of rangeland health (i.e. soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the biotic community) for the ecological sites that dominate 

this allotment. 

238 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The majority (89%) of the mid seral areas are one of two ecological types. Approximately half is PineSedge-Fescue sites in the Norcross Pasture that have received extensive alterations from past timber harvest 

and under burning activities. Most of these sites are actually late seral areas that were “downgraded” to midseral due to the disturbance diminishing the understory vegetation production. These areas typically exhibit 

upwards trends and are thought functionally adequate. Cattle grazing is not thought to be a condition issue in 

these areas. 

Most of the remainder of the major mid-seral areas are Juniper Claypan sites in the Copeland and Adobe 

pastures that are immediately adjacent to private lands below and to the southwest of Goodlow Rim. The 

Horsefly Assessment stated the following about these areas: “Historically, these areas received the highest 

use on the allotment due to the ranch proximity and the fact that these areas are the on and off “trailing 

corridor” for the use of the public lands. The condition “problem” is due to excessive use that occurred 

decades ago. These mid-seral areas – especially in the upper ends of the class (40-50% like PNC) – are 

considered functional but typically lack an “ideal” plant community. However, under the current 

management system, these areas are exhibiting static to upwards trends. As noted earlier, it is thought that 

these areas have lost the potential to become PNC due to soil loss; even if grazing were totally absent for a 

long period of time.” (Note: During the late spring of 2001, the frequency trend plot in this area (Copeland – 

HF-6) was re-read. It shows that over the past 10 years (study established in 1991) the trend is definitely 

upwards as indicated by increases in several native perennial grass species.) 

Since the two mid-seral areas compose just 12% of the Horsefly allotment’s Juniper Claypan sites, exhibit 

static to upward trends, are receiving light use based on years of recent utilization pattern mapping, and 

probably have lost most of the potential (soil) to restore fully to upper late seral/PNC, current management is 

believed to be appropriate. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies (5) were informally established in 4 different 

pastures in 1983. All of these were relocated as close as possible (they were not permanently marked in 

1983) in the mid to late 1990’s and re-read. Both readings were compared using the most current ecological 

site descriptions. All of these studies found that ecological conditions have improved – sometimes 

significantly. These studies help form the basis for the conclusion that vegetation trends are generally 

upwards, albeit slowly – a trend inclination which is consistent with the thin soils, arid conditions, and 

already elevated ecological conditions. 

Trend Studies: There are several different trend studies on the allotment – photo trend and frequency trend. 

The photo trend studies are the longest-term studies in the area having been established between 1968 and 

1975. The photos have been retaken many times since establishment and give a good - though subjective ­

picture of vegetation changes over time. To quote the Horsefly Assessment, “A comparison of the 

photographs, although a qualitative comparison, shows that vegetative conditions have improved slowly 

since establishment. The photos show that perennial grass, forb, and to some extent shrub, density and vigor 

has increased...” This is good evidence of upward trends in ecological conditions and supports the similar 

ESI related observations. 

The frequency trend studies were established between 1991 and 1995 in 5 different pastures, which stratify 

the allotment well. These studies are typically read every 5 years and all have been read once since the 

original reading. All 5 show that trends on desired grass species are static to upwards - varying with the 

species and specific study - and also supports the appropriateness of the current livestock management. As an 

example, the frequency study in the allotment’s poorest condition area (ESI determined on the west side of 

the Copeland Pasture below Goodlow Rim) has shown increases in desired native perennial grasses between 

1996 and 2001 - solid evidence that the trend is upward. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 239 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Utilization Studies: Utilization has been periodically read on the Horsefly allotment since the mid-1980’s, 

with use pattern mapping done since the early 1990’s. To quote the Horsefly Assessment, “The utilization 

data from the established points has shown overall appropriate (moderate or less) average upland utilization 

- particularly since 1992. The utilization pattern mapping - done 5 separate years since 1992 - has also 

confirmed consistently acceptable overall patterns of use throughout all pastures of this allotment. The lightmoderate utilization levels are within the KFRA ROD/RMP parameters and indicate long-term stability and 

grazing pressure that is appropriate to maintaining the good vegetation conditions. Even though occasional 

points in occasional years have shown heavy use, there appear to be no chronically overused areas.” 

Utilization levels have been, and continue to be, appropriate for maintaining static to slowly improving 

ecological conditions. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: During the ESI survey, Soil Surface Factor (SSF) ratings were made. 

The following is quoted from the Horsefly Assessment regarding SSF - “As a collateral observation during 

the ESI, the SSF was estimated for each soils/vegetation site write-up area. Although the field data have not 

been compiled and input into a database...(still true), a check of all the inventory worksheets and field maps 

shows that the majority of the allotment acreage (90%+ on an estimated acres weighted basis) is in either the 

“stable” or “slight” erosion condition classes. Specifically, 44 of the 58 ESI worksheets estimated the 

erosion in these two categories. These two lowest erosion classes imply generally stable conditions. The 

remaining areas (14 worksheets) were mostly in the low end of the “moderate” erosion class. The highest 

rated area (highest erosion condition class) was mid moderate and located in the poorer condition areas 

discussed earlier - on the extreme western side of the Copeland and Adobe pastures. As with the ecological 

site rating, the SSF reflects past use of the area. Vegetative information points towards this area having a 

slow upwards trend.” 

During the ESI, a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic – or biological soil - crusts was made while collecting 

other vegetation data. These soil surface crusts contribute to a number of functions in the environment 

including soil stability, nitrogen fixation, nutrient contributions to plants, soil-plant-water relations, 

infiltration, seedling germination, and plant growth. There is also evidence that good biological crusts inhibit 

the spread/density of undesirable exotic annual grasses – a potentially distinct benefit. The following 

information on biological crusts is from the Horsefly Assessment – “Another secondary observation made 

during the ESI was a general rating of the existing cryptogamic crusts (a ranking system recommended for 

ESI, by Jane Belnap, a noted NPS expert on crusts) from between the lowest rating of 0 (“bare ground”) to 

the highest of 10 (“Cyanobacteria, big bumps, lots of lichens and mosses - >20%” (cover)). The average 

rating (non-acres weighted) for the Horsefly allotment was just over 4.5 - a moderate crust rating. This 

would be considered neither exceptional or unacceptable, but adequate, given the limited knowledge of these 

crusts and the long historical use of the allotment for cattle grazing. From an ecological site description 

perspective, the more a site was dominated by low sagebrush and grasses (majority of the allotment) the 

higher the crust rating tended to be. Conversely, the more a site was dominated by big sagebrush and/or 

pine, the lower the rating. The crust ratings for the juniper sites were in the middle of these other two 

groups.” During the reading of the frequency trend studies, the cryptobiotic crust components (by 

morphological class) are now also read, allowing for a relative abundance rating to be made. As more 

information is collected over time, this information will be useful for future condition evaluation. 

Riparian Monitoring: Numerous riparian related monitoring studies have been completed on this allotment, 

primarily due to its importance in providing habitat for the endangered shortnose sucker. This includes longterm riparian photo points, stream bank stability ratings, riparian utilization, stream cross-section and 

greenline riparian vegetation plots, and proper function condition (PFC) determinations. A complete 

summary of the riparian monitoring is found in the Horsefly Assessment and will not be repeated in this 

section. Also see the Riparian and Stream Channel sections of this analysis. However, the analysis of the 

riparian information in the Horsefly Assessment did come to the conclusion that riparian/wetland areas in the 

240 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

allotment are either in proper condition or are adequately trending towards the proper resource conditions 

with current management. 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do 

not significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health (explanation 

statements summarized from Assessment analysis): 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: This standard is being met on the allotment. 

The overall upward trends and existing high seral state vegetation communities dominating this allotment 

strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be 

sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: This standard is being met 

on the allotment. Though this allotment has had past riparian problems, grazing management changes 

(including pasture fencing and quick rotations) made over the last 10-20 years have allowed these areas to 

improve significantly with the trends still upwards – particularly Barnes Valley Creek - probably the most 

important drainage in the Gerber Block. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: This standard is being met on the allotment. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of 

nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing 

use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: This standard is not being met. Barnes Valley Creek, Long Branch 

Creek, and Miller Creek - which forms the boundary between Horsefly and the neighboring Dry Prairie 

allotment - do not meet the state standards for summer water temperatures. The inability to “meet” the water 

temperature standard on Barnes Valley and Long Branch creeks is primarily a function of the naturally 

intermittent (summer/fall) nature of both creeks. The flows and temperature of Miller Creek are a function of 

the Gerber Dam and Reservoir over which the BLM has no control. BLM administered livestock grazing is 

not presently considered a factor in the non-attainment of this Standard. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: This standard is being met on the 

allotment. The high seral state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that 

wildlife habitat conditions are appropriate. The Section 7 consultation for the shortnose sucker, over the past 

7-8 years, has also affirmed that current grazing management is consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of aquatic habitat. 

As noted in Step 3, the KFRA ROD/RMP listed nine specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and 

related “Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately 

addresses each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or 

appropriately moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing 

management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Horton Allotment (0883) 

Horton is a small allotment located on the extreme west central edge of the watershed analysis area. As the 

allotment is physically outside of the Gerber Block, it was not Ecological Site Inventoried during the noted 

1997-98 survey. Due to the detachment from the Gerber Block, this allotments Rangeland Health Standards 

Assessment was completed as a “free-standing” Assessment in 2002, separately from this watershed analysis. 

That Assessment did find several of the Standards not fully met, but determined that the overall current 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 241 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the allotment and appropriate for making significant 

progress towards meeting the unmet Standards. Juniper invasion of big sagebrush and bitterbrush sites was 

determined to be the primary reason for unmet Standards. 

The Assessment was based on some monitoring and observational information collected in recent years. A 

condensed summary of this information is presented in the following narrative: 

Rangeland Health Evaluation: The Horton Assessment noted the following about the upland PFC rating done 

on the allotment in October of 2000: 

“...The Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet (Worksheet) completed on the allotment provides 

a good measure of many of the indicators listed above. This evaluation was completed in an area that was 

considered to be representative of the majority of the allotment. There was an overstory of juniper trees with 

a grass understory. There were very few forbs present. Shrub species were largely absent where there was a 

juniper overstory. In the more open areas (without junipers) there were scattered mountain big sagebrush, 

antelope bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush. Native grass species included, in order of dominance, Thurber’s 

needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and Idaho fescue. Cheatgrass was present in 

varying densities... 

...The current vegetation conditions in the Horton allotment match the description for a deteriorated site. 

Western juniper has invaded the stands in varying densities, resulting in a decline in the shrub species. The 

grass component has shifted to dominance by the needlegrass with an invasion of cheatgrass also occurring. 

The distribution and variety of forb species have also been negatively affected... 

...The Invasive Plant indicator was the only rating of Moderate to Extreme due to the amount of juniper 

invasion. Several indicators fell into the Moderate category. These indicators were: Rills; Pedestals and/or 

Terracettes; Bare Ground; Soil Surface Resistance to Erosion; Soil Surface Loss or Degradation; Plant 

Community Composition and Distribution Relative to Infiltration and Runoff; Functional/Structural Groups; 

Plant Mortality/Decadence; and Litter Amount. Most of these indicators were rated this way due to the 

heavy juniper invasion and it’s adverse effect upon the vegetation community. Juniper trees are at a level 

where they are negatively affecting the vegetation communities’ composition and production. This has also 

led to a change in the structure of the vegetation. All of these components have an effect on the hydrologic 

functions of the site. The canopy of the juniper trees is intercepting precipitation and not allowing it to 

infiltrate into the soil below. The extensive root systems of the junipers also extract moisture from several 

levels of the soil horizon, making it unavailable to other plants. These combined effects have led to a 

decrease in the grass and forb components and subsequent litter amounts and an increase in bare soil areas. 

Precipitation that is not intercepted by the juniper canopies falls directly on these bare areas since the 

understory cover has deteriorated. This has led to an increase in soil surface movement, especially in these 

bare soil areas...” 

Monitoring Studies: Some utilization measurements have been done on the allotment in the mid 1980’s and 

again recently. The following is excerpted from the Assessment relative to this information: 

“The Utilization data collected shows that use was in the 40-60% range in 1985, 70-80% range in 1986, and 

30-35% range in 2000. The Utilization readings completed in 1985, 1986, and 2000 did not have Actual Use 

reports to correlate utilization to AUMs of livestock use. Livestock numbers from the annual billing and 

from use supervision notes can be used to get a general idea of the level of grazing for these years. During 

1985, use supervision notes showed a count of around 10 pairs in May although the permittee had requested 

non-use. The bill was then paid for 66 pairs including an Exchange-of-Use for 6 pairs. During 1986, field 

notes showed a count of 38 head during early May. No bills were found in the files for 1986. There is a 

general lack of good data to correlate utilization with livestock numbers for both 1985 and 1986. For 2000, 

242 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the billing was for 87 head including a 16 head Exchange-of-Use. These numbers were not verified through 

field checks. 

The Use Map completed in 2000 showed mainly light use (30-35%) throughout the allotment with small 

patches of moderate use in the newly cut juniper areas. This level of use is considered appropriate and 

should allow for improvements in vegetation community conditions.” 

Riparian Information: The following is from the Assessment: 

“The Horton allotment is limited in its amount and size of riparian/wetland areas. There is an ephemeral 

drainage that flows out of the southeastern corner of the allotment. A Proper Functioning Condition survey 

was completed on this drainage on June 11, 2002. This survey determined that this drainage was ephemeral 

with no riparian vegetation present. The channel was well armored with rocks and upland-type vegetation. 

There was one area that had been diked in the past to hold livestock water but has since washed around one 

end. There were a couple of small side channels that may contribute flow in high moisture years. Within 50 

feet of the property line at the south edge of the allotment, the drainage flows into an irrigation canal. Below 

the canal, the stream channel has been straightened and deepened to function as an irrigation canal on the 

private land. A juniper treatment project was completed in the area that includes a portion of the lower 

drainage basin for this channel. This treatment could extend into and across this drainage without any 

significant effects to riparian or water quality values.” 

The following was noted in the Assessment section on “Ecological Processes”: 

“A shift in vegetation species composition and community structure has occurred due to the expansion of 

junipers. The shrub and grass species in these juniper stands have declined due to the moisture capturing 

ability of the junipers. The extensive root systems of the junipers are able to extract moisture from several 

levels in the soil horizon and well beyond their drip line. This decline in the shrubs and grasses has led to 

more bare ground areas and increased soil movement during precipitation events and spring runoff. This shift 

in the vegetation species can also lead to a change in the habitat available to support wildlife species. 

General observations indicate that the allotment is utilized by deer, rabbits and other wildlife species. 

With the recent juniper reduction projects that have been completed on the allotment, a shift back to more 

native shrubs and grasses should occur. There are enough native species present to repopulate the spaces left 

by the juniper removals. The current livestock numbers and early season-of-use should not have a negative 

impact on this process.” 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps of 

this watershed analysis do not significantly alter the conclusions from the recently completed Rangeland 

Health Standards Assessment. That Assessment arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 

Standards for Rangeland Health (the actual explanation statements below in italics are excerpted from the 

Assessment analysis): 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: This Standard is not currently being fully met 

on the allotment, but significant progress is being made toward achieving it. ...The present upland soils and 

vegetation on the Horton allotment are currently in a moderately degraded condition. Much of the allotment 

has been invaded by junipers. This is having a negative impact on the vegetation communities which is 

leading to increased runoff and subsequent soil movement. Native perennial grasses and shrubs are still 

abundant in most areas and the recent juniper reduction projects should allow these to increase. This 

anticipated increase should result in improved ground cover and soil protection. Current livestock grazing 

does not appear to be creating significant negative impacts. The short season-of-use should allow the grasses 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 243 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

to complete their growth cycles and produce seeds. The many juniper reduction areas will likely provide 

increased forage, but also have the potential for weed problems. These areas should be monitored... 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: This Standard is being met 

on the Horton allotment. Current livestock grazing is having no negative impacts to the limited riparian 

resources in the allotment. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Currently, this Standard is not being fully met on the 

allotment, but significant progress is being made toward achieving it. ...A shift in vegetation species 

composition and community structure has occurred due to the expansion of junipers... With the recent 

juniper reduction projects that have been completed on the allotment, a shift back to more native shrubs and 

grasses should occur. There are enough native species present to repopulate the spaces left by the juniper 

removals. The current livestock numbers and early season-of-use should not have a negative impact on this 

process... 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: This Standard is currently being met on the Horton allotment. 

...Within the Horton allotment, there are no perennial water bodies. There is a section of intermittent stream 

that was discussed in Standard 2 above. This stream segment flows out of the southeast corner of the 

allotment and is intersected by the North Canal, a constructed irrigation delivery system. This stream 

segment has very little flow and the channel is well armored by rocks and upland-type vegetation and is 

contributing very little sediment to downstream areas... 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Currently, this Standard is not 

being fully met on the allotment, but significant progress is being made toward achieving it. ...There is still 

a good component of native plant species throughout the allotment. Junipers have increased to a level where 

they have negatively impacted the plant community composition and productivity... The allotment is 

providing a good diversity of wildlife habitat. This area is considered winter range for mule deer. The recent 

juniper reduction projects should result in an increase in the shrub component, mainly big sagebrush and 

bitterbrush that is beneficial to big game, birds and other wildlife species... 

As noted in Step 3, the KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and 

related “Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately 

addresses each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or 

appropriately moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing 

management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Pankey Basin Allotment (0884) 

Pankey Basin is a low priority allotment located on the northwestern edge of the Gerber Block that is used in 

common with a larger amount of private land. Most of the water for the allotment is on private land, though 

a portion of Pankey Creek does flow across BLM lands in an area partially accessible to cattle. The BLM 

uplands appear to receive only limited grazing use even though the private lands are not fenced separate. 

The BLM allotment is the scabbier, rougher, and/or steeper lands surrounding the private. 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1998 field season, ecological site inventory (ESI) information was 

collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

244 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total Pankey Basin Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 55.29 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 55.44 64.50 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 35.47 0 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 25.07 166.07 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 21.68 44.68 0 

Totals* 115.98 307.54 44.68 0 

*Allotment also contains 40.84 acres of defined rock outcrops not included in totals. There is also a substantial 

amount of private lands in this allotment which were not ESI classified though are intermingled with the BLM lands. 

Acres breakdown: public - 100%, private - 0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 24.8% 

Late Seral 65.7% 

Mid Seral 9.5% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ecological conditions of this allotment’s vegetation communities are all late seral/PNC, with the 

exception of the small amount of mid-seral South Slopes 14-18" ecological site. This latter site is located on 

the steep, southwest facing slopes (Goodlow Rim) that define the extreme western edge of the allotment. 

This area was actually ESI classified as late seral but downgraded due to suppressed production. All the 

allotment’s ecological sites in the current condition classes are believed to be appropriately functional upland 

communities, though the mid seral South Slopes site many be marginally so. Goodlow Rim is not believed 

accessible by Pankey Basin cattle and thus not an issue for this allotment’s grazing use, though it is 

physically located within the defined boundaries of the allotment. This ecological site and condition rating is 

an extension of an ecological write-up area done several miles south in the Goodlow Rim portion of the 

Adobe pasture (Horsefly allotment). The write-up area was detrimentally affected long ago by livestock from 

the immediately adjacent private lands in Langell Valley and is making a condition comeback, albeit slow 

(see Horsefly ESI narrative). It is likely, however, that the small portion of this ecological site in the Pankey 

allotment is in elevated condition but included with the other site for convenience, since not all areas within a 

site write-up area were or can be inspected on the ground. 

One additional note: The grazing permit for Pankey Basin was reduced by almost one-half in 1960, i.e. from 

82 to 43 AUMs. This reduction was probably a significant contributing factor to the overall good upland 

conditions now present on the allotment. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: A Rangeland Health Evaluation was performed and Summary 

Worksheet prepared on this allotment October 31, 2000. The evaluation worksheet was done in the central 

portion of the allotment’s BLM lands in an area that is primarily the Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site – 

the allotments dominant ecological site (41% of total). That field assessment rated all three of the allotments 

“Rangeland Health Attribute” categories (soil site stability, biotic integrity, and hydrologic function) at “none 

to slight” departure from site potential; in other words, the BLM administered uplands on the allotment were 

judged to be in excellent condition overall. 

Riparian Monitoring: In September of 1997, a Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment was 

completed for the portion of Pankey Creek on BLM lands. A team of BLM resource specialists completed 

this assessment on-site. The 0.7 mile of drainage on BLM was classified into two separate portions with very 

different conditions ratings. The lower 0.3 mile was ranked as “Proper Functioning Condition” with no trend 

noted. It is the portion of the creek that drops into a rocky, shrub-choked draw that plunges into the Miller 

Creek canyon. It is not accessible by livestock and marginally accessible by humans. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 245 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

However, the upper 0.4 mile, which is immediately adjacent to the unfenced private lands and readily 

accessible to livestock, was rated as “Non-functional” with no trend noted. The remarks on the assessment 

form were as follows: “Heavy cattle trampling on stream banks and hoof action in muddy areas. Adjacent 

uplands have been heavily grazed and are contributing some sediment. There are sedges, etc. in channel to 

help stabilize bottom, but bare stream banks that are heavily trampled. Good water flow in September from 

spring and reservoir above.” 

The uninhibited access by livestock for a lengthy season of use has contributed to, and helps maintain, the 

suppressed conditions of the drainage and its riparian vegetation community. It is possible that this riparian 

area is slowly improving from some even more past degraded condition, though this is not possible to tell at 

this point. In any case, riparian conditions appear to not be adequate, though the drainage has not been 

monitored since 1997. A cooperative effort with the private landowner would have to be pursued to arrive at 

a mutually advantageous solution to this problem (see Step 6). 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: Standard Met. The high seral state vegetation 

communities dominating the BLM administered lands within this allotment strongly indicate proper 

functioning upland conditions. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: Standard Not Met. The 

portion of Pankey Creek, which rated as non-functional, is significant enough to consider this Standard as not 

achieved. Livestock grazing use is considered the primary reason for the non-achievement of this Standard. 

Due to the intermingled private and public land, solutions to this problem will probably have to be pursued 

cooperatively (see Step 6). 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: Standard probably overall met. The high seral state upland 

vegetation communities found on this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of nutrient 

cycling and energy flow are being met. The poor condition of a portion of the Pankey Creek riparian area 

implies that there could be problems with the proper functioning of the hydrologic cycle. Whether this is 

significant or not cannot be determined at this point. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: Standard probably met. There are no 303(d) listed waters within this 

allotment, though Pankey Creek has not been monitored for water quality. Miller Creek - which is 303(d) 

listed - forms the extreme southeastern administrative boundary of the allotment, though it is physically 

detached from Pankey Basin by Miller Creek Rim. Grazing use on the Pankey Basin allotment is not 

considered a factor with Miller Creek. The elevated ecological state of the current upland vegetation on 

BLM administered land implies that the uplands are not contributing to offsite water quality problems. 

However, the poor condition of the Pankey Creek riparian area implies that there could be water quality 

problems. The degree to which this contributes to the 303(d) listing of Miller Creek is unknown at this time, 

but is likely minor. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: Standard Met. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that wildlife habitat conditions are 

appropriate. Riparian conditions are a concern, but probably not enough to make this standard not met. 

Current grazing management is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management. As noted in Step 3, the KFRA ROD/RMP listed two specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/ 

Concerns” and related “Management Objectives” for this allotment. These objectives pertained to riparian 

conditions and water quality; both of which are addressed adequately by the Standards. 

246 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Dry Prairie Allotment (0885) 

Dry Prairie is one of the largest and most important grazing allotments in the KFRA. As noted in Step 3 (see 

for more information) it has a 6 pasture, rest-rotation grazing system with the important riparian area - Ben 

Hall Creek - fenced into a separate riparian pasture with extremely limited use. This allotment has had 

extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read on it over the past 30 years; 

particularly during the past 8 years due to the Section 7 consultation requirements. These include various 

condition and trend studies, utilization, and a mix of riparian related studies, in addition to the ESI survey. 

The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in 1999 and found that the 

overall current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the allotment and appropriate for 

maintaining the current overall good vegetation conditions. Though that Assessment will not be reiterated 

here, some of the findings and information will be briefly summarized as necessary in the following 

narrative. This includes the final conformance/non-conformance determinations on each of the 5 Standards 

for Rangeland Health, which is found at the end of this section. Some additional monitoring information has 

also been collected since completion of the Assessment and will be discussed. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Since Assessment completion, the ESI vegetation information has been refined so 

that a very accurate figure is available - by pasture - for the number of acres of each vegetation type 

(ecological site) by condition class rating. The number of public and private acres by pasture has also been 

calculated to a reasonably accurate level. That information is summarized as follows: 

Miller Creek Pasture - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 107.55 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 201.80 20.39 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 559.03 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 172.50 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 66.37 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 983.33 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 38.81 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 44.33 0 0 0 

South Slopes 0 29.79 0 0 

Totals* 775.86 1427.65 20.39 0 

*Pasture contains 56.62 acres of “Rock” not in the totals. acres breakdown: public- 93.4%, private- 4.6% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 34.9% 

Late Seral 64.2% 

Mid Seral 0.9% 

Early Seral 0% 

Gerber Lakes - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 187.21 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 2.95 0 0 

Stony Claypan 256.42 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 5.71 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 1200.48 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 30.35 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 67.47 0 0 0 

Totals* 323.89 1426.16 0 0 

*Pasture contains 15.14 acres of “Rock” not in the totals. Acres breakdown: public-90.9%, private-9.1% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 247 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 18.5% 

Late Seral 81.5% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

Ben Hall Pasture - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 799.65 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 41.43 20.39 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 412.06 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 301.16 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 0 23.28 0 

Shallow Stony 1003.84 146.72 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0.37 0.09 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0.54 0 0 

Totals* 1717.43 988.43 23.28 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 93.3%, private – 6.7 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 62.9% 

Late Seral 36.2% 

Mid Seral 0.9% 

Early Seral 0% 

Dry Prairie Pasture - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 321.71 0 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 60.25 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 20.87 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 232.97 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 75.07 25.06 0 

Shallow Stony 25.06 1079.95 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 497.71 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 38.50 26.27 0 

Totals* 776.61 1575.48 51.33 0 

*Allotment contains 28.97 acres of unclassified private lands not in the totals. Acres breakdown: public –75.9 %, 

private – 24.1 %. 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 32.4% 

Late Seral 65.5% 

Mid Seral 2.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

248 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Campground Pasture - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 234.14 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1.48 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 90.66 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 0 1.77 0 

Shallow Stony 1.77 425.15 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 0.03 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 11.68 0 0 0 

Totals* 105.59 659.32 1.77 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 93.0%, private – 7.0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 13.8% 

Late Seral 86.0% 

Mid Seral 0.2% 

Early Seral 0%

 Ben Hall Riparian Pasture - Dry Prairie Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition 

Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 144.50 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 20.12 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 49.52 0 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 3.68 24.15 0 

Shallow Stony 24.15 231.90 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0 58.53 0 

Totals* 93.79 380.08 82.68 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 92.8%, private – 7.2 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 16.8% 

Late Seral 68.3% 

Mid Seral 14.9% 

Early Seral 0% 

Total Dry Prairie Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 1794.76 0 0
 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 306.43 20.39 0
 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1013.56 0 0 0
 

Stony Claypan 1103.23 0 0 0
 

South Slopes 0 29.79 0 0
 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" 0 150.29 74.26 0
 

Shallow Stony 1054.82 4067.53 0 0
 

Mahogany Rockland 0 69.19 0 0
 

Ephemeral Lakebed 621.56 0 0 0
 

Dry Meadow 0 39.04 123.84 0

 Totals* 3793.17 6457.03 218.49 0
 

*Allotment also contains 71.76 ac. of “Rock” and 28.97 ac. of unclassified private lands not in the totals. Acres 

breakdown: public - 89.3%, private - 10.7 % 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 249 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 36.2% 

Late Seral 61.7% 

Mid Seral 2.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ESI information above shows that almost all (98%) of the allotment is in either late seral or PNC 

condition. As discussed in this Step’s section on “Vegetation - Non-Forested Uplands”, these seral stages are 

thought to be at least adequately functional in regards to the major attributes of rangeland health (i.e. soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the biotic community) for the ecological sites that dominate 

this allotment. 

The majority of the vegetation classified as mid seral is a Dry Meadow ecological site (silver sagebrush – 

Nevada bluegrass) near Ben Hall Creek; an area that received very heavy grazing in distantly past years due 

to the proximity of water. Virtually all of this type is now fenced separately into the Ben Hall Riparian 

pasture, receives very limited grazing (i.e. 10 days once every three years), and is thought to have strongly 

upward trends. Similarly impacted, is the small area of Shrubby Loam in mid seral; an area that is also near 

Ben Hall Creek. This site actually rated compositionally as late seral but was downgraded to mid seral due to 

below average production. Though this area is outside the Ben Hall Riparian pasture fence, this fencing does 

positively affect the condition/trend of the adjacent areas by changing the effective water proximity. 

Utilization studies over the past 109 years have shown that the grazing use in this area is consistently slight 

to light; utilization that is consistent with upward trends. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies were established and read in 1994 and 1995 at all 

five of the frequency trend plot locations. This ESI derived condition study allows for an initial quantitative 

assessment of the current vegetative conditions as well as establishes a baseline for future comparison on a 

specific key area. This study is designed to be re-read in future years to quantitatively measure vegetation 

changes indicated by the accompanying trend study reading. On this allotment, all 5 of the studies rated the 

existing communities between 50-75% similarity to PNC, thus placing the vegetation in the late seral class or 

“good” condition. As noted above, this condition implies an appropriate plant community that will ensure 

proper functioning upland conditions and static to upwards trends. 

Trend Studies: There are several different types of trend studies on the allotment – photo trend, frequency 

trend, and observed apparent trend. The photo trend studies are the longest-term range studies in the area 

having been originally established between 1971 and 1972. There is at least one in each of the major 

pastures in Dry Prairie - Gerber Lakes, Ben Hall, Dry Prairie, and Miller Creek. As noted in the Dry Prairie 

Assessment, “A comparison of the photographs... shows that vegetative conditions have definitely improved 

since establishment. The photos show that perennial grass, forb, and to some extent shrub, density and vigor 

has increased. Even more significant is the fact that even with the generally poorer than average growing 

conditions in the late 80’s and early 90’s, vegetative conditions, as interpreted from the photo plots, have at 

worst remained stable and mostly improved.” 

The frequency trend studies were established between 1993 and 1996 in each of the above 4 pastures, with an 

additional one in the Campground pasture. All five have been re-read once since the initial establishment, 

with the readings indicating that trends in the desired perennial grass species have been static to upward. 

These overall trends when, considered against the elevated ecological conditions, indicate the 

appropriateness of current grazing management. 

The observed apparent trend was a collateral, qualitative observation made as part of the ESI efforts. All of 

the inventory vegetation worksheets (26) that pertain to this allotment rated the trend as either static or 

upward; there was no downward trends noted. Specifically, 8 worksheets had upward trends and 18 static 

250 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

trends. For the 18 static trend sheets, 2 were mid seral, 12 were late seral, and 4 were PNC - all in acceptable 

or better ecological condition (the mid seral areas were discussed earlier). Late seral and PNC areas are less 

likely to show upward trends since they are already in an elevated ecological condition and have less “room” 

to improve. 

Utilization Studies: The following is quoted from the Dry Prairie Assessment – “Utilization information has 

been collected on this allotment since at least 1985. The utilization data from the established points, has 

shown overall appropriate (moderate or less) average upland utilization - particularly since 1992. The 

utilization pattern mapping - done every year since 1992 - has also confirmed consistently acceptable overall 

patterns of use throughout all pastures of this allotment. The light-moderate utilization levels, which are 

within the KFRA ROD/RMP parameters, indicates long term stability and grazing pressure that is appropriate 

to maintaining the currently acceptable vegetation conditions. Even though occasional points in occasional 

years have shown heavy use, there appear to be no chronically overused areas.” Utilization levels have been, 

and continue to be, appropriate for maintaining static to slowly improving ecological conditions. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: During the ESI survey, Soil Surface Factor (SSF) ratings were made. 

The following is quoted from the Dry Prairie Assessment regarding SSF – “As a collateral observation 

during the ESI, the SSF was estimated for each soils/vegetation site write-up area. Although the field data 

has not been compiled and input into a data base...(still true) a check of all the inventory worksheets and 

field maps shows that the majority of the allotment (90%+ on an estimated acres weighted basis) is in either 

the “stable” or “slight” erosion condition classes. These two lowest erosion classes imply generally stable 

conditions. The limited remaining areas are in the low to mid “moderate” erosion class.” 

During the ESI, a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic – or biological soil - crusts was made while collecting 

other vegetation data. The following allotment specific information on biological crusts is from the Dry 

Prairie Assessment, “...The average rating (non-acres weighted) for the Dry Prairie allotment was just under 

5.0 - a moderate crust rating. This would be considered neither exceptional nor unacceptable, but adequate, 

given the limited knowledge of these crusts and the long historical use of the allotment for cattle grazing...” 

(See write-up for the Horsefly allotment for more information on biotic crusts; all of which is pertinent to 

Dry Prairie also.) 

Riparian Monitoring: Numerous riparian related monitoring studies have been established/read on this 

allotment, primarily due to Ben Hall Creek’s importance in providing habitat for the federally listed 

(endangered) shortnose sucker. These studies include long-term riparian photo points, stream bank stability 

ratings, riparian utilization, stream cross-section and greenline riparian vegetation plots, and proper function 

condition (PFC) determinations. A complete summary of the riparian monitoring is found in the Dry Prairie 

Assessment and will not be repeated in this section. Also see the riparian sections of this analysis. However, 

the analysis of the riparian information in the Dry Prairie Assessment did conclude that riparian/wetland areas 

in the allotment are either in proper condition or are adequately trending towards the proper resource 

conditions with current management. 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do 

not significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health (explanation 

statements summarized from Assessment analysis): 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: This standard is being met on the allotment. 

The overall upward trends and existing high seral state vegetation communities dominated this allotment 

strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be 

sustainable and appropriate. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 251 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: This standard is being met 

on the allotment. Though Ben Hall Creek has had past riparian problems, grazing management changes 

made over the last 10-20 years - including upland/riparian pasture fencing and rest-rotation grazing system ­

have allowed this riparian area to improve significantly with the trends still upwards. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: This standard is being met on the allotment. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of 

nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing 

use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: This standard is not being met. Although Ben Hall Creek is not on the 

state list for water quality problems, Miller Creek - which forms the boundary between Dry Prairie and the 

neighboring Horsefly allotment - does not meet the state standards for summer water temperatures although 

water quality data indicates water temperature problems and the stream may be added to the 303d list in the 

future. However, the flows and temperature of Miller Creek are a function of the Gerber Dam and Reservoir 

over which the BLM has no control. BLM administered livestock grazing is not presently considered a 

factor in the non-attainment of this Standard. 

Since completion of the Assessment, the water temperatures in Ben Hall Creek have been found to exceed 

Oregon water temperature standards. This stream may be added to the 303(d) list in the future. It should be 

noted that flows in Ben Hall Creek are controlled by an upstream water rights holder. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: This standard is being met on the 

allotment. The high seral state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that 

wildlife habitat conditions are appropriate. The Section 7 consultation for the shortnose sucker, over the past 

7-8 years, has also affirmed that current grazing management is consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of aquatic habitat. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed eight specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Horse Camp Rim Allotment (0886) 

Horse Camp Rim is a moderately high priority allotment located within the geographical center of the Gerber 

Block. This allotment was in non-use for some years during the late 1980’s into the mid 1990’s, at which 

point the allotment resumed regular use, though at less than the half the permitted use levels. Grazing use is 

permitted under a 5-pasture, rest-rotation grazing system. Though full grazing use could occur at the 

permittee’s option, suppressed grazing levels have continued to date - including no use during the 2001 

grazing season. 

In addition to the recent ESI survey information, this allotment has had an ample amount of monitoring data 

collected on it over the past 25 years due to its relatively high priority in the resource area. This includes 

various trend and condition studies, utilization, riparian photo points, and other vegetation information. 

Since this analysis is the formal Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment, the monitoring 

information will be evaluated and summarized here to assist in determining if current grazing management is 

appropriate. 

Ecological Site Inventory: During the 1997 and 1998 field seasons, ecological site inventory (ESI) 

information was collected for this allotment. That information is summarized as follows: 

252 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Plateau Pasture - Horse Camp Allotment - Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 0.47 28.48 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 1.12 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 68.39 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1280.79 278.20 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 216.62 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0 373.05 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 3.32 42.41 0.25 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 31.59 0 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 121.77 0 

Totals* 1315.70 980.26 150.25 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 96.1%, private – 3.9 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 53.8% 

Late Seral 40.1% 

Mid Seral 6.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

Rim Pasture - Horse Camp Allotment - Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class

 Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 41.9 133.24 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 197.92 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 316.32 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 393.26 225.94 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 0.67 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0 323.48 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 219.1 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 53.27 0 

Totals* 393.26 1325.33 186.51 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 99.93%, private – 0.07 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 20.6% 

Late Seral 69.6% 

Mid Seral 9.8% 

Early Seral 0% 

North Spring Pasture - Horse Camp Allotment - Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1263.94 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 276.23 387.99 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 72.06 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 92.7 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 240.1 0 0 

Irrigated Shallow Stony 0 15.52 0 0 

Totals* 1540.17 808.37 0 0 

*Does not include the following unclassified riparian: 23.23 acres BLM and 2.3 acres private land. Acres breakdown: 

public – 98.4%, private – 1.6 % 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 253 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 65.6%
 

Late Seral 34.4%
 

Mid Seral 0%
 

Early Seral 0%
 

Midway W.S. Pasture - Horse Camp Allotment - Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 301.72 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0 92.69 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 259.1 0 0 

Totals* 301.72 351.79 0 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 100%, private – 0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 46.2% 

Late Seral 53.8% 

Mid Seral 0% 

Early Seral 0% 

Dog Hollow Pasture - Horse Camp Allotment - Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 317.25 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 571.38 97.46 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 0 0 0.25 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 0.10 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 468.16 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0.22 0 0 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 0 107.58 0 0 

Totals* 996.21 673.52 0.25 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 100%, private – 0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 59.7% 

Late Seral 40.3% 

Mid Seral <0.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

254 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total Horse Camp Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class

 Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 43.37 161.72 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 199.04 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 384.71 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 3571.73 504.14 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 217.29 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 847.61 1279.21 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 3.32 436.04 0.25 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 92.80 0 0 

Shallow Stony 0 927.36 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 59.38 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0.22 0 0 

Irrigated Shallow Stony 0 15.52 0 0 

Irrigated Stony Claypan 0 107.58 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 175.04 0 

Totals* 4482.04 4207.28 337.01 0 

*Totals include 109.57 acres that are within the ungrazed Twenty One Reservoir Exclosure, but not itemized 

separately. Totals do not include the following unclassified riparian: 23.23 acres BLM and 2.3 acres private land. 

Acres breakdown: public - 98.7%, private - 1.3 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 49.7% 

Late Seral 46.6% 

Mid Seral 3.7% 

Early Seral 0% 

With almost 97% of the allotment’s vegetation in late seral or PNC, upland functionality is thought to be very 

high and appropriate for this landscape. The limited grazing use over the past 12-15 years has contributed to 

the current excellent ecological conditions on the upland areas, as evidenced by the fact that half the 

allotment is rated PNC. The only potential upland condition issues on this allotment would be the limited 

mid seral areas, which fall within two ecological sites. First, are the Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites on top of Horse 

Camp Rim that have received extensive alterations from past timber harvest and under-burning activities. 

This area actually classified as late seral but was “downgraded” to mid seral due to the disturbance 

diminishing the understory vegetation production. These type areas typically exhibit upward trends and are 

thought functionally adequate. Cattle grazing is not a condition issue in these areas. 

The other mid seral area is a South Slopes 14-18" ecological site located on the west/southwest facing slopes 

of Horse Camp Rim (just below the above described site). This area was found to have compositionally late 

seral vegetation, but was actually rated as mid seral since the abundance of several otherwise highly desirable 

plants (bitterbrush, Idaho fescue, and Thurber’s needlegrass) exceeds that “allowed” in the ecological site 

description. Part of lowered condition rating is a result of this area not being a discretely clear example of the 

South Slopes ecological site, i.e. it only loosely fits the South Slope description, but fits it better than the 

other site choices. (This is not uncommon with any vegetation classification system, since vegetation 

communities on any landscape are more of a continuum or spectrum than a discretely defined entity.) This 

area is also experiencing extensive juniper invasion depressing the ecological rating of the site somewhat. 

Overall, this site is believed functionally adequate, and based on utilization pattern mapping, is being little if 

at all used by cattle. Thus, cattle grazing is not considered a condition issue in this area. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies have been established in four of the five pastures 

in this allotment (Midway Waterspreader (W.S.) doesn’t have one due to its small size). The information 

from these studies is summarized by pasture as follows: 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 255 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Rim Pasture: This study was originally established in 1998 and was found to be 68.2% similar to potential, 

or late seral. It is not scheduled for re-reading until at least 2008. 

Plateau Pasture: This study was established in 1997 and was found to be 77.6% similar to potential, or PNC. 

It is not scheduled for re-reading until at least 2007. 

Dog Hollow W.S.: This study was established in 1998 and found to be 51.7% similar to potential, or late 

seral. The reason for the relatively low rating was an overabundance of native forbs (41.1% of the measured 

vegetation) – primarily pussytoes (Antennaria sp.), biscuit-root (Lomatium sp.), buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), 

and phlox (Phlox sp.). Though these are all native species, some are often considered indicators of past 

overgrazing - particularly phlox and possibly pussytoes. However, all are native perennials species that 

contribute to overall functionality by binding the soil with their roots and providing ground cover and litter 

production. 

North Springs Pasture: There are two condition studies in this pasture. HCR-5 is located in the north end of 

the pasture and was established in 1998. It was found to be 73.4% similar to potential, or in the upper end of 

late seral – almost PNC. It is not scheduled for re-reading until at least 2008. HCR-6 was informally 

established in 1983 and relocated in 1998 as close as possible. It is located on the extreme western side of 

the pasture and was determined in 1998 to be 75.8% similar to potential, or PNC. The 1983 rating was 56% 

of potential. This strongly implies that in the intervening 15 years, conditions have improved significantly. 

Overall, these key area specific condition studies support the conclusion, noted in the ESI section above, that 

ecological conditions are good to excellent and the uplands have at least adequate functionality. Currently 

permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

Trend Studies: Like most of the higher priority allotments in the Gerber Block, Horse Camp Rim has several 

different trend studies – photo trend, frequency trend, and observed apparent trend from the ESI survey. Due 

to this allotment’s moderate priority status, the frequency trend studies were not established until the late 

1990’s. They have not as yet received a second reading that allows for any comparison; thus, these studies 

will not be discussed further. 

Rim Pasture: Photo point HCR-1 was originally established in 1970 making it one of the older trend studies 

in the Gerber block. It shows that conditions have been stable (static trend) to slightly upwards (i.e. slight 

increase in oatgrass) – a trend consistent with the elevated ecological conditions. 

Plateau Pasture: Photo point HCR-2 was also established in 1970. It shows a distinct upward trend as 

evidenced by an increase in the number and vigor of the Idaho fescue within the plot - including the total 

replacement of the one low sagebrush bush with a large fescue clump. The view pictures show a steady and 

significant increase of large, vigorous fescue bunchgrasses throughout this low sagebrush area. 

Midway W. S. Pasture: Photo point HCR-3 was also established in 1970 in an area that was seeded with 

several pasture grass species (meadow foxtail and a wheatgrass) and intermittently irrigated during the 

summer. Since about 1975 the water spreader has been dysfunctional and the area cannot be irrigated. This 

caused a loss of the seeded pasture grass species and a return to a more native quality, with much less grass 

production due to less water. This gives the sequence of photos the appearance that the trend is downwards 

when in fact it is just returning to a more typical native vegetation community. Trend would really be 

considered static to mildly upward based on field observations and the fact that as shown in the ESI tables 

above, this pasture is 100% late seral/PNC and is not believed to have any condition problems. 

Dog Hollow W. S. Pasture: This pasture has no photo trend study; the frequency plot established in 1998 

will provide for long-term trend observations. 

256 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

North Spring Pasture: Photo point HCR-6 was established in 1974. It shows a slow upward trend in 

condition based on an increase in perennial grasses and forbs. Of interest with these photos is that the area 

appears to have fluctuated in condition over time as judged by the aspect of the perennial grasses. 

Specifically, the earliest (mid 70’s) photos look relatively poor, the late 70’s look better, the mid 80’s looking 

a bit poorer again, then looking good again through the 90’s. However, this could simply be a function of 

yearly production or grazing pressure prior to the photo re-taking. 

Utilization Studies: Utilization – use points and pattern mapping – has been done periodically since the mid1980’s. The utilization points read during the 1980’s (1985-1989), when more or less full grazing use was 

being made, averaged in the moderate range though varied widely. The use was generally highest 

(sometimes heavy) in the two water spreaders, diminishing in the other native pastures with the lowest 

average levels in the Rim pasture. Since grazing regularly commenced again in the mid-90’s, the use (where 

apparent) has been consistently slight to light (10-40%), with the overall average slight (<15%). These 

utilization levels are consistent with the grazing being about one-half of that which could be licensed. Based 

on these utilization observations, the upland vegetation communities would likely be properly utilized (i.e. no 

more than moderate average use) and vegetation conditions stay good to excellent at full permitted use, as 

long as the rest-rotation system was properly followed. Light to moderate utilization levels are within the 

KFRA ROD/RMP parameters and indicate long-term stability and a grazing pressure that is appropriate to 

maintaining the good vegetation conditions. 

Other Upland Monitoring/Information: During the ESI, several other observations were made relative to 

resource conditions. One observation was the Soil Surface Factor (SSF), which is a qualitative expression of 

current soil erosion activity. For this allotment, 23 different vegetation write-up sheets were prepared. 5 

write-ups indicated stable conditions, 11 slight erosion activity, and 7 rated as moderate erosion activity. 

However, even this limited erosion activity is somewhat overstated due to the natural inclination of the 

perennial bunchgrasses to form pedestals in the area’s high clay soils. Pedestaling – natural or otherwise – is 

a downgrading element of the SSF rating system. Overall, these observations though qualitative in nature, 

nonetheless indicate that erosion is a limited concern on this allotment. 

Another observation from the ESI is the Observed Apparent Trend (OAT) rating, which is a qualitative 

estimation of trend based on a visual assessment of key resource attributes (e.g. plant vigor, litter, gullies). 

Of the 23 vegetation write-ups completed, 12 indicated upward trends and 11 were estimated to have stable 

trends; none indicated downward trends. The OAT estimates support the previous discussions and 

conclusions on trend and condition. 

The last of the ESI collateral observations was a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic (biological soil) crusts. 

The importance of these crusts and a description of the rating system was explained in the Horsefly allotment 

section – see for more information. The average of the vegetation write-up sheets for Horse Camp Rim was 

just over 4 on a scale from 0 to 10. This would be considered adequate – neither exceptional nor 

unacceptable - given the limited knowledge of the ecology and significance of these crusts in this area. 

Riparian Monitoring: 

The Horse Camp Rim allotment has a portion of one relatively important riparian/drainage area – Antelope 

Creek. In this allotment, the creek lies entirely within the North Spring pasture. This drainage is largely 

intermittent/seasonal in this allotment, except for a short spring augmented stretch in the middle of this 

pasture (which is partially private) and an assortment of “holes” that will often contain water throughout the 

year in above average precipitation years. Nine riparian photo points were established (AC-1 through AC-9), 

along the portions of the drainage in this pasture, in 1990 with the photos re-taken 5 times since 

establishment. The purpose of these points is to visually track the vegetation changes that may be taking 

place within the drainage. A review of these photographs reveals that 8 of the 9 photo points have 

experienced little change in actual condition (i.e. increase/decrease in the apparent extent or composition of 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 257 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the riparian vegetation communities) but instead only show relative biomass differences between years that 

were grazed or ungrazed prior to the photo. The one exception is at photo point AC-1, which is located at the 

road crossing on this drainage in the extreme north end of the North Spring pasture. This point seems to show 

a slight downward trend in that the riparian herbaceous species are less dense and less spatially distributed. 

This trend is a function of the road itself, which fords the drainage right through the photo point, an artificial 

stock-watering dugout in the drainage just below the road, and to some degree the long-term grazing use. 

In July of 1996, the drainage was evaluated for Proper Function Condition (PFC). It was stratified into three 

different reaches with three different ratings assigned. The determinations and supporting rationales, from 

the PFC checklist sheet, are as follows: 

AC-1 to between AC-2 & AC-3: This reach was judged to be “Functional - at Risk” with the trend “Not 

Apparent” (with the statement “Depends on grazing and precipitation”). The checklist had ample comments 

on it about the conditions observed, some of which follow: 

“-Sinuosity is good but there’s still lateral cutting. Is vertically stable in most areas because it’s hit the rock 

bottom. 

-Cattle grazing above this stretch of the creek as well as along the creek is contributing to erosion, mainly by 

hoof action in and along side the creek bed. Note: Many areas are extremely rocky so they are stable even 

though they don’t support much riparian vegetation. 

-Not much riparian vegetation diversity. Little sedge diversity or mesic grasses & little or no willows. There 

are ponderosa pine & juniper to provide large woody debris. 

-It’s an intermittent creek that at this time only has widely spaced pools of water which are drawing livestock 

& wildlife use. There’s areas that are suffering erosion, both with and without riparian vegetation. Many of 

the riparian plants present are not strong stabilizers.” 

Between AC-2 & AC-3 through AC-7: This stretch, which makes up the majority of the Antelope drainage 

within the pasture, was rated as “Proper Functioning Condition”, with the trend noted as “Not Apparent” 

(with the statement “Cattle grazing may put this at risk with repeated use”). Some of the remarks for the 

stretch of the drainage are as follows: 

“-There is greater diversity in mesic grass, sedge & willows from below North Spring.
 

-Area below pt. #5 is private, not sure where boundary is. Some of the meadow is on BLM.
 

-Area around (and just below) pt. #5 is exceptionally nice (spring w/meadow) w/willows (some trees!), and
 

more diverse riparian species (i.e. Nebraska sedge, long beaked sedge, wooly sedge, cat tails). This area has
 

received a lot of use & trampling. This use on an annual basis may degrade this exceptionally nice, springy,
 

meadow.
 

-We have few nice meadows like this on the east side. Maybe we should consider preserving this area
 

(though see note (about private land)).
 

About 1⁄4 mile of this drainage section is on private land, with the rest BLM administered. There is also a 

shallow drainage that comes into Antelope from the west in about the middle of the private 40-acre parcel 

(between photo points AC-5 & AC-6). This drainage way now functions as the overflow from the ditch that 

runs between the Dog Hollow and Bumpheads Reservoirs. In high runoff years, this channel contributes 

some water to Antelope Creek, though in most years it is probably minimal. During a field check made 

during May 2001, there was no evidence of any runoff, though this was following a very dry winter/spring.” 

AC-8 & AC-9: This final portion of the drainage (in this allotment) was rated as “Nonfunctional” with the 

trend “Not Apparent”. Remarks were as follows: 

“-Some rock check dams have been built to try and dissipate energy.
 

-Tall raw stream banks.”
 

258 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The above comments apparently pertain to AC-9 based on a review of the photo point pictures. AC-9 does 

have a distinct cut bank and a large rock check dam, which was installed in late 1992 or early 1993. 

Conditions in this area have not significantly changed and the effect of the rock check dam – positive or 

negative – is not known. AC-8 is a rocky, basalt boulder dominated “flat” with no defined channel. It is not 

know if this latter area has the ability to change significantly in the foreseeable future, even with total 

exclusion from grazing pressure. 

Of the 2.3 miles of the Antelope drainage in this allotment, approximately 1.5 miles is “Proper Functioning 

Condition”, 0.3 mile is “Functional – At Risk”, and 0.5 mile is “Nonfunctional”. Evaluating the PFC ratings, 

in conjunction with the 10-year span of photo points, does raise some concerns about the long-term condition 

of portions of this drainage (the upper and lower stretches) and the speed at which recovery is or should be 

occurring. It is not known what the drainage looked like decades ago when grazing pressure was much 

higher, though it is thought that recovery has been significant, albeit slow. This is consistent with the nature 

of this arid area with 14-16" average precipitation. (See Step 6 - Recommendations for more information.) 

In summary, the allotment specific information and analysis in this document leads to the following 

conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - UPLANDS - This standard is being met on the allotment. The 

overall upward trends and existing high seral state vegetation communities dominated this allotment strongly 

indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and 

appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS - This standard is either met 

or substantial progress towards meeting it is being made. Though the Antelope Creek drainage is not all in 

PFC, it is thought that the trend is upwards, albeit slowly. The current rest-rotation grazing management 

system, which was originally implemented in the 1980’s and re-established in 1996, is probably allowing this 

riparian area to improve significantly with the trends still upwards. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES - This standard is being met on the allotment. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of 

nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing 

use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY - This standard is not met, but substantial progress towards meeting it is 

being made. Although there are no 303(d) listed waters within this allotment, the lower portion of Antelope 

Creek is included on the 303(d) list for water temperature. See Standard 2 for an explanation as riparian 

conditions are integrally linked to water quality. As riparian conditions improve (due to management 

recommended or affirmed in Step 6) the BLM land related impacts will be reduced and progress will made 

towards meeting this Standard. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES - This standard is being met on the 

allotment. The high seral state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that 

wildlife habitat conditions are appropriate. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed four specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 259 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Pitchlog Allotment (0887) 

The Pitchlog allotment is one of the larger and most important grazing allotments in the KFRA and has been 

classified as the KFRA’s #1 “I” category allotment since completion of the RMP. This allotment has had 

extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read on it over the past 30 years, 

particularly during the past 8 years due to the Section 7 consultation requirements. These include various 

condition and trend studies, utilization, and a mix of riparian related studies, in addition to the ESI survey. 

The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in 1999 and found that the 

overall current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the allotment and appropriate for 

maintaining the current overall good vegetation conditions. Though that Assessment will not be reiterated 

here, some of the findings and information will be briefly summarized as necessary in the following 

narrative. This includes the final conformance/non-conformance determinations on each of the 5 Standards 

for Rangeland Health. Some additional monitoring information has also been collected since completion of 

the Assessment and will be discussed. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Since Assessment completion, the ESI vegetation information has been refined so 

that a very accurate figure is available - by pasture - for the number of acres of each vegetation type 

(ecological site) by condition class rating. The number of public and private acres by pasture has also been 

calculated to a more accurate level. That information is summarized as follows: 

SW Pasture – Pitchlog Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 55.35 1444.05 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 29.84 629.81 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 282.80 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 248.77 433.64 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 0.35 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 77.13 310.32 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 54.04 477.89 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 27.93 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0 0 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 49.38 0 0 

Totals* 437.71 2239.54 1444.05 0 

*There are also 24.62 acres of defined BLM rock outcrops, 23.04 acres of unclassified BLM riparian, and 47+ acres 

of water - all not included in totals above. Acres breakdown: public – 96.3%, private – 3.9 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 10.6% 

Late Seral 54.4% 

Mid Seral 35.0% 

Early Seral 0% 

SE Pasture – Pitchlog Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 618.46 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 0 643.39 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 789.89 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 0 2.46 0 

Totals* 0 2051.74 2.46 0 

*There is also 3.36 acres of unclassified BLM riparian and 72.53 acres of unclassified private - all not included in 

totals above. Acres breakdown: public –87.4 %, private – 12.6 % 

260 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 0% 

Late Seral 99.9% 

Mid Seral 0.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

NE Pasture – Pitchlog Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 935.82 168.92 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 171.71 0 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 4.14 279.18 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 606.7 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 24.90 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 35.54 36.12 0 

Totals* 175.85 1882.14 205.04 0 

*There are also 68.2 acres of unclassified BLM riparian and 17.04 acres of unclassified private riparian - all not 

included in totals above. Acres breakdown: public – 82.7%, private – 17.3 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 7.7% 

Late Seral 83.2% 

Mid Seral 9.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

NW Pasture – Pitchlog Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 0 78.96 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 358.95 0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 65.78 319.59 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 67.08 450.01 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 399.62 0 0 

Totals* 491.81 1169.22 78.96 0 

*Acres breakdown: public – 90.8%, private – 9.2 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 28.3% 

Late Seral 67.2% 

Mid Seral 4.5% 

Early Seral 0% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 261 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total Pitchlog Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 1609.63 1693.93 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 388.79 629.81 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 282.80 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 486.26 434.12 0 0 

Shrubby Loam 12-16" 0 0.35 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 148.17 1682.90 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 54.04 2274.10 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 27.93 24.90 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 35.54 38.58 0 

Mahogany Rockland 0 49.38 0 0 

Totals* 1105.19 7023.53 1731.51 0 

*There is also 24.62 acres of defined rock outcrops, 72.53 acres of unclassified private, and 94.60 acres of 

unclassified BLM riparian & 17.04 acres of unclassified private riparian - all not included in totals above. Acres 

breakdown: public - 90.0%, private - 10.0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 11.2% 

Late Seral 71.2% 

Mid Seral 17.6% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ESI information above shows that 82% of the allotment is in either the late-seral or PNC condition 

classes. As discussed in this Step’s section on “Vegetation – Non-Forested Uplands”, these seral stages are 

thought to be at least adequately functional in regards to the major attributes of rangeland health (i.e. soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the biotic community) for the ecological sites that dominate 

this allotment. 

The mid-seral areas (Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites, which comprise 98% of the mid-seral vegetation) were 

addressed by the 1999 Assessment as follows: “Almost all of the mid seral areas were in the pine-sedge 

ecological sites; areas which have been substantially impacted by past timber and fire management activities. 

Many of these pine-sedge sites actually rated numerically in the Late Seral condition class, but were 

“downgraded” to mid seral due to low production - a direct effect of the recent burning on the shrub 

component. However, this under-burning has also reduced the duff layer underneath the trees, allowing for a 

resurgence of the herbaceous community. All of this regeneration is occurring incrementally and the trend in 

most pine areas is definitely upwards. As a general statement about conditions within the allotment, it can be 

said that the more a site has pine potential, the more likely it is to have been disturbed and in a temporarily 

depressed condition state.” 

The following was also noted in the Assessment about the juniper increases and densities: “One very 

significant ESI observation is that most ecological sites in the Gerber area have been and are continuing to 

experience increased densities of western juniper. These increases are probably primarily due to the 

combined effects of fire suppression, historic livestock grazing, and possibly past timber harvest activities. 

The juniper increase has the future potential to dramatically effect ecological conditions more than it already 

has. This could include decreased forage production for wildlife and livestock, increased erosion potential 

due to diminished ground cover, mono-culture vegetation types that decrease wildlife diversity, decreased 

water availability, and other impacts. These observations are summarized as follows: 

- The spaces between the older junipers (150-1000+ years old) in the “old” juniper sites (Juniper 

Claypan 16-20") are being slowly filled in with much younger trees - way beyond what would be needed for 

replacement of the older trees as they die off (very slow!). 

262 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

- The shallow soil, non-juniper sites (Stony Claypan 14-20", Shallow Stony 10-20") are all 

experiencing varying increases in juniper, with the juniper generally increasing proportionally as soil depth 

increases. However, some of these areas are also seasonally (winter/spring) saturated - particularly the 

Shallow Stony 10-20" - which appears to suppress the juniper encroachment. 

- Most of the other, deeper soil and non-pine ecological sites, that should have juniper as a minor 

late seral/PNC component, are experiencing increases in juniper density. On the Pitchlog allotment there is 

only one of these ecological sites in any abundance: Mahogany Rockland 10-20". Of particularly concern is 

the fact that in some of these sites the mountain mahogany component is collapsing due to the juniper 

competition. These areas are probably some of the most important to consider for juniper reduction 

activities, as they would have the highest beneficial results to wildlife. 

- The ponderosa pine areas (Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" and Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites) are also 

experiencing dramatic increases in juniper. This competition is placing pressure on the pine component of 

the community and is also causing the same problems with mountain mahogany as noted above.” 

The very small amount of mid-seral, Dry Meadow vegetation noted in the NE pasture is a mixture of private 

and public land near the upper (BLM) portion of the Pitch Log drainage. It is a poorly differentiated site, i.e. 

it is a jumble of various phases of several ecological sites. It appears that the area may have been a more 

continuous silver sagebrush/Nevada bluegrass community that has suffered the effects of past, heavy grazing 

use and the deep incising of the drainage channel. These impacts have lowered the areas vegetation response 

and improvement potential and subsequent shifting of the vegetation community’s composition. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies were established and read in 1994 and 1995 at all 

four of the frequency trend plot locations. This ESI derived condition study allows for an initial quantitative 

assessment of the current vegetative conditions as well as establishes a baseline for future comparison on a 

specific key area. These studies allow for future, specific quantification of vegetation changes indicated by 

the accompanying trend study reading and will only be re-read if the trend study shows that significant 

change has occurred. The initial readings on all four studies rated the existing communities between 50-75% 

similarity to PNC, thus placing the vegetation in the late seral condition class or “good” condition. As noted 

above, this condition implies an appropriate plant community that will ensure proper functioning upland 

conditions and static to upwards trends. 

Trend Studies: There are several different types of trend studies on the allotment – photo trend, frequency 

trend, and observed apparent trend. The photo trend studies are the longest-term range studies in the area 

having been originally established between 1971 and 1972. The following is quoted from the Pitchlog 

Assessment: “There is at least one long term Photo Trend study located in each of the 4 pastures in Pitchlog 

which were originally established between 1972 and 1974. A comparison of the photographs - albeit a 

subjective comparison - shows that vegetative conditions have definitely improved since establishment. The 

photos show that perennial grass density and vigor has increased. Even more significant is the fact that even 

with the generally poorer than average growing conditions in the late 80’s and early 90’s, vegetative 

conditions, as interpreted from the photo plots, have at worst remained stable and mostly improved.” 

The frequency trend studies were established in 1993 and 1994 in each of the 4 allotment pastures. All four 

have been re-read once since establishment; three of them since the Assessment was completed in 1999 (they 

were read later in 1999). A summary of all four studies follows: 

Southeast Pasture: This study was re-read in 1998 and was discussed in the Assessment, as follows: “(The 

southeast pasture’s) frequency trend plot was re-read in 1998. The information shows that two of the 

dominant native perennial grasses (Sandberg’s bluegrass and Idaho fescue) have significantly increased and 

one early successional dominant native grass (bottlebrush squirreltail) decreased significantly - apparently 

displaced/replaced by the other two grasses, which are late successional dominant. This is a solid indicator 

of upward rangeland ecological trend.” 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 263 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Southwest Pasture: This study showed that overall conditions have remained static to slightly upward. 

Squirreltail and Sandberg’s bluegrass both showed statistically significant increases in frequency, with Idaho 

fescue and single-spike oatgrass remaining the same. 

Northwest Pasture: This study showed that overall conditions have remained static to slightly upward. 

Sandberg’s bluegrass increased significantly; the other three perennial grasses (same as SW pasture above) 

remained static. 

Northeast Pasture: This study showed that overall conditions have remained static on all important perennial 

grass species. 

As noted previously, the observed apparent trend was a collateral, qualitative observation made as part of the 

ESI efforts. All of the inventory vegetation worksheets (34) that pertain to this allotment rated the trend as 

either static or upward; there was no downward trends noted. Specifically, 21 worksheets estimated upward 

trends and 13 static trends. For the 13 static trend areas, 1 was rated as mid seral, 9 were late seral, and 3 

were PNC - all in acceptable or better ecological condition (the mid seral area was discussed earlier). Late 

seral and PNC areas are less likely to show upward trends since they are already in an elevated ecological 

condition and have less “room” to improve. Overall, all the different trend studies show that the allotment’s 

upland vegetation conditions are in excellent condition with static to upwards trends. Static trend is entirely 

appropriate for these vegetation communities, which are already in upper late seral to PNC condition. 

Utilization Studies: Utilization has been periodically read on this allotment since the mid-1980’s, with use 

pattern mapping done frequently since the early 1990’s. To quote the Pitchlog Assessment – “The utilization 

data, from the established points, has shown consistently moderate or less utilization since full 

implementation of the 4 pasture rotation system in the early 90’s. The utilization pattern mapping - done 

every year since 1992 - has also shown consistently acceptable patterns of use throughout the allotment. The 

light-moderate utilization levels, which are within the KFRA ROD/RMP parameters, imply long term stability 

and grazing pressure that is appropriate to the conditions of the landscape.” Utilization read since the 

Assessment (formally in 2000 and 2002, and informally in 2001) showed some small areas of moderate/ 

heavy use in the vicinity of Pitchlog Creek (NE pasture), though it is primarily on the interspersed private 

lands. (Note: the NE pasture was rested in 2002 and received essentially no livestock use.) In occasional 

years, the Wild Horse drainage (SW pasture) has received more than desired use in some small areas. Both 

2000 and 2001 have had dry (2000) to very dry (2001) growing spring conditions that have limited growth 

and resulted in proportionally increased utilization percentages. Annual precipitation in 2002 was about 

average and resulted in proper utilization levels. Overall the use in these areas is appropriate, although the 

current high levels of monitoring attention to observe long-term dynamic between vegetation trends/ 

conditions and livestock utilization levels is warranted. The positive benefits of the rest-rotation system 

should ameliorate the effects of the occasionally heavier than desired use. 

Other Upland Monitoring: During the ESI, several other observations were made relative to resource 

conditions. One observation was the Soil Surface Factor (SSF), which is a qualitative expression of current 

soil erosion activity. For this allotment, 33 different vegetation write-up sheets were prepared. 10 write-ups 

indicated stable conditions, 19 slight erosion activity, and 4 rated as moderate erosion activity. As noted 

earlier, even this limited erosion activity is somewhat overstated due to the natural inclination of the 

perennial bunchgrasses to form pedestals in the area’s high clay soils. Overall, these observations though 

qualitative in nature, nonetheless indicate that erosion is a limited concern on this allotment’s uplands. 

The last of the ESI collateral observations was a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic (biological soil) crusts. 

(A description of the rating system was explained in the Horsefly allotment section – see for more 

information.) The average of the vegetation write-up sheets for the Pitchlog allotment was 4.4 on a scale 

264 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

from 0 to 10. If the spike-rush and pine sites are not considered – these being ecological sites of limited crust 

potential – the overall rating goes up to 5.2. This would make this area one of the better rated areas in the 

Gerber Block. Given the limited knowledge of the ecology and significance of these crusts in this area we 

can not make any particular conclusions about this, except that it is considered a good level of biological 

crusts. 

Riparian Monitoring: Numerous riparian related monitoring studies have been established/read on this 

allotment, primarily due to Barnes Valley Creek’s – and to a lesser degree, Pitch Log Creek’s - importance in 

providing habitat for the federally listed (endangered) shortnose sucker. These studies include long-term 

riparian photo points, stream bank stability ratings, riparian utilization, stream cross-section and greenline 

riparian vegetation plots, and proper function condition (PFC) determinations. A complete summary of the 

riparian monitoring is found in the Pitchlog Assessment and will not be repeated here. (Also see the riparian 

sections of this analysis.) However, the analysis of the riparian information in the Pitchlog Assessment did 

conclude that riparian/wetland areas in the allotment are either in proper condition or are adequately trending 

towards the proper resource conditions with current management, with one possible exception. There have 

been some concerns that the Pitchlog drainage may not be improving as much and/or as fast as it could or 

should. The ongoing array of monitoring studies should help answer these resource questions over time. 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do 

not significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health (the actual 

explanation statements below are summarized from the Assessment analysis): 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: This standard is being met on the allotment. 

The overall upward trends and existing high seral state vegetation communities dominated this allotment 

strongly indicate proper functioning upland conditions. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be 

sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: This standard is believed 

to be substantially met on the allotment. Though some problem areas still exist on the allotment, as noted 

above, the current grazing management is believed to be making “significant progress” towards the eventual, 

full meeting of this Standard. Intensive monitoring studies will continue to be read on the drainages in this 

allotment and will be used to help refine management, as needed, over time. 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: This standard is being met on the allotment. The high seral 

state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic processes of 

nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. Currently permitted grazing 

use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: This standard is not being met on the allotment. The following is 

quoted from the Assessment – “Barnes Valley Creek does not meet the state standards for summer water 

temperatures. However, the livestock grazing on the Pitchlog allotment is not presently considered a 

significant factor in the non-attainment of this Standard. Because of changes in grazing management in 

recent years (noted in the current management section later), the current livestock use is believed to be 

making as much progress as possible towards meeting this standard. In addition, BLM grazing management 

is meeting the USFWS Biological Opinion requirements for the areas around both creeks, as it pertains to 

appropriate habitat for the endangered shortnose sucker. Another factor is that large portions of the creek 

above and to the northeast of the BLM administered lands, are privately owned or Forest Service 

administered, and the use of these lands is beyond BLM control.” As noted previously, the conditions along 

the Pitch Log drainage still leave something to be desired, though it is not a 303(d) listed stream. Ongoing 

monitoring studies will assist in determining if further management change is needed or would help 

downstream water quality concerns. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 265 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: This standard is being met on the 

allotment. The high seral state vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that 

wildlife habitat conditions are appropriate. For the past 8 years, the Section 7 consultation for the shortnose 

sucker has affirmed that current grazing management is consistent with maintenance and improvement of 

aquatic habitat. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed seven specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Rock Creek Allotment (0888) 

The Rock Creek allotment is located in the southeast corner of the Gerber Block of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) administered lands in southern Klamath County. There are approximately 2750 acres of 

public land and 1200 acres of private land within the allotment boundaries (see the attached map). The 

current livestock grazing preference is for 216 AUMs of cattle use with a season-of-use from May 1 to June 

20. The current leaseholder is Grohs Ranch. 

The allotment grazing use is managed in accordance with the Warm Springs Coordinated Resources 

Management Plan (CRMP). This is a cooperatively developed plan involving Grohs Ranch, the BLM, the 

Modoc National Forest, and the Fremont National Forest. The plan calls for grazing of the BLM Rock Creek 

allotment by 150 pairs of cattle from May 1 to May 31. The allotment is rested every fourth year. This 

CRMP schedule results in actual livestock use of the allotment of 150 AUMs every three out of four years. 

The allotment is currently a “C” category for management and monitoring purposes. Prior to 1995 and the 

completion of the Resource Management Plan for the resource area, this allotment was considered an “I” 

category. The plan changed it to a “C” category. The “I” category allotments are monitored more intensively 

and more often than C category allotments. Thus, there are established monitoring studies for the Rock 

Creek allotment, but since 1995 they have been read on a less frequent basis 

An Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was completed during 1997-98 that included the Rock Creek allotment. 

The information from this inventory and from the various monitoring studies as well as input from various 

BLM resource specialists will be used in determining the attainment of the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Ecological Site Inventory: The following table is a summary of the different ecological sites within the Rock 

Creek allotment and their condition classes by acres. 

Rock Creek Allotment – Total Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 48.55 1050.0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 1116.65 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 263.20 537.22 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 24.35 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 12.2 0 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 278.31 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 259.08 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 86.32 0 0

 Totals* 534.48 2091.40 1050.0 0 

*Allotment also contains 62.97 acres of unclassified private lands, which are not included in the totals. Acres 

breakdown: public - 67.2%, private - 32.8 % 

266 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 14.5% 

Late Seral 56.9% 

Mid Seral 28.6% 

Early Seral 0% 

This table shows that approximately 71% of the allotment has vegetation conditions that are classified as late 

seral or potential natural community. About 60% of the allotment consists of pine or pine/juniper-dominated 

ecological sites. The Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites were the only ones rated in the mid seral class. A review of 

the field worksheets from the survey show that most of these pine areas had been recently underburned. 

After these underburns the perennial grass and shrub species can be slow to return and this was reflected in 

the worksheets. The recorded total production was low and climax species made up a smaller percentage of 

the total vegetation at these sites. 

Ecological sites with juniper trees as their major overstory component comprise about 22% of the allotment. 

This increases to 53% if the Juniper Dry Pine sites are included in this group. These sites typically have a 

nearly equal level of junipers and pines. Either way, these sites were all rated as being in late seral or PNC 

conditions. 

Sites dominated by low sagebrush and perennial grass species comprise about 8% of the allotment. These are 

the Stony Claypan and Shallow Stony sites. These areas were also rated as being in late seral or PNC 

condition. 

The other two ecological sites in the allotment are the Ephemeral Lakebed and Dry Meadow. They comprise 

about 9% of the allotment. These are both located at the edges of reservoirs where the water level recedes in 

the summer. The Ephemeral Lakebed was rated as PNC and the Dry Meadow was rated as late seral. 

The ESI also looks at soil erosion factors using condition classes. A review of the field sheets showed that all 

the sites were rated as stable or slight with one site rated as moderate. These ratings indicate that soil loss is 

not a current problem on the allotment. The upland soils are well protected from rainfall and overland flow 

by vegetation, litter, and/or stones and gravel. With over half of the allotment in pine or pine/juniperdominated ecological sites, there is a substantial amount of litter protecting the soils and a tree canopy 

intercepting rainfall. 

Upland Monitoring Studies 

Utilization Points: Utilization Point monitoring has been done on the allotment since 1984. There are ten 

utilization points that have been read, eight of these are on the BLM and two are on private. Points 1 and 2 

are located within the riparian area along Rock Creek. Points 3 through 7 are at upland locations. The two 

points on the private lands are not shown in this table as these areas have not been read on a consistent basis 

and the grazing season has been largely independent of the BLM grazing permit. The following table shows 

the readings that have been done at the points on the BLM lands. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 267 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Utilization Points 

Year # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6a # 6b # 7 

2000 30% 28% 38% 38% 40% 20% 40% 

1995 56% 48% 16% 9% 11% 31% 54% 

1991 75% 70% 13% 42% 31% 44% 68% 22% 

1990 38% 29% 30% 23% 18% 28% 

1988 58% 64% 3% 11% 52% 46% 18% 

1987 68% 68% 36% 44% 46% 56% 62% 

1986 58% 56% 52% 48% 42% 58% 50% 

1984 40% 34% 46% 34% 38% 42% 36% 

Average 53% 50% 30% 32% 34% 41% 40% 40% 

The data from this table shows that average utilization on the upland areas of the allotment (points 3-7) has 

been within the guidelines for allowable use as designated in the RMP (50% or less). The years when the 

allotment was rested are not figured into the average. This would lower the average considerably. 

Utilization standards for riparian areas are based upon their Proper Functioning Condition status. Point 1 is 

within a section that is considered to be in Proper Functioning Condition where the utilization standards 

allow for use on the herbaceous vegetation of 50% or less. Point 2 is within an area that is considered to be 

in Nonfunctioning condition. Allowable utilization in this section would be 0-40%. These utilization levels 

were exceeded at both points during five of the eight years that were monitored. 

A review of the utilization monitoring forms shows that monitoring occurred within a month of the livestock 

being moved from the allotment during most years. The exceptions to this were the years 1995 and 2000. 

With utilization monitoring, the current year’s growth needs to be used as the baseline. Monitoring in June 

right after the livestock were removed does not account for any plant growth after that point. The upland 

areas normally experience additional growth into July with a fall re-growth period that is dependent on fall 

precipitation. The riparian areas typically continue growing through the summer and into the fall due to the 

presence of surface and subsurface moisture. So in order to get a good reading of the current years growth, 

utilization monitoring should be done in the fall. The figures in the table above may reflect utilization level 

readings that are higher than fall readings would reflect, especially in riparian areas. The readings from 1995 

and 2000 are probably a more accurate reflection of the utilization that is occurring. 

Use Pattern Mapping: Along with the utilization point monitoring, use pattern mapping of the allotment was 

completed during 1995 and 2000. The 1995 map and accompanying narrative give a good overview of the 

patterns of use in the allotment. As expected, the cattle tend to move from water source to water source with 

slight to light use levels on the upland areas and light to moderate with occasional heavy use in the areas near 

the water. 

During 2000, utilization was mainly light throughout the allotment. There were some moderate use areas 

around two stock ponds in Section 19 and at Adobe Spring. Some cattle did make use in the riparian area 

above the Stateline road in the fall due to poor fence conditions between the private and BLM lands. The 

mapping was completed in mid-October and good re-growth of the perennial grasses was noted. 

Actual Use: Actual use data for this allotment has been reported for only two of the years that utilization data 

was collected, 1988 and 1991. (Note: Actual use is only required on “I” category allotments; thus the lack of 

information for Rock Creek.) The scheduled use for the allotment has been fairly consistent. From 1984 

through 1993, licensed use was for 120-125 pairs with a 30-day season of use. The starting date was usually 

May 1 but was pushed back to May 15 and May 21 for a couple of years. During 1985, 1989, 1994, and 

2001 the allotment was rested. Starting in 1995, the licensed numbers were increased to 150 pairs with the 

same 30-day use period. No reason for this change was documented other than a request from the permittee 

268 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

to increase the numbers. The licensed use has remained at 150 pairs and has been reiterated in the annual 

plan of operations for the CRMP. This level of use, 150 AUMs, is still less than the full permitted use for the 

allotment, which is 216 AUMs. 

Photo Trend: There are two upland photo trend plots that have been monitored since 1971, RC-1 and RC-2. 

Logging activities in 1979 impacted the RC-2 photo plot location. The close-up photo location became 

useless and the general view photo was not re-photographed again until 1997. 

RC-1 is located about 1⁄2 mile west of Rock Creek in an open area within a Juniper Dry Pine ecological site. 

On this plot, trend data sheets were completed up until 1982. After that point, only photos were taken. From 

the data sheets, it appears that the two key grass species are Sandberg’s bluegrass (POSE) and single spike 

oatgrass (DAUN). The number of POSE plants varied between sixteen to six plants and the DAUN went 

from six plants in 1972 to zero in 1979. This would be considered a downward trend. The photos after 1979 

showed the addition of a bottlebrush squirreltail plant in 1982. The 1997 photo appears to have some new 

DAUN plants present. Without a data sheet, this can’t be positively confirmed. However, the more recent 

photos show some apparent improvement in the number of total key species present. 

Condition Studies: There were two condition study sites established in the allotment in 1983. PS-1 is 

located in the riparian area of Rock Creek just north of the bridge on the Stateline road. The ecological site 

given for this study location was Wet Mountain Meadow. In 1983 the site was given a condition rating of 41, 

which would be considered fair or mid seral condition. The main plant species (common names) included 

timothy, sedges, Kentucky bluegrass, Baltic rush, meadow barley, cow clover (?), deer vetch, and dandelion. 

A follow-up reading of this condition study has not been completed. Thus, any change from the condition 

observed in 1983 cannot be determined at this time. 

The second study is located at the RC-2 Photo Trend site. As mentioned above, logging activities during 

1979 impacted the plot location for the photo site. An initial condition rating was done at this site in 1983. 

Since the condition rating is completed over a larger area, not just a specific point, the logging activities were 

less of a concern. The site was classified in 1983 as a Juniper Rubbleland ecological site. This site would be 

dominated by a juniper overstory and the ground surface would be up to 90% rock outcrops and stones. The 

recent ESI survey classified this area as a Juniper Dry Pine site, which is a more accurate description of the 

general area. The 1983 rating was a 46, which would be considered fair or mid-seral condition. Using the 

same data and applying it to a Juniper Dry Pine classification would give a rating of 51. This would bump 

the rating into the good or late-seral condition range. An ESI write-up that was completed in 1998 at a site 

approximately one mile south had a rating of 58. Since 1983, there has been a lot of prescribed fire activity 

in this allotment, which tends to have a suppressing effect on the understory vegetation, primarily the 

grasses. However, the ESI summary above still shows that these ecological sites are in late-seral condition. 

The condition site at RC-2 has not been reread since 1983, but it would also likely be in late-seral condition. 

Riparian/Wetland Monitoring 

Within the Rock Creek allotment there are several riparian/wetland areas. Rock Creek has about three miles 

of channel within the allotment. About 90% of this is on BLM-administered lands. There are four reservoir/ 

wetland areas within the allotment boundaries. These are all located predominately on private lands. Three 

of these are reservoirs that receive water diverted from Rock Creek for irrigation of private lands. The other 

one is a wetland area located in an area known as Adobe Flat. A large shallow reservoir is located below this 

area. Both of these areas are also on private land. On both the BLM-administered and private lands in the 

allotment there are several spring sites. One of these on the BLM - Adobe Spring - has been developed to 

pipe water to a trough for livestock and wildlife use. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 269 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Rock Creek 

A Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey was completed on Rock Creek during 1996. The creek was 

divided into two sections for the survey. The upper section of the creek was surveyed from riparian photo 

points RC-R-1 to RC-R-3. The lower section of the creek was surveyed from RC-R-3 to just below RC-R-5. 

The upper section was rated as being in nonfunctional condition. The main reason for this was the presence 

of two water diversions that route water to reservoirs on private land. The larger of these two diversions, 

located near photo point RC-R-2, routes water to Grohs Reservoir which is used for irrigation on the private 

ranch lands to the south of the allotment. Due to these diversions, this section of creek lacks a consistent 

flow of perennial water to sustain an adequate population of riparian vegetation necessary for streambank 

protection. The vegetation that was present had good vigor, but the diversity and amount of vegetation were 

considered inadequate. 

The lower section of the creek was rated as being in proper functioning condition. Riparian vegetation, 

including sedges, rushes, willows and aspens, was providing good cover for the stream banks. Narrowing of 

the channel was observed in the lower gradient section below RC-R-4. An excess amount of sediment was 

also noted. This is likely coming from the upper sections of the creek where the channel is not adequately 

protected. 

As noted above, there are several riparian photo points on Rock Creek. Four of these are located within the 

Rock Creek allotment. A review of the archive of photos from 1979 through 2000 showed the following: 

Photo Point RC-R-2: This section of stream is unconfined with a low gradient. There is not a well-defined 

stream channel here. The surface is well armored with rocks and boulders and a good vegetation cover. This 

site is just below the diversion for Grohs Reservoir, so the spring flow is limited. Some of the early photos 

were taken during early June and two of these, 6/19/84 and 6/11/90, show small pools of surface water. 

Some of the other photos, taken in August, show some greener areas indicative of the presence of subsurface 

moisture. There are no riparian shrubs in any of the photos. This section appears to be in a static condition. 

Photo Point RC-R-3: This photo point is in a little higher gradient stretch than point RC-R-2. The channel is 

well armored by rocks and boulders with vegetation present between the rocks. There is also a good stand of 

aspens at this point with some willows evident in the later photos. No surface water is evident in any of the 

photos. Due to the extremely rocky nature of the channel here, the water likely goes subsurface early in the 

year. The conditions here appear to be static with a possible increase in the aspen and willow density. 

Photo Point RC-R-4: This section of stream has a wide, vegetated floodplain area with a channel that is well 

protected by dense sedge, rush, and grass cover. The first photo taken in 1979 shows a bladed trail along the 

edge of the riparian area. This trail becomes less evident in the succeeding photos and is not evident in the 

2000 photo. A small clump of cattails increases in size and density through the photo series. The vegetative 

cover of the channel and adjacent floodplain also increases in density and vigor with an apparent increase in 

small willows. Some water is present in photos taken in June and the August photos show no surface water 

but the channel vegetation is green and dense. Two large pine trees that are next to the channel in the 1979 to 

1993 photos have fallen into the stream channel in the 1996 photo. This section of channel is in good 

condition and appears to be on an upward trend. 

Photo Point RC-R-5: This photo point is in a stretch of stream just above the bridge on the Stateline road. In 

the early photos it is evident that the stream has down cut below its old floodplain. It is not certain whether 

this is a result of possible realignment of the creek at the time of the bridge construction or if it was caused by 

other disturbances including livestock grazing. Nearly vertical stream banks with little vegetation cover are 

visible along the west stream bank. The opposite streambank is more rounded and supports a good cover of 

grasses and an occasional willow. 

270 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

As the photo series progresses, the vegetation cover improves. Denser stands of grasses, sedges, and rushes 

are evident. The willows have dramatically increased in size and density. The vertical banks are still 

apparent, but some vegetation has started to stabilize the area below them. It appears that a new, lowered 

floodplain area is establishing. The conditions of this stretch are in an upward trend. 

Photo Point PS-2: This photo point is located on a meadow next to Gwinn Spring Creek in the southwest 

corner of Section 16. This is a piece of private land that is fenced separately from the allotment. The 

location was first photographed in 1972 with the most recent photo taken in 1997. The photos show a very 

productive meadow site with a dense grass and forb cover. The site appears to be in good condition with 

only a few of the photos showing evidence of recent livestock utilization. 

Springs 

Adobe Spring (a.k.a. Rock Camp Spring) is a developed spring located in Section 8, NW1⁄4 & SW1⁄4. The 

spring area is fenced to exclude livestock and the water is piped to a trough outside of the exclosure. 

Maintenance of this spring is the responsibility of the permittee although the BLM did some work on this 

spring as part of a general repair of springs in the Gerber area during 1995-96. This site would be a good 

candidate for a juniper reduction project as there is a dense stand of juniper above the spring area. 

There are some springs adjacent to Rock Creek in the area just above and just below the bridge on the 

Stateline road on BLM land. These normally are only evident as greener spots within the riparian areas along 

the creek. There are also several undeveloped springs on the private lands in the allotment. Some of these 

in the southeastern portion of the allotment have high perennial output and sustain the flow of Gwinn Spring 

Creek. Others in the area of Adobe Flat and in Section 8, NE1⁄4 & SE1⁄4 have limited surface flow but subirrigate large areas of grasses and sedges. 

The upland spring areas on the BLM and private lands within the allotment have received moderate use 

during the short grazing period in May. They are in good condition and support a diverse population of 

grasses, sedges, and rushes. The springs within the drainages have received heavier use, but still are in good 

condition due to good re-growth after the May use period. 

Waterholes and Reservoirs 

There are several waterholes on the allotment that have been built to provide for better livestock distribution. 

Several of these were dug as part of road construction activities. As expected, the forage utilization and soil 

disturbance in the immediate vicinity of these waterholes tends to be intensified. The benefits of better 

distribution throughout the allotment outweigh these small areas of heavier use. 

Standards for Rangeland Health 

STANDARD 1 – WATERSHED FUNCTION - UPLANDS
 

The indicators to be used in determining attainment of this standard include:
 

• amount and distribution of plant cover 

• amount and distribution of plant litter 

• accumulation/incorporation of organic matter 

• amount and distribution of bare ground, gravel, stone, and rock 

• plant composition and community structure 

• presence and integrity of biological crusts 

• absence of accelerated erosion and overland flow 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 271 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The ESI information for the Rock Creek allotment shows that approximately 71% of the allotment has 

vegetation conditions that are classified as late seral or potential natural community. The vegetation 

communities that are present provide a diversity of plants that provide good ground cover and protection from 

soil movement. The current livestock grazing in the allotment is not causing significant effects to the upland 

vegetation and soils. Monitoring has shown that the current season of use and the authorized numbers are 

resulting in acceptable levels of utilization on the upland areas. 

This Standard is currently being met on the allotment. 

STANDARD 2 – WATERSHED FUNCTION – RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS 

The indicators to be used in determining attainment of this standard include: 

• frequency of floodplain/wetland inundation; 

• plant composition, age class distribution, and community structure; 

• streambank/shoreline stability; 

• riparian area width; 

• sediment deposition; 

• point bars revegetating; 

• upland watershed conditions; 

• frequency/duration of soil saturation; and 

• various stream channel characteristics. 

The Proper Functioning Condition surveys that have been completed on Rock Creek show that the upper
 

section from riparian photo points RC-R-1 to RC-R-3 was rated as being in nonfunctional condition. The
 

main reason for this was the presence of two water diversions that route water to reservoirs on private land.
 

Due to these diversions there is a lack of perennial flow to support the diversity and amount of vegetation
 

necessary for adequate streambank protection. The photo points for this section show that the area is in a
 

static condition with a possible increase in some of the riparian shrub species. Utilization monitoring point #2
 

is also within this section of the stream. Recent livestock use here has been within acceptable limits for
 

riparian areas but past use has exceeded this level. The remaining stretch of Rock Creek is in good condition
 

and current livestock grazing is not causing significant negative impacts to the riparian area or stream banks.
 

Monitoring shows that the area is in an upward trend with increasing vegetation and stream banks that are
 

stabilizing. The springs on the BLM lands within the allotment are in good condition. Some juniper control
 

is needed at Adobe Spring. Some livestock use is made on the undeveloped springs and wet meadow areas
 

throughout the allotment, but with the early use period these areas have adequate time for vegetation regrowth.
 

This Standard is currently not being met due to the nonfunctioning section of Rock Creek. Current livestock
 

grazing is not the primary reason for this rating, but use in this area needs to be limited due to the fragile
 

vegetative conditions of the riparian area. Livestock utilization levels in this section have exceeded the RMP
 

standards in past years.
 

STANDARD 3 – ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
 

The indicators to be used in determining attainment of this standard include:
 

• plant composition and community structure; 

• accumulation, distribution, and incorporation of plant litter into the soil; 

• animal community structure and composition; 

• root occupancy in the soil profile; and 

• biological activity including plant growth, herbivory, and rodent, insect, and microbial activity. 

The ESI survey completed on this allotment shows that nearly all of the various ecological sites are in late 

seral or PNC condition. The various vegetation communities and soils associated with these sites are 

272 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

effectively supporting the ecological processes of energy flow and nutrient cycling. General observations
 

indicate that the allotment supports a good wildlife population including deer, wood rats, squirrels, and
 

various bird species.
 

This Standard is currently being met on the allotment.
 

STANDARD 4 – WATER QUALITY
 

The indicators to be used in determining attainment of this standard include:
 

• water temperature; 

• dissolved oxygen; 

• fecal coliform; 

• turbidity; 

• pH; 

• populations of aquatic organisms; and 

• effects on beneficial uses. 

. Water temperature in Rock Creek was monitored during 2001 and 2002. Observed water temperatures 

exceeded the state water quality standards. Because this monitoring occurred during years with relatively 

low streamflows, it is not clear whether this is a long term issue or not. Continued monitoring will help 

ascertain whether the Standard is met. Regardless, BLM management is oriented towards maintaining and/or 

restoring riparian conditions and water quality. 

Rock Creek and at least one spring would be considered perennial water sources on the allotment. A section 

of Rock Creek was determined to be in nonfunctioning status through a Proper Functioning Condition survey 

completed in 1996. The main reason given for this determination was the diversion of water from the creek 

to irrigation reservoirs on the adjacent private land. This diversion of water is not under the control of the 

BLM. The current livestock grazing use on the allotment is not having a significant negative effect on the 

water quality of Rock Creek. Monitoring of the riparian areas show that conditions are in a static to upwards 

trend. Some of the created waterholes within the allotment have had moderate to heavy use within their 

immediate vicinity. The positive effects of better livestock distribution and decreased use of the natural 

water sources outweigh these relatively limited impacts. 

STANDARD 5 – NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES 

The indicators to be used in determining attainment of this standard include: 

• plant community composition, age class distribution, and productivity; 

• animal community composition, productivity; 

• habitat elements; 

• spatial distribution of habitat; 

• habitat connectivity; and 

• population stability/resilience. 

Inventory and monitoring of the allotment has shown that there are various ecological sites with plant 

communities that are in good condition. These communities are providing habitat for the various dependent 

native wildlife and plant species. There are no known populations of Special Status animal or plant species 

in the allotment. There are several populations of noxious weeds in the allotment – see that section of this 

analysis for more information. This Standard is currently being met on the allotment. 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 273 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Timber Hill Allotment (0889) 

Timber Hill is a moderately high priority “I” category allotment that also has a significant amount of 

unfenced, privately owned, lands intermingled with the BLM administered lands. Reflecting its priority, this 

allotment has received a moderate amount of rangeland monitoring attention through the years. The 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed in 1999 and found that the overall 

current grazing use was within the sustained yield capacity of the allotment and appropriate for maintaining 

the current overall good vegetation conditions. Though that Assessment will not be reiterated here, some of 

the findings and information will be briefly summarized as necessary in the following narrative. This 

includes the final conformance/non-conformance determinations on each of the 5 Standards for Rangeland 

Health. Some additional monitoring information has also been collected since completion of the Assessment 

and will be discussed. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Since Assessment completion, the ESI vegetation information has been refined so 

that a very accurate figure is available for the number of acres of each vegetation type (ecological site) by 

condition class rating. The number of public and private acres has also been calculated to a more accurate 

level. That information is summarized as follows: 

Total Timber Hill Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 0 1640.84 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 9.94 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 1088.03 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 259.03 86.17 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 0 177.20 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 382.45 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 5.16 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 3.33 0 0 

Totals* 264.19 1747.12 1640.84 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 75.4%, private - 24.6 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 7.2% 

Late Seral 47.8% 

Mid Seral 45.0% 

Early Seral 0% 

The ESI information shows that this allotment has a large amount (45%) of mid-seral vegetation, all of which 

is in the true pine sites, i.e. in the Pine-Sedge-Fescue ecological site. These sites technically rated out as late 

seral, but were downgraded due to production. The mid-seral pine sites were addressed in the Assessment as 

follows: “...virtually all of the pine related ecological site areas - sites which dominant this allotment - are 

also in Late Seral, but have variably reduced production due to past timber harvest activities and recent 

prescribed burning. This underburning has concentrated on the pine areas and has reduced the understory 

shrub component significantly - a component that takes many years to regenerate. However, this 

underburning has also reduced the duff layer underneath the trees, allowing for a resurgence of the 

herbaceous community. In particular, bottlebrush squirreltail and western needlegrass - both desirable mid 

seral perennial grasses - are very common in most of the pine areas. All of this regeneration is occurring 

incrementally and the trend in most pine areas is definitely upwards.” During the fall of 2002, a large 

amount of the pine areas in the Timber Hill allotment were underburned yet again. This additional burning 

has inevitably “set back” the ecological conditions by reducing the shrubs once again. None of the mid seral 

conditions are attributable to livestock grazing. In addition, all of the drier ecological sites which exhibit 

more of a true “rangeland” character, were in late seral to PNC. 

274 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The following was also noted in the Assessment about the juniper increases and densities: One very 

significant ESI observation is that most ecological sites in the Gerber area have been and are continuing to 

experience increased densities of western juniper. These increases are probably primarily due to the 

combined effects of fire suppression, historic livestock grazing, and possibly past timber harvest activities in 

the Timber Hill (Brady Butte) area. The juniper increase has the future potential to dramatically effect 

ecological conditions more than it already has. This could include decreased forage production for wildlife 

and livestock, increased erosion potential due to diminished ground cover, mono-culture vegetation types that 

decrease wildlife diversity, decreased water availability, and other impacts. These observations are 

summarized as follows: 

“The spaces between the older junipers (150-1000+ years old) in the “old” juniper sites (Juniper Claypan 

12-16" & Juniper Claypan 16-20") are being slowly filled in with much younger trees - way beyond what 

would be needed for replacement of the older trees as they die off (very slow!).

 The shallow soil, non-juniper sites (Stony Claypan 14-20", Shallow Stony 10-20") are all experiencing 

varying increases in juniper, with the juniper generally increasing proportionally as soil depth increases. 

However, some of these areas are also seasonally (winter/spring) saturated - particularly the Shallow Stony 

10-20" - which appears to suppress the juniper encroachment. 

Most of the other, deeper soil and non-pine ecological sites, that should have juniper as a minor late seral/ 

PNC component, are experiencing massive increases in juniper density. On the Timber Hill allotment there is 

only one of these ecological sites: Juniper-Pine-Bunchgrass 12-16". Of particularly concern is the fact that 

in some of these sites the mountain mahogany component is collapsing due to the juniper competition. These 

areas are probably the most important to consider for juniper reduction activities as they would have the 

highest beneficial results to wildlife. 

The ponderosa pine areas (Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" and Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites) are also 

experiencing dramatic increases in juniper. This competition is placing pressure on the pine component of 

the community and is also causing the same problems with mountain mahogany as noted above.” 

Condition & Trend Studies: There is one key area in the Timber Hill allotment (TH-1), located in the 

northern end of the allotment about 1⁄2 mile south of Alkali Spring. This key area has both a frequency 

(established 1991) and photo trend plot (established in 1975) and a condition transect (established in 1983). 

All of the studies have been read several times through the years, with the photo trend having the most rereadings. To summarize this data, these studies show that the area is in relatively good current condition, has 

improved slowly over the years of readings, and still has a trend that is static to slightly upwards. (See the 

Assessment for complete monitoring summary.) 

As in other sections, the observed apparent trend estimate was a collateral, qualitative observation made as 

part of the ESI efforts. All of the inventory vegetation worksheets (21) that pertain to this allotment rated the 

trend as either static or upward; there were no downward trends noted. Specifically, 12 worksheets estimated 

upward trends and 9 static trends. For the 9 static trend areas, 1 was rated as mid seral, 7 were late seral, and 

1 was PNC - all in acceptable or better ecological condition (the mid seral area was discussed in the ESI 

section above). Late seral and PNC areas are less likely to show upward trends since they are already in an 

elevated ecological condition and have less “room” to improve. Static trend is entirely appropriate for 

vegetation communities that are already in good condition. 

Utilization Studies: Utilization has been periodically read on this allotment since the mid-1980’s, with 

several use pattern maps prepared since the mid 1990’s. The following information pertaining to the 

utilization studies is from the 1999 Assessment: “The utilization data from the established points has shown 

overall appropriate (moderate or less) average upland utilization, with the exception of 1986. In 1986, the 

grazing use was for a very extended season with relatively high livestock numbers - 250 head from 7/10 to 

10/30 (929 AUMs which is almost 31⁄2 times the active preference). Not surprisingly, utilization ranged from 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 275 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

68% to 84% - mid heavy to low severe...Even though a few use points in a couple years (since 1986) had a 

heavy use reading, there appears to be no chronically overused areas. The utilization pattern mapping ... 

has also confirmed consistently acceptable overall patterns of use throughout the allotment. Utilization 

averaged light in all 3 years - with a few very small areas of moderate utilization...and indicate(s) that the 

existing grazing levels are appropriate to maintaining good vegetation conditions. Since the Assessment 

was completed, another year of information has been collected (late 1999); it affirmed the conclusions of 

Assessment that currently permitted grazing use is still appropriate. 

Other Upland Monitoring: During the ESI, several other observations were made relative to resource 

conditions. One observation was the Soil Surface Factor (SSF), which is a qualitative expression of current 

soil erosion activity. For this allotment, 21 different vegetation write-up sheets were prepared. 4 write-ups 

indicated stable conditions, 15 showed slight erosion, and 2 rated as moderate erosion activity. As noted 

earlier, even this limited erosion activity is somewhat overstated due to the natural inclination of the 

perennial bunchgrasses to form pedestals in the area’s high clay soils. Overall, these observations though 

qualitative in nature, nonetheless indicate that erosion is a limited concern on this allotment’s uplands. 

The last of the ESI collateral observations was a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic (biological soil) crusts. 

(A description of the rating system was explained in the Horsefly allotment section – see for more 

information.) The average rating of the vegetation write-up sheets for this allotment was 3.8 on a scale from 

0 to 10, with a range from 1 to 6. This is a slightly below average for the Gerber Block, but not much. 

Given the limited knowledge of the ecology and significance of these crusts in this area we can not make any 

particular conclusions from this, except a higher level of biological crusts would probably be better for 

continued or enhanced resource conditions. 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do 

not significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following summarized conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: This standard is being met on the allotment. 

The overall static/upward trends and existing high seral state rangeland vegetation communities strongly 

indicates proper functioning upland conditions. The high amount of mid seral pine is not a cattle related 

ecological condition problem, as explained previously. Currently permitted grazing use appears to be 

sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: This standard is being met 

on the allotment. The following is from the Assessment: “Timber Hill has no riparian or wetland areas on 

the public lands within the allotment. The closest would be the private lands on Adobe Flat (spike-rush 

meadows) or the Antelope Riparian pasture to the north of the allotment. This latter pasture is fenced 

separately from Timber Hill and is included as part of the neighboring Willow Valley allotment. Alkali 

Spring, located immediately south of the Antelope Riparian pasture fence in the Timber Hill allotment, is a 

“buried” spring source with a very small and insignificant sedge/grass patch supported by the overflow from 

the trough.” 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: This standard is being met on the allotment. The high seral 

state rangeland vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate that the ecologic 

processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle are properly functioning. (The high 

amount of mid seral pine is not a cattle related ecological condition problem, as explained previously.) 

Currently permitted grazing use appears to be sustainable and appropriate. 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: This standard is being met on the allotment. The following from the 

Assessment: “There are no perennial waters on the public lands within this allotment besides a few dugout 

276 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

watering holes and Alkali Spring on the extreme north end. Additional stock watering is provided by water 

on privately owned lands on Adobe Flat. There are no known water quality problems within the actual 

allotment boundaries.” 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: This standard is being met on the 

allotment. The high seral state rangeland vegetation communities dominating this allotment strongly indicate 

that wildlife habitat conditions are appropriate. (The high amount of mid seral pine is not a cattle related 

ecological condition problem, as explained previously.) 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed three specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Willow Valley Allotment (0890) 

Willow Valley is the second largest allotment in the KFRA (almost 10% of the Resource Area) and has 

resource issues that make it one of the highest priority “I” category allotments. It has been a long-term 

priority allotment and thus has had extensive amounts of rangeland monitoring studies established and read 

on it over the past 30+ years. The Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment was completed 

in 2000, determining that there were still resource issues/problems that needed enhanced management to 

remedy – particularly in the Woolen Canyon and Willow Valley Chaining pastures. That management is 

being implemented through the leverage and parameters of the existing grazing permits. Though that 

Assessment will not be reiterated here, some of the findings and information will be briefly summarized as 

necessary in the following narrative. This includes the final conformance/non-conformance determinations 

on each of the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health. Some additional monitoring information has also been 

collected since completion of the Assessment and will be discussed. 

Ecological Site Inventory: Since Assessment completion, the ESI vegetation information has been refined so 

that a very accurate figure is available - by pasture - for the number of acres of each vegetation type 

(ecological site) by condition class rating. The number of public and private acres by pasture has also been 

calculated to a more accurate level. That information is summarized as follows: 

Willow Valley Chaining – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 23.70 736.27 1539.86 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 585.97 96.53 0 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14 0 1031.82 725.99 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 46.09 0 87.12 0 

North Slopes 14-18" 0 34.63 0 0 

Totals* 69.79 2388.69 2362.38 0 

*Acres breakdown: public - 100%, private - 0 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 1.4% 

Late Seral 49.5% 

Mid Seral 49.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 277 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Woolen Canyon Pasture – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 34.24 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 829.91 1583.57 2566.47 173.02 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 26.59 28.57 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 1481.10 85.36 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 0 20.29 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 18.08 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 58.45 0 31.01 0 

North Slopes 14-18" 0 43.41 0 0 

Totals* 914.95 3209.26 2682.84 173.02 

*Pasture also contains 8.85 acres of defined rock outcrops and approx. 403.08 acres of water - all of which are not 

included in the totals. Acres breakdown: public – 98.5%, private – 1.5 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 13.1% 

Late Seral 46.0% 

Mid Seral 38.4% 

Early Seral 2.5% 

Notch Corral Pasture – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 32.41 618.20 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 21.48 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 433.83 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 505.15 0 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 3574.44 257.29 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 15.97 142.62 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 899.54 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 196.08 0 0 

Totals* 4095.56 1983.25 618.20 0 

*Total does not include 7.03 acres of water on BLM lands. Acres breakdown: public-97.8%, private-2.2 % 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 61.2% 

Late Seral 29.6% 

Mid Seral 9.2% 

Early Seral 0% 

Antelope Pasture – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 29.97 208.87 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 363.81 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 77.71 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1395.96 39.31 0 0 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 11.64 538.24 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 100.35 49.44 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 24.52 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 245.08 0 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 0 0 56.11 0 

Totals* 1507.95 1366.18 264.98 0 

*Pasture contains approx. 141.14 acres of water – 77.68 private and 63.46 BLM - which is not included in the totals. 

Acres breakdown: public – 77.9%, private – 22.1 % 

278 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 48.1% 

Late Seral 43.5% 

Mid Seral 8.4% 

Early Seral 0% 

Antelope Riparian Pasture – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition 

Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 0 42.68 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 57.01 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 41.07 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 73.99 0 0 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 25.49 0 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 95.30 0 0 

Totals* 99.48 193.38 42.68 0 

*Pasture contains 4.48 acres of water not included in the totals. Acres breakdown: public-83.6%, private-16.4% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 29.7% 

Late Seral 57.6% 

Mid Seral 12.7% 

Early Seral 0% 

Duncan Riparian Exclosure – Willow Valley Allotment – Total acres by Ecological Site & Condition 

Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 88.67 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 11.26 1.84 1.12 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 3.07 0 0 

Totals* 11.26 93.58 1.12 0 

*Pasture contains 1.66 acres of unclassified riparian along stream course. Acres breakdown: public-100%, private-0% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 10.6% 

Late Seral 88.3% 

Mid Seral 1.1% 

Early Seral 0% 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 279 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Total Willow Valley Allotment Acres by Ecological Site & Condition Class 

Ecological Site PNC Late Seral Mid Seral Early Seral 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 0 61.48 869.76 0 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 0 564.21 0 0 

Juniper Dry Pine 0 552.61 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" 1975.10 39.31 0 0 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" 4439.31 2578.97 4107.45 173.02 

Stony Claypan 14-20" 54.20 708.93 0 0 

Claypan 14-20" 100.35 49.44 0 0 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" 0 24.52 0 0 

Shallow Stony 10-20" 0 3214.76 181.89 0 

Ephemeral Lakebed 25.49 20.29 0 0 

Dry Meadow 0 113.38 0 0 

Juniper Mahogany Fescue 0 196.08 0 0 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14 0 1031.82 725.99 0 

South Slopes 14-18" 104.54 0 87.12 0 

North Slopes 14-18" 0 78.54 0 0 

Totals* 6698.99 9234.37 5972.21 173.02 

*Allotment contains 8.85 acres of defined rock outcrops, 1.66 acres of unclassified riparian along stream courses, and 

approx. 555 acres of water not included in the totals. Acres breakdown: public-94.2%, private-5.8% 

Condition Classes % of total classified 

Potential Natural Community 30.3% 

Late Seral 41.8% 

Mid Seral 27.1% 

Early Seral 0.8% 

The ESI information shows that conditions on this allotment vary widely – from pastures that are dominated 

by late seral and PNC (Notch Corral & Antelope) to those which have some long term condition issues 

(Willow Valley Chaining & Woolen Canyon) which were discussed previously. Specifically, the lower in 

elevation, more southerly the aspect, and less rocky an area is the more condition has been impaired – 

probably permanently - by past historical grazing pressures. Both the Chaining and Woolen Canyon pastures 

have large areas that meet these criteria and thus have the most condition issues. The Rangeland Health 

Standards Assessment suggested numerous management changes to help improve conditions; changes which 

began to be fully implemented through the existing grazing permits during the 2001 grazing season, though 

much management was already in place prior to the Assessment (see Step 6 for more information). 

During 2000-2001, the Woolen Canyon pasture received juniper control (i.e. shearing and piling and future 

pile burning) on 1462 acres within a Juniper Claypan 12-16" ecological site just north of the CCC road. All 

of the treatment area lies within the previously discussed 1937 burn that eliminated most of the true old 

(<150 year old) juniper trees. The control activities removed most of the post-fire juniper re-growth, leaving 

an average of about 5 of the “oldest” trees per acre to become future “old growth”. These areas were 

appropriately treated given there status as true old juniper sites. These treatments have and will continue to 

affect the condition of these areas - the progression of which will be closely monitored in the years to come 

with an array of recently established vegetation studies. These ares also have a relatively high potential of 

increased exotic annual grass (bromes and medusahead) infestation – measuring the status of which is also an 

important part of the ongoing monitoring. 

Other Condition Studies: Key area based condition studies were formally established and read in 1996 and 

1997 at the trend plot locations in the Notch Corral, Woolen Canyon, and Antelope pastures. (The latter two 

pastures were rough relocation and permanent marking of range condition studies first done in 1983.) In 

addition, another condition study was established in 2001 for juniper treatment monitoring in the north end of 

280 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

the Antelope pasture. This ESI derived condition study allows for an initial quantitative assessment of the 

current vegetative conditions as well as establishes a baseline for future comparison on a specific key area. 

These studies allow for future, specific quantification of vegetation changes indicated by the accompanying 

trend study reading and will only be re-read if the trend study shows that significant change has occurred. 

The initial readings on these studies found widely varying existing conditions - similar to and consistent with 

the ESI information. The Woolen Canyon pasture study found low mid seral condition (30% of PNC) at the 

key area; both Antelope pasture studies were PNC (both rated out 82%); and Notch Corral was also PNC 

(77%). A primary attribute of the management proposed (and implemented) via the Assessment was to 

significantly lessen the grazing use in Woolen Canyon by shifting more of it Notch Corral and Antelope. It is 

thought that this will allow for condition improvements in Woolen Canyon while having at worst a neutral 

resource effect on the other pastures. 

Trend Studies: Like the other major Gerber allotments, Willow Valley has several different types of trend 

studies – photo trend, frequency trend, and observed apparent trend. The photo trend studies are the longest 

term in the area, some having been established as early as 1967 in the Willow Valley Chaining. These studies 

generally show static to upward trends, with the exception of the Woolen Canyon study, which is static to 

downwards – not unexpectedly given the conditions. 

Frequency trend studies were established in the Notch Corral (1997), Woolen Canyon (1996), and Antelope 

(1996) pastures. An additional juniper treatment related one was also established in the northern portion of 

Antelope in 2001, but since there has been no re-reading there can be no trend ascertained. The two 1996 

established studies were re-read the first time in 2001 with neither showing any particular trend one way or 

the other, i.e. static trend. . The Notch Corral study was re-read in 2002 and found no distinct trend, though 

bottlebrush squirreltail did decrease significantly. This was offset with Thurber’s neeedlegrass being 

indicated for the first time. There was no significant change in the other desirable plants. 

The Observed Apparent Trend (OAT) was determined as a collateral, qualitative observation made as part of 

the ESI survey in 1997-98. Of the 27 inventory vegetation worksheets that pertain to this allotment, 9 

indicated upward trends, 13 static, and 5 downward. 4 of the 5 downward trend sites were in the Willow 

Valley Chaining or Woolen Canyon pastures. The conditions of these have already been discussed previously 

and these downward trend estimates are consistent. The fifth downward observation was in the Antelope 

pasture in a particularly “scabby” Shallow Stony 10-20" ecological site that was otherwise in good (late seral) 

condition but estimated to have above below average production and vigor and above average erosion. 

Overall, the OAT ratings are consistent with other monitoring observations that have eventually evolved into 

a weighting of management on the allotments two problematic pastures – the Willow Valley Chaining and 

Woolen Canyon. 

Utilization Studies: Utilization point studies have been periodically read on this allotment since the mid1980’s, with use pattern mapping done frequently since the early 1990’s. To quote the Willow Valley 

Assessment – “Most years showed slight to light use over 80% of the allotment with light to heavy levels 

near the water sources” and “Distribution does not appear to be a major problem on the allotment.” 

Utilization information collected (2001) since completion of the Assessment also supports these statements. 

Overall utilization levels have been appropriate and consistent with resource objectives (ROD/RMP). 

However, with the previously discussed condition problems, control of the livestock utilization levels 

becomes the most important tool in ensuring that trends in the noted problem areas are upwards. The grazing 

management has been implemented and refined in recent years to accomplish this type control of utilization 

levels (see Step 6). 

Other Upland Monitoring: As noted previously, during the ESI several other observations were made relative 

to resource conditions. One observation was the Soil Surface Factor (SSF), which is a qualitative expression 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 281 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

of current soil erosion activity. For this allotment, 27 different vegetation write-up sheets were prepared. 5 

write-ups indicated stable conditions, 10 showed slight erosion, and 12 rated as moderate erosion activity. 

This average erosion level is on the relatively higher end for the Gerber Block reflecting the historical abuse 

of significant portions of this allotment by unrestricted historical grazing use. 

The last of the ESI collateral observations was a qualitative rating of the cryptogamic (biological soil) crusts. 

(A description of the rating system was explained in the Horsefly allotment section – see for more 

information.) The average rating of the vegetation write-up sheets for this allotment was 3.4 on a scale from 

0 to 10, with a range from 2 to 6. This is below average for the Gerber Block and another indicator of the 

ecological decline related to the historical grazing pressures permanently degrading conditions. Given the 

limited knowledge of the ecology and significance of these crusts in this area we can not make any particular 

conclusions from this, except a higher level of biological crusts would probably be better for continued or 

enhanced resource conditions. 

Riparian Monitoring: An assortment of riparian related monitoring studies and surveys have been 

established/read on this allotment, primarily in Antelope Creek north of Willow Valley Reservoir, and to a 

lesser degree, the East Branch of the Lost River below the reservoir. These studies include long-term riparian 

photo points, riparian utilization, stream cross-section and greenline riparian vegetation plots, and proper 

function condition (PFC) determinations. A complete summary of the riparian monitoring is found in the 

Willow Valley Assessment and will not be repeated here. (Also see the riparian sections of this analysis.) 

However, the analysis of the riparian information in the Assessment did conclude, with one exception, that 

the riparian/wetland areas in the allotment are either in proper condition or are adequately trending towards 

the proper resource condition. The exception is that the portion of Antelope Creek (1.1 miles of drainage) 

above the Duncan Springs exclosure was rated as less than PFC, i.e. 0.8 mile as Non-functional and 0.3 as 

Functional – At Risk. Since completion of the Assessment, changes in grazing management have been 

implemented to address these problems, primarily through changes in the pasture rotation sequence and 

timing. The ongoing array of monitoring studies will continue to be periodically read to ascertain whether 

this management is improving conditions or not. (See Step 6 – Recommendations for more information). 

In summary, the analysis and allotment specific information presented in this and the preceding 4 Steps do 

not significantly alter the conclusions from the completed Rangeland Health Standards Assessment. That 

analysis arrived at the following conclusions in regards to the 5 Standards for Rangeland Health; the 

explanation statements below are quoted from the Assessment: 

STANDARD 1 - WATERSHED FUNCTION – UPLANDS: “This standard is being met on the majority of 

the allotment. The various studies and ESI components sited above as indicators affirm that the uplands are 

in a functional state. The one area where there may be shortfalls is in the vegetation composition. Some 

areas of the Willow Valley Chaining and Woolen Canyon pastures have vegetation conditions that are in the 

low to mid seral state and production levels that are much lower than average. These areas have high levels 

of introduced species like cheatgrass, medusahead, and various weedy forbs. Junipers have also increased in 

numbers and are becoming established in ecological sites outside of their natural range. The increase in nonnative species and the expansion of junipers is beginning to cause a shift in the vegetation communities in 

some sites. This is leading to increased overland flow due to the decreased perennial vegetation cover. The 

junipers and cheatgrass also use water throughout a larger portion of the soil profile and earlier and later in 

the growing season. This may lead to a decrease in available soil moisture and a subsequent lowering of the 

water table in some areas. Management actions to address the non-native species and the juniper invasion 

will be addressed in the Management Recommendations section of this evaluation.” 

STANDARD 2 - WATERSHED FUNCTION - RIPARIAN/WETLAND AREAS: “This standard is not being 

met on all of the allotment. The section of Antelope Creek above the Duncan Springs exclosure was rated as 

Nonfunctional during Proper Functioning Condition surveys in 1996. Other riparian areas that were 

282 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

surveyed were rated as Proper Functioning Condition or Functional-At-Risk. 

The Nonfunctioning section of Antelope Creek is an intermittent stream that flows in the spring and during 

heavy rainfall events. Much of the flow from upstream is diverted to Antelope Flat, a private meadow, for 

irrigation. Water that is contained in Antelope and Kilgore reservoirs is used to irrigate Antelope Flat in the 

late spring and summer. Excess flow from this irrigation flows through this section of Antelope Creek. Rock 

check dams were constructed by the BLM in the early 1990’s in this section of the creek. Small pools that 

typically hold water through the summer have formed behind these structures. 

Through the Nonfunctioning section there is some riparian vegetation present, but not enough to dissipate the 

energy during high flows or to effectively capture sediments. There are also areas where the stream banks are 

lacking vegetation and have been eroded by a combination of livestock hoof action and high water flows. 

This section of Antelope Creek needs time to reestablish a good vegetative cover. This will require a change 

in the grazing management for this area that results in lower vegetation utilization levels and decreased 

stream bank impacts. These changes are outlined in the Management Recommendations section of this 

evaluation. This section of Antelope Creek is situated between private land and the exclosure fence that 

protects the perennial flows below Duncan Spring. Fencing this section of the creek would probably result in 

little additional benefit, compared to the proposed change in grazing management. The creek will be 

monitored to determine if the proposed grazing changes result in upwards trends. If not, the need for fencing 

will be re-evaluated. 

An assessment of the standing water riparian areas has not been completed for this allotment. This would 

include reservoirs, springs, seeps, and seasonal wetlands. When an evaluation of these areas is completed, 

appropriate management changes will be made as necessary to correct any Nonfunctional ratings.” 

STANDARD 3 - ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES: “This standard is being met on the majority of the allotment. 

The data collected during the ESI and evaluated throughout this document indicate that productive native 

plant communities are present throughout the allotment to support the dependent resources. As mentioned 

in Standard 1, there are some areas in the Willow Valley Chaining and Woolen Canyon pastures where exotic 

grasses have invaded and juniper has expanded causing a shift in the vegetation communities. This may be 

causing a change in the nutrient cycling, energy flow, and hydrologic cycle due to the ability of these plants 

to use soil water and nutrients in differing quantities and at different times of the year than the native plant 

communities. These areas will be addressed in the Management Recommendations section of this 

evaluation.” 

STANDARD 4 - WATER QUALITY: “It is unknown whether this standard is being completely met on the 

allotment. No stream segments in the allotment are on the State 303(d) list of water bodies that do not meet 

water quality standards. However, water quality studies have only been done on the perennial section of 

Antelope Creek. No studies have been done on East Branch Lost River, the upper sections of Antelope Creek 

or the reservoirs within the allotment. Monitoring of these areas will be addressed in the Management 

Recommendations section of this evaluation.” 

Antelope Creek is included on the Oregon 303(d) list for water temperature. Long term monitoring of the 

East Branch of the Lost River is necessary to determine compliance with state water quality standards on this 

stream. See the narrative for Standard 2 and the management recommendations in Step 6 for an explanation 

of how impacts to riparian vegetation and stream channels are being addressed on BLM lands. 

STANDARD 5 - NATIVE, T&E, and LOCALLY IMPORTANT SPECIES: “This standard is being met on 

the allotment. ESI surveys show that most of the allotment supports native vegetation communities. Some 

introduced species have become established and in some areas are out-competing the native plants. Junipers 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 283 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

are also increasing in some areas to the detriment of the established vegetation. Some of these sites will be 

addressed in the Management Recommendations section of this evaluation. There are no special status 

species plants or animals in the allotment.” 

The KFRA ROD/RMP listed seven specific “Identified Resources Conflicts/Concerns” and related 

“Management Objectives” for this allotment. One or more of the 5 Standards at least adequately addresses 

each of these objectives. Current management is believed to be either currently meeting, or appropriately 

moving towards meeting, all the allotment specific Land Use Plan objectives. Current grazing management 

is also meeting the Oregon/Washington Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

William’s Allotment (0892) 

The William’s allotment is located north of Lorella, in the extreme northwestern BLM portion of the analysis 

area and is outside of the BLM’s contiguous Gerber Block. As noted in Step 3, Williams is a very minor 

component of the Yainax Butte Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) area, which is comprised 

mostly of Fremont National Forest and private lands. In addition, much of this allotment is outside the 

analysis area boundaries. 

A Rangeland Health Standards Assessment is planned for completion on this allotment in 2004, and not as 

part of this document. ESI information was collected on this allotment in late 2002 and will form the basis 

for the Assessment since little other monitoring information has been collected on this area. This watershed 

analysis will be a useful source of information also. 

USFS Administered Lands - Fremont National Forest 

The Fremont National Forest Plan sets up the standards and guidelines upon which management is based in 

order to achieve our long-term goals. Some of these are as follows: 

•	 To maintain or improve the productivity of the soil in all resource management activities 

•	 To re-establish all degraded land to a productive state 

•	 To maintain or improve vegetation condition of rangelands through the use of available silvicultural 

practices and livestock management while providing for other resource uses. 

•	 To restore and maintain all riparian areas in a condition which enhances riparian dependent resource 

values. 

The Forest Service has not yet performed a comprehensive range assessment on an allotment-specific basis. 

Range resource analysis is scheduled to be performed for each allotment individually (Table 5-9). 

Table 5-9. Scheduled range analysis for each allotment within the Gerber watershed area. 

Allotment	 Year 

Barnes Valley 2002
 

Horsefly 2002
 

Bly Ridge 2003
 

Yainax 2003
 

Arkansas 2004
 

Privy Spring 2004
 

Pitchlog 2004
 

Fort Springs 2004
 

Bear Valley 2005
 

Dent Creek 2005
 

Wildhorse 2005
 

284 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

This section will contain a more general description and provide monitoring data where available. Annual 

monitoring in each allotment is performed to determine compliance with standards and guidelines identified 

in the Fremont National Forest Plan. Utilization is the monitoring method used to evaluate on a yearly basis 

livestock use of the forage resource. 

When utilization standards are not met for any given year, a one-year grace period is given to make 

management adjustments and move the pasture back to meeting utilization standards. If changes are 

occurring on a yearly basis, because standards are continually not being met, a change in the permit will 

occur. The change may be in the permitted numbers, season of use, or length of use. Current range 

management practices within the watershed are considered adequate (i.e. standards and guidelines are being 

met) to sustain and/or promote riparian and upland ecosystem health. Managing the rangeland according to 

the standards and guidelines set by the Forest Plan on an annual basis will be consistent with long-term 

resource sustainability. Monitoring the vegetation through long-term range studies will also ensure proper 

grazing management. Long-term range vegetation monitoring will be discussed more thoroughly in the 

vegetation section. The following is a summary of annual monitoring for each allotment for the last five 

years. 

Arkansas – This allotment did not meet utilization standards last year in one pasture out of the three pastures 

that make up this unit due to drought conditions. Otherwise in the last five years utilization standards have 

been met every year. 

Barnes Valley – Vegetation has met utilization standards for the past four years. In 1997 the riparian pasture 

did not meet standards due to a lack of fencing. 

Bly Ridge – This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. Note that this allotment has 

been vacant since 1995. 

Horsefly - This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Privy Spring - This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Pitchlog - This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Yainax Butte – Two pastures in 2001 did not meet utilization standards out of 12 pastures in the allotment due 

to drought conditions. The previous four years all pastures met the utilization standards. 

Bear Valley – This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Dent Creek – This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Wildhorse – This allotment has met utilization standards for the last five years. 

Range management in this area has changed significantly over the past 30 to 40 years. Reduced animal 

numbers and pasture rotations have led to an overall improvement in range conditions and riparian habitat. 

Partnership agreements with permittees have benefited both the permittee and the resources. Improvements 

continue to occur obtaining better use of livestock as a tool for improving vegetation and promoting 

ecological diversity. Livestock grazing in the watershed has and continues to contribute to the social and 

economic well being of the surrounding communities. 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 285 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Recreation 

Within the watershed, the development of improved road systems, better off-highway type vehicles (pick-up 

trucks and sport-utility vehicles) and recreational vehicles have had the most significant influence on 

recreation use numbers and types of recreation activities. In combination with an increasing population, 

greater disposable incomes and leisure time after World War II, these human influenced changes have served 

to change the landscape. In addition, the stocking of area reservoirs with game fish and management of 

wildlife species/habitat have enhanced fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The development 

of improved campgrounds and day use facilities has had a secondary influence on attracting additional 

recreation visitation. 

Recreation use in the watershed greatly expanded in the 20th century. For the first half of the century, 

motorized travel was slow on unimproved roads and impassable for many months due to mud and snow. A 

trip to Gerber reservoir and back to Klamath Falls would be an all-day event just 50 years ago! That same 

trip today takes about two hours round-trip, on paved roads. Today, the reservoir area is accessible yearround to the entrance of the recreation site as Klamath County plows the road in winter. Winter activities 

such as fishing and picnicking, while not common, are now readily available. Increased access has 

negatively affected sensitive cultural/historical sites and meadows, and has likely caused additional 

harassment and displacement of wildlife and livestock. 

While recreation use numbers before the 1980s for the Gerber Reservoir area are unavailable, it is estimated 

that use was fairly light until the mid-1960s or so. General visitation use numbers peaked in the early 1980s, 

when fishing was exceptionally good at Gerber Reservoir. Since then, use has declined but has leveled off. 

Visitation at Gerber reservoir is strongly influenced by fishing success and reservoir levels. During the 

drought of 1990-1991, use numbers were significantly lower than previous or subsequent years. 

It is estimated that dispersed camping and recreation uses mimic the much larger recreation visitation 

numbers for Gerber reservoir. In the past five years or so, the Gerber primitive campsites (hunter camps) 

have seen increased visitation on weekends, probably due to increased knowledge of their location/amenities 

and lack of use fees. 

The charging of user fees for camping since the mid-1980s and for day-use since the mid-1990s has, in 

general, been well received, with few visitor complaints. This may be due to increased visitor services and 

maintenance, as provided by campground host whose expenses are funded by these user fees. 

The current management of developed recreation facilities is receiving positive feedback from the vast 

majority of visitors. A wide range of recreation opportunities is available within the watershed, from 

primitive dispersed and primitive developed sites to fully developed facilities. Many opportunities are 

available for those seeking solitude (on weekdays and outside the primary use seasons). For those who do 

not want to pay visitor use fees, many less-developed sites are available, and the main Gerber campgrounds 

are free after the primary use season. 

Of critical importance to maintaining a diverse recreation program is continued funding for planning, 

operations, facility maintenance, and visitor services. The continued use of volunteer camp hosts for visitor 

services and day-to-day maintenance is risky. While the BLM has been successful in attracting quality 

volunteers for assistance, a seasonal park ranger is needed to manage their activities and provide additional 

assistance and back-up for problem visitors. Additional funding for replacement or new facilities will also be 

needed in the near future for such items as boat ramps and docks, Miller Creek trail, and a proposed horse 

camp area. 

286 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Additional efforts in developing and signing motorized and non-motorized trails are needed to meet an 

existing demand. At the same time, increased efforts are needed to protect such areas as sensitive wetlands, 

meadows and cultural sites from OHV use. 

The potential for raising the level of Gerber Dam (and Gerber Reservoir) by the BOR could make for major 

changes to existing recreation facilities and usage. The current level of recreation facility development, 

recreation setting and use levels and visitor needs must be considered if replacement facilities are to be 

provided. 

Cultural Resources 

A pattern of resource extraction by humans from prehistoric times into the modern age characterizes the 

Gerber/Willow Valley watershed. Only the intensity and focus of the extraction has changed. Before EuroAmericans arrived, the Modoc followed a hunting-fishing-gathering, seasonal-round subsistence strategy that 

left little more than lithic debris, rock rings, and cairns on the landscape. With the arrival of Euro-Americans 

and their complex technologies, the landscape was transformed (roads, fences, earthen dams, buildings, etc.). 

Unfortunately, prehistoric and historic cultural remains are a non-renewable resource that are in danger of 

being lost forever. Many of the prehistoric sites within the watershed analysis area have suffered significant 

vandalism and looting, especially village sites. Damage occurs whenever artifacts are disturbed. Damage 

can be caused by unintentional ground disturbance, such as off road vehicle use through prehistoric sites. 

Intentional disturbance, such as unauthorized excavation and surface collection occurs as well. Sadly, rock 

art within the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed has also been intentionally altered (Figure 5-4). Once 

disturbed, Native American heritage and scientific and educational values are lost forever. 

Figure 5-4. A damaged rock art panel in Barnes Valley. 

Often artifact collecting is part of a commercial business. Artifact collecting from federal lands was made 

illegal through the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. 

Federal land management projects also have the potential to disturb cultural resources. Such ground 

disturbing projects include fence construction, range improvements, timber harvests, and fuel reduction 

treatments. However, federal agencies are mandated under Sections 106 and 110, of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 1992 (NHPA), to prevent or minimize project damage to 

cultural resources. Section 106 requires that all federal agencies “take into account the effect of the 

Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 287 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

undertaking on any” cultural resource. Section 110 establishes the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) program that ensures that historic properties are identified, evaluated, and nominated to the National 

Register, a register of historic properties maintained by the National Park Service. Thus, cultural resource 

inventories are designed to locate, record, and protect cultural resources. 

Recreation and grazing activities can damage sites, but to a lesser degree. Recreation use in the area was 

extremely limited until the development of logging roads and vehicles that could travel on the primitive roads 

early in the 20th century. Recreation use remained limited until WWII, with the advent of more rugged offhighway vehicles. As road conditions improved and disposable incomes increased, more people began to use 

the area for camping, fishing, and hunting. Gerber Campground and the scattered primitive campsites were 

originally developed in the 1960s by the BLM. Recreation use has remained fairly steady over the past 

decade, with an estimated 15,000 visitor use days annually in the Gerber area. 

Additional impacts include natural processes such as weathering, erosion, wildfire, and earthquakes. For 

example, before the construction of the dam on Miller Creek, the area that is today Gerber Reservoir was a 

vast wet meadow supporting abundant root crops. The bed of the reservoir was inventoried during the 

drought of 1981 and a large number of sites were discovered. The inventory revealed that sites found along 

the shoreline were being damaged by wave action and ice rafting (Cannon 1984 and 1985). This affects all 

the sites below or at the high water mark due to varying changes in water levels from year to year and season 

to season. However, an inundated site may be protected because the water creates an oxygen deprived 

environment and removes it from the reach of artifact collectors. Although many of the natural processes are 

unavoidable, some effects may be reduced. For example, fuel treatments can reduce the effects of 

catastrophic wildfires. 

Subsistence Hunting 

The Klamath Tribes traditionally and presently subsistence hunt for mule deer along the northern boundary 

of the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed. 

288 Synthesis and Interpretation, Step 5 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

STEP 6. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Step 6 provides recommendations based on the analysis presented in the previous 5 steps. This step also 

identifies monitoring activities that are needed in association with these recommendations. Data gaps and 

limitations of the analysis are also documented. Recommendations are designed to identify management 

activities that are responsive to needs identified in this watershed scale analysis. Specifically, management 

actions which address differences between current and reference conditions, where there is a need to provide 

restoration, maintenance, or protection of ecosystem components in order to sustain the health and 

productivity of natural resources. Any actions or projects, which utilize the information presented in this 

Watershed Analysis, will be analyzed on a site-specific basis by an interdisciplinary team and will include 

both public involvement and disclosure of decision as prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

I. Watershed and Aquatics 

Uplands/Soils 

Generally the greatest erosion risks are on sites where ground vegetation associated with high infiltration 

rates has diminished, such as overstocked woodland and forest plant communities. In these overstocked 

communities the historic balance between overstory and understory vegetation is out of balance. The density 

of the overstory limits the extent and distribution of erosion limiting ground vegetation. Crown fires in 

overstocked forest and woodlands also significantly increase erosion rates from 0.02 tons per acre sediment 

transport to 1.91 tons per acre (WEPP, 2001). Current prescribed under burns in the Gerber drainage have 

begun to reduce the erosion risk. Yet there are more areas to thin to reduce the risk from dense canopies that 

volatilize most of the soil’s nitrogen during hot wildfire burn (Biswell, 1989, Debano et al 1998). 

Forest openings and abundant grass undergrowth is a key to sustaining site functions. For example the ground 

vegetation with abundant Idaho fescue, Festuca idahoensis, is a key component of three ecological sites: Pine 

Fescue Bottom, Pine Sedge Fescue and Pine Mahogany Fescue (Soil Survey Staff, 2002). To better estimate 

local erosion risk infiltration was sampled at sites with vegetation conditions recorded on the “Rangeland 

Inventory – Ecological Status Worksheet” forms during the 1997-98 ESI survey that accompanied the soil 

survey. In the comparison of infiltration and vegetation, vegetative cover including late seral forest shrub 

species is associated with higher infiltration as shown in Table 4-1. These local findings are consistent with 

WEPP (2001) erosion technology findings in reference forest and rangeland vegetation. But in a tour across 

the Gerber drainage, the forest openings or the current underburns are not effective enough to recover or 

sustain the Idaho fescue grass cover and forest shrubs. 

To limit erosion, open forest structure along roadways should be developed and sustained with grass-waterway understories. Since the 1930s, grass-water-ways have been established as the most effective sediment 

and nutrient traps. And on most landscapes, roads have been recognized as the most effective erosion 

transporting system. So the effects of roadways can be minimized by grass-water-ways. Sustaining an open 

forest structure for about a quarter to half mile on each side of a road should also facilitate wildfire control. 

And established grass-water-ways along roadways may reduce the common post fire emergency treatments of 

cleaning road ditches and replacing culverts. Similarly, sustaining an open forest structure along meadow 

edges enhances fire control and slows water to limit gully erosion after wildfires. 

Currently, biological functions of ground vegetation in forest openings have diminished in the Gerber 

drainage. Forest openings are needed to accommodate well-rooted undergrowth for effective erosion control. 

Canopy openings would slow the wind for improved snow catch (Church 1912, Sutterlaund, 1972). 

Recommendations, Step 6 289 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Emphasize erosion limiting ground vegetation in the Ponderosa Pine and Pine Associated types by returning 

of a portion of the stands to a single-story LOS (Late/Old Structure) condition as identified in Step 6 -

Forested Vegetation. Mid seral ponderosa pine stands should be thinned enough to allow enough gaps 

among forest trees so shrub components that contribute to higher infiltration rates can survive wildfires. 

Some of the best infiltration gains are apt to occur in white fir climax stands, with LOS components. 

To limit soil erosion in woodlands and rangelands focus attention on ecological condition as identified in step 

6 non-forested uplands for vegetation– maintenance or improvement. Generally the true Juniper woodland 

rangeland ecological sites are too open to carry a crown fire and shallow and rocky soils generally maintain 

junipers spacing. Still some thinning is prudent, especially where the fire can be conducted into the adjacent 

forest. 

Hydrology 

Past and ongoing management impacts to hydrologic processes should be addressed. Actively restoring the 

structure and composition of altered vegetation communities would make more water available for plant 

growth, aquifer recharge, and/or streamflow. In addition, improved understory conditions in restored 

vegetation communities would result in higher infiltration rates and reduced runoff. In juniper treatment 

areas with degraded understory vegetation, high proportions of bare ground, and shallow soil, it may be 

desirable to leave some whole trees or “lop-and-scatter” some material. This material could be left on site for 

1 to 4 years (in order to detain surface runoff and contribute nutrients) and then burned. 

As they are identified and as opportunities develop, roads that divert surface or groundwater flow paths or 

deliver road runoff directly to stream channels should be modified. Appropriate road treatments could 

include obliteration, decommissioning, road improvement (retrofitting or adding road drainage features), or 

road realignment. The overall road density should be reduced in subwatersheds that have more than 2.5 

miles of road per square mile or that been affected by increases of more than 15 percent in drainage network 

length (Step 3 – Current Conditions). 

As opportunities develop, efforts should be made to identify instream flows needed to protect water quality 

and sensitive uses. Subject to cooperation with reservoir managers, land owners, and /or the holders of water 

rights, creative solutions to water allocation issues should be sought. 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 The understanding of the relationships between juniper encroachment and hydrologic processes is 

incomplete. Additional quantitative information is needed to better quantify the benefits of juniper 

treatment on infiltration rates and water availability. This data gap should be filled over time through 

monitoring of juniper treatment projects and collaboration with scientists investigating these issues. 

Stream Channels 

Steps should be taken to ensure that streams are connected to their floodplains. This is key to maintaining 

and restoring summer baseflows, riparian vegetation, water quality, and fish habitat. 

There are three main phases of stream channel adjustment that are evident in the analysis area. Potential 

restoration responses to this sequence are summarized below and presented in more detail in Table 6-1. 

Monitoring and detailed analysis specific to candidate restoration reaches will determine the scope and type 

of restoration activities. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 290 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Rosgen C and E streams that have not incised into associated floodplains or wet meadows should be managed 

to maintain vertical and lateral stability. These streams are generally in Proper Functioning Condition or 

Functional-at-Risk. As described in Step 3, the process of incision becomes self-perpetuating once it has 

progressed past a certain point. For that reason, every effort should be made to prevent accelerated incision 

in perennial and intermittent streams that are beginning to widen and downcut. Management should focus on 

maintaining bank stability (adequate riparian vegetation and rooting strength) and address watershed issues 

that lead to increased peak flows. 

In Rosgen G and F stream types, the formation of new (albeit lower elevation and more narrow) floodplains 

that can interact with the current stream channel should be allowed to happen over time. In priority areas, it 

may be appropriate to reshape streambanks or realign lengths of stream channels to accelerate the 

geomorphic processes that create new floodplains (bank erosion, meander belt development, increased 

sinuosity, etc.). It may also appropriate to place juniper trees in some streams to accelerate channel widening 

and favor the formation of pools. 

In streams that have formed or are in the process of forming “new” Rosgen C and E channels it is imperative 

to encourage the development of deeply rooted vegetation communities that will help capture sediment and 

maintain bank stability. Recommended management in these areas is similar to that described above for unincised Rosgen C and E channels, although newly formed channels may be more responsive to livestock 

grazing. Gentle bank slopes that develop over time would reduce bank sloughing, slow drainage of terrace 

soils, and provide improved beaver habitat. 

Other recommendations for management of stream channels include: 

•	 Where fill material has been placed across floodplains to build bridge approaches (such as at Pitch Log 

Creek, Barnes Valley Creek, Long Branch Creek, and Rock Creek), “floodplain relief culverts” should 

be installed. These culverts would be placed at the level of the floodplain and would allow water on 

the floodplain to pass under the road. This would reduce scour downstream from bridges and would 

allow enhanced floodplain inundation. 

•	 Reintroduction of beaver should occur in selected areas once sufficient vegetation exists to support 

beaver populations (see Wildlife sections). Low gradient stream reaches with fine textured soils would 

be good areas for reintroduction (Gurnell 1998). This would benefit stream channels, baseflows, and 

riparian vegetation by providing local grade control and energy dissipation (beaver dams), forcing 

water into floodplain aquifers, and prolonging the period of inundation. Channel and vegetation 

response should be monitored in these areas. 

•	 Construction of livestock exclosures as recommended in the Human Uses-Grazing section. Use
 

monitoring information, riparian mapping, and stream surveys to determine if exlosures may be
 

appropriate in other areas.
 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Stream surveys should be conducted on those streams not already surveyed by ODFW, BLM, or USFS 

staff. These include Ben Hall Creek, Rock Creek, East Branch Lost River, and other streams on USFS 

and private land. This information would be used to assess habitat quality and develop restoration 

projects. 

Recommendations, Step 6 291 
 

Adjustment 

Phase 

(Rosgen 

Stream Type) 

1. No 

Incision 

(C or E) 

2. Early 

Widening 

and Incision 

(C or E) 

3. Incision 

(A or G o 

F) 

4. Meander 

Belt 

Development 

(F o C) 

5. New 

Floodplain 

(F or C o C 

or E) 

6. Convex 

High Bank 

Profile 

(C or E) 

Conceptual Diagram
 

Floodplain 

Coarse Streambed Material 

Terrace 

Floodplain 

Terrace 

Summary of 


Management 


Recommendations 


Maintain riparian vegetation 

and bank stability 

Restore riparian vegetation 

and bank stability through 

passive management; H H H Establish grade control; 

Address conifer 

encroachment 

Construct new channel or 

Allow to widen into F 

channel and develop new 

floodplain (depending on L M H 

management objectives); 

Address conifer 

encroachment 

Allow (or accelerate) bank 

erosion to create meander belt 

and new floodplain; 

Encourage riparian vegetation 

establishment; Address 

conifer encroachment 

Minimize impacts to riparian 

vegetation and bank stability; 

Reshape banks to reduce 

sloughing; Address conifer 

encroachment 

Maintain riparian vegetation 

and bank stability 

No Fish 


H 


L 


M 


M 


Priority
 Fish-Bearing 


H 


M 


M 


H 
Special Status


Fish-Bearing 


H 


H 


H 


H 


Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 6-1. General management considerations for incised stream channels. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 292 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Riparian Vegetation 

Generally the greatest wetland loss risk is in overstocked woodland and forest plant communities that 

consume water that historically supported the wetland. Dam building has also inundated prior wetlands as 

identified in Step 3. Still, water flow to the current wetland areas can be improved with more recharge and less 

water consumption by transpiration in the overly dense woodland and forest vegetation. Currently forest 

openings that aid recharge have diminished in the Gerber drainage. Forest openings are needed to 

accommodate well-rooted undergrowth for effective recharge and to slow the wind for improved snow catch 

(Church 1912, Sutterlaund, 1972). Reducing woodland and forest density is needed to sustaining the water 

needed for wetland functions. 

Playas, which characterize the ecoregion, depend on the recharge from a thrifty forest. To limit transpiration 

to historic pine forest condition, pine density may be managed to 14 to 20 trees per acre. While in the Juniper 

woodlands the density should be less than 9 trees per acre. To limit direct wetland loss, the priority treatment 

areas are areas along playas, wetlands and meadows, where conifers are encroaching on to riparian areas. 

Forest management is needed to limit the encroachment of woodland and forest trees on to wetland and 

riparian plant communities. Along riparian areas cultural practices should focus on promoting riparian forest 

of cottonwood or aspen or relevant riparian plant species. With attention to transpiration there should be 

sufficient recharge to sustain the wetlands. 

Maintain or improve ecological condition in riparian and wetland vegetation in ways similar to the processes 

identified in step 6 non-forested uplands vegetation. The newly available ecological sites, soil survey maps 

and descriptions as well as riparian scorecards should facilitate tracking riparian recovery or investments in 

many areas. Yet along narrow floodplains and stream reaches maps of riparian types and their habitat 

conditions would improve the resource infrastructure for project planning and restoration. 

Over time, Proper Functioning Condition assessments should be conducted for wetlands in the area. If 

physical modifications (roads, stockponds, etc) are found to be impairing wetland function, interdisciplinary 

efforts should be made to identify and implement potential restoration projects (road realignment or 

modification, stockpond filling, etc). 

Active restoration of riparian vegetation is needed along select stream banks. Many of the streams in Gerber 

are associated with silt and clay floodplain material. Yet gravel bar reaches do occur for example, Pitch Log 

Creek above Barnes Valley road. The basalt streambed is holding the grade and sand occurs in pools among 

the basalt bed. Yet the vegetation is failing to catch sediment and build stream banks. Still, willow recovery or 

restoration is possible with a nurse willow such as sand bar willow, Salix exigua. The sand bar willow is 

rhizomatous, so it can begin the gravel bar formation needed to promote the growth of Geyer’s willow, S. 

geyeriana and Lemmon’s willows S. lemmonii, which occur down stream on Pitch Log Creek. 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Location, extent, and distribution of existing riparian types and their habitat conditions. 

•	 Location, extent, and distribution of stream incision associated with riparian habitats. 

•	 Water temperature trends associated with changes in riparian vegetation, channel shape, and 

streamflow are needed to identify where stream temperatures can be effectively reduced on the 303(d) 

listed streams to their natural thermal potential. 

Recommendations, Step 6 293 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Water Quality 

As discussed throughout the document, land management affects water temperature through changes in 

riparian vegetation, channel shape, and streamflow. Management actions of the BLM and USFS can directly 

affect vegetation and channel shape, and can indirectly affect streamflow (as discussed in the Hydrology 

sections). In order to protect and restore the riparian and channel features conducive to reduced water 

temperatures, the BLM and USFS should: 

•	 Riparian management areas (i.e., riparian reserves) around all streams (excluding ephemeral streams), 

lakes, and wetlands should be managed to restore and maintain habitat and ecological processes in 

riparian areas and streams. A combination of active and passive (“hands-off”) management should 

focus on protecting and restoring riparian vegetation, channel processes, and water quality in 

accordance with current agency policy and guidance. 

•	 The widths of riparian reserves should be based on natural and ecological boundaries that are relevant 

to restoring and maintaining riparian resources (Table 6-2). 

•	 Reduce stream temperatures on the 303(d) listed streams to their natural thermal potential
 

commensurate with stream and riparian area ecological potential.
 

•	 Maintain the riparian areas across the analysis area so that every stream (whether 303[d] listed or not) 

is at its lowest potential temperature consistent with ecological potential. 

•	 Manage livestock grazing within allotments in riparian areas to ensure that channel and vegetation 

conditions are improving where needed. 

•	 Improve aquatic habitat in areas of severe degradation through treatments such as the placement of 

large wood in channels and recovery of riparian vegetation on unstable streambanks. Vegetation will 

recover by regrowth (passive restoration) and planting of riparian species along listed streams. 

•	 Work cooperatively with reservoir managers, land owners, and/or water right holders to identify
 

opportunities to increase baseflow in streams downstream from reservoirs.
 

Many of the recommendations listed above would also lead to reductions in delivery of fine sediment to 

streams. To complement those actions and address upland sources of sediment, the BLM and USFS should: 

•	 Manage the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management road system to minimize sediment yield 

and runoff, and minimize delivery of sediment and runoff to streams. 

•	 Restore the understory grass and shrub components to upland vegetation communities, thereby
 

increasing infiltration rates and reducing the extent of bare ground.
 

The BLM and USFS will cooperate with the state DEQ and other water quality management agencies and 

with the Federal EPA throughout the TMDL development process, and should continue to address 303(d) 

listed waters by implementing the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Protocol for Addressing 

Clean Water Action Section 303(d) Listed Waters (May 1999). Among other actions, this will include 

validation of listed water bodies, assessment of water quality impairment, and development of sufficiently 

stringent management measures to ensure attainment of beneficial uses. 

The Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) will be the vehicle for implementing, monitoring, and 

evaluating the effectiveness of management actions. Plans will be developed concurrently or in advance of 

TMDLs that will be developed by the states. This watershed analysis will provide the foundation for 

assessing the capabilities and limitations of the Gerber Reservoir and Upper Lost River watersheds, and will 

provide context for the TMDL and the WQRP. In addition, this watershed analysis provides a discussion of 

technical considerations needed for more rigorous water quality assessments. Finally, the management 

recommendations described in this watershed analysis are oriented towards maintaining and restoring water 

quality and will be incorporated in the WQRP. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 294 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 A thorough assessment of stream shading (should be conducted on public lands throughout the 

analysis area. This assessment should quantify the proportion of shade contributed by vegetation and 

topography, as well as the variability of shade between different stream types and channel widths. 

This information would be used to develop the Total Maximum Daily Load and monitor riparian 

vegetation treatments. 

•	 Stream surveys (recommended in the Stream Channels section) would be of use in developing models 

of potential water quality improvements. 

Table 6-2. Riparian reserve types and widths for public lands in the analysis area 

Riparian Reserve Type 

Fish-bearing streams 

Perennial non-fish-bearing 

streams and Intermittent 

(seasonal) non-fish-bearing 

streams and Constructed 

ponds and reservoirs and 

Wetlands greater than one 

acre 

Wetlands less than one acre 

and 

Unstable or potentially 

unstable areas 

Lakes and natural ponds 

Springs 

Reserve Width (for each side of streams/wetlands) 

At a minimum, the reserve width will include: 

ƒ Slope distance equal to the height of two site potential trees (240 feet); or, 

ƒ The stream channel and the area extending to the top of the inner gorge; or, 

ƒ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or, 

ƒ The 100-year floodplain; or, 

ƒ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest. 

At a minimum, the reserve width will include: 

ƒ Slope distance equal to the height of one site potential tree (120 feet); or, 

ƒ The stream channel (or waterbody/wetland) and the area extending to the 

top of the inner gorge; or, 

ƒ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or, 

ƒ The 100-year floodplain (for streams) or the extent of seasonally saturated 

soil (for waterbodies and wetlands); or, 

ƒ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest. 

At a minimum, the reserve width will include: 

ƒ The wetland and the extent of seasonally saturated soil; or, 

ƒ The area extending to the outer edges of riparian vegetation; or, 

ƒ The extent of stable or potentially unstable areas, whichever is greatest. 

At a minimum, the reserve width will include: 

ƒ Slope distance equal to the height of two site potential trees (240 feet); and, 

ƒ The body of water or wetland and the area to the edges of riparian 

vegetation; 

ƒ The extent of seasonally saturated soil; 

ƒ The extent of unstable or potentially unstable areas; whichever is greatest. 

Reserve widths vary according to the size of the associated wetland (see 

above). 

Habitat for Aquatic Species 

In the aquatic habitat sections, five parameters were selected as potential limiting factors and indicators of 

aquatic species habitat function. Recommendations and data gaps are identified for each of these selected 

parameters. 

Selected Habitat Parameters: 

•	 Fish passage and distribution 

•	 Stream temperature 

•	 Spawning habitat 

•	 Habitat complexity (amount of large woody debris and number of pools per mile) 

•	 Exotic Species distribution and abundance 

Recommendations, Step 6 295 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Data gaps were identified based on the need for additional information to make science based decisions 

regarding aquatic habitat management and requirements. The following items should be considered as 

recommendations for future study and project development: 

Recommendations 

For redband trout and suckers, having multiple subpopulations requires that multiple and diverse areas 

provide spawning and, rearing and over-wintering areas. Fish passage to cold-water refugial areas is 

necessary for trout during periods when reservoir conditions are lethal (such as extended drought leading to 

low lake levels). Conversely, when stream conditions are poor (such as dry channel or low flow due to 

annual short term drought), reservoirs become the refugial summer habitat for fish. For these reasons, it is 

recommended that stream and reservoir refugial areas be identified and that all migration barriers be removed 

where possible. To the extent that restoration of road drainage function, upland vegetation, and riparian 

vegetation can achieve increased base flow and improved hydraulic function, they will contribute to meeting 

these refugial requirements while simultaneously reducing the burden that flow and lake level 

recommendations would impose on other water users. 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Location and existing habitat and migration barriers, especially as they relate to existing flow regimes 

and man-made barriers on private lands. Many of the perennial, spring-fed streams that could provide 

refugial habitat are in private ownership. 

•	 Population viability requirements-that is - How may sub-populations and of what size are required for 

population viability? 

•	 Existing population size, trends, and distributions. 

•	 Further exploration of limiting factors- i.e. a comprehensive limiting factors analysis for suckers and 

trout populations. 

•	 Specific refugial areas and specific flow level and reservoir level recommendations for refugial areas. 

•	 Genetic studies of suckers and trout detailed enough to provide insight to geographic origins,
 

similarities and differences between adjacent populations, amount of genetic variation within
 

populations (genetic fitness), and the degree of hybridization (as applicable to the species).
 

•	 Potential for Willow Valley Watershed to provide viable trout and sucker populations. 

•	 Recruitment source(s), migration patterns, and life history requirements of suckers and trout in Miller 

Creek. 

Stream Temperature 

The analysis showed that stream temperature was a potential limiting factor for the distribution and 

abundance of redband trout in the early spring during spawning and again throughout the summer. Efforts to 

reduce thermal inputs to stream should focus first on known spawning and rearing areas and then on the 

aforementioned refugial areas. 

Recommendations 

Improved stream temperatures, that is, reducing the rates of warming, can be achieved by reducing solar 

inputs from radiation and convection. In the uplands, processes that increase base flow conditions (increased 

infiltration and groundwater recharge) are the primary mechanism for decreasing thermal increases in the 

summer. In the riparian areas, base flows are improved by increasing water storage in floodplain areas and 

increasing floodplain connectivity to stream network. Furthermore, efforts to reduce bank instability and 

stream width/depth ratios will reduce solar radiation and convective inputs, reduce evaporative loss, and 

increase the effectiveness of riparian vegetation in providing shade. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 296 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Model of stream temperature dynamics in Miller Creek to determine minimum flow requirements for 

achieving temperature standards. Explore stream channel rehabilitation options to improve riparian 

vegetation and reduce width to depth ratios. 

•	 Use standard thermal input models to determine the potential of 303d listed streams to achieve state 

mandated temperature standards. Consider relevant redband trout thermal tolerance literature in 

development of site-specific temperature objectives. 

•	 The existing stream temperature record is discontinuous and spatially fragmented. Continue to collect 

stream temperature data following established protocols to fill data gaps, particularly in potential troutbearing streams. 

Spawning Habitat 

This analysis looked at the percentage of fines in gravel riffles and the percent gravels in riffles to determine 

whether streams were providing quality spawning habitat. The quality of the data and the lack of consistency 

in the methods used severely limit its utility in making management recommendations. Further study using 

appropriate methodologies is warranted. It is clear that from anecdotal information and the stream habitat 

survey data that, in some stream reaches, high quality spawning gravel beds are lacking. The role that 

watershed processes such as road runoff and bank erosion play and how they interact with existing climate 

and geology is not clear. However, because many riparian areas and floodplains are dominated by fine 

grained material, it is reasonable to assume that management aimed at reducing fine sediment delivery to 

streams will positively affect the stream substrate compositions by reducing the relative percentage of fines in 

the bed material. 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Bulk sieve analysis of riffle streambeds following established protocols in selected streams to
 

determine actual substrate composition.
 

•	 A quantitative inventory of the degree of embededdness (armoring) in potential sucker and trout
 

spawning areas.
 

•	 Extent and contribution of stream bank erosion to overall suspended and bedload sediment supply. 

•	 Explore other pathways (e.g. roads) of sedimentation and determine their contribution to fine sediment 

supply in streams. 

•	 Assessment of Miller Creek spawning habitat and possible hydrologic and geomorphic restorative 

actions that could improve the availability of spawning habitat for suckers and trout. 

Habitat Complexity (amount of large woody debris and number of pools per mile) 

There was high variability among reaches in terms of large wood and pool frequencies. With some 

exceptions, most reaches had values nearly equal to or greater than the reference condition values. One of the 

observed problems with this analysis was that many of the reaches, especially Miller Creek, may have used 

an inappropriate stream width variable to calculate reference values. Therefore the reference condition may 

have been underestimated. 

The variable pool width /maximum pool depth ratio is a dimensionless ratio that indicated simplified habitat 

conditions throughout the watersheds when compared to both the Gerber/Willow Valley reference conditions 

and values suggested by recent literature (Quigley et al, 1997). 

Recommendations 

In stream reaches lacking complex habitat features (deep pools, woody debris jams, or boulders), add 

structure where data supports that condition is under potential and material is available such that it is 

economically feasible to enhance aquatic habitat. Adding stream roughness has multiple benefits including 

reduced average velocity, retention of spawning gravel sediment, increased frequency of overbank flow, 

Recommendations, Step 6 297 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

increased habitat complexity, increased relative proportion of pool habitat, increased maximum pool depth, 

and attenuation of peak discharge. 

Stream channel morphological features such as pool width/depth ratios, maximum pool depth, and sediment 

retention can all be improved by protecting streambanks from physical breakdown such as trampling and 

shearing. Development of a fully functional riparian plan community along streambanks will provide the 

stability needed to maintain pool features and low width to depth ratios. 

Vertically incised streams in the watershed warrant special attention. Each situation needs to be analyzed site 

specifically to determine the proper management response. The perturbations that caused the initial 

degradation should be addressed before attempting rehabilitation. Every opportunity to recover streambed 

elevations to access former floodplains should be pursued to the extent practical. Reconnecting streams with 

their former floodplains will increase storage capacity, restore base flows and improve habitat quality. The 

rehabilitation of incised channels will also address bank erosion and sedimentation. 

DATA GAPS: 

•	 Inventory a suite of representative reference conditions for stream morphology and habitat features for 

the Gerber/Willow Valley physiographic province. In particular, pool frequency/spacing , width/depth 

ratios, and entrenchment ratios are needed to better understand existing departure from the potential 

condition and provide an analogue for rehabilitation design. 

•	 Assess the extent and potential to rehabilitate laterally and vertically incised stream channels in the 

watersheds. 

•	 Investigate the potential to reconstruct channel morphology in portions of Miller Creek to fit the 

current hydrologic regime. Objectives of channel reconstruction might include creation of spawning 

habitat, increased width of riparian areas, and reduced width/depth ratios. 

Exotic Species Distribution and Abundance 

The establishment of exotic fish and bullfrogs in the watershed is largely the result of man-made reservoirs, 

which provide abundant slow and still water habitat. Although the extent that these exotic species have 

displaced native species is not well understood, in some locations native species appear to coexist with the 

exotic species (Gerber Reservoir). Willow Valley Reservoir appears to contain virtually all exotic fish 

species. 

Recommendations 

For the smaller reservoirs in the watershed, management options for the temporary exclusion of exotic fish 

includes dewatering. This should be considered when either a particular fish population (or bull frog 

population) is known to be causing harm to native species or the species composition and relative abundance 

is undesirable from a recreational fishery standpoint. For example, overpopulation of yellow perch in Upper 

Midway reservoir is thought to have caused a decline in the size and abundance of crappie and largemouth 

bass. Through cooperative efforts with local sport fishing organizations and ODFW, a management strategy 

should be developed for these reservoirs. It should address factors such as impacts to native species, illegal 

transportation and stocking of fish, and re-stocking with desirable fish assemblages that are conducive to 

establishment of a quality sport fishery. 

DATA GAPS: 

The role of bullfrogs, largemouth bass, and yellow perch in displacement and predation of native species 

such as Western pond turtle, redband trout, and Klamath sucker species. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 298 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

II. Vegetation 

Forested Uplands 

The watershed should be managed to restore forest stands to approximate the historic range of variability. 

This includes reducing elevated stocking levels, reducing juniper encroachment, reducing white fir 

encroachment, and reducing fuel accumulations. This would lead to healthy stands that are more able to 

resist the episodic events that lead to stand replacement. 

In the Ponderosa Pine and Pine Associated types, emphasize return of a portion of the stands to a single-story 

LOS (Late/Old Structure) condition. In doing so, retain the existing LOS component. Mid seral ponderosa 

pine stands should be thinned to favor the development and protection of large diameter ponderosa pine. 

This will also encourage development of a more diverse shrub and herbaceous understories. Heavily thin 

under existing large diameter old growth pine to reduce stress and maintain them as a stand component. 

Salvage logging of insect and fire-killed trees, and trees killed by other agents, should be done where other 

resource values can be protected. Salvage would remove excessive fuels, utilize material for commercial use, 

and prepare stands for tree planting and other regeneration treatments. 

Where white fir climax stands occur, leave all LOS components. Unless evidence of severe overcrowding is 

present, these stands will most likely survive for long periods and adequate large tree replacements will enter 

the stands from the understory. 

Utilize understory thinning in areas that are above historic density levels. Where conifers have become 

established in aspen stands, an opportunity exists to cut the conifers in arrays of barriers to grazing that will 

most likely allow sprout reproduction to regenerate. Remove competing conifers from aspen stands. If 

regeneration is required, stimulate aspen clones to regenerate with prescribed fire or mechanical means. 

Protect young aspen by providing slash barriers, pasture management, or exclusion fencing as a last resort. 

Remove or reduce conifers from areas of encroachment, including dry meadows and riparian areas. Retain 

individual aspen having old carvings. 

Identify declining black cottonwood clones. Analyze the need to restore the hydrologic integrity to support 

cottonwood restoration. Establish new areas of cottonwood utilizing material from the nearest existing clone. 

Focus on an adaptive management approach when manipulating LOS mixed conifer stands on low energy 

aspects. Focus management efforts on those eco-tones where ponderosa pine is already present to some 

degree. These fringe pine sites often require some culturing efforts to encourage the development of 

ponderosa pine. 

Early Seral Stage Stands 

All Plant Associations 

In this watershed, early seral stands are primarily products of regeneration management activities, which 

required artificial or natural regeneration practices that established the current stocking levels. Plantations 

consist of mostly ponderosa pine from seedling to sapling size trees, planted at 6 to 12 foot spacing, 

depending on landowner. Various levels of residual trees were commonly left within these units. Tree ages 

range from 3 to 25 years. Stocking varies, but most sites are carrying in excess of 250 to 500 trees per acre. 

Most plantations less than five years old receive periodic stocking exams and animal damage control 

treatments. 

Manage these stands so they will continue to develop into mid seral stage structures. Favor ponderosa pine to 

maintain growth and vigor to grow into the later seral stages and reduce risk of mortality from bark beetles. 

At that point, more options can be considered. 

Recommendations, Step 6 299 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Mid Seral Stage Stands 

Ponderosa Pine Plant Associations 

In the next two or three decades, present early seral plantations will begin to grow into this stand structure. A 

full spectrum of these stands occur, from early-mid, dense post and pole stands, to late-mid stands that are 

beginning to take on LOS characteristics. The presence of ladder fuels is a concern in many stands. Many of 

these stands are exhibiting the symptoms of various forest health problems such as mountain pine beetle, and 

heavy mistletoe infection, while others are healthy; having been precommercial thinned and underburned. 

Almost all these stands were created in response to understory reinitiation from fire prevention and various 

degrees of removal of the reference period pine overstory. Many of these stands are also occurring as trees 

encroach onto meadows, aspen stands, and riparian areas. 

As with the early seral stands, management should focus on development of a portion of these stands to grow 

into healthy LOS structures. For these fire dependent ecosystems, maintenance of the high canopy and 

controlling understory reinitiation are the two fundamental management concerns. The mid seral stage is 

where the high canopy becomes defined. Historically, frequent fires burned and thinned trees, defining the 

spatial distribution of the trees that make up the canopy. This distribution tended to be clumpy with 

occasional patches of younger cohorts. Active management can help “set the stage” for mid seral structure to 

grow into LOS. Opening up the canopy can trigger understory reinitiation, but reintroduction of prescribed 

underburning can control this. Without treatment, these stands become susceptible to mortality agents before 

they become LOS or will become high risk in the early-late stages. 

Mixed Conifer Plant Associations 

These stands occur on Forest Service and private land; no mixed conifer stands have been identified on BLM 

lands. These stands tend to be the results of overstory removals where the large ponderosa overstory was 

removed from even-aged advanced regeneration of white fir or ponderosa pine. Many of these stands were 

precommercial thinned for the fast growing white fir to grow to a target size, when a clear-cut harvest would 

have then been prescribed. Meandering, ponderosa plantations were created within many of these stands 

when the overstory removal and mistletoe cleaning would leave portions understocked. The two main 

objectives of such management were to conserve scarce high elevation ponderosa pine seed and to capture 

future volume growing on the fir. 

The drought of the early 1990’s triggered extensive mortality in these stands. Many of the fir stands suffered 

mortality or top kill from fir engraver beetle. Annosus root disease pockets also increased. Pure white fir 

stands, stressed by drought, have little or no resistance to these mortality agents. 

Manage stands so that a stable species distribution becomes established. Favor any existing pine while 

replacing a portion of the white fir with ponderosa pine. Develop a multi-aged structure to favor shade 

intolerant species. Few stands will benefit from culturing the fir component; stocking is usually adequate for 

fir. Encourage pine regeneration. 

Late or Old Seral Structure (LOS) Stands 

Ponderosa Pine Plant Associations 

The one main criterion that makes these stands LOS is that large trees (>21"DBH) are considered common 

across the site. Common can mean as few as five or six large trees per acre. Other attributes connected with 

LOS function (i.e. snags, large woody debris, canopy layers, etc.) vary within stands and between stands. 

The presence of certain attributes may make a stand function as LOS with only a few large trees per acre 

present (Hopkins 1993). These stands vary in amounts of management activity that have occurred in them. 

Most stands have had some overstory removed in them. Many stands have undergone prescribed 

underburning. Most stands have had their LOS structures degraded. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 300 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Under current Forest Service management direction, LOS structures are to be maintained and protected. 

Management should cause “No Net Loss of LOS” (Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 1994). The 

management of aggregations of stands that form larger blocks of LOS is critical. Objectives for management 

are similar to those of the mid seral pine stands. For these fire dependent structures to persist, maintenance of 

the high canopy and controlling understory reinitiation is critical. For many stands, fire has been used to 

control fuels build-up. This tool should continue to be used to reduce unwanted understory conifers. 

Understory competition is the most immediate hazard to LOS stands. Dense understories tax the site’s 

growing potential, as well as providing the ladder fuels that can move ground fires to crown level, and cause 

stand replacement fires. For stands with few and scattered large trees, management should try to maintain 

those trees and focus on development of the mid and early components of that stand. 

Many stands can begin restoration with prescribed underburning alone. 

Consider LOS restoration when: 

•	 Dominant and codominants are ponderosa pine >18 inches DBH, > eight per acre with more soon to 

grow into that class. 

•	 Stand is overstocked, due in large part to the lower and middle strata densities. 

•	 High canopy is relatively healthy and not actively declining. 

•	 Stands are adjacent to blocks of functional “old growth” and an opportunity exists to enlarge that block 

through treatment. 

Stands with highly decadent overstories should be low priorities to restore. Priorities should focus on stands 

that will respond to density control. 

Mixed Conifer Plant Associations 

Late and old mixed conifer occurs mainly on Fremont NF lands. White fir is much more abundant in these 

stands, and is often present in the overstory. On low energy slopes (north and east aspects) above 6000 feet 

elevation, white fir may occupy 90% of the overstory canopy and have dense fir layered below. Evidence 

shows long fire return intervals. These are difficult stands to diagnose due to subtle shifts in ecotones and 

disturbance processes. On the higher energy slopes (south and west aspects) and below 6000 feet elevation, 

most stands have or show evidence of having supported various levels of ponderosa pine overstory, 

maintained by a frequent fire regime 

It is the LOS occupying the high-energy slopes where management can benefit restoring and maintaining 

viable LOS structure, and should considered high priority for silvicultural treatment. These stands have 

departed historic patterns as radically as on ponderosa pine sites. 

The low energy stands pose several complexities. Where elsewhere we think of white fir as an unwanted 

invader, here it is a historic and persistent component. LOS on these sites is rich in diversity across multiple 

dimensions (species, seral stage, etc.). Dynamic disturbance processes at a small scale maintained such 

diversity. Today’s stands are losing this diversity in seral stage distribution but at a much slower rate 

compared to the fire dependant stands. Any management geared to balance diversity must recognize the 

need. Past efforts at managing white fir with shelterwood systems have failed. Mimicking historical 

disturbance on these sites will require an adaptive management approach to prescribing treatments. For the 

immediate future, management activities within low energy stands should be low priority on any large scale. 

Western Juniper and Hardwoods 

Western Juniper 

Western juniper is an invader on many pine sites were it currently grows. Elsewhere, juniper is a natural 

component, especially on rocky sites where natural fires seldom reached. Today, even these natural, or “old 

Recommendations, Step 6 301 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

growth” juniper sites, stocking of juniper exceeds natural levels. Use of prescribed burning is an important 

tool for maintenance of ponderosa pine stands where there is potential for juniper invasion. Mechanical 

cutting may be the only option to remove juniper from a site, possibly followed by burning. 

Aspen Management
 

Quaking aspen can be found growing throughout the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed. It grows in small,
 

scattered populations, associated with springs, streams, or perched water tables. Aspen’s main method of
 

regeneration is asexual. When the parent clone is distressed (as when burned or cut), it sends a signal
 

throughout its root system to begin sprouting root suckers. Throughout most of the stands lifecycle, it is a
 

fireproofed island surrounded by lands undergoing frequent fires. As the aspen mature and fuels accumulate,
 

fire will sweep through to trigger regeneration. Aspen tend to be relatively short-lived as an individual stem,
 

or tree, but the clone can persist for centuries through asexual reproduction.
 

Being highly associated with fire to regenerate the species, aspen stands are generally in decline due to fire
 

exclusion and conifer encroachment. Browse utilization from cattle and big game will also keep regeneration
 

from becoming established. Once the parent clone is dead, that patch of aspen is lost. Management should
 

seek to allow aspen stands to proliferate within the means of its ecologic processes and resource constraints.
 

Clones with low vigor should be treated first.
 

KNOWN DATA GAPS: 

• Current stand exam information including snags, down wood, disease centers and fire history, 

• Stand exam data, interpreted, automated and linked to a spatial layer in ARC-INFO, 

• Accurate vegetation condition class layer in ARC-INFO, 

• Logging plan including economic analysis of logging alternatives for watershed, [??] 

• Old growth inventory 

• Detailed inventory of aspen and black cottonwood 

Fire Management 

In Ponderosa Pine and Pine Associated types:
 

Use prescribed fire alone and mechanical methods in combination with prescribed fire to meet objectives of
 

reducing density and altering structure of stands.
 

To the extent that fuel amounts, fuel arrangement and management objectives allow, conduct prescribed fire
 

activities at frequencies and intensities similar to the natural fire regime appropriate to the site.
 

Fire prescriptions should be fairly conservative until vegetative mosaics, fuel loading and continuity have
 

been modified enough that a more liberal fire prescription is possible.
 

Consider landscape level treatments to create a network of areas with reduced crown fire potential.
 

Construction of “shaded fuel breaks” on ridges and other strategic areas reduce wildfire spread and facilitate
 

control.
 

Remove ladder fuels and reduce stand density to a level at which a fire is unlikely to spread in the tree
 

canopy.
 

Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical methods to protect Forest improvements (i.e. plantations, TSI areas,
 

structures and cultural resources) from unacceptable fire effects.
 

 Recommendations, Step 6 302 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Non-Forested Uplands 

BLM Administered Lands 

This section will make specific recommendations based on the comparison (Step 5) of current vegetation 

ecological conditions (Step 3) with the specific idealized plant community defined by the pertinent ecological 

site description (Step 4). The approved land use plan for the analysis area – the 1995 KFRA ROD/RMP – 

specified that “Upon completion of an Ecological Site Inventory...ecological status related objectives will be 

developed...” (Appendix H, page H-2). These are also referred to as “Desired Plant Communities” (DPC) 

objectives. An ideal vehicle for determining and recommending vegetation objectives is the watershed 

analysis process. The Step 5 section on Human Uses - Grazing also contains a lot of the analysis of 

ecological conditions relative to livestock grazing use, which has probably been the most significant agent of 

change on the rangeland (non-pine) plant communities in the area. The analysis in the grazing section was 

considered when formulating the upland vegetation objectives. 

The vegetation objectives fall into two general categories – maintenance or improvement. Where conditions 

are thought adequate, the minimum objective would be to at least maintain the current conditions 

(improvement is also acceptable of course). Where ecological condition improvements are desired, a 

reasonable amount of improvement with a practical timeframe will be described as well as possible. In order 

to measure progress, a starting point or “baseline” must be defined. Baseline conditions for rangelands are 

currently described in one of two related ways in the analysis area. The most extensive information is the 

existing plant community descriptions recorded on the “Rangeland Inventory – Ecological Status Worksheet” 

forms during the 1997-98 ESI survey. There were approximately 175 of these worksheets prepared during 

the Gerber survey. The information recorded was not point specific, but instead describes a representative 

area of 1-10 acres that was picked to represent a larger site write-up area. The approximate location (within 

50-100 yards accuracy) for each reading site was recorded on orthophotoquads and this information entered 

into the GIS database, allowing for a future rereading. The other baseline descriptions are the key area 

specific condition monitoring plots, which were completed at the majority of the rangeland trend plot 

locations in the mid to late 1990’s. These are also based on ecological site descriptions and read using ESI 

methods. These studies are much fewer in number than the ESI worksheet write-ups but are permanently 

marked on the ground for precise rereading. 

The general vegetation condition objectives would be as follows: 

•	 Where conditions are currently satisfactory – typically late seral to PNC areas - the existing condition 

baseline will be our management objective. 

•	 Where ecological condition improvements are desired – typically all early and most mid seral areas — 

the baseline will be our starting point with the objectives being some defined increase in the condition 

rating from the baseline within a specified timeframe. 

More specifically, maintaining an area within 7 percentage points either way of its baseline would be 

considered maintaining current conditions. For example, if the baseline had a determined ecological rating of 

58 (late seral), then any future reading(s) within the range of 51 to 65 would be considered maintenance of 

current conditions. In areas where ecological improvement is desired, an observed change of 8 or more 

percentage points up or down would be considered a significant change. A threshold range is necessary to 

cover both natural environmental fluctuations and study reading variations. The 7 percentage point change 

(14 point total range) is thought a reasonable, best estimate starting point to evaluate the ecological 

significance of observed vegetation change. It is based on extensive experience and observations in the 

analysis area. Changes outside of the range would be considered significant, though the evaluation of 

significance must be considered within the framework of future environmental and resource conditions, 

management imperatives, pertinent litigation, political environment, current science and research results, and 

ever changing societal desires. Changes must also be evaluated on a site-specific basis considering the actual 

Recommendations, Step 6 303 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

observed changes in hand with other resource information; some changes that are significant when simply 

comparing the ecological rating numbers may not be so on the ground, and vice versa. NOTE: These 

objectives are for comparing a site condition against its specific baseline, not for comparison between sites. 

In an area where improvement is needed, the timeframe in which to effect the desired change is almost as 

important as the amount of change itself. One broadly applied timeframe threshold is not feasible since 

different ecological sites have different response potentials. The ecological site-specific timeframes are 

noted where appropriate in the following narrative. 

Yearly production can be a useful indicator of relative rangeland health, though is not used as an objective 

here for several reasons, as follows: 

•	 Production is highly variable from year-to-year based on normal climate fluctuations, and appears to 

indicate dramatic change in ecological conditions when none is actually occurring. 

•	 With the climate variations factored out (or averaged), gross yearly production is a good indicator of 

the inherent site productivity but not its ecological condition, since the production reflects all plant 

growth for that year, including exotic annuals and other site-specific undesirables. For example, a low 

mid seral and a PNC area of the same sagebrush ecological site (with the same soil attributes) will 

have about the same yearly production, but the plant composition will be much different. The low mid 

seral site will usually have a relatively high composition of exotic annuals and site atypically high 

amounts of sagebrush. The PNC site will have a very low composition of exotics and be dominated 

by native perennial grasses with sagebrush abundant, but scattered. Because of the above, the 

ecological rating (plant composition) is much more meaningful as an objective than production. 

•	 Given the arid nature of the area, the inherent fertility/productivity of the soil changes little within any 

reasonable time period, making a production related objective impractical. If a site has suffered 

significant productivity loss as a result of past abuse (e.g. destructive change via overgrazing induced 

erosion) that site has probably passed an irreversible threshold making the change essentially 

permanent. If this is the case, rangeland health must be defined by the types and proportions of the 

plants species, with the acknowledgement that the plant community can be healthy and functional, 

even if production is well below previous site potential. 

Priority rankings (low, moderate, high) are also suggested since not every resource problem can be 

aggressively pursed at any one moment. These vegetation management priorities do not take into 

consideration the priority of the grazing allotment (selective management categories – I, M, & C) that the 

area of desired improvement falls within, though that is a very important consideration when pursuing 

management changes. Rather, the priorities are just a relative weighting of one site against the others based 

on chance of significant success and the potential for irreversible ecological damage if improved 

management is not pursued promptly (i.e. within the next 5-10 years). 

Actual vegetation change must be effected through manipulation of land management practices that are 

described elsewhere in this chapter (i.e. Human Uses - Grazing). Refer to other sections for a description of 

the actual management changes proposed to assist in maintaining currently appropriate conditions or to make 

appropriate progress where improvement is still needed. Where juniper treatment or control activities are 

suggested it is for the reduction or elimination of trees less than 100 years in age, unless defined otherwise. 

Trees older than 100 years, and particularly over 150 years (pre-European settlement), are considered site 

endemic and with few exceptions should be left. 

1. Meadow Communities (totals 2.7% of surveyed area): 

Dry Meadow (0.8% of surveyed area) – Most (77%) of these areas are late seral or PNC. For this ecological 

site, these existing condition classes would be considered proper functioning, and the maintenance of the 

current vegetation conditions would be an appropriate management objective. Sites on the low end of late 

 Recommendations, Step 6 304 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

seral (ratings of 51-59) in lower elevation areas (<4900’) could be at risk of downward trends if receiving 

consistent grazing use above the moderate category. These areas should be watched closely, though they are 

small and uncommon. 

19% of this site classified as upper mid-seral and should also be monitored closely. Most of these areas do 

have significant amounts of several grass species (e.g. single-spike oatgrass, meadow foxtail, bulbous 

bluegrass, mat muhly) which are positive enhancements to overall proper functioning but do not count in the 

ecological ratings. Regardless of this rating issue, as a moderate priority condition objective, it would be 

desirable for the mid-seral areas to improve significantly (>7 percentage points rating increase) over the next 

15-20 years. The one early seral site was a blown out reservoir that will not change unless the dysfunctional 

dike is repaired. 

Juniper encroachment into these sites is generally not a problem, except on the transitional edges of these 

types where they blend into the drier upland communities. Juniper removal in these “edge” areas should be a 

high priority. Fire is a useful tool in these sites since the silver sagebrush and most of the desirable grasses 

are vigorous re-sprouters, though exotic annuals may be a problem if present in high quantities prior to 

burning. 

Ephemeral Lakebed (1.8% of the surveyed area) – All of these areas were found to be in either PNC (92%) or 

late seral (8%) condition. For this ecological site, these existing condition classes are considered proper 

functioning and the maintenance of the current vegetation conditions would be an appropriate management 

objective. Juniper encroachment is not an issue due to seasonal inundation. Because of the sites wet nature, 

fire was a rarity and is not considered a useful management tool 

Semi-Wet Meadow (<0.1% of surveyed area) – Where found, this rare sites management objective should be 

to maintain the current ecological conditions. 

2. Shrub/Bunchgrass Communities (totals 31.4% of surveyed area) 

Low Sagebrush Dominated Communities 

Shallow Stony 10-20" (18.1% of surveyed area) – 96% of this common site is in either PNC or late seral 

condition. These condition classes are generally considered proper functioning for this ecological site with 

maintenance of the current conditions an appropriate management objective. Sites on the low end of late 

seral (ratings of 51-59), in lower elevation areas (<4800’), could be at risk of downward trends if receiving 

consistent heavy grazing use. Heavy grazing use is very uncommon in this ecological site, since the 

inherently low forage production and rockiness does not attract livestock. If such use were to regularly occur 

in an area, it should be monitored closely to ensure condition problems do not develop. In areas that are mid 

seral, a low to moderate priority condition objective would be to improve significantly (>7 percentage points 

rating increase) over the next 25-30 years. These sites have a very low response potential and positive 

change occurs very slowly. 

Juniper encroachment in these areas is generally not a problem and would be considered a low priority for 

treatment where occurring. Wildfire was a historically infrequent factor to these sites because herbaceous 

production is too limited to carry fires regularly. Prescribed fire should be avoided since the shallow soils 

inhibit ecological condition restoration and exotic annual grasses can be a condition issue in some areas, 

particularly under 4800’ elevation. 

Stony Claypan 14-20" (10.3% of surveyed area) – All of these areas were found to be in either PNC (64%) or 

late seral (36%) condition. The existing plant communities that comprise the observed condition classes are 

considered proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. 

Recommendations, Step 6 305 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Juniper encroachment into these areas is a frequent problem since these sites appear to be a fire climax 

version of the more common - and more rocky - Juniper Claypan 16-20". Areas experiencing invasive 

juniper would be considered a moderate priority for control activities because the potential for significant 

ecological improvement is good and risk of annuals is relatively low, though all sites are currently in 

satisfactory condition. 

Claypan 14-20" & Claypan Bottom 12-18" (1.0% of surveyed area) – The majority of these sites (87%) were 

in PNC or late seral. For these two ecological sites, the existing plant communities that comprise the 

observed condition classes are considered proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an 

appropriate management objective. The one small area in mid-seral (north of Copeland Reservoir in the 

Horsefly allotment) had an appropriate plant community structure (late seral), but was downgraded due to 

below site average production. The low production is probably an indicator of permanent deterioration, 

though many of the site characteristics point towards it being a jumbled mix of several sites and/or transitions 

between distinct sites; a lot of the attributes resemble the low production Shallow Stony ecological site. This 

area should be managed for at least maintenance of the existing ecological condition with recognition that 

site productivity is inherently low. 

Big Sagebrush/Bitterbrush Dominated Communities (totals 2% of surveyed area) 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" (0.8% of surveyed area) – The majority (91%) of these areas were found to be in late 

seral condition. The existing plant communities that comprise these observed condition classes are 

considered proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. 

Sites on the lower end of late seral (ratings in the 50’s) - especially in lower elevation areas (<4800’) - could 

be at risk of downward trends if receiving consistent heavy grazing use. This is somewhat of an issue, since 

the grazing use on these sites is almost always higher than the surrounding, shallower soil areas due to the 

inherently higher productivity of palatable grasses and shrubs. The grazing management in areas where this 

site is significant should be keyed around the utilization within this site. In areas that are mid seral, a low to 

moderate priority condition objective would be to improve significantly (>7 percentage points rating 

increase) over the next 20 years. These sites have a good response potential because of the relatively deep 

soils and change can occur fairly quickly. 

Juniper encroachment into these sites is a distinct and ever growing problem. Wild fire was a common 

occurrence historically because the high production is relatively high and would have limited the juniper 

increases. Areas experiencing invasive juniper should be considered a high priority for control activities 

because the potential for significant ecological improvement is good, though most sites are currently in 

satisfactory condition. The risk of exotic annual grass increase is relatively low but can be a condition issue 

in some of areas under the 4800’ elevation threshold. 

South Slopes 14-18" (0.9% of surveyed area) – A minority of these sites (19%) were found to be in late seral 

or PNC. The existing plant communities that comprise these observed condition classes are considered 

proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. Sites on the 

lower end of late seral (ratings in the 50’s) could be at risk of downward trends if receiving consistent heavy 

grazing use. 

The majority of these sites (81%) were found to be in mid seral condition, exhibiting the still lingering 

effects of the overgrazing and site deterioration that occurred prior to the more stringent grazing controls 

implemented in the mid-20th century. Improvement in conditions has since occurred in these areas, but is 

significantly restrained by the generally southern aspect, lower elevation, permanent soil loss/degradation, 

and corresponding susceptibility to exotic (and native) annual invasions. In addition, juniper densities on 

almost all sites are many times what they would have been with pre-settlement fire regimes. Currently, fire 

should be avoided in these areas due to an inclination towards dominance by exotic annuals. South Slope 

 Recommendations, Step 6 306 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

sites with at least high mid seral condition (45% rating or more) should be considered a high priority for 

juniper control, with areas in lesser condition being a lower priority due to the annual invasion problem. In 

areas that are mid seral, a low to moderate priority condition objective would be to improve significantly (>7 

percentage points rating increase) over the next 25-30 years. These sites have a relatively low response 

potential and positive change in the vegetation community would be expected to occur slowly. 

North Slopes 14-18" (0.1% of surveyed area) – This site was recorded at only one location in the Gerber 

Block and was determined to be in late seral condition. The existing plant community would be considered 

proper functioning with its continued maintenance an appropriate management objective. Juniper 

encroachment into these type areas would be considered a problem and was observed as such at the recorded 

site. This area, though small, would be considered at high priority for juniper control activities. 

Mahogany Communities (0.2% of surveyed area) 

All of these areas were found to be in late seral condition. Only minimal amounts of this site were 

specifically classified, though it is very commonly found as unclassified inclusions in pine and/or juniper 

communities. The existing plant communities that comprise the observed condition classes are considered 

proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. Juniper 

encroachment, however, is a critical problem in most mahogany areas and should be a high priority for 

juniper control activities. These sites will probably have a good response potential because of the relatively 

deep soils. 

3. Juniper Communities (totals 44.6% of surveyed area) 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" (15.3% of surveyed area) – This very common site in the south half of the Gerber 

Block, classified out with the widest spread of observed condition classes. This ecological site also accounts 

for the majority of the total early seral and non-pine, mid seral vegetation. Areas that are in late seral or PNC 

(58% of this sites classified acres) are considered proper functioning and continued maintenance would be an 

appropriate management objective. Mid seral areas (38%) are probably functional within the context of their 

current potential (see Step 5), though a low to moderate priority condition objective would be to improve 

significantly (>7 percentage points rating increase) over the next 25-30 years. 

Though this is a true juniper ecological site, increases in juniper density are a variable problem in most areas. 

Areas in high mid to low late seral (40-60% of PNC) should be considered moderate priority for non-burning 

juniper treatment activities to remove trees less than 100 years old. The preferred method for control would 

be hand cutting or mechanical shearing. In areas with higher condition ratings (>60%) juniper densification 

is less of a problem and is not likely – due to the low productivity – to get much worse very quickly; these 

areas should be considered a low priority for treatment. Prescribed burning should be avoided in all 

condition classes of this driest of the “old” juniper sites. Recent observations of prescribed burning activities 

done in a few high seral areas the past 5 years has indicated that burning leads to dramatic increases in annual 

exotic grasses with a commensurate decrease in native perennial grasses. 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" (23.8% of surveyed area) – This is the most common site in the central and northern 

portions of the Gerber Block, but is in much better overall condition than the above juniper site due to the 

slightly higher precipitation and more limited historical grazing misuse. Specifically, the majority (97%) of 

these areas were found to be in late seral or PNC condition. This ecological site accounts for 55% of the total 

PNC classified acres. The existing plant communities that comprise these observed condition classes are 

considered proper functioning and continued maintenance is an appropriate management objective. The 

limited amounts of mid seral are probably adequately functional and should be managed like described above 

for the mid seral Juniper Claypan (J-C) 12-16". Juniper encroachment is also similar to that described for the 

Recommendations, Step 6 307 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

J-C 12-16", though burning is less of an annual grass catalyst in the J-C 16-20" – especially above about 

4900’ elevation. Priorities for juniper control activities would be the same as noted for the J-C 12-16" above. 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" (1.6% of surveyed area) – This is the ecological site that comprises most of the 

Willow Valley Chaining in the southwest corner of the Gerber Block. This is the only area that this site was 

specifically classified in the analysis area. The chained and seeded area (59% of the classified acres) rated as 

“good” condition, i.e. late seral if the seeded grasses are included in the rating. The existing plant 

community is considered adequately functioning for a seeded area and continued maintenance of the seeded 

species (approximately 1/3 of the production) is an appropriate management objective. 

The rest of the classified acres were rated as mid seral and are the untreated native range areas outside the 

chaining/seeding. These areas have a decent late seral mix of plant species, but rated mid seral because of 

the previously discussed permanent degradation of conditions and potential (see Step 5). Relatively high 

densities of exotic annual grasses are also a condition depressant. A moderate priority condition objective for 

these mid seral native areas would be to at least maintain the current ecological numerical rating in the short 

term (<15 years) and improve significantly (>7 percentage points rating increase) over the next 25-30 years. 

Implicit in this is a reduction in the annual grasses, though such is hard to precisely measure due to wide 

production differences from year to year. This site is also susceptible to increased densities of juniper, 

though it is a true juniper potential ecological site. The juniper related recommendations for the above 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" are appropriate for this site. 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (0.3% of surveyed area) – This site is considered a rare, juniper 

dominated, pine-free version of the following site, which is much more abundant. No specific management 

recommendations are made for this site. 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" (3.6% of surveyed area) – All of the classified acres of this ecological site were 

found to be in late seral condition. The existing plant communities are considered proper functioning and 

continued maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. Juniper density increases in this site 

is a chronic problem and these areas should be considered a high priority for juniper control activities. 

Table 6-3 displays priority areas by Ecological Site for juniper. Table 6-4 displays a summary of risk 

potential, also by Ecological Site, associated with juniper treatment. 

4. Pine Communities (totals 20.9% of surveyed area) 

Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" (6.1% of surveyed area) – Virtually all (99+%) of this site classified as either 

late seral or PNC. The existing plant communities are considered proper functioning and continued 

maintenance would be an appropriate management objective. Juniper density increases within this site is 

also a chronic problem and is probably the primary cause of the diminishment of the mahogany component 

in many areas. These sites should be considered a high priority for juniper control activities. Since they are 

generally not old growth potential sites, all of the juniper should or could be removed. (Also see note 

below.) 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" (14.8% of surveyed area) – As noted in Step 5, this site classified almost equally 

between late seral and mid seral. However, all the mid seral communities had late seral plant species 

diversity, but were lacking adequate, non-tree production (see note that follows). Maintenance of the current 

ecological ratings would be considered an appropriate management objective. Juniper encroachment is not a 

particular factor in these sites, but where it occurs it would be a low to moderate priority for treatment. 

Both of the above pine sites have been the primary targets of the Resource Area’s prescribed burning 

program over the past decade. The primary ecological impact of this extensive burning has been a significant 

 Recommendations, Step 6 308 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

diminishment of the non-resprouting shrubs (most shrub species) - plants that appear to take 10-20 years to 

significantly re-establish. Pine site note: In addition, most of these sites have had some level of past timber 

harvest. This has also contributed to the decrease in the understory as a consequence of the timber harvest 

methods and post-harvest reclamation activities. Many of the pine stands have had both timber harvest and 

burning occur, which in combination, have pushed a large percentage of the Pine-Sedge-Fescue sites into the 

mid seral condition class. Unlike the juniper and sagebrush/bunchgrass areas, historic livestock grazing 

appears to have been a limited factor in the condition of the Pine sites. The majority of the areas classified in 

the two pine sites were estimated during the ESI to have upward trends. This was principally because postburning/harvest, the herbaceous and shrub understory species have nowhere to go but upward (i.e. increasing 

in diversity and abundance). Functionality of these sites is thought to be at least adequate with current 

management; see the Forest Upland Vegetation section for more information. 

Table 6-3. Relative Juniper Treatment Priorities by Ecological Site 

Current Conditions/Seral State 

Ecological Site Name PNC Late Mid Early 

Unmapped Riparian Areas* H H H H 

Dry Meadow H H H M-H 

Ephemeral Lakebed — — — — 

Semi-Wet Meadow — — — — 

Shallow Stony 10-20" L L L L 

Stony Claypan 14-20" L M M L 

Claypan 14-20" M M M M 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" M M M M-H 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" H H H M 

South Slopes 14-18" M H M-H M 

North Slopes 14-18" M H H M 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" L L-M L-M L 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" L L-M M L 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" M H M-H L-M 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" L H M-H L-M 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" M H H L-M 

Pine-Mahogany Fescue 16-20" M H H M 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" — L L-M L 

H = High Priority, M = Moderate Priority, L = Low Priority, Dashes = Not an issue or not present in Gerber Block 

*Unmapped riparian areas are riparian areas that did not have the ESI completed for them; ESI is more of an upland 

rangeland vegetation survey. However, any riparian area with invasive juniper would be very high priority for 

treatment and for continuity sake is included in this table. 

Ecological Sites in bold are the dominant communities which in combination make up 88.4% of the BLM lands in the 

Gerber Block. 

Recommendations, Step 6 309 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Table 6-4. Risk potential for significant (>30% of non-tree annual production) undesirable disturbance 

induced annual grass & forb invasion by Ecological Site. 

Current Condition/Seral State 

Ecological Site Name PNC Late Mid Early 

Dry Meadow L M* M-H* M-H 

Ephemeral Lakebed L L L M* 

Semi-Wet Meadow L L L M* 

Shallow Stony 10-20" M M M-H M-H 

Stony Claypan 14-20" L L L-M M 

Claypan 14-20" L L L-M M 

Claypan Bottom 12-18" L L L-M M 

Shrubby Loam 16-20" L L-M L-M** M-H** 

South Slopes 14-18" L-M L-M** M-H** M-H** 

North Slopes 14-18" L L L-M* M** 

Juniper Claypan 12-16" L-M** M-H** H** H** 

Juniper Claypan 16-20" L L L-M* M 

Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14" L-M** M-H** H** H** 

Juniper-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20" L L L-M** M** 

Juniper-Dry Pine 14-16" L L-M* M** M-H** 

Pine-Mahogany Fescue 16-20" L L-M* M* M-H 

Pine-Sedge-Fescue 16-24" L L-M* L-M* M* 

H = High Risk, M = Moderate Risk, L = Low Risk 

Ecological Sites in bold are the dominant communities which in combination make up 88.4% of the BLM lands in the 

Gerber Block. 

* In these ecological sites at this condition class, if treatment activities cause a high level of initial annual dominance
 

(>30% of non-tree production), annuals are likely to diminish relatively quickly with a cessation of the stressing factor,
 

i.e. the annuals will likely be quickly driven out by the desired perennial plants. Resiliency to annuals is a function of
 

higher effective precipitation in hand with elevated ecological condition. If an ecological site is already in late seral/
 

PNC and is “Low Risk” on annual invasion, it is not starred because annuals would be unlikely to gain a significant
 

foothold after disturbance due to the elevated ecological status prior to disturbance.
 

** Prescribed fire should be avoided in these sites/condition classes due to a high probability of persistent annual grass
 

and/or forb increases. (Annual invasion risk from disturbance from poor or inappropriate management practices, e.g.
 

chronic overgrazing, wild or prescribed fire in wrong place, off-road vehicle use.)
 

FS Administered Lands - Fremont National Forest 

Coordinate burning to increase forage quality and production for livestock and wildlife. Burn invading 

sagebrush and juniper to restore meadows and natural openings to approximate historic range of variability. 

Manage for mid to late seral non-forested upland communities when possible. Identify and prioritize areas of 

concern within the allotments and restore past degraded areas to healthy communities. Promote age diverse 

aspen stands. 

KNOWN DATA GAPS: 

• Information regarding browse effects on aspen stands. 

• Update current condition and trend vegetation monitoring plots. 

• Obtain ecological status information. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 310 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Noxious Weeds 

It is recommended to continue the implementation of the current noxious weed management programs using 

an integrated pest management approach on lands within the analysis area to contain or reduce noxious weed 

infestations and prevent the establishment of new invaders. Integrated pest management includes prevention, 

education, inventory, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and control which integrates manual, 

mechanical, chemical, and biological methods. On BLM lands within the analysis area, this approach is used 

in accordance with the Klamath Falls Resource Area Integrated Weed Control Plan (IWCP) and 

Environmental Assessment (EA)(OR-014-93-09), which is tiered to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed 

Control Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (December 1985) and Supplement (March 1987). 

In order to improve the coordination component of the integrated pest management approach to noxious 

weed management, it is recommended that landowners within the analysis area form a cooperative Weed 

Management Area (WMA). Participants in the WMA will be able to more efficiently implement the other 

components of an integrated weed management approach through coordination of efforts across ownership 

boundaries. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species 

Oregon/Washington BLM special status species policy for Bureau sensitive species states that BLM Districts 

will protect, manage and conserve those species and their habitats such that any Bureau action will not 

contribute to the need to list any of these species. Similar policy for Forest Service sensitive species is 

contained in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670). Oregon/Washington BLM special status species policy 

for Bureau tracking species states that Districts are encouraged to collect occurrence data on species for 

which more information is needed to determine status within the state or which no longer need active 

management. 

A conservation strategy for the long-bearded mariposa lily (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) 

produced by the Winema National Forest in 1995 recommended that all populations be protected from 

ground disturbing human activities, including ground based timber harvest and construction of roads and fire 

lines. However, fire may have a role in maintaining populations of this species, therefore it is recommended 

that the effects of prescribed fire on this species be monitored. Anecdotal evidence indicates that grazing 

may have direct impacts on this species. Therefore, it is recommended that the impacts of grazing be 

monitored, and that grazing systems be designed to minimize this impact. 

A conservation assessment for Baker’s globe mallow (Iliamna bakeri) produced by the Fremont National 

Forest in 2000 summarizes evidence that this species is adapted to frequent fire. Therefore, it is 

recommended that fire be introduced into the habitat of this species, and that the effects of fire be 

documented. The conservation strategy also summarizes anecdotal evidence that grazing may have direct 

impacts on this species. Therefore, the impacts of grazing should be documented, and grazing systems 

should be designed to minimize this impact. A small exclosure around one of the newly documented 

populations on BLM lands is planned as a first step in the documentation of the effects of grazing. 

A conservation strategy for blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus) summarizes evidence that this 

species is adapted to fire as a natural disturbance in the lodgepole pine forest type. Therefore, it is 

recommended that fire be introduced into the habitat of this species, and that the effects of fire be 

documented. Planned prescribed fires in the Yainax Butte ACEC, which contains the population of blueleaved penstemon in the analysis area, will help to implement this recommendation. 

Recommendations, Step 6 311 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Not much is known about the habitat requirements and biology of profuse-flowered mesa mint (Pogogyne 

floribunda), or other species associated with the vernal pool habitat of know populations. A Challenge Cost 

Share (CCS) has been funded to evaluate the known populations and habitats in Oregon and compare that 

information to what is known about populations in California. It is recommended to follow any conservation 

provisions included in the final report for this project. 

Fringed campion (Silene nuda ssp. insectivora) is a tracking species for BLM, therefore no species 

conservation measures are required other than documentation of occurrence. Similarly, it is not listed as a 

sensitive species by the Forest Service. However, it is recommended that populations be protected from 

ground disturbing human activities when possible. 

Special Areas 

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation for BLM lands highlights an area where 

special management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural or scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes; or to protect human 

life and safety from natural hazards. It is recommended that land management actions within ACECs follow 

the special management direction established in the Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area 

Research Natural Areas (RNA’s) are designated to preserve and protect examples of relatively undisturbed 

biological communities and the ecological processes that support those communities. These areas are 

available for short- or long-term scientific study, research, and education, and serve as a baseline against 

which human impacts on natural systems can be measured. It is recommended that the Goodlow Mountain 

Research Natural Area be available for education and research on the ponderosa pine forest and transition to 

sagebrush steppe characteristic of south-central Oregon, and that management actions serve to maintain or 

restore this remnant of undisturbed natural vegetation communities. 

Special botanical areas were designated to protect, maintain, and/or restore specific botanical habitat values. 

Gap fencing around the Bumpheads Special Botanical Area has been installed to protect the relatively 

undisturbed bunchgrass/shrub plant community as recommended in the Resource Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Klamath Falls Resource Area. No further management is necessary 

at this time. 

Fire and Fuels 

It is recommended that the current fuels management direction be continued without change, or expanded, to 

achieve a more natural (historic) vegetative community consistent with other resource objectives. The 

following recommendations should be the basis for continuing ecological restoration efforts in the BLM 

Gerber Block, through fuels management treatments that lead to the reintroduction of a natural fire regime 

(adapted from Allen, 2002). Methods of treatment should be selected through an interdisciplinary process 

and site-specific analysis. 

•	 Reduce the risk of conflagration. The initial treatments should be planned to reduce the risk of 

destructive, stand-replacing wildfire. First priority must be given to human safety for firefighters and 

the public, and second priority would be protecting the land from devastation. 

•	 Restore ecological processes. The goal of fuels management is to restore the natural disturbance
 

regime, which includes restoring a regular cycle of surface fires to the landscape. Mechanical
 

 Recommendations, Step 6 312 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

thinning alone will not meet this goal, but may be used in combination with prescribed fire to avoid 

unacceptable harm. 

•	 Recognize the variability of the landscape. When planning prescribed fire and fuels treatments, 

incorporate the natural variability of disturbance regimes on different vegetation and topography in the 

Gerber Block. Vary treatments to sustain natural resilience to disturbance events. 

•	 Prioritize treatment areas. Use the principles in the National Fire Plan (USDA & USDI 2000); 

Juniper Control: Suggested Area Selection Criteria (Lindsey 2001); and the Fire Management EA 

(USDI 1995) to prioritize treatment efforts. Key criteria are: degree of risk to functioning ecosystems, 

proximity to human developments and private land, enhancement potential for wildlife species and 

hydrologic resources, ability to attain natural functioning conditions, breaking continuity of hazardous 

fuels, and economic feasibility. 

•	 Protect sensitive and unique communities and values. Protect ecological communities that could be 

adversely affected by mechanical treatments or prescribed burning, such as unique wildlife/fish 

habitat, riparian resources, or small inclusions of distinct vegetation types within a larger ecotype. 

Protect sensitive species of flora and fauna, and avoid damage to cultural resources. Retain large and 

old trees, snags, and logs from the effects of fuels treatments. 

•	 Use multiple actions to achieve a natural maintenance function. Generally, three treatments are 

thought to be necessary to attain a functioning fire-resistant stand, within the natural range of 

variability. Although each patch requires site-specific planning and may vary from this general rule, 

multiple entries are usually needed to avoid intense, destructive fires that result in negative resource 

outcomes. Mechanical treatments may be used first, in sensitive areas or to avoid conflagration. 

•	 Restore historic vegetation communities. Where fire suppression has allowed fire-intolerant tree 

species like juniper, white fir, annual grasses and noxious weeds to invade historically fire-adapted 

forests and rangelands, fire treatments should set a trend toward the traditional species composition. 

Natural regeneration processes should be incorporated into the treatment schedule. 

•	 Assess cumulative effects. Fuels management efforts will impact thousands of acres every year, for 

many decades, until maintenance levels are reached. Other management efforts will continue to 

impact BLM lands in the Gerber Block, and the surrounding private and public lands are undergoing 

changes at the same time. Cumulative effects must be assessed on a continuing basis. 

•	 Plan treatments to minimize spread of exotic species and noxious weeds. Use best management 

practices to avoid spreading weeds by mechanical equipment, fire impacts, or hydrology. Plan burning 

and follow-up treatments to mitigate the spread of exotic annual grasses and forbs. 

•	 Protect sensitive areas such as riparian zones from premature grazing pressure. Where possible, defer 

livestock grazing after fire treatments until the herbaceous layer has fully recovered (2-3 years). This 

would require blocking up fuels treatments within certain grazing pastures, rather than scatter the 

treatments throughout the entire allotment. 

•	 Implement adaptive management. Ecological restoration is an incremental process that may take a 

century or two to fully achieve. Restoration will be most successful where land managers learn from 

actual treatment experiences and adaptively adjust their approaches through time. 

•	 Establish monitoring and cooperative research programs. The KFRA—RMP stipulates that 20% of 

resource area projects must be monitored to assure that management recommendations and constraints 

have been met, and numerous monitoring points have been set up in the Gerber Block. There should 

be a long-term commitment to monitoring as the key to adaptive management. There are also 

occasionally opportunities for cooperative research on fuels treatments that can be incorporated for 

more specific information. 

Recommendations, Step 6 313 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

USFS - Forest-wide Standards for Fire Protection 

•	 Provide and execute a fire protection and fire use program that is cost-efficient, and responsive to 

land and resource management goals and objectives. 

•	 All wildfire will receive an appropriate suppression response, utilizing a stategy of confine, contain, 

or control. 

•	 Wildfires that threaten life, property, public safety, improvements, or investments will receive 

aggressive suppression action using a control strategy. 

•	 Prescribed fire will be considered for use in meeting management objectives in areas where
 

ecological studies show that fire has played a significant role in ecosystem development.
 

USFS - Best Management Practices for Fire Suppression and Fuels Management 

•	 F-1. Fire and Fuels Management activities. 

•	 F-2. Consideration of water quality in formulating prescribed fire prescriptions. 

•	 F-3. Protection of water quality during prescribed fire operations. 

•	 F-4. Minimizing watershed damage from fire suppression efforts. 

•	 F-5. Repair or stabilization of fire suppression related watershed damage. 

•	 F-6. Emergency rehabilitation of watersheds following wildfires. 

III. Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

General 

•	 Reduce juniper/conifer encroachment into historical timber, aspen, shrub and grassland habitats. 

•	 Create a mosaic of overstory and understory age classes by treating (prescribed burning, mechanical, 

etc.) approximately 3% per year over the next 30 years. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

Bald Eagle 

•	 Continue to protect known nest sites and potential nesting habitat with limited operating seasons and 

restrictions in place. 

•	 Continue to monitor and survey for eagles and eagle habitat, and support other agencies or
 

organizations in efforts to study eagles and their habitat.
 

•	 Maintain existing and culture mature trees within one mile of lakes and reservoirs to sustain existing 

and provide future nesting trees for bald eagles. 

•	 Use prescribed burning, road management, and mechanical treatments including commercial and 

precommercial thinning to establish preferred nest/roost tree or stand characteristics and enhance prey 

base habitats to increase prey populations. 

•	 Consider installing artificial nesting platforms in areas that lack suitable bald eagle nesting structure. 

•	 Consider enhancing fish populations in areas frequently used by bald eagles for forging. 

American Peregrine Falcon 

•	 Protect known and potential nesting habitat (cliffs) with limited operating seasons within 1⁄4 mile of 

nests. 

•	 Continue to monitor and survey for peregrines and peregrine habitat, and support other agencies or 

organizations in efforts to study falcons and their habitat. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 314 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

•	 Conduct periodic surveys for peregrine falcon activity at identified cliff sites especially if activities are 

proposed in the area. If peregrine nesting activity is identified, initiate a peregrine falcon management 

area plan to protect and enhance nesting, foraging and security habitats. Consider mechanical 

treatments, prescribed fire, road closures and activity restrictions to protect and enhance habitats 

(USFS, 2000). 

Northwestern pond turtle (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) 

•	 Specific surveys directed toward presence/absence of pond turtles and documentation of suitable
 

habitat need to be implemented.
 

•	 Stream and adjacent riparian restorations and enhancements will likely increase the potential for pond 

turtles to occur within the watersheds. 

•	 Continue to monitor and survey for pond turtles and pond turtle habitat, and support other agencies or 

organizations in efforts to study northwestern pond turtles and their habitat. 

Bats 

•	 There is a lack of information on bats within the analysis area. Surveys to determine a species list, 

distribution, preferred habitats/microhabitats and abundance should be conducted. 

•	 Support other agencies or organizations in efforts to study bats and their habitat. 

•	 Roosting and maternal colony sites should be identified and protected, or even constructed. 

•	 As stated in the KFRA/RMP, protection of snags and live trees suitable for roosting should be
 

implemented with bats considered.
 

•	 Cliffs, caves and other rock structures, buildings and other structures used by bats should be protected. 

•	 In areas where structure is lacking, installing artificial structures should be considered. Bridges and 

signs can also be modified to improve bat habitat. 

Great Gray Owl (BLM Survey and Manage Species, State Sensitive Vulnerable in Oregon) 

•	 Specific surveys directed toward presence/absence of great gray owls and documentation of suitable 

habitat need to be implemented. 

•	 Retain or create large snags as nesting habitat, especially broken top snags and trees containing
 

cavities large enough to be suitable for great gray owls.
 

•	 Maintain openings and reduce juniper/conifer encroachment into meadows. 

Big Game 

•	 Maintain visual screening cover along roads. 

•	 Maintain and enforce current winter range road closure plans and consider monitoring affects of
 

closures on big game populations.
 

•	 Manage forage, cover, and road densities on mule deer and elk ranges to provide habitat conditions 

necessary to meet Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Klamath Tribe herd 

objectives over the long term. 

•	 Design forest thinning treatments to provide a variety of spacing conditions, including patch cuts to 

increase forage and no cut or minimal cut leave patches of dense structure. Treated stands should 

retain an interspersion of cover and forage where leave patches intended to provide thermal and/or 

hiding cover are 2 - 26 acres in size (Hershey 1997). 

•	 A reduction in hiding cover will occur for deer and elk with loss of shrubs, seedling/saplings and 

reductions in understories from prescribed burning and understory thinnings, prescriptions should be 

designed to minimize these effects. Treatments will provide early successional plant communities 

beneficial to foraging deer and elk. 

Recommendations, Step 6 315 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

•	 Manage road densities on all seasonal big game ranges to meet the 2.5 miles/square mile, or less, 

standard in the Fremont LRMP. On BLM land, manage road densities on all seasonal big game ranges 

to meet the 1.5 miles/square mile, or less, standard in the Klamath Falls Resource Area RMP. 

•	 In areas where water supply is deemed to be a limiting factor in big game populations, cistern, guzzler 

and/or pond-type impoundment installation should be considered. 

•	 Maintain the quantity and quality of edge habitat. Use prescribed fire and selective thinning to 

maintain or enhance edge habitat. In existing small burns and regeneration harvest units (<80 acres), 

maintain 1 to 25 acre forage patches on sites near the edge of units. In more extensive burn areas, 

maintain 1 to 40 acre forage patches in a mosaic (Hershey 1997). Priority areas for treatment include 

those sites where shrubby forage species are decadent, forage productivity has declined because of an 

increase in forest cover, and/or preferred forage species occur. These openings will help maintain 

early seral foraging habitat for a longer period of time during forest stand development. 

•	 Reduce thinning slash and stem density where herbaceous and woody understory plant growth is
 

limited. Emphasize hand piling or burning treatment where appropriate and limit mechanical
 

treatments where soil objectives are a concern.
 

•	 Consider forage seeding of obliterated roads, skid trails, and landings to increase the forage base. Use 

prescribed fire and manual or mechanical treatments to increase the quality, quantity, and species 

diversity of foraging habitat. 

•	 Monitor mule deer and elk habitat conditions within high use areas to determine the most appropriate 

fire return interval. 

Mule Deer 

•	 Reduce juniper/conifer encroachment in shrub areas and meadows. Create a mosaic of brush age 

classes by burning and/or mechanically or manually treating approximately 3% per year over the next 

30 years. 

•	 A combination of treatments and protection of existing habitat features will provide forage and cover 

in a more favorable ratio, while reductions in road densities will increase security and make available 

more acres of useable habitat. The potential exists for declines in mule deer populations as habitat is 

treated with prescribed fire and/or mechanical understory treatments. These treatments will reduce 

cover, shrubby forage densities, and effective habitat, but will improve shrub age-class diversity, 

herbaceous forage, tree and plant vigor and productivity over the long term. 

Elk 

•	 Maintain openings and reduce juniper/conifer encroachment into meadows. 

•	 Identify areas of elk concentration and implement seasonal road closures to minimize disturbance to 

elk populations. 

•	 Elk foraging habitat will increase with increases in grasses and herbaceous species. A corresponding 

increase in elk population numbers can be expected. 

Pronghorn 

•	 Improve the quality and quantity of sagebrush-steppe habitat by reducing juniper/conifer
 

encroachment.
 

•	 Consider modifying grazing programs to benefit pronghorn populations and monitoring to analyze 

effects. 

•	 Manage and consider water spreaders as important pronghorn habitat. 

•	 Use pronghorn friendly fences and fencing strategies whenever possible. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 316 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Late/Old Successional (LOS) Forest Habitats
 

•	 In all stands of ponderosa pine and pine associated forest, design future timber harvest treatments to 

maintain or restore snags and green replacement trees. 

•	 Manage snags and green tree replacements in dispersed clumps rather than individual trees uniformly 

scattered over the landscape. Manage snags and green replacement trees in the same species 

composition as is represented in the stand. Retain spike- topped and lightning-scarred trees to provide 

alternate nesting substrates. 

•	 In snag deficient areas, where feasible and appropriate, create snags from live trees. Implement top 

blasting, top girdling, and/or inoculants to create snags. Consider using bat slits/flanges, mimicking 

lightning strikes and creating sap wells and cavities in created snags and existing hard snags to 

enhance snag habitat features and increase wildlife use. 

•	 Culture green tree replacements in early and mid-seral stands to develop future large diameter snags at 

the desired species composition and distribution for the full stand rotation. 

•	 Many wildlife species rely on moderate to high levels of down logs and snags for nesting, roosting and 

feeding. Large down logs are a common and important habitat component of LOS forest habitats. 

Past management activities have greatly reduced the number and availability of snags and down logs 

in managed stands. Protect down logs and snags with fuel breaks and/or burn prescription where 

necessary to maintain the desired densities and size classes when implementing prescribed burn 

treatments. 

•	 Lighting direction should specify avoidance of clumps of snags and down logs. Where case hardened 

logs result from burn treatments or wildfire, mechanically cut slits in logs or cut logs in half to 

improve habitat for wildlife use. This is especially critical in pileated woodpecker foraging areas, 

goshawk areas, and riparian areas (USFS, 2000). 

•	 To improve connectivity over time, designate stands that will be managed to become LOS between 

currently designated old growth patches. Locate new potential LOS stands approximately halfway 

between existing designated patches. Actively manage these habitat types to reduce the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire. 

•	 Maintain or restore the abundance and distribution of large diameter live trees, large diameter snags, 

and large down logs in all forested stands. To accelerate the development of large diameter trees, 

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments should be implemented where appropriate to thin 

overstocked stands. Retention and recruitment of large trees should be a priority in stands dominated 

by younger age classes (USFS, 2000). 

•	 Implement mechanical and prescribed burning treatments to: reduce stand densities, thin overstocked 

understories, reduce accumulated duff, culture patches of non-uniform multi-storied pine understories 

and large diameter trees, future snags and down logs. 

Northern Goshawk 

•	 Manage to protect active and historic nest stands and treat replacement nest stands and foraging areas 

to develop and/or restore preferred habitat conditions for goshawk nesting and rearing and to provide 

prey species habitat needs. 

•	 Continue to conduct specific surveys directed toward presence/absence of northern goshawks and 

documentation of suitable habitat. 

•	 Continue to protect known nest sites and potential nesting habitat with limited operating seasons and 

restrictions in place. 

•	 Try to coordinate vegetation treatments that are designed to meet goshawk habitat needs with 

treatments designed to meet other objectives (i.e. improve sustainability, hydrologic function, stand 

diversity, etc.). 

•	 Prescribed fire should be utilized where it is possible to return the disturbance regime to a frequent fire 

return interval. Once stands are stable, use prescribed underburns on a periodic schedule to maintain 

Recommendations, Step 6 317 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

structure. Retain younger ponderosa pine within classic bounds of upper and lower management 

limits. 

•	 In stands with overstocked understories and high fuel loadings, thin from below with variable or nonuniform spacing using mechanical/manual treatments and/or prescribed fire to promote large tree 

growth, crown development, understory herb and shrub development, and open stand conditions for 

hunting and prey availability. Lop and scatter slash that cannot be burned. 

American Marten 

•	 Determine/verify marten presence/absence in the watershed on a project by project basis, or through 

yearly monitoring activities. 

•	 Manage for a higher basal area of large diameter fir (>15" dbh) in true mixed conifer plant 

associations where occupied or suspected marten habitat occurs. Canopy closures in forest stands 

where occupation is evident should be managed at > 40%. 

•	 Maintain or restore an abundance of large diameter snags as potential den sites (USFS, 2000). 

Consider managing large down wood in occupied habitat at levels recommended in recent literature 

(Quigley et al, 1997). 

Pileated Woodpecker 

•	 Determine/verify pileated woodpecker presence/absence in the watershed on a project by project basis, 

or through yearly monitoring activities. 

•	 Manage for a higher basal area of large diameter fir (>15" dbh) in true mixed conifer plant 

associations where occupied and historic pileated woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat occurs. 

Canopy closures in forest stands where foraging or occupation is evident should be managed at > 

60%. 

•	 Maintain or restore an abundance of large diameter snags as potential nesting trees (USFS, 2000). 

Consider managing large down wood in occupied habitat at levels recommended in recent literature 

(Quigley et al, 1997). 

Black-backed/White-headed Woodpecker 

•	 Manage for retention of snags with bark intact. Maintain snag numbers during salvage activities in 

ponderosa pine stands (USFS, 2000). 

•	 Determine/verify woodpecker presence/absence in the watersheds on a project-by-project basis, or 

through yearly monitoring activities. 

•	 Consider managing snags in pine habitats where black-backed woodpecker activity is evident at levels 

recommended in recent literature (Quigley et al, 1997). 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe Habitat 

General 

•	 Restore sagebrush and other shrub habitats. 

•	 Reduce competition by removing junipers and/or conifers in order to achieve a more historic level of 

sagebrush steppe composition. Reduce or remove decadent shrubs to allow better regeneration and 

lower wildfire risk by prescribed burning, slashbusting or mowing. 

•	 Plant and/or seed sagebrush and other shrub species to restore historic sagebrush areas. 

•	 When prescribed burning is used as treatment, the risk of invasion by noxious weeds such as cheat 

grass should be seriously considered. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 318 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Western Sage Grouse 

•	 Continue sage grouse surveys and monitoring. 

•	 Reduce juniper encroachment into historical sage grouse habitat. Create a mosaic of sagebrush age 

classes by treating approximately 3% per year over the next 30 years. Increase/improve grass/forb/ 

shrub potential for sage grouse by implementing grazing practices that will retain seed in historical 

sage grouse habitat. 

•	 Manage and consider water spreaders as important sage grouse habitat. 

•	 Design treatments to leave a mosaic of treated and untreated islands of sagebrush, establish a variety 

of sagebrush seral stages to meet the entire life cycle needs of sage grouse, and reduce conifer 

encroachment into sagebrush habitats (USFS, 2000). 

•	 Consider possible sage grouse reintroduction if needed. 

Pygmy Rabbit (Federal Species of Concern; Bureau Assessment Species in Oregon) 

•	 Pygmy rabbit surveys should be conducted to detect individuals and burrow systems. Suitable and 

marginal habitat should be examined in order to document presence. 

•	 Big sage clumps and stringers and adjacent deeper soil habitats should be protected and maintained. 

•	 Reseed/plant big sagebrush in burned big sagebrush areas that were historically pygmy rabbit habitat. 

Protect seeded areas from livestock grazing for several years until sagebrush is established or adjust 

grazing levels to allow recovery. 

•	 Protect sagebrush on floodplains and where high water tables allow for growth of tall, dense stands. 

Terrestrial Species Associated with Aspen/Riparian Habitat 

General 

•	 Management actions should be directed toward maintaining and increasing amount and vigor of aspen/ 

riparian habitat. (See specific recommendations in “Forested Uplands” and “Grazing” sub-sections.) 

•	 Actual replanting of aspen may be used in certain situations if needed. 

•	 Fencing of riparian areas should be considered if other active or passive restoration efforts are not 

meeting objectives. 

Red-naped/Red-breasted Sapsucker 

•	 Verify the location and condition, and map aspen stands where necessary on a project by project basis 

or through yearly monitoring activities throughout the watershed. Manage for more acres of aspen 

habitat than presently exists on the landscape to help move the diversity and distribution of deciduous 

plant communities toward the historic range of variability. Where appropriate implement small patch 

regeneration treatments to restore stands of shade intolerant deciduous species such as alder, willow, 

aspen, and dogwood. 

•	 Manage aspen stands to maintain the dominance of aspen stems in both the mature and early seral 

stages. Mature stands in poor condition will receive priority for treatment. Converted stands will be 

protected from cattle grazing and ungulate browsing if necessary utilizing a variety of techniques. 

Livestock grazing of aspen suckers will be controlled where necessary until regeneration is a minimum 

4-6' tall to insure stand replacement within 5 years of treatment. 

•	 Manage mixed aspen stands to maintain at least the present basal area ratio of aspen in the stand. 

•	 Implement mechanical and/or prescribed fire treatments to promote suckering in mature aspen clones 

that are without adequate replacement stems and still support a root system capable of responding to 

treatment. 

Recommendations, Step 6 319 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

•	 Plant aspen where relic mature/decadent trees indicate site conditions are favorable for aspen 

establishment and growth. 

Beaver 

•	 There is a lack of information on historic and current beaver activity. Impacts and affects of bank 

denning should be studied. 

•	 Verify extent of active and historic beaver activity in the watershed on a project by project basis or 

through yearly monitoring activities. Document conditions of identified sites and determine the sites’ 

ability to support beaver occupation. Specific protocols should be implemented to determine site 

suitability for beavers. 

•	 Maintain and restore beaver habitat, deciduous and herbaceous forage species, and water availability 

near active and historic colony sites where these factors may be limiting re-colonization or 

productivity. Coordinate with hydrology, fisheries, and range programs to increase water levels in 

riparian areas where downcutting has occurred. 

•	 Implement a multi-year beaver transplant program in areas of potential and/or formerly occupied 

habitat where adequate herbaceous and deciduous forage exists for colony establishment. Multiple 

transplants over several years may be necessary for beaver to successfully restore habitat conditions to 

allow for yearlong occupancy. 

•	 Manage livestock stocking rates, season-of-use, and grazing schemes to maintain or restore deciduous 

and herbaceous forage species and water availability near active and historic colony sites. The same 

limits should be administered within riparian and shrub communities where the potential for beaver 

habitat exists in watershed drainages. 

Other Terrestrial Species 

General 

•	 Use vegetation treatments to enhance shrub-steppe, meadow, riparian and open forest habitats. 

•	 Design treatments in shrub-steppe habitats to minimize loss of winter and security cover by leaving a 

mosaic of burned and unburned islands, to establish a variety of seral stages, and to reduce juniper/ 

conifer encroachment. 

•	 Design treatments in riparian habitats to stimulate deciduous and herbaceous species production and to 

reduce juniper/conifer encroachment. 

•	 Design treatments in forested habitats to increase open forest habitat while providing for a diversity of 

healthy, forested habitats across the landscape. 

Herptiles 

•	 Continue implementation of specific surveys directed toward presence/absence of herptiles and
 

documentation of suitable/critical habitat.
 

•	 Consider active or passive bullfrog management. 

•	 Identify and protect potential hibernacula and denning areas. 

Osprey 

•	 Continue to protect known nest sites and potential nesting habitat with limited operating seasons and 

restrictions in place. 

•	 Continue to monitor and survey for osprey and osprey habitat, and support other agencies or
 

organizations in efforts to study osprey and their habitat.
 

•	 Maintain existing and culture mature trees within one mile of lakes and reservoirs to provide existing 

and future nesting trees for osprey. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 320 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

•	 Consider installing artificial nesting platforms or topping trees to create nesting structure. 

Landbirds 

•	 Continue to monitor and survey for landbirds and landbird habitat, and support other agencies or
 

organizations in efforts to study landbirds and their habitat.
 

•	 Continue to conduct specific surveys directed toward presence/absence of landbirds and
 

documentation of suitable habitat need to be implemented.
 

•	 Use various types of landbird surveys to help identify critical or important habitats that need
 

management and/or protection.
 

•	 Reduce juniper encroachment into historical shrub, grassland and meadow habitats. Create a mosaic of 

age classes by burning/machine treating approximately 3% per year over the next 30 years. 

IV. Human Uses 

Timber 

Thinning treatments in forests and woodlands will generate large volumes of generally small material. To the 

extent that markets allow, this material should be made available to private operators for use as lumber, 

firewood, posts, poles, chips for pulpwood, biomass for energy production, or any other useable wood 

product. Service contracts including provisions for sale of commercial products would be a useful tool for 

such stand treatments. 

Grazing 

BLM Administered Lands - (The “Gerber Block”) - Recommendations will be made on an allotment 

specific basis since that is the scale at which grazing management is authorized and controlled, i.e. through 

the allotment specific grazing permit or lease. Though allotments may have a topographic or hydrologic 

break comprising a portion of its defined boundary, fencing is by far the most common (and effective) 

boundary-defining feature. Actual grazing management changes are required to be made via grazing 

decisions or agreements, as specified under the grazing regulations at 43 CFR Part 4100. 

“J” Spring Allotment (0803) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The current season of use and grazing level is not detrimental and is maintaining or 

enhancing the already elevated ecological conditions found on the allotment. The 5 Oregon/Washington 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management are currently being met 

on the allotment. 

Monitoring: The combination of low priority status and existing good vegetation conditions on this allotment 

implies that intensive rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. It is recommended, however, that a 

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at the 

same field location that the October 2000 Summary Worksheet was completed. This includes retaking the 

view photos. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would 

help provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this 

allotment’s resource importance. 

Recommendations, Step 6 321 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Paddock Allotment (0844) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The current season of use and grazing level is not detrimental and is maintaining or 

enhancing the already elevated ecological conditions found on the allotment. The 5 Oregon/Washington 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management are currently being met 

on the allotment. One exception to the maintenance of status quo is that an alternating grazing season (i.e. 

spring use one year, fall use the next) may be of some resource utility – or at least benign - and has been 

suggested by the grazing permittee. While not a mandatory management action, this option may be explored 

in the near future as it could help improve conditions on the small mid-seral Pine-Sedge-Fescue area and 

possibly help the conditions of the small meadow in the extreme southeast corner of the allotment. In 

addition, if the conditions in the meadow do not exhibit adequate improvement over time, several options 

could be implemented individually or in combination, as follows: 

-Construct one or two small reservoirs/catchments on the extreme western side of the allotment. 

These could potentially provide adequate enough water to substantially draw the cattle away from the 

meadow and to the uplands. (Note: These two reservoirs are being pursued with the grazing permittee at the 

time of this analysis preparation.) 

-The other option would be to fence the BLM meadow separately as a small riparian pasture, with 

the grazing use dependent on the speed of improvement desired. 

Monitoring: This allotments’ combination of low priority status and existing good vegetation conditions 

implies that intensive rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. It is recommended, however, that a 

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at the 

same field location that the October 2000 Summary Worksheet was completed. This includes retaking the 

view photos. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would 

help provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this 

allotment’s resource importance.

 In addition, the general grazing/vegetation status of the small meadow in the extreme southeast corner of the 

allotment should be periodically field checked (i.e. every 2-3 years) to ensure that conditions are not 

deteriorating, though that is an unlikely occurrence with the relatively new fencing. The establishment of a 

long-term photo point in this meadow would be useful and is recommended, dependent on workload and 

other priorities. 

Yainax Allotment (0861) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The Yainax Butte CRMP was revised in recent years and appears to be largely 

followed and functioning. However, the BLM administered lands are an extremely minor component (~6%) 

of the overall area and the grazing is administered primarily by the USFS. The current grazing season of use 

and levels appear to be appropriate based on current information and monitoring. As noted in Step 5, the 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for this allotment is scheduled for completion in 2003 and not as 

part of this analysis. The resource information and analyses in this document will be a major reference when 

preparing that Assessment. 

Monitoring: As an “M” category allotment, this allotment has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan 

and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be followed. This includes utilization readings 

(points and/or pattern mapping) every 3-5 years and the re-taking of the photo trend point every five years. 

In addition, it is recommended that a Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet(s) be prepared for 

this allotment during the late summer or fall of 2002. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM 

 Recommendations, Step 6 322 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Technical Reference 1734-6 and would provide ecological and watershed function information for the 

Assessment. It could also provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems and potentially help 

point out if more monitoring studies are needed. Due to the fragmented nature of this allotment, two 

Evaluation Worksheets may need to be prepared to properly represent the allotments vegetative diversity. 

This would include one evaluation on or around Yainax Butte and one in the extreme western portion of the 

allotment in the Mud Spring area. 

Bear Valley Allotment (0876) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted from the Management Recommendations section of the Bear 

Valley Assessment. Since this was a recently completed Assessment, no additional management actions are 

proposed at this time. 

“The current grazing system is designed for livestock use of the Bear Valley allotment after use on the 

Willow Valley allotment. As mentioned (in the Assessment), the current operators have permits for both 

allotments. The current season of use of 7/1 to 8/7 has maintained or improved the mainly late seral to PNC 

conditions on the allotment. However, with the large amount of private land in the allotment, there are some 

management concerns/options that should be addressed. Currently, there is no exchange-of-use grazing 

authorization for the approximately 4780 acres of private land within the allotment. The livestock utilize 

these private lands since they are not fenced separate from the federal lands. When combined with the 5018 

acres of federal land, the current allocation of 475 AUMs spread over 9798 acres results in about 21 acres/ 

AUM. This stocking rate has resulted in the current good to excellent conditions on the allotment. Any 

future requests for exchange-of-use allocations for this private land would have to be weighed against these 

facts. Allocation of additional AUMs would likely result in increased utilization levels and a trend toward 

degraded conditions on both the private and federal lands. In addition, if substantial portions of these lands 

were to be fenced separate from the federal lands, an evaluation of the carrying capacity of the remaining 

available lands would need to be done. 

The Bear Valley Flat pasture is primarily private land owned by John Anderson. This area is predominantly a 

flooded playa that holds water through most of the spring and into the early summer. In the late summer, the 

water level subsides and the area is a wet meadow site dominated by Eleocharis species. This allows for 

livestock use during this period. Past use on this pasture has been made in late August and early September, 

outside of the prescribed use period for the allotment. With the majority of the grazed area being private, it is 

recommended that the season of use for this pasture be from mid August to mid September. The billing for 

this pasture should be based upon percent Federal range using 15% for the BLM portion. 

The current season-of-use on the North and South pastures of 7/1-8/7 with the alternating first pasture should 

be maintained. A 5-10 day flexibility on either end of this period to allow for the variations in annual forage 

conditions and the needs of the operators should be included. 

Juniper treatment projects should be pursued on the ecological sites where the increase in juniper will have a 

negative effect on the plant and animal communities. The highest priority areas would be the PineMahogany-Fescue and the Juniper-Dry Pine sites where the juniper increase is starting to cause a decrease in 

the shrub component. 

The existing range improvements are in good functioning condition. Some juniper treatment could be done 

above the developed spring sites to improve flow. The exterior allotment fences are getting to an age where 

replacement will be needed in the next 5-10 years.” 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment, this allotment has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan 

and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be followed. This includes utilization readings 

Recommendations, Step 6 323 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

(points and/or pattern mapping, Cole Browse) every other year, the re-taking of the photo trend point and 

reading of the frequency trend plot every five years, re-reading the Key Area Condition study as necessary, 

and the reading of the riparian photo points. 

Bumpheads Allotment (0877) 

Grazing Management: 

1. The short section of Antelope Creek that is in the allotment should be fenced to exclude livestock if 

riparian conditions cannot be improved through the current management. 

2. Juniper control projects should be implemented in areas of the allotment where the density of young (less 

than 100 years old) junipers is negatively affecting the native shrubs and grasses. 

3. Utilization studies have shown mainly light to moderate use levels throughout most of the allotment. The 

current pasture rotation that alternates the use periods between the two pastures should be continued. 

4. From the monitoring data it is evident that the west part of the allotment, especially the area below the 

rim, is in poor vegetative condition. As part of the grazing management, livestock should be pushed to the 

east part of the allotment in an attempt to decrease the use in this west part. However, it is highly likely that 

this portion of the allotment does not have the current potential for the vegetation to restore to PNC, or 

possibly even later seral. 

Monitoring: The current monitoring studies should continue on the allotment. Frequency Trend studies from 

the sites in the west part of the allotment will be reread in the next 3-4 years. These will give good 

information on the direction that the vegetation is headed. Use mapping on the west end of the allotment 

below the rim should be done. This area is hard to get to due to the need for access through private land. 

With the less than good conditions in this area, it is important to get a good feel for the utilization being 

made. 

Campbell Allotment (0878) 

Grazing Management: The current licensed livestock grazing in this allotment is for 37 horses, which 

includes the Exchange-of-Use for the intermingled private land. From field observations, it appears that 

cattle are making some limited use with little sign of horse use. This has not resulted in any resource 

concerns, but the permit may need to be reviewed and changed if cattle are the primary livestock on the 

allotment. 

Most of the allotment is in late seral to PNC condition. The one pending condition issue is the juniper 

invasion of many areas above and below Goodlow Rim. Most areas still have some understory of shrubs and 

grasses that would greatly benefit from a juniper reduction project. Big sage communities are limited on 

BLM lands in this part of the KFRA and treatment of this area should receive high priority due to the wildlife 

habitat potential. 

Monitoring: The combination of low priority status and existing good vegetation conditions on this 

allotment implies that intensive rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. It is recommended, however, 

that a Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at 

the same field location that the original Summary Worksheet was completed. This includes retaking the view 

photos. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would help 

provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this 

allotment’s resource importance. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 324 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

DeVaul Allotment (0879) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The current season of use and grazing level is apparently not detrimental to 

maintaining/enhancing the already elevated ecological conditions found on the allotment. The 5 Oregon/ 

Washington Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management are being 

met on the allotment with current grazing. 

The grazing permittees on this allotment – who are the private lands owners - have suggested recently that 

they would like to fence their private lands away from the BLM lands in order to limit the off-season 

livestock use of the BLM lands. Though there have not been any recent resource problems associated with 

the post-season use, it does present an administrative conceptual problem. In order to make use of the BLM 

licensed lands during the season of use, the gates on such a fence would have to be left open in order to 

provide livestock water since there is none on BLM. However, it is not BLM policy to fence private/BLM 

boundaries, though private landowners are welcome (and often encouraged) to do such. This will be dealt 

with as necessary in the future. 

Monitoring: This allotments combination of low priority status and existing good vegetation conditions 

implies that intensive rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. It is recommended, however, that a 

Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at the 

same field location that the October 2000 Summary Worksheet was completed. This includes retaking the 

view photos. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would 

help provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this 

allotment’s resource importance. 

Goodlow Allotment (0881) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The current season of use and grazing level is apparently not detrimental to 

maintaining/enhancing the already elevated ecological conditions found on the allotment. The 5 Oregon/ 

Washington Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management are all being 

met on the allotment with current grazing. Because of the relatively recent division fencing between public 

and private and the very recent – and apparently successful - construction of a catchment water hole, the use 

of the BLM lands can now be made discretely and separately from the private lands. This control should also 

help to maintain or enhance the existing good ecological conditions. 

Monitoring: The combination of low priority status and existing good vegetation conditions in the Goodlow 

Allotment implies that intensive, long term rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. However, several 

field-monitoring checks are recommended, if funding and manpower allow. First, a Rangeland Health 

Evaluation Summary Worksheet could be prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at the same field 

location that the October 2000 Summary Worksheet was completed (UTM coordinates in allotment file). 

This would include retaking the view photos. This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM 

Technical Reference 1734-6 and would help provide early warning of potential rangeland health problems at 

a level of effort commensurate with this allotment’s resource importance. 

In addition, it is recommended that post-grazing season utilization checks (use pattern mapping and/or key 

forage plant readings) be done in 2001 and 2003/2004. The new fencing/waterhole isolate the BLM 

administered lands away from the private lands; utilization observations should be done in order to affirm 

that the grazing use of the BLM lands is still appropriate. 

Recommendations, Step 6 325 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Horsefly Allotment (0882) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted from the Management Recommendations section of the 

Horsefly Assessment. Since this was a recently completed Assessment, no additional management actions 

are proposed at this time. 

“No changes in grazing management are proposed because the current grazing management is either meeting 

the Standards, or is making significant progress towards meeting them - where grazing is known to be a 

resource issue. The current grazing management is also required to be followed under the most recent 

Biological Opinion (from the ongoing Section 7 consultation) for Horsefly. 

Several rangeland improvement/restoration projects could be pursued that would assist in enhancing resource 

conditions. One possible project would be to patch the dike of the old reservoir in the Round Valley pasture 

(noted in the condition section on page 5) restoring its water holding capacity. This would at least diminish 

the currently weedy vegetation and if the pond retains water long enough, possibly convert the vegetation to 

a spike-rush community. 

Juniper reduction should also be pursued in most ecological sites on the Horsefly allotment. This needs to be 

seriously considered if we are to stop the deterioration of conditions on most of the ecological sites in the 

Gerber Block. Specifically, the following juniper removal or thinning should be considered as listed below 

(with dominant ecological sites in Gerber listed): 

- Virtually all juniper could be removed from the true non-juniper ecological sites (Shallow Stony 

10-20", Stony Claypan 14-20", Claypan 14-20", and to a limited degree - Claypan Bottom 12-18"). 

Non-juniper sites should have 0-1% juniper. 

- Most of the younger trees (<100 years) could be removed from the true “old” juniper sites (Juniper 

Claypan 12-16", Juniper Claypan 16-20"). 

- Reductions to achieve a mix of age classes could be done in the other juniper potential sites 

(Juniper-Pine-Bunchgrass 12-16", Juniper Loamy Hills 10-14", South Slopes 14-18", Shrubby Loam 

16-20", Mahogany Rockland 10-20"). Juniper amounts should reflect amounts allowed in ecological 

site descriptions. 

- Juniper should be brought closer to that described in the ecological site description on the 

ponderosa pine sites, with all age classes represented but as a minor component (Pine-MahoganyFescue 16-20", Pine-Sedge-Fescue).” 

The above recommendations still hold true and no additional grazing management changes are proposed at 

this time. The actual grazing system and parameters are outlined in the 1998 Biological Assessment/ 

Evaluation for this allotment. There is one additional recommendation pertinent to potential juniper control 

activities involving prescribed burning for the Juniper Claypan 12-16" ecological site. See the “Vegetation – 

Non-Forested Uplands” portion of this step. 

There are two rangeland improvement projects that may enhance the current management on the allotment. 

Both projects would require a cooperative effort with the primary intermingled landowners – U.S. 

Timberlands and Circle 5 Ranch. The projects are as follows: 

-Riparian fencing to control the livestock use on the private land portions of Long Branch Creek in 

the Norcross pasture. The private portions of Long Branch are frequently used heavily by livestock; the 

BLM portions were fenced separately some years ago and have been improving in condition since. 

-Somewhat related to the previous proposal, fencing to divide the Norcross pasture into two separate 

pastures may be useful. Division fencing would help to lighten and control the use on Long Branch Creek as 

 Recommendations, Step 6 326 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

well as provide more rest/deferment for the upland portions of the pasture. Norcross is the largest pasture in 

the Horsefly allotment and somewhat out of balance in relationship to the other pastures. Additionally, Long 

Branch Creek is probably the most important tributary to Barnes Valley Creek. 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment and as an allotment under Section 7 consultation, Horsefly has had 

a very high level of rangeland monitoring studies established and read. The monitoring system in place has 

been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan and it is recommended that the schedule be followed. This 

includes utilization readings (points and/or pattern mapping, Cole Browse) every other year, the re-taking of 

the photo trend point and reading of the frequency trend plot every five years, re-reading the Key Area 

Condition study as necessary, and the reading of the various riparian monitoring studies. No additional 

rangeland monitoring studies are deemed necessary at this time. 

Horton Allotment (0883) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted from the Management Recommendations section of the 

Horton Assessment. Since this was a recently completed Assessment, no additional management actions are 

proposed at this time. 

“Standards 1, 3, and 5 are not being fully met, but significant progress is being made. With all the juniper 

reduction treatments that have been completed there has been a significant amount of disturbance on the 

allotment. Monitoring of the livestock grazing should continue to be done. This should include use mapping 

and utilization points for 3-4 years. Observations of any changes in vegetation species cover, distribution, 

etc. can also be made during these monitoring visits. 

As noted under Standard 2, juniper treatments could extend into and across the stream channel in the 

southeast corner of the allotment. This would likely result in better vegetation cover for this ephemeral 

channel and the surrounding uplands. 

In addition to the grazing monitoring, any juniper project monitoring should be continued. This includes the 

photo points that were established and any other vegetation or soil monitoring studies. Monitoring of the 

noxious weed populations should also continue on the allotment.” 

It is also recommended that a Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be prepared periodically 

(i.e. every 5-10 years) at the same field location that the October 2000 Summary Worksheet was completed 

(UTM coordinates in allotment file). This includes retaking the view photos. This qualitative assessment 

process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would help provide early warning of potential 

upland rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this allotment’s resource 

importance. 

Pankey Basin Allotment (0884) 

Grazing Management: Though 4 out of the 5 Oregon/Washington Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management are being met or substantially met on the allotment with 

current grazing use, the Standard for riparian condition (Standard 2) is not considered met and livestock 

grazing is the primary cause. It is possible that the creek has reached a point that proper functionality is 

precluded. The intermingled (with private land) nature of the allotment also does not enhance the 

possibilities for restoration. However some solutions may be possible. The only way to significantly (or 

more quickly) improve the conditions along the non-functional portion (0.4 mile) of Pankey Creek is to limit, 

or possibly exclude, livestock use. This could be accomplished with implementation of one, or a 

combination, of the following management recommendations: 

Recommendations, Step 6 327 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

1. Reduce grazing use on the allotment. Currently the permittee is allowed a total of 39 head from 5/15 to 8/ 

31 (140 AUMs total). Of this total, 12 head (43 AUMs) are for the BLM permit and 27 head (97 AUMs) are 

an exchange-of-use (EOU) for the unfenced, intermingled private lands leased by the permittee. EOU is a 

discretionary authorization under the grazing regulations and “...may be issued...when use under such an 

agreement will be in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment and will be compatible with 

the existing livestock operations...” (43 CFR 4130.6-1(a)). Though EOU does not have to be authorized by 

the BLM, it is typically done in situations like Pankey Basin, where the private lands are unfenced, are 

included within the allotment boundary, and are owned/controlled by the allotment permittee. Though the 

permitted grazing level for the BLM lands appears to be appropriate, the distribution is not. Eliminating the 

EOU and possibly reducing the BLM permitted use could lead to riparian improvement, but is a 

comparatively drastic action if pursued solely. 

2. Shorten the permitted season of use. The current season of use runs through August 31st. It is the later, 

hotter portions of the grazing season (i.e. after July 1st or 15th) that cattle typically concentrate in riparian 

areas. If the season of use were shortened and shifted to 5/1 through 7/15, this would lighten the late season 

use and possibly lead to incremental improvements in the riparian condition. However, with the AUMs 

remained the same, more cattle could be run during the shortened season of use possibly negating the 

benefits. Also, this season-of-use change would apply to the private EOU lands also; a fact that may be 

contested by the permittee, though the private lands could be fenced separate. 

3. Exclosure fence the BLM portion of Pankey Creek. Fencing of the BLM’s non-functional portion of the 

creek is the most positive method to restrict livestock access and bring about condition improvement. 

Fencing would allow for complete rest for the affecting creek portion, but would shift more impact to the 

private portions of the creek above the potential exclosure. This upstream impact increase (e.g. sediment 

input) could negate some of the benefits of the exclosure, though our ultimate responsibility is for the 

condition of the lands within our administrative authority. If pursued, it is estimated that approximately 3⁄4 

mile of fencing would be necessary, and under Oregon BLM policy, would be the maintenance responsibility 

of the BLM. 

4. Fence the BLM separate from the private. This option would make the BLM administered lands a 

separate and discrete allotment with no EOU needed. It is not BLM policy to fence private/BLM property 

lines (responsibility of private landowner), though it may be pursued for significant resource reasons. If 

fenced separately, the maximum grazing use would be the 12 head for the permitted use period. This may or 

may not be a solution to the riparian condition issue, but would move towards it. Approximately 11⁄2 to 2 

miles of fencing would be needed to separate the BLM lands from the Pankey Basin private lands and would 

be the maintenance responsibility of the grazing permittee. 

All the above recommendations have variable benefits and drawbacks, though the quickest, simplest, and 

possibly most effective solution may be to implement #3. The grazing permittee and actual landowner 

(different people) would have to be cooperatively involved in whatever solution may be pursued. 

Monitoring: Pankey Basin’s low priority status and good upland vegetation condition implies that intensive 

rangeland monitoring studies are not necessary. However, the poor riparian condition stretch of Pankey 

Creek should be monitored periodically. This would be mandatory if one or more of the management 

recommendations are implemented in order to ascertain the level of improvement. Adequate monitoring 

would entail the establishment of one or two fixed riparian photo points, though additional riparian studies 

could be established if necessary. If riparian exclosure fencing is completed, integrity monitoring would be 

required and repairs made as necessary. If the riparian area is not fenced separately, and one or more of the 

other options is pursued, utilization should be read every few years to provide information between cause and 

effect relative to whatever changes do occur within the Pankey Creek riparian area. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 328 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

For the upland areas, it is recommended that a Rangeland Health Evaluation Summary Worksheet be 

prepared periodically (i.e. every 5-10 years) at the same field location that the October 2000 Summary 

Worksheet was completed (UTM coordinates in allotment file). This includes retaking the view photos. This 

qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would help provide early 

warning of potential upland rangeland health problems at a level of effort commensurate with this allotment’s 

resource importance. 

Dry Prairie Allotment (0885) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted from the Management Recommendations section of the Dry 

Prairie Assessment. Since this was a recently completed Assessment, no additional management actions are 

proposed at this time. 

“No changes in grazing management are proposed because the current grazing management is either meeting 

the Standards, or is making significant progress towards meeting them - where grazing is known to be a 

resource issue. The current grazing management is also required to be followed under the most recent 

Biological Opinion (from the ongoing Section 7 consultation) for Dry Prairie. 

Juniper reduction should also be pursued in most ecological sites on the Dry Prairie allotment. This needs to 

be seriously considered if we are to stop the deterioration of conditions on most of the ecological sites in the 

Gerber Block. Specifically, the following juniper removal or thinning should be considered as listed below 

(with dominant ecological sites in Dry Prairie listed): 

- Virtually all junipers could be removed from the true non-juniper ecological sites (Shallow Stony 

10-20", Stony Claypan 14-20"). Non-juniper sites should have 0-1% juniper. 

- Most of the younger trees (<100 years) could be removed from the true “old” juniper sites (Juniper 

Claypan 16-20"). 

- Reductions to achieve a mix of juniper age classes could be done in the other juniper potential sites 

(Shrubby Loam 16-20", Mahogany Rockland 10-20"). Composition should reflect amounts allowed 

in ecological site descriptions. 

- Juniper should be brought closer to that described in the ecological site description on the 

ponderosa pine sites, with all age classes represented as a minor component (Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 

16-20", Pine-Sedge-Fescue).” 

The above recommendations still hold true and no additional grazing management changes are proposed at 

this time. The actual grazing system and parameters are outlined in the 1998 Biological Assessment/ 

Evaluation (and related Biological Opinion) for this allotment. 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment and as an allotment under Section 7 consultation, Dry Prairie has 

had a very high level of rangeland monitoring studies established and read. The monitoring system in place 

has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan and it is recommended that the schedule be followed. 

This includes utilization readings (points and/or pattern mapping, Cole Browse) every other year, the retaking of the photo trend point and reading of the frequency trend plot every five years, re-reading the Key 

Area Condition study as necessary, and the reading of the various riparian monitoring studies. No additional 

rangeland monitoring studies are deemed necessary at this time. 

Horse Camp Rim Allotment (0886) 

Grazing Management: Though all 5 Oregon/Washington Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management are being met, substantially met, or making significant progress towards 

being met with current grazing use, the Standard for riparian condition (Standard 2) is considered a qualified 

Recommendations, Step 6 329 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

“met”, with livestock grazing of potential concern. Because of this, the following grazing management is 

recommended/affirmed (management that is largely as licensed now): 

1. Maintain the current five-pasture, rest and/or deferred grazing rotation system. In recent years, the 

allotment has been grazed with a deferred rotation system, i.e. every pasture is scheduled for use, but on a 

variable cycle for meeting plant growth requirements. The deferred use has been allowed due to the 

permittee only running about 1⁄2 of the permitted numbers (i.e. 50-75 head instead of the maximum 148 head). 

With these low numbers, the grazing is light enough that most plants don’t get grazed at the same time every 

year, if at all. In the future, if licensed grazing use is at or near the maximum permitted, the rest-rotation 

grazing should be adhered to with at least one pasture fully rested each year. 

2. The North Spring pasture should be the first pasture used the years that it is included in the grazing 

rotation, i.e. May 1st through no later than May 24th, depending on the grazing system (see below). This is to 

enhance/maintain riparian conditions on the Antelope/North Spring drainage. The point of the early on/off 

dates is to get the cattle in and out quickly during the period when the uplands are about as green and 

attractive to the cattle as the riparian vegetation. Experience in this area has indicated that with typical May 

wet riparian conditions, the cattle will select the riparian much less than during June or July. Some years the 

drainages are flowing through all or a portion of this period, further discouraging grazing use. However, in 

very dry years this doesn’t always hold true. 

3. Use one of the following rotation grazing systems as a general guide. All three systems - deferred rotation, 

modified rest rotation, or rest rotation - are premised on several factors as follows: the North Spring “early 

use” riparian rationale above; the percentage of the allotment each of the 5 pastures comprises; the high 

“value” of the Dog Hollow W.S. pasture as the late (July) pasture; and the assumption that water from Dog 

Hollow Reservoir is available virtually every year for irrigating the Water Spreader (W.S.). (Note: At the 

time of writing there have been substantial problems with the use of this reservoirs water.) Though the 

“Modified Rest-Rotation” system is the preferred grazing system, all three should be satisfactory for 

maintaining/improving vegetation conditions. The approximate percentage that each pasture makes up of the 

allotment acreage as a whole is in parenthesis following the Year 1 pasture names: 

DEFERRED-ROTATION: No full rest years is scheduled for any pastures, but the grazing use for the North 

Spring pasture is kept the lightest by including Midway W.S. with it. This is a better less-than-full-numbers 

grazing option (like the past 6 years of grazing use) than with full permitted use. This option entails one 

more pasture move for the permittee than the other two options, but does spread the grazing use out to the 

maximum for the allotment as a whole. 

Year 1: North Spring (26.4%) 

Midway W.S. (7.4%) 

Plateau (25.9%) 

Rim (21.5%) 

Dog Hollow W.S. (18.8%) 

May 1st to May 21st 

May 1st to May 21st * 

May 22nd to June 18th 

June 19th to July 9th 

July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 2: North Spring 

Midway W.S. 

Plateau 

Rim 

Dog Hollow W.S. 

May 1st to May 21st 

May 1st to May 21st * 

June 13th to July 9th 

May 22nd to June 12th 

July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 3: same as Year 1 

Year 4: same as Year 2 

 Recommendations, Step 6 330 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

MODIFIED REST-ROTATION: This scheme allows full rest for the North Spring pasture once every three 

years and relatively limited use 2 out of 3 years with the other pastures used on a deferred rotation. This 

system is slightly preferred over the other two because it allows for the most frequent rest for the North 

Spring pasture. The trade-off is relatively more use on the other, non-riparian pastures. 

Year 1: North Spring (26.4%) 

Midway W. S. (7.4%) 

Plateau (25.9%) 

Rim (21.5%) 

Dog Hollow W.S. (18.8%) 

REST 

May 1st to May 10th * 

May 11th to June 12th 

June 13th to July 9th 

July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 2: North Spring 

Midway W.S. 

Plateau 

Rim 

Dog Hollow W.S. 

May 1 to May 21st 

May 1st to May 21st * 

June 13th to July 9th 

May 22nd to June 12th 

July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 3: North Spring 

Midway W.S. 

Plateau 

Rim 

Dog Hollow W.S. 

May 1st to May 21st 

May 1st to May 21st * 

May 22nd to June 16th 

June 17th to July 9th 

July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 4-6: repeat 3-year cycle above 

REST-ROTATION: This is a more traditional, balanced rotation system that includes rest for all the pastures 

except the irrigated, late use (July) pasture - Dog Hollow Water Spreader. 

Year 1: North Spring (26.4%) May 1st to May 23rd 

Midway W.S. (7.4%) May 24th to June 5th *
 

Plateau (25.9%) REST
 

Rim (21.5%) June 6th to July 8th
 

Dog Hollow W.S. (18.8%) July 9th to July 31st **
 

Year 2:	 North Spring REST 

Midway W.S. May 1st to May 10th * 

Plateau May 11th to June 12th 

Rim June 13th to July 10th 

Dog Hollow W.S. July 11th to July 31st ** 

Year 3:	 North Spring May 1st to May 20th 

Midway W.S. REST 

Plateau June 9th to July 9th 

Rim May 21st to June 9th 

Dog Hollow W.S. July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 4:	 North Spring May 1st to May 24th 

Midway W. S. May 25th to June 5th * 

Plateau June 6th to July 9th 

Rim REST 

Dog Hollow W.S. July 10th to July 31st ** 

Year 5-8: repeat 4-year cycle above 

Recommendations, Step 6 331 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

* The Midway W.S., due to its small size, would generally be grazed in common with the North Spring pasture. This 

may also help draw some of the cattle use out of the Antelope drainage by spreading the use out into a good forage 

pasture. Midway still has some residual seeded pasture grass species that are quite lush in the May. However, because 

of the need for a rest pasture in both Rest-Rotation systems, Midway W.S. would need to be grazed as a discrete 

pasture occasionally. 

** The Dog Hollow W.S. can be grazed every year, under all rotation systems, due to the irrigated seeding being the 

area that almost all of the pastures grazing takes place in. The uplands in this pasture are typically little used. 

4. If future monitoring and evaluation determines that further protection or control is needed on all or a 

portion of the Antelope/North Spring drainage in order to meet riparian objectives, riparian pasture or 

exclosure fencing could be pursued. Coordination with the owner of the private land on the creek would be 

required, since much of the perennially wet riparian is on this parcel. 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment, this allotment has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan 

and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be followed. This includes utilization readings 

(points and/or pattern mapping) every three years, the re-taking of the photo trend point and reading of the 

frequency trend plot every five years, re-reading the Key Area Condition study as necessary, and the reading 

of the riparian photo points. In addition, the PFC determination should be redone with a team of various, 

pertinent specialists. 

Pitchlog Allotment (0887) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted from the conclusion portions of the Pitchlog Assessment: 

“Current Management and Recent Management Changes 

The maximum permitted number of cattle that may be grazed is 302 head, which includes 255 head for the 

public lands permit and an additional 47 head “Exchange-of-Use” (EOU) for the intermingled, unfenced 

private lands. The permitted season-of-use is 5/10 to 6/30 for a total of 434 AUMs for the public lands and 

80 for the private lands EOU. 

Livestock management changes in recent years include the implementation of a fenced 4 pasture, restrotation system “flash” grazing system which includes the separation of the Pitch Log and Barnes Valley 

Creeks into their own pasture which is only used early in the season (completed 1994); permanent fence 

exclusion of a major portion of Pitch Log Creek (1981); and more intensive rangeland monitoring studies on 

the allotment - both upland and riparian (initiated in 1992). Based on the past 7 years of monitoring studies 

and field observations, the forage production and conditions within the allotment can accommodate the full 

permitted use under the current grazing system. 

Due to the importance of the NE pasture - which contains this allotments’ portion of Barnes Valley Creek -

the grazing rotation system is designed to optimize creek and riparian stability and conditions in this pasture, 

without fencing the creek separately (tried in the past without success). Specifically, the NE pasture will be 

used in rotation with the other 3 pastures, but will always have the early season of use, i.e. 5/10 to 5/25. Past 

utilization studies within the allotment, including drought and wet years, have shown that with the growth 

(and re-growth) that typically occurs after 5/25, utilization made to that date would be more than 

compensated for by the continuing growth yet to occur. Also, cattle are less inclined to use the riparian areas 

in May due to both high water levels and the fact that the upland vegetation is as attractive at that time as 

the riparian plants. Riparian conditions on the drainages in the NE pasture continue to exhibit overall good 

conditions with upward trends. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 332 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Proposed Management Changes 

No changes in grazing management are proposed because the current grazing management is either meeting 

the Standards, or is making significant progress towards meeting them, where grazing is known to be a 

resource issue. The current grazing management is also required to be followed under the most recent 

Biological Opinion (from the ongoing Section 7 consultation) for Pitchlog. 

The only minor issue, which may be grazing related, is the condition of the Wildhorse meadows. Specific 

lentic PFC assessments will be completed on these two areas during FY 1999 or FY 2000. These assessments 

would be done by an interdisciplinary team and may (or may not) reach a different determination than the 

1994 assessment. This determination may lead to the proposing of specific management to remedy what 

problems are thought to exist. This could include fencing the meadows, reclamation of the waterholes, road 

re-routing, a combination of these or other appropriate remedies, or no changes, depending on the problems 

found, the probability of rectifying the problem(s), and the priority and importance placed of doing it. 

Juniper reduction should also be pursued in most ecological sites on the Pitchlog allotment. This needs to be 

seriously considered if we are to stop the deterioration of conditions on most of the ecological sites in the 

Gerber Block. Specifically, the following juniper removal or thinning should be considered as listed below 

(with dominant ecological sites in Gerber listed): 

- Virtually all juniper could be removed from the true non-juniper ecological sites (Shallow Stony 10-20", 

Stony Claypan 14-20"). Non-juniper sites should have 0-1% juniper. 

- Most of the younger trees (<100 years) could be removed from the true “old” juniper sites (Juniper 

Claypan 16-20"). 

- Reductions to achieve a mix of age classes could be done in the other juniper potential sites (Mahogany 

Rockland 10-20"). Juniper amounts should reflect amounts allowed in ecological site descriptions. 

- Juniper should be brought closer to that described in the ecological site description on the ponderosa pine 

sites, with all age classes represented but as a minor component (Pine-Mahogany-Fescue 16-20", PineSedge-Fescue).” 

The above is still thought to be largely accurate, though the noted lentic PFC assessments have not been 

done. To further refine the juniper information above (for potential juniper control activities), the noted pine 

sites should have no more than 1-3% juniper composition if we wish to approximate PNC conditions. The 

Mahogany Rockland sites should not exceed 2-5% juniper. In addition, some of the concerns expressed for 

the Wildhorse drainage could also be relevant to Pitch Log Creek. Specifically, the current condition and 

perceived rate of improvement for the Pitch Log drainage may be of some concern, though a significant 

portion of the drainage is not BLM administered lands. As noted in Step 5, the ongoing array of monitoring 

studies should help answer these resource questions over time. If future evaluation of the monitoring 

information dictates that management needs changed to meet LUP objectives for these areas, such change 

would be done via the processes required under the grazing regulations (43 CFR Part 4100). Management 

changes that include the private lands would have to be pursued through cooperative agreements with the 

landowner(s). 

One additional point is useful here relative to the grazing rotation system on the Pitchlog allotment. 

Recently, acres by allotment for the entire Gerber Block ESI area were accurately tallied via the GIS 

database. This analysis found that the pastures vary much more in size than previously believed - as follows: 

Northeast: 2350 acres (22.5% of the allotment)
 

Northwest: 1740 acres (16.6% of the allotment)
 

Southeast: 2130 acres (20.4% of the allotment)
 

Southwest: 4245 acres (40.5% of the allotment)
 

Recommendations, Step 6 333 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Given this wide variation in size, the 4 pasture, rest-rotation system has been recently altered somewhat to 

reflect an acres weighted allocation of the grazing pressure within the pastures used each year. The grazing 

rotation system follows: 

Year One 

Preferred Use Maximum Days Earliest 

Pasture Period Use (AUMs) Turnout Date Latest Off Date 

NW REST - - -

SW 6/7 - 6/30 25 (250) June 3 July 5 

SE 5/24 - 6/6 20 (160) May 19 June 12 

Year Two 

Preferred Maximum Days Earliest 

Pasture Use Period Use (AUMs) Turnout Date Latest Off Date 

NW 5/10 – 5/23 20 (160) May 1 May 28 

SW 5/24 – 6/16 25 (250) May 19 June 21 

SE 6/17 – 6/30 20 (160) June 12 July 5 

NE REST - - -

Year Three 

Preferred Maximum Days Earliest 

Pasture Use Period Use (AUMs) Turnout Date Latest Off Date 

NW 6/15 – 6/30 20 (180) June 9 July 5 

SW REST - - -

SE 5/26 – 6/14 20 (200) May 21 June 19 

NE 5/10 – 5/25 20 (180) May 1 May 30 

Year Four 

Preferred Maximum Days Earliest 

Pasture Use Period Use (AUMs) Turnout Date Latest Off Date 

NW 6/17 – 6/30 20 (160) June 12 July 5 

SW 5/24 – 6/16 25 (250) May 19 June 21 

SE REST - - -

NE 5/10 – 5/23 20 (160) May 1 May 30 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment, this allotment has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan 

and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be followed. This includes utilization readings 

(points and/or pattern mapping) every two years, the re-taking of the photo trend point and reading of the 

frequency trend plot every five years, re-reading the Key Area Condition study as necessary, and the reading 

of the riparian photo points. In addition, the PFC determinations should be redone with a team of various, 

pertinent specialists. 

Rock Creek Allotment (0888) 

Grazing Management: Grazing use on the Rock Creek allotment will follow the recently updated Warm 

Spring CRMP, which centers on a grazing system designed in coordination with the neighboring Modoc and 

Fremont National Forest lands. Some past monitoring along Rock Creek has shown utilization in the riparian 

area that has occasionally exceeded RMP standards. The riparian utilization points should be monitored on 

an annual basis and near the end of the current year’s growth period. If chronic overuse were to occur, then 

further management actions may have to be pursued. Juniper reduction/control should also be pursued in 

many of the ecological sites on the allotment. The Timber Hill allotment juniper control recommendations 

below are equally pertinent to Rock Creek as the two allotments are immediately adjacent to each other. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 334 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Monitoring: As a high priority “C” category allotment (with past “I” category status), this allotment has been 

addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be 

followed. This includes upland utilization readings (points and/or pattern mapping) every five years, the retaking of the photo trend points every five years, re-reading the Key Area Condition study as necessary, and 

the reading of the riparian photo points every five years. In addition, the PFC determinations should be 

redone with a team of various, pertinent specialists. 

Timber Hill Allotment (0889) 

Grazing Management: (The following is quoted from the Management Recommendations section of the 

Timber Hill Assessment.) 

“No changes in grazing management are proposed because the current grazing management is either 

meeting the Standards, or is making significant progress towards meeting them - where grazing is known to 

be a resource issue. 

Juniper reduction/control should be pursued in most ecological sites on this allotment. This needs to be 

seriously considered if we are to stop the deterioration of conditions on most of the ecological sites in the 

Gerber Block. Specifically, the following juniper removal or thinning should be considered as listed below 

(with dominant ecological sites in the Timber Hill allotment listed): 

- Virtually all juniper could be removed from the true non-juniper ecological sites (Shallow Stony 10-

20", Stony Claypan 14-20"). These non-juniper sites should have 0-1% junipers. 

- Most of the younger trees (<100 years) could be removed from the true “old” juniper sites (Juniper 

Claypan 12-16", Juniper Claypan 16-20"). 

- Reductions to achieve a mix of age classes could be done in the other juniper potential sites 

(Juniper-Pine-Bunchgrass 12-16"). Juniper amounts should reflect amounts allowed in ecological 

site description. 

- Juniper should be brought closer to that described in the ecological site description on the 

ponderosa pine sites, with all age classes represented but as a minor component (Pine-MahoganyFescue 16-20", Pine-Sedge-Fescue).” 

The above is still thought to be accurate. To further refine the juniper information above (for potential 

juniper control activities), the noted pine sites should have no more than 1-3% juniper composition if we 

wish to approximate PNC conditions. The Juniper-Pine-Bunchgrass sites (now called “Juniper Dry Pine 14­

16”) should not exceed 10% juniper. 

Monitoring: As an “I” category allotment, this allotment has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan 

and it is recommended that the existing monitoring schedule be followed. This includes utilization readings 

(points and/or pattern mapping) every three years, the re-taking of the photo trend point and reading of the 

frequency trend plot every five years, and the re-reading the Key Area Condition study done as necessary. 

Willow Valley Allotment (0890) 

Grazing Management: The following is quoted directly from the Management Recommendations section of 

the Willow Valley Assessment. Since the Assessment was done recently, there are no additional management 

recommendations to be made at this time. 

Grazing System - A rest rotation system should be maintained to permit periodic rest, which allows for the 

recruitment of new seedlings, enhancement of plant vigor, and the building of root reserves for future seed 

Recommendations, Step 6 335 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

production. Deferred grazing in a pasture after the rest year should also be used where practical to allow a 

better chance for new seedling establishment. The season of use of 4/15 to 6/30 should be maintained, but 

flexibility should be allowed based upon the current year’s climatic conditions and the needs of the 

permittees. 

Pasture AUM allocations - Allocation of AUMs for each pasture is based on several factors: 

- Utilization monitoring from past years adjusted for precipitation 

- Production data from ESI surveys 

- Condition data from ESI surveys 

- Soil erosion and observed apparent trend portions of the ESI data 

- Utilization pattern mapping from past years 

- Professional judgment and knowledge of the allotment 

Willow Valley Chaining Pasture - The chained and seeded portion of the pasture is supporting a good stand 

of introduced species. Monitoring and ESI data for the rest of this pasture shows that the vegetation 

communities are in mid to late seral ecological status, but overall production is low. There are also areas that 

are heavily invaded by undesirable grass species and weedy forbs. Livestock use has been mainly in the 

seeded portion of the pasture with light use in the native portions of the pasture, mainly near waterholes. 

Based on this, utilization should be set at 40% to allow more of the native perennials to produce seed and 

increase in vigor. This will also allow for more organic material to be left resulting in better soil protection 

and water infiltration. 

Using 1992, 94, 95, & 98 utilization and actual use monitoring data, the following formula was used to 

determine a stocking rate: X = Actual Use x Desired Utilization?/Actual Utilization where X = Desired 

Capacity. The mean figure for the four years was 442 AUMs. 

Woolen Canyon Pasture - This pasture is in the poorest condition of all the pastures. Monitoring and ESI 

data show low production throughout the pasture and many areas invaded by undesirable grass species and 

weedy forbs. Junipers have increased to a level in many areas where they are negatively affecting the 

vegetation communities. There is also a stretch of Antelope Creek that was rated as nonfunctional due to 

heavy livestock impacts. Based on the low production levels and the large areas in only fair condition, 

utilization should be set at 30%. This will allow for less use on the native perennials, giving them a chance 

to increase in vigor, establish root reserves, and produce seed. This will also help lessen the impacts on 

Antelope Creek. 

Using 1993, 94, & 97 utilization and actual use monitoring data, the following formula was used to 

determine a stocking rate: X = Actual Use x Desired Utilization?/Actual Utilization, where X = Desired 

Capacity. The mean figure for the three years was 304 AUMs. 

Notch Corral Pasture - This pasture has the best condition in the allotment and has had good livestock 

distribution. ESI condition data show areas of late seral and PNC vegetation with good production levels in 

some areas and lower than average in others. Junipers are increasing in many areas and may begin to affect 

the vegetation community structure. Based on these factors, utilization should be set at 50% to maintain and/ 

or improve the vegetation conditions. 

Using 1993, 95, 97, & 98 utilization and actual use monitoring data, the following formula was used to 

determine a stocking rate: X = Actual Use x Desired Utilization/?Actual Utilization, where X = Desired 

Capacity. The mean figure for the four years was 573 AUMs. 

Antelope Pasture - This pasture has two large reservoirs, which tend to concentrate the livestock use. Use 

mapping shows moderate to heavy use in the areas around the reservoirs and along the drainages below the 

 Recommendations, Step 6 336 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

reservoirs. Better distribution of the livestock is needed which will be addressed under Pasture Rotation 

below. The ESI condition data shows vegetation to be in late seral and PFC vegetation. Production levels 

vary from below average to average. Based on these factors, utilization should be set at 50% to help maintain 

and/or improve the vegetation conditions. 

Using 1993, 95, 97, & 98 utilization and actual use monitoring data, the following formula was used to 

determine a stocking rate: X = Actual Use x Desired Utilization?/Actual Utilization, where X = Desired 

Capacity. The mean figure for the four years was 231 AUMs. 

Antelope Riparian Pasture - This pasture was designed to maintain and improve wetland habitat. Its use by 

livestock should continue to be limited. No separate AUMs will be assigned to this pasture. It should only 

be used for a 10-day period concurrent with use in the adjoining Antelope Pasture. 

AUM Summary and Grazing System - The combined total of the AUM figures for the individual pastures 

would be 1550 AUMs for the allotment. In order to implement an effective rest rotation system, a reduction 

in this total must be figured. Only 3 of the 4 main pastures will be used in any year, so a reasonable number 

of AUMs should be deducted to insure that utilization levels are not greatly exceeded on the use pastures. 

With a rest rotation system, the desired utilization levels in a pasture could be exceeded during one or two of 

the use years considering that it will be rested every fourth year. The RMP allowable use guideline for 

upland utilization is 50%. The levels recommended above for individual pastures vary from 30% to 50%. 

Actual field utilization may exceed 50% at any given utilization point in any given year depending upon 

livestock use patterns, available water sources, etc. But the long-term goal of the recommended AUM levels 

is an improvement in the resources in the individual pastures and in the allotment as a whole. 

With this in mind, the current AUM allocation for the allotment is 1320 AUMs with 120 AUMs temporarily 

suspended. This results in an active use level of 1200 AUMs. Using this AUM level in a four pasture rest 

rotation system would result in some utilization that could be higher than the desired utilization levels. This 

would occur in the smaller pastures, Woolen Canyon and Antelope, during years when the larger pastures, 

Notch Corral and Willow Valley Chaining, are rested. With a rest rotation system, these slightly higher use 

levels are balanced by the rest years. The larger pastures also receive some higher use levels during the 

rotation, but these are also balanced during rest years and when the smaller pastures are rested. 

One of the operators, Dennis Hitt, normally does not bring livestock onto the allotment until early to mid 

May. Also, there are concerns about the operators’ different livestock breeding programs. Anderson breeds 

for fall calving and Hitt and Johnson Stock breed for spring calving. Due to this difference and the late turn 

on by Hitt, a rotation that keeps Hitt’s livestock separate from the others is being proposed. 

The following is the proposed pasture rotation using the 1200 AUM level. This is based on the season of use 

of 4/15 to 6/30 for 294 head of Anderson cattle and 36 head of Johnson Stock cattle. Hitt’s season of use is 5/ 

10 - 6/30 with 213 head of cattle. All pastures receive rest for one year out of four except for the Willow 

Valley Chaining pasture. One year out of four it will receive very light use in the spring (63 AUMs). The 

Willow Valley Chaining pasture is the most convenient one to use as the first pasture every year due to its 

proximity to the permittee’s private lands. It also has soil types that dry out earlier in the spring allowing for 

fewer problems associated with wet soils. The Antelope Riparian pasture will be used one year out of four 

and in conjunction with use on the Antelope pasture. 

Recommendations, Step 6 337 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Willow Valley Allotment - Proposed Pasture Rotation 

Pasture Season of Use (Operator)* [AUMs] 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 

Willow Valley Chaining 4/15-5/28 (A& JS) 

[477] 

4/15-5/31 (A& JS) 

[510] 

5/10-5/18 (H) 

[63] 

5/10-6/30 (H) 

[364] 

Woolen Canyon REST 6/1-6/30 (A& JS) 

[325] 

5/19-6/30 (H) 

[300] 

4/15-5/11 

(A&JS) [293] 

Notch Corral 

5/10-5/28 (H) 

5/29-6/30 (A& JS) 

 [491] 

REST 4/15-6/8 (A& JS) 

[597] 

5/12-6/30 (A& 

JS) [542] 

Antelope 5/29-6/30 (H) 

[231] 

5/20-6/30 (H) 

[294] 

6/9-6/30 (A& JS) 

[239] REST 

Antelope Riparian REST 5/10-5/19 (H) [70] REST REST 

*A = John Anderson, JS = Johnson Stock, H = Hitt AUM figures are based upon use by the following numbers of 

livestock: Anderson - 294, Johnson Stock - 36, Hitt - 213. 

This pasture rotation and AUM level should be used for two full cycles, eight years, and then reevaluated. 

Utilization mapping should be completed on an annual basis and utilization point monitoring should be 

completed annually for the first full rotation. 

Range Improvements 

- An updated range improvement maintenance agreement should be developed with the current permittees. 

Recent changes in ownership and levels of use make this necessary. A new agreement for the Antelope 

Riparian pasture also needs to be developed due to the ownership changes. 

- A complete inventory of existing waterholes and springs should be done to determine any maintenance or 

repair needs. Several of the waterholes are in need of cleaning to restore their storage capacity. Exclosure 

fences around the springs and some of the waterholes are also in need of repairs. These maintenance needs 

will be coordinated with the permittees. 

- An inventory of the condition of the allotment boundary and pasture fences should also be completed. This
 

could be done in cooperation with the permittees.
 

Juniper control options should be looked at for many areas in the allotment, especially those ecological sites
 

that would naturally have little or no juniper as a component.
 

- A request has been made by one of the permittees to fence separately the east end of the Antelope Riparian
 

pasture. The fence would separate the wetland area on the west from the upland vegetation on the east end.
 

This new area on the east end would be combined with private land to the north to create a gathering pasture.
 

This would allow the permittee a place to gather his livestock on the moves to and from the Bear Valley
 

allotment.
 

- The upper section of Antelope Creek that has been rated as Nonfunctioning may need to be fenced to
 

exclude livestock if conditions do not improve with the new pasture rotation system that will be
 

implemented. The need for fencing will be determined by the additional monitoring that will be
 

implemented as outlined in the Monitoring section below.
 

 Recommendations, Step 6 338 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Resource Objectives - The current RMP objectives for this allotment need to be made more specific to the 

resources present. The objectives need to be clear and quantifiable statements of desired values to be 

achieved within a stated time period. The ESI data provides a good basis for setting desired vegetation 

community objectives. Riparian and water quality objectives should be specific to the riparian resources 

present in the allotment. These objectives should be developed as an interdisciplinary process with input 

from the permittees and other interested agencies and publics. 

Wildlife Allocation - The current AUM allocation for wildlife, 960 AUMs for deer and 141 AUMs for 

antelope, should remain the same. All monitoring studies incorporate the use made by wildlife and livestock. 

When utilization monitoring results show use above the desired levels, livestock allocations are adjusted. 

This in turn provides the wildlife with additional forage. Cole Browse studies have consistently shown very 

little use by livestock of shrub species that wildlife are dependent on. There is a building population of elk in 

this area. As the population develops and use patterns become more established, allocations may be made for 

this elk herd. 

Monitoring: The current range monitoring program should be continued with a few changes and additions. 

As noted above, use mapping and utilization point monitoring will be completed on an annual basis to 

determine the effectiveness of the management changes. Increased use supervision will also be done in the 

allotment to provide data on livestock distribution and numbers. Actual use data will continue to be recorded 

by the permittees. 

- The key management areas and utilization points need some field review to determine their adequacy in 

representing the current conditions and grazing patterns. This will be done during monitoring visits. 

- The section of Antelope Creek that was rated as Nonfunctional should have additional annual monitoring to 

determine if the changes in the grazing management are resulting in a decrease in livestock use and in 

increase in riparian conditions. This monitoring will include weekly observations of livestock use during the 

use period for Woolen Canyon pasture, end of the season Streambank Stability ratings, and continuance of 

the Riparian Photo Points on an annual basis. 

The drainage below Antelope Reservoir should be considered for a monitoring point. 

The photo trend plots should be continued. 

- A vegetation species “map” similar to the ones prepared in the 70’s and early 80’s should be completed for 

the plots. This would help with species identification in the plots. 

William’s Allotment (0892) 

Grazing Management: It is recommended that the current grazing management be continued without change 

(see Step 3 narrative). The Yainax Butte CRMP (of which this allotment is a part of) was revised in recent 

years and appears to be largely followed and functioning. The CRMP revision was considered an allotment 

evaluation and found that there was no specifically identified grazing related resource problems on the 

allotment, though the BLM administered lands are an extremely minor component (~6%) of the overall 

CRMP area for which the grazing is administered principally by the USFS. The current grazing season of use 

and levels appear to be appropriate based on current information. As noted in Step 5, the Rangeland Health 

Standards Assessment for this allotment is scheduled for completion in 2003 and not as part of this analysis. 

The resource information and analyses in this document will be a major reference when preparing that 

Assessment. 

Monitoring: As an “M” category allotment, Williams has been addressed in the KFRA’s monitoring plan, 

though no formal studies have as yet been implemented. Casual observations indicate that the allotment is in 

good condition and whatever grazing does occur, is benign. It is recommended that a Rangeland Health 

Evaluation Summary Worksheet(s) be prepared for this allotment during the late summer or fall of 2002. 

This qualitative assessment process is outlined in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 and would provide 

Recommendations, Step 6 339 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

ecological and watershed function information for the Assessment. It could also provide early warning of 

potential rangeland health problems and potentially help point out if more monitoring studies are needed. 

The Assessment when prepared would identify if any additional monitoring needs implemented. 

NFS Administered Lands - Fremont National Forest 

Recommendations in this section will be generalized for all allotments. More site-specific recommendations 

will be executed as part of the range analysis performed in the scheduled years (see discussion in Step 5 -

Non-forested Upland section). 

Maintain current improvements to promote continued successful grazing programs. Identify and prioritize 

areas of poor livestock distribution and continue to make range improvements (fences, water improvements, 

livestock holding areas, etc) to obtain good livestock distribution and proper use of available forage when 

necessary. Optimize the most appropriate grazing strategy for the allotment to promote range health. 

KNOWN DATA GAPS: 

• Update long-term monitoring data. 

• Obtain ecological status generalizations on an allotment basis. 

• Update allotment management plans to current goals and accomplishments. 

Recreation 

Management recommendations are found on pages 47-53 of the RMP/ROD. Recommendations are both 

general and specific to the Gerber area. Specific recommendations include the following: “Continue to 

manage Gerber Recreation site with camping units to accommodate overnight, day use and mobility impaired 

visitors; frog camp day use area; and boat ramps. Manage several nearby semi-developed camp sites to 

provide primitive camping and day use. Manage and maintain the Gerber Watchable Wildlife area tour. In 

addition, develop or enhance watchable wildlife and other interpretive sites to showcase resource 

management. Manage area for roaded natural and semi-primitive recreation opportunities.” 

The Miller Creek trail is also mentioned, “Maintain 1⁄4-mile long, for hiking and horseback use, for semiprimitive non-motorized use. Pursue development of additional trail along Miller Creek Canyon.” 

Off –highway vehicle (OHV) use is to be “limited to existing roads and trails” in the “Gerber Block, 

(including the Gerber recreation site).” In addition, a seasonal off-highway vehicle use limitation is in place 

for the Gerber Block from November 1-April 15. The Miller Creek ACEC and Gerber Reservoir (up to the 

high water mark) are closed to OHVs. OHV designations are shown on RMP/EIS map 2-9 

In addition to the existing developed and semi-developed recreation sites in the Gerber area, the RMP/ROD 

calls for developing “potential recreation sites and trails as funding and/or recreation partnerships becomes 

available and if development is consistent with other land use objectives and allocations.” These sites 

(located on smaller reservoirs) and trails are shown on map 2-8 and 2-10 of the RMP. 

Since the RMP was completed in 1995, the BLM has undertaken a concerted effort and expended 

considerable funds to maintain or improve the existing recreation facilities in the Gerber area. The purpose 

for these improvements have been several fold: to enhance the visitor experience by providing attractive, 

well laid-out facilities; to reduce long term maintenance needs by replacing or updating old or failing 

facilities; to continue to attract visitors and campground hosts seeking a high quality recreation experience; to 

reduce environmental hazards from campground road dust; and reduce or eliminate the interaction and spoils 

of grazing livestock; to improve riparian condition; to improve handicap accessibility to facilities. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 340 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

The potential recreation site at Willow Valley Reservoir was developed in late 2002 with Marine Board grant 

funding assistance. A new boat ramp, parking area and vault toilet have been installed. 

Proposed management changes 

Future management of recreation in the Gerber area is primarily dependent on visitor demand and future 

funding. Existing supply for camping and day use facilities is adequate except on a few weekends or 

holidays. If the fisheries and fishing success by visitors in Gerber reservoir improves dramatically in the 

future, then additional facilities may need to be constructed to meet this demand. A horse camp facility 

located between the north and south Gerber campgrounds should be considered to tie-in with the proposed 

Gerber Potholes trail. An additional boat ramp is needed at the South campground, to replace the one that 

was removed in the early 1990s. The Barnes Valley boat ramp needs to be replaced soon as concrete portion 

is failing. The meadow adjacent to the road maintenance/fire engine pond located on the Fremont Forest in 

Sec. 21, T. 39 S., R. 12 E is receiving some OHV damage. Some vehicle barriers should be installed to 

prevent damage to the meadow.

 If the proposal to raise Gerber dam is implemented, the facilities and roads at north and south Gerber 

campground, Stan H. Spring, Frog camp and Barnes Valley Creek will need to be relocated or replaced with 

equivalent or better structures in similar forest settings. One of the primary attractions to camping in these 

areas is the majestic pines and the inherent shade and scenic enhancement they provide. It is important to 

maintain the existing character of these campsites when considering relocating or replacement. 

Cultural Resources 

In order to ensure that the trust responsibilities of the Fremont National Forest to the Klamath Tribes are fully 

met within the Gerber/Willow Valley watershed it is recommended that the consultation procedures, as 

defined in the February 19, 1999 MOA be incorporated in all Fremont National Forest project planning. 

Specifically, for the 1025-acre portion of the watershed that falls within the former reservation boundary, 

include the Klamath Tribes in the initiation, development, and implementation stages of all management 

decisions which have the potential to impact the Interstate Mule Deer herd, downstream fish populations in 

the Klamath Basin, and cultural resources or other treaty rights resources where applicable along the northern 

boundary of the watershed. 

Although treaty rights are no longer federally recognized in the Gerber/Willow Valley area outside of the 

former reservation boundary, the Klamath Tribes remain concerned about the management and potential 

disturbance to cultural sites in the area. Efforts should continue to keep the Klamath Tribes informed of 

federal agency activities. (RMP/ROD 1994: pp39-40) 

The BLM is committed to coordinating with the Tribes. Presently, the Tribal cultural staff and the BLM 

cultural staff meet bi-monthly. Such consultation, or something like it, should continue into the future per 

regulation (Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994; Executive Order 13084 of May 14, 1998; and BLM 

Manual Handbook H-8160-1). 

Efforts should continue to fulfill federal responsibilities to the Tribes regarding heritage and religious 

concerns (RMP/ROD 1994: pp39-40). Management should continue to maintain vegetative resources for 

Tribal use. 

Cultural resource site conditions should be monitored for unauthorized excavation and collection, as well as 

for other disturbance processes. Once impacts are assessed, more informed and cost effective decisions (such 

as possibly stepping up law enforcement patrols) can be made to minimize and/or prevent further damage. 

(RMP/ROD 1994: pp39-40) 

Recommendations, Step 6 341 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Monitoring for mitigation effectiveness should also be implemented to ensure that cultural resources are 

being addressed and adequately protected in pre-planning processes. Regulations require a responsible and 

good faith effort to identify cultural properties and take into account any effect an undertaking may have on 

those resources (Section 106 and 110(a)(2)(E) of the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] and 36 CFR 

Part 800). Existing cultural surveys may not meet current professional standards. Today investigators use a 

new automated Oregon SHPO site data system, aerial photography, and Global Positioning System (GPS) 

technology. The effectiveness of the older surveys and/or more recent surveys should be analyzed. If these 

surveys do not meet current standards, then a new survey should be conducted when new ground disturbing 

activities are proposed. 

 Recommendations, Step 6 342 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDIX A - WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
 

Summary of wildlife species/status known or thought to occur in the Gerber and Willow Valley watersheds. List 

derived from wildlife sightings database, biological survey information, incidental sightings and literature. (*Indicates 

listing only if breeding population) 

Common Scientific BLM Federal State ONHP 

Name Name Status Status Status Status Presence 

Mammals 

Preble’s Shrew Sorex preblei BT SoC 4 Likely present 

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans Likely present 

Water Shrew Sorex palustris Likely present 

Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Likely present 

Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami Likely present 

Broad-footed Mole Scapanus latimanus Likely present 

California Myotis Myotis californicus Likely present 

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis BTO SoC 4 Likely present 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Likely present 

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans BT SoC SU 4 Likely present 

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis BT SoC SU 4 Likely present 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycterus BTO SoC SU 4 Yes 

noctivagans 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Likely present 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus 4 Likely present 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus BSO SoC SC 2 Likely present 

townsendii 

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus BT SV 3 Likely present 

Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis BAO SoC SV 2 Likely present 

Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Yes 

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Yes 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii BTO SU 4 Likely present 

Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus Yes 

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Yes 

Allen’s Chipmunk Tamias senex Likely present 

Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris Yes 

Belding’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beldingi Yes 

California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Yes 

Golden-mantled Gr. Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Yes 

Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus BTO SU 3 Yes 

Douglas’ Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii Yes 

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Likely present 

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides Likely present 

Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama Yes 

Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus Likely present 

California Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys californicus Yes 

American Beaver Castor canadensis Yes 

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Likely present 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Yes 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster Likely present 

Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes Yes 

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea Yes 

Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius Likely present 

Montane Vole Microtus montanus Yes 

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus Likely present 

Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus Likely present 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Yes 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

343 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

House Mouse Mus musculus Yes 

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps Likely present 

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Yes 

Coyote Canis latrans Yes 

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Yes 

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Likely present 

Black Bear Ursus americanus Yes 

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus BTO SU 4 Likely present 

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor Yes 

American Marten Martes americana BTO SV 4 Yes 

Ermine Mustela erminea Likely present 

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Yes 

Mink Mustela vison Yes 

American Badger Taxidea taxus Yes 

Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis Yes 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Yes 

Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis Yes 

Mountain Lion Felis concolor Yes 

Bobcat Lynx rufus Yes 

Rocky Mountain Elk Cervus elaphus Yes 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Yes 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Yes 

Birds 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Yes 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Likely present 

American Coot Fulica americana Yes 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Yes 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Yes 

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SEO LE 2 Yes 

American Robin Turdus migratorius Yes 

American White Pelican Pelecanus BAO SV 2 Yes

 erythrorhynchos 

American Wigeon Anas americana Yes 

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Yes 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT LT LT 2 Yes 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Yes 

Barn Owl Tyto alba Yes 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Yes 

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica BTO* SU* 4* Yes 

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Yes 

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii Yes 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger BT* SoC* 4* Yes 

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus BSO SC 4 Yes 

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica Yes 

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Likely present 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes 

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Yes 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus Yes 

Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus Yes 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Yes 

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Yes 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Yes 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Yes 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola BAO* SU* 4* Yes 

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii Yes 

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Yes 

California Gull Larus califonicus Yes 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

344 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

California Quail Callipepla californica Yes 

Calliope Hummingbird Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Yes 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis Yes 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Yes 

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii Yes 

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii Yes 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Yes 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Yes 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Yes 

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Yes 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Yes 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Yes 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Yes 

Common Nighthawk Chordeilus minor Yes 

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Yes 

Common Raven Corvus corax Yes 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Yes 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperi Yes 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Yes 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Yes 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Yes 

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Yes 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Yes 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Yes 

Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus BSO SC 4 Likely present 

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis BSO* SoC* SC* 2* Yes 

Forster’s Tern Sterna foresteri Yes 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Yes 

Gadwall Anas strepera Yes 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes 

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapillla Yes 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Yes 

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Yes 

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Yes 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Yes 

Great Egret Ardea alba Yes 

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa BT* SV* 4* Yes 

Great-horned Owl Bubo virginianus Yes 

Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida BTO* SV* 4* Yes 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Yes 

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Yes 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Yes 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Yes 

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Yes 

Hermit Trush Catharus guttatus Yes 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Yes 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Yes 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Yes 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Yes 

Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Yes 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Yes 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Yes 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Yes 

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Yes 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Yes 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Yes 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Likely present 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

345 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Likely present 

Macgillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Yes 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Yes 

Merlin Falco columbarius BAO* 2* Yes 

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Yes 

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli Yes 

Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus BTO SoC SU 4 Yes 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Yes 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yes 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Yes 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis BSO SoC SC 2 Yes 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Yes 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Yes 

Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma Yes 

N. Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Yes 

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Yes 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Yes 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi BTO SoC SV 4 Yes 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Yes 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Yes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Yes 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus BT SV 4 Yes 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Yes 

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus Cyanocephalus Yes 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Yes 

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea BTO SC/SV 4 Yes 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Yes 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Yes 

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Yes 

Redhead Aythya americana Yes 

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Yes 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yes 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Yes 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Yes 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Yes 

Rock Dove Columba livia Yes 

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus Yes 

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii Yes 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Yes 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Yes 

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Yes 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Yes 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Yes 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Yes 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Yes 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Yes 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Yes 

Sora Porzana carolina Yes 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Yes 

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Yes 

Stellar’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Yes 

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni BT* SV* 4* Yes 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Yes 

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Yes 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Yes 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

346 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Yes 

Varied Trush Ixoreus naevius Yes 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Yes 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Yes 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Yes 

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Yes 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Yes 

Western Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis/occidentalis Yes 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Yes 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Yes 

Western Sage Grouse Centrocercus BAO SoC SV 1 Yes 

urophasianus phaios 

Western Screech Owl Oyus kennicottii Yes 

Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica Yes 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Yes 

Western Wood-peewee Contopus sordidulus Yes 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Yes 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Yes 

White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus BSO SoC SC 4 Yes 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Yes 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Yes 

Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus BTO SU 4 Yes 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii BT SoC SU 4 Yes 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Yes 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Yes 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yes 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Yes 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Yes 

Amphibians 

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Likely present 

Western Toad Bufo boreas BT SV 4 Likely present 

Pacific Tree Frog Pseudacris regilla Yes 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Yes 

Reptiles 

Northwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata BSO SoC SC 1 Yes 

marmorata 

Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma douglassii Likely present 

Northern Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus BTO SoC SV 4 Yes 

graciosus 

Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Yes 

Western Skink Eumeces skiltonianus Yes 

Rubber Boa Charina bottae Yes 

Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor Yes 

Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus Yes 

W. Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans Yes 

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Yes 

Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Yes 

Definitions 

BUREAU STATUS (BLM) 

BS = Bureau Sensitive in Oregon and Washington (BSO = in Oregon, BSW = in Washington) 

According to the definition in the Bureau 6840 policy, BS designation includes species that could easily become 

endangered or extinct in a state. They are restricted in range and have natural or human-caused threats to 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

347 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

survival. BS species are not FE, FT, FPE, FPT, FC, SE, or ST, but are eligible for federal or state listing or 

candidate status. BS species are designated by the State Director and are tiered to the state fish/wildlife/botanical 

agencies’ or ONHP designations. BS species that are Oregon state Critical - animals and Candidates - plants, 

Washington state Sensitive - animals and Threatened and Endangered - plants, or ONHP List 1 are considered 

BS species. (See Table 1 below) 

Bureau 6840 policy requires that any Bureau action will not contribute to the need to list any of these species (i.e.,
 

equivalent to 6840 policy applied to federal candidate).
 

For OR/WA BLM, per IM 2000-022 of 12/28/99, any federally de-listed as endangered or threatened species is
 

designated as BS for at least the 5 year monitoring period required by the ESA. These species may also have another
 

status as ST or SE; it is the only case where these statuses are not mutually exclusive.
 

BA = Bureau Assessment in Oregon and Washington (BAO = in Oregon, BAW = in Washington) 

Bureau Assessment is a category that pertains to OR/WA BLM only per the OR/WA BLM 6840 policy. Plant and 

wildlife species which are not presently eligible for official federal or state status but are of concern in Oregon or 

Washington may, at a minimum, need protection or mitigation in BLM activities. These species will be considered as a 

level of special status species separate from BS, and are referred to as BA species. 

Clearances for BA species will be done subject to limitations in funding and/or positions. Impacts will be determined 

and recommendations for the species will be considered on a case by case basis through NEPA process and in balance 

with other resource considerations. Where possible, measures should be taken in project planning to protect the 

species. 

Per BLM OR/WA 6840 policy, only vertebrate animals and plants are given BA status. Therefore invertebrates 

and fungi are not BA; they may be BS per Bureau 6840 policy or BT per BLM OR/WA 6840 policy. 

BT=Bureau Tracking in both Oregon and Washington (BTO = in Oregon, BTW = in Washington) 

Bureau Tracking is a status that portions to OR/WA BLM only per the BLM OR/WA 6840 policy. To enable an early 

warning for species which may become of concern in the future, districts are encouraged to collect occurrence data on 

species for which more information is needed to determine status within the state or which no longer need active 

management. Until status of such species changes to federal or state listed or proposed, FC, BS or BA species, BT will 

not be considered as special status species for management purposes. 

Information based on BLM IM OR 91-57, Oregon-Washington Special Status Species 6840 Policy, November 5, 1990 

and the agency Bureau 6840 policy of 9/16/88. 

FEDERAL STATUS 

LE = Listed Endangered 

Taxa listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as 

Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or by the Departments of Agriculture (ODA) and Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) of the state of Oregon under the Oregon Endangered Species Act of 1987 (OESA). 

LT = Listed Threatened 

Taxa listed by the USFWS, NMFS, ODA, or ODFW as Threatened. 

PE = Proposed Endangered 

Taxa proposed by the USFWS or NMFS to be listed as Endangered under the ESA or by ODFW or ODA under the 

OESA. 

PT = Proposed Threatened 

Taxa proposed by the USFWS or NMFS to be listed as Threatened under the ESA or by ODFW or ODA under the 

OESA. 

C = Candidate 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

348 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Taxa for which NMFS or USFWS have sufficient information to support a proposal to list under the ESA, or which is a 

candidate for listing by the ODA under the OESA. 

SoC = Species of Concern 

Former C2 candidates which need additional information in order to propose as 

Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. These are species which USFWS is reviewing for consideration as 

Candidates for listing under the ESA. 

Endangered taxa are those which are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened taxa are those likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

STATE STATUS 

Oregon’s Threatened and Endangered Species Program – ODFW 

Martin Nugent, Wildlife Diversity Program Manager The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) maintains a list of threatened and endangered species under the authority of ORS 496.172, the Oregon 

Endangered Species Act, 1987. The list included in this booklet reflects ODFW’s revisions as of December 2000. 

There are currently 36 taxa on the list. The list includes 12 marine animals (i.e. whales, sea turtles) that are not included 

in this book. The Act requires state agencies to develop programs for the management and protection of endangered 

species, and requires agencies to comply with guidelines adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission for 

threatened species. The Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission has adopted administrative rules, OAR 635-100-100 to 130, which clarify the Act and provide 

criteria for listing, delisting and protection of listed species. 

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has also adopted a rule requiring the department to develop and 

maintain a state list of Sensitive Species for vertebrates in the state. The rule is OAR 635-100-040. Sensitive species 

constitute naturally-reproducing native vertebrates which are likely to become threatened or endangered throughout all 

or a significant portion of their range in Oregon. The Sensitive Species list is for the express purpose of encouraging 

actions that will prevent further decline in species’ populations and/or habitats and thus avoiding the need for listing. 

This list is updated biennially. The list used here is from December 1997. Anyone may request that a species be added 

to or removed from the list by 

writing to the department and providing justification for the requested action. Sensitive species are broken into four 

categories defined as follows: 

SC = State Critical - Species for which listing as threatened or endangered is pending; or those for which listing as 

threatened or endangered may be appropriate if immediate conservation actions are not taken. Also considered critical 

are some peripheral species which are at risk throughout their range, and some disjunct populations. 

SV = State Vulnerable - Species for which listing as threatened or endangered is not believed to be imminent and can 

be avoided through continued or expanded use of adequate protective measures and monitoring. In some cases the 

population is sustainable, and protective measures are being implemented; in others, the population may be declining 

and improved protective measures are needed to maintain sustainable populations over time. 

SP = Peripheral or Naturally Rare - Peripheral species refer to those whose Oregon populations are on the edge of 

their range. Naturally rare species are those which had low population numbers historically in Oregon because of 

naturally limiting factors. Maintaining the status quo for the habitats and populations of these species is a minimum 

requirement. Disjunct populations of several species which occur in Oregon should not be confused with peripheral. 

SU = Status Undetermined - Animals in this category are species for which status is unclear. They may be susceptible 

to population decline of sufficient magnitude that they could qualify for endangered, threatened, critical or vulnerable 

status, but scientific study will be required before a judgment can be made. 

Heritage Program Lists (ORNHP). The criteria for the Heritage Program lists are as follows: 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

349 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

List 1 - Contains taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range. 

List 2 - Contains taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon. These 

are often peripheral or disjunct species which are of concern when considering species diversity within Oregon’s 

borders. They can be very significant when protecting the genetic diversity of a taxon. ORNHP regards extreme rarity 

as a significant threat and has included species which are very rare in Oregon on this list. 

List 3 - Contains species for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be 

threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range. 

List 4 - Contains taxa which are of conservation concern but are not currently threatened or endangered. This 

includes taxa which are very rare but are currently secure, as well as taxa which are declining in numbers or habitat but 

are still too common to be proposed as threatened or endangered. While these taxa currently may not need the same 

active management attention as threatened or endangered taxa, they do require continued monitoring. 

Appendix A - Wildlife Species List 

350 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDIX B- CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE LIST
 

Cultural Resources Located Within the Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed Analysis Area 

BLM Field Number Permanent 

(FY-) Trinomial Cultural Period Site Type 

02-014-022 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-035 35KL - Multi-Component Can Dump/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-036 35KL - Multi-Component Can Dump/Lithics 

02-014-037 35KL - Historic Rock Wall 

02-014-038 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring 

02-014-039 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-040 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring 

02-014-043 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-044 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-046 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

02-014-047 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-048 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-049 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-050 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-051 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-052 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

02-014-053 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-054 35KL - Historic Rock Cairn 

02-014-055 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-056 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-057 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-058 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-059 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-060 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring 

02-014-061 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-062 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-063 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-064 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring 

02-014-065 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Features 

02-014-066 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-067 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-068 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-069 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-070 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-071 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

02-014-072 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-073 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-074 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-075 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-076 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-077 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-078 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-079 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-080 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-081 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-082 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-083 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-084 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

02-014-085 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 351 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

02-014-086 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

02-014-087 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatters 

02-014-092 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-093 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-094 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-095 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-096 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-097 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-098 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-099 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-100 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-101 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-102 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-103 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-104 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-105 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-106 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-107 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-108 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-110 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-111 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-112 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-113 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-114 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-115 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-116 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Features 

02-014-117 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-120 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-121 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-123 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-124 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-151 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-152 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-154 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-155 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-156 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-157 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-158 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-159 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-160 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-161 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-162 35KL - Historic Cadastral Marker 

02-014-164 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-165 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-166 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-168 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-169 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-170 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-171 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-172 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-173 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-174 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-175 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

02-014-176 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-177 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

02-014-178 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-179 35KL - Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Can Dump 

352 Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

02-014-180 35KL - Prehistoric Can Dump 

02-014-181 35KL - Prehistoric Can Dump 

02-014-182 35KL - Prehistoric Can Dump 

02-014-183 35KL - Prehistoric Can Dump 

02-014-184 35KL - Prehistoric Can Dump 

02-014-185 35KL - Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Can Dump 

02-014-186 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-187 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

02-014-188 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-189 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-190 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-191 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-192 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-193 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-194 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-014-195 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-006 Part of 35KL75 Multi-Component Rock Rings/Can Dump 

01-014-008 35KL2322 Prehistoric Rock Features/Lithic Scatter 

01-014-029 35KL2323 Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Can Dump 

01-014-041 35KL2232 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-042 35KL2230 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

01-014-043 35KL2231 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-044 35KL2233 Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

01-014-045 35KL2234 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-046 35KL2235 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-047 35KL2236 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-048 35KL2237 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-049 35KL2238 Prehistoric Rock Allignment 

01-014-050 35KL2239 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-051 35KL2240 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-052 35KL2241 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-053 35KL224 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

01-014-054 35KL2242 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-055 35KL2243 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-056 35KL2244 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-057 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-058 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-059 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-060 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Alignments 

01-014-120 35KL - Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

01-014-121 35KL2245 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-122 35KL2246 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-123 35KL2247 Prehistoric Bedrock Mortars/Lithic Scatter 

01-014-124 35KL2248 Historic Can Dump 

01-014-125 35KL2249 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

01-014-126 35KL2250 Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

01-014-127 35KL2251 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

01-014-128 35KL2252 Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

00-014-002 35KL2161 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-003 35KL - Historic Rock Feature 

00-014-004 35KL - Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

00-014-005 35KL - Multi-Component Rock Ring/Shack 

00-014-006 Part of 35KL75 Prehistoric Village 

00-014-014 ORKL119 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

00-014-015 35KL2162 Multi-Component Can Dump/Lithic Scatter 

00-014-016 35KL2163 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-017 35KL2164 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 353 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

00-014-026 35KL2165 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-027 35KL2166 Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Metal Debris 

00-014-028 35KL2167 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-029 35KL2168 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-035 ORKL121 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-036 35KL2169 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-037 ORKL120 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-038 35KL2170 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-039 35KL2171 Prehistoric Litrhic Scatter 

00-014-040 35KL2172 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-056 ORKL115 Historic Refuse Scatter 

00-014-101 35KL2183 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-107 35KL2184 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-108 ORKL123 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-109 35KL2185 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-110 ORKL124 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-112 35KL2187 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-113 ORKL118 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

00-014-113 35KL2188 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-114 35KL2189 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-115 35KL2190 Multi-Component Can Dump/Lithic Scatter 

00-014-116 35KL2163 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-117 35KL2164 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-118 ORKL116 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-119 35KL - Prehistoric Peeled Tree 

00-014-120 35KL2193 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-121 35KL2194 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-123 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

00-014-125 35KL2197 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-126 35KL2198 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-127 35KL2199 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-128 35KL2200 Prehistoric Peeled Tree 

00-014-129 35KL - Prehistoric Peeled Tree 

00-014-130 35KL2201 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-131 ORKL126 Historic Can Dump 

00-014-132 35KL2202 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-133 35KL2203 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-134 35KL2204 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-135 35KL2205 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-136 35KL2206 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-137 35KL2207 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-138 35KL2208 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-139 35KL2209 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

00-014-140 35KL2210 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-141 35KL2211 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-142 35KL2212 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-143 35KL2213 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-144 35KL2214 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-145 35KL2215 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-146 35KL2216 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

00-014-147 35KL2217 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-003 35KL2086 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

99-014-015 35KL2087 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

99-014-016 35KL2106 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-017 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

99-014-018 35KL2100 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-019 35KL2101 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

354 Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

99-014-020 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

99-014-025 35KL2102 Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Can Dump 

99-014-026 35KL2103 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-027 35KL2104 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-028 35KL2105 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-064 35KL2109 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-065 Not Reported/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Private 

99-014-074 35KL2135 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-075 35KL2136 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-076 35KL2137 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

99-014-078 35KL2138 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-005 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

98-014-006 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

98-014-007 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

98-014-008 35KL2006 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-009 35KL2007 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-010 35KL2012 Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Can Dump 

98-014-011 35KL2013 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-012 35KL2014 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-013 35KL2015 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-014 35KL2016 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-016 35KL2008 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-017 35KL2009 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-050 35KL2010 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-051 35KL2011 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-052 ORKL107 Historic Can Dump 

98-014-053 35KL2058 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-054 35KL2059 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-055 35KL2060 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-056 35KL2161 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-057 35KL2062 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-058 35KL2063 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-059 35KL2064 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-060 35KL2065 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

98-014-061 35KL2066 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

98-014-062 35KL2047 Prehistoric Village/Vision Quest 

98-014-063 35KL2048 Prehistoric Village/Vision Quest 

98-014-064 35KL2049 Prehistoric Hunting Blind/Bedrock Mortars 

98-014-065 35KL2050 Prehistoric Village Site 

98-014-066 35KL2051 Prehistoric Village Site 

98-014-067 35KL - Prehistoric Peeled Tree 

98-014-068 35KL2052 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-070 35KL2053 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-071 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

98-014-072 35KL2054 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-073 35KL2055 Prehistoric Village 

98-014-074 35KL2056 Prehistoric Hunting Blinds 

98-014-075 35KL2057 Prehistoric Village 

98-014-076 35KL2067 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-084 35KL2069 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

98-014-089 35KL2068 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/House pits 

97-014-001 35KL1945 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-002 35KL1946 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-003 35KL1947 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-004 35KL1957 Historic Fence Line 

97-014-036 35KL - Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 355 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

97-014-042 35KL1948 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Groundstone 

97-014-052 35KL1972 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-053 35KL1973 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-055 35KL1959 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-056 35KL1960 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

97-014-079 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-001 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-002 35KL1893 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-003 35KL - Historic Can Dump 

96-014-005 35KL - Historic Corrals 

96-014-015 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

96-014-017 35KL1895 Prehistoric Hunting Blinds 

96-014-018 35KL1896 Prehistoric Vision Quest/Lithic Scatter 

96-014-019 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-020 35KL1897 Prehistoric Prehistoric Village 

96-014-021 35KL1898 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-022 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Shelter 

96-014-023 35KL1899 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-025 35KL - Prehistoric Sparse Lithic Scatter 

96-014-033 35KL1902 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-034 35KL1903 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-035 35KL1904 Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Insulator 

96-014-036 35KL1905 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-037 35KL1906 Prehistoric Rock hunting Blind 

96-014-038 35KL1907 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

96-014-039 35KL1908 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-040 35KL1909 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

96-014-041 35KL1910 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-042 35KL1911 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-043 35KL1912 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-044 35KL1913 Prehistoric Vision Quest 

96-014-045 35KL1914 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

96-014-8A 35KL - Multi-Component Vision Quest/Lithic Scatter/CCC 

Fence/Wagon Trail? 

95-014-002/76-014-007 35KL68 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-010 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-011 35KL - Prehistoric Cadastral Marker 

95-014-012 35KL1794 Prehistoric Cadastral Marker 

95-014-013 35KL1795 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-014 35KL1796 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

95-014-016 35KL1797 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

95-014-017 35KL1798 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Bedrock Mortars 

95-014-018 35KL1799 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

95-014-019 35KL1800 Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

95-014-020 35KL1801 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Lithic Scatter 

95-014-021 35KL1802 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-023 35KL1803 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-024 35KL1804 Prehistoric Rock Cairns/Hunting Blinds 

95-014-025 35KL1805 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

95-014-026 35KL1806 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-064 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-065 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-066 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-068 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-069 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Rock Cairns 

94-014-071 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-072 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

356 Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

94-014-073 35KL - Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

94-014-074 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-075 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-076 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-077 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-078 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-079 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-081 35KL1929 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-083 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-084 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-085 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-086 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-087 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-088 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-089 35KL - Historic Rock Fence 

94-014-091 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-094 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-095 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-096 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-097 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-098 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-099 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-100 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest/Lithic Scatter 

94-014-101 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-102 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-103 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-104 35KL - Prehistoric Hunting Blind 

94-014-105 35KL - Historic Rock Fence 

94-014-112 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-114 35KL - Multi-Component Vision Quest/Lithic Scatter/Fence 

94-014-115 35KL - Prehistoric Vision Quest 

94-014-116 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

94-014-117 35KL - Historic Figure-4 Fence 

91-014-001 35KL933 Prehistoric Rock Ring/WWII Debitage 

FY91-014-003 35KL988 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter

 (39/14-9-1) 

91-014-007 35KL982 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Rock Features 

91-014-008 35KL983 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

90-014-001 35KL889 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

90-014-002 35KL890 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

90-014-003 35KL891 Historic Homestead

 (H38/13-26-1) 

90-014-005 35KL - Prehistoric Prehistoric Village 

90-014-009 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

88-014-001 35KL700 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-002 35KL701 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-003 35KL704 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-004 35KL706 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-005 35KL709 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-006 35KL711 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-007 35KL712 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-008 35KL713 Prehistoric Village 

88-014-009 ORKL002 Historic Ranch 

87-014-002 (LR-22) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-003 (LR-53) 35KL110 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-006 (LR-79) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Possible Rock Ring 

87-014-012 (LR-100) 35KL2254 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 357 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

87-014-013 (LR-107) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-014 (LR-111) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-015 (LR-113) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-017 (LR-118) 35KL2255 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

87-014-020 (LR-136) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-021 (LR 142) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-022 (LR-143) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-023 (LR-144) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-024 (LR-152) 35KL2256 Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

87-014-025 (LR-156) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-026 (LR-170) 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Rings 

87-014-027 (LR-188) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-028 (LR-190) 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Rings 

87-014-032 (LR-132) 35KL - Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

87-014-033 (LR-27) 35KL - Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

87-014-034 (LR-210) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

87-014-035 (LR-92) 35KL - Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

86-014-001 (B-2) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-002 (B-3/4) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-004 (B-15) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-005 (B-16) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-007 (B-27) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-009 (W-99) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-010 (W-81) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-011 35KL - Multi-Component Historic Feature/Lithic Scatter 

(W-80/82/83/86/87/88/92) 

86-014-012 (W-79) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-013 (W-62) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-014 (W-6) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-015 (W-53) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-016 (W-5) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-017 (W-46) 35KL - Prehistoric Rock Cairns 

86-014-018 (W-4) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-019 (W-12) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

86-014-020 (W-10) 35KL - Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-001 35KL67 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-002 35KL69 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-003 35KL219 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-006 35KL223 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-007 35KL224 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

81-014-008 35KL225 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-009 35KL226 Multi-Component Homestead/Lithic Scatter 

81-014-010 35KL227 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-011 35KL228 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

81-014-012 35KL229 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-013 35KL699 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-014 35KL702 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-015 35KL703 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-016 35KL705 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-017 35KL707 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-018 35KL708 Prehistoric Village 

81-014-019 35KL710 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

81-014-020/ 35KL702 Prehistoric House Rings/Lithic Scatter

 81-010-KL14 

81-014-021/ 35KL705 Prehistoric House Rings/Lithic Scatter

 81-010-KL16 

80-014-001 35KL220 Prehistoric Village 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 358 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

80-014-002 35KL221 Prehistoric Village 

80-014-006 35KL83/222 Prehistoric Village 

77-014-001 35KL47 Prehistoric Rockshelter/Petroglyphs 

77-014-002 35KL48 Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

77-014-003 35KL49 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

77-014-004 35KL50 Prehistoric Village 

77-014-005 35KL51 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

77-014-006 35KL53 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

77-014-007 35KL54 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

77-014-008 35KL55 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

77-014-009 35KL56 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

77-014-010 35KL57 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

77-014-011 35KL58 Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

77-014-012 35KL73 Prehistoric Stone Rings 

77-014-014 35KL75 Prehistoric Village 

77-014-015 35KL76 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

77-014-016 35KL77 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

77-014-017 35KL78 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

77-014-018 35KL79 Prehistoric Petroglyphs 

77-014-019 35KL104 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

77-014-022 35KL52 Prehistoric Rock Ring 

76-014-002 35KL60 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

76-014-006 35KL66 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

76-014-008 35KL70 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

76-014-009 35KL71 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

76-014-010/012 35KL72 Prehistoric Rock Ring/Lithic Scatter 

76-014-011 35KL64 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

76-014-013 35KL80 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

76-014-013 35KL74 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Rock Cairns 

76-014-015 35KL82 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

76-014-017 35KL84 Prehistoric Rock Rings 

76-014-018 35KL086 Prehistoric Village 

76-014-019 35KL087 Prehistoric Village 

76-014-023 35KL65 Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

76-014-024 35KL85 Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

76-024-001 35KL59 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

74-014-001 35KL37 Prehistoric Village 

74-014-002 35KL38 Prehistoric Campsite/Lithic Scatter 

74-014-003 35KL39 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

74-014-004 35KL40 Prehistoric Campsite/Lithic Scatter 

74-014-005 35KL41 Prehistoric Campsite/Lithic Scatter 

? 35KL98 Inadequate Info Inadequate Information 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 359 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Permanent Cultural 

USFS Field Number Trinomial Period Site Type 

FS-05-09-56-0031 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0032 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0036 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0036 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0036 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0036 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0036 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0043 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0044 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0045 CA-Mod-1132 Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-0046 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0048 CA-Mod-1135 Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-0050 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0051 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0052 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0053 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-0054 CA-Mod-1141 Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-0055 CA-Mod-1142 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-0056 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-1009 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-1566 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-1567 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-1575/H CA-Mod- Multi-Component Temporary Camp/Can Dump 

FS-05-09-56-1580 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2029 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2185 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2231 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2238 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2246 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2250 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2251 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2252 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2253 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2254 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2258 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

FS-05-09-56-2261 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2262 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2264 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2265 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2266/H CA-Mod- Multi-Component Seasonal Camp/Can Dump 

FS-05-09-56-2267 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2268 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2269 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2270 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2271 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

FS-05-09-56-2272 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Rock Ring 

FS-05-09-56-2273 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2274 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2275 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2276 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2277 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2278 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2279 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2280 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2281 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 360 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

FS-05-09-56-2282 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2283 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2284 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2285 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2286 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2287 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2288 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2289 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2290 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2291 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2292 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2293 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2294 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2300 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2301 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2302 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2303 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2304 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2305 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2306 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2307 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2308 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2309 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2324 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2325 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Groundstone 

FS-05-09-56-2326 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2328 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2329 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2330 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2331 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2332 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2333 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2334 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2521 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2522 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2523 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2524 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2525 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2526 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Groundstone 

FS-05-09-56-2527 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2529 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2530 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2739 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2740 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2741 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2741 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2742 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2743 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2744 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2745 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2746 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2747 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2748 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2749 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2750 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2751 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2753 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 361 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

FS-05-09-56-2800 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2801 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2802 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2803/H CA-Mod- Multi-Component Lithic Scatter/Ranch Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2808 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2809 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2810 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2813 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2814 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-562815- CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2816 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2817 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2818 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2819 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2820 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp and Rock Art 

FS-05-09-56-2821 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2822 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2823 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2824 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2826 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2828 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2829 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2830 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2831 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2832 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2833 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2834 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2835 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2836 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2837 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2838 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2839 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2840 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2841 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2844 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2845 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp and Rock Art 

FS-05-09-56-2846 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Rock Cairn 

FS-05-09-56-2847 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Village Site 

FS-05-09-56-2848 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2849 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2850 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2851 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2852 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2853/H CA-Mod- Multi-Component Temporary Camp/Can Dump 

FS-05-09-56-2876 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2877 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2878 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2879 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2880 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2881 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2882 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2883 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Seasonal Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2884 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2885 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Village Site 

FS-05-09-56-2886 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Village Site 

FS-05-09-56-2887 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2888 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 362 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

FS-05-09-56-2889 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2890 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2891 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2892 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2893 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2895 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Temporary Camp 

FS-05-09-56-2896 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2897 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2898 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2899 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2900 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2901 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2902 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2903 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2904 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

FS-05-09-56-2905 CA-Mod- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Pooch T.S. 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 363 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Good Salvage 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Prehistoric Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

BLY-Keno Analysis 35KL- Historic Inadequate Information 

Fremont-Buzzard Salvage 35KL- Historic CCC wooden water troughs 

Fremont-Buzzard Salvage 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

LK-1848 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

LK-1846 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

LK-1847 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 364 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

LK-1845 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-BZ-P-01 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Hunting Blind 

02-BZ-P-02 (Buzzard) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-BT-P-01 (Brushy Thin) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-MU-H-01 (Mud T.S) 35KL- Historic CCC Cronin Reservoir Dam 

02-MU-P-01 (Mud T.S.) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

02-MU-P-02 (Mud T.S.) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL848 Historic Inadequate Information 

02-LS-P-01 (Last Straw) 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Fremont-Last Straw T.S. 35KL- Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 365 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Appendix B - Cultural Resources Site List 366 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDIX C - RANGELAND HEALTH DETERMINATION
 

Gerber/ Willow Valley Watershed Analysis
 

Rangeland Health Standards Assessments
 

Rangeland Health Determination 

Bureau of Land Management policy and direction articulates a preference that Rangeland Health Standards 

Assessments (RHSAs) be conducted at the watershed scale. The Gerber/Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

(GWA) is considered the Rangeland Health Standards Assessment for eight BLM administered grazing 

allotments within the GWA area. These allotments are: “J” Spring, Paddock, Bumpheads, DeVaul, 

Goodlow, Pankey Basin, Horse Camp Rim, and Rock Creek. The other ten BLM grazing allotments in the 

analysis area were individually assessed between 1999 and 2002. The GWA reiterated pertinent information 

from each of the ten completed RHSAs, but did not formally re-assess them since the assessments are recent 

and up-to-date. 

This document is tiered to the GWA and is the formal “determination” documentation for those eight assessed 

allotments, as required by policy and outlined in the Rangeland Health Standards Handbook (H-4180-1). 

The determination makes the “call” as to whether current grazing management is meeting or not meeting the 

five Oregon/Washington “Standards for Rangeland Health”, or is not meeting the Standards but management 

is making “significant progress” towards meeting them. 

The following eight allotment-specific determinations are based on the analysis and individual Standards & 

Guidelines determinations performed in the GWA Step 5 – Human Uses, Grazing. The GWA’s Step 6 – 

Management Recommendations contains proposed management and monitoring for all of the GWA covered 

allotments, including the eight assessed allotments. This section is mostly grazing related but does contain 

some non-grazing management recommendations such as juniper control. Refer to these portions of the 

GWA for more information. 

* * * 

“J” Spring Allotment (#0803) – All five Standards were determined to be fully “met” and current 

grazing management conforms with the “Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management”. Grazing 

management and monitoring is recommended to continue as described in the GWA Steps 3 & 6 for the “J” 

Spring allotment. 

Paddock Allotment (#0844) - All five Standards were determined to be fully “met” and current grazing 

management conforms with the “Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management”. Grazing management 

and monitoring is recommended to continue as described in the GWA Steps 3 & 6 for the Paddock allotment. 

Bumpheads Allotment (#0877) – Standards 1, 3, and 5 were determined to be fully “met”, but 

Standards 2 (Riparian/Wetland) & 4 (Water Quality) were determined to be “not met” and livestock 

grazing was a contributing factor for at least Standard 2. Grazing management should be modified as 

outlined in the GWA Step 6 – “Management Recommendations” section for the Bumpheads allotment. 

Appendix C - Rangeland Health Determination 367 
,loot -C .. idtli ... lor 

, . , , 

, 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Appendix C - Rangeland Health Determination 368 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDIX D - REFERENCE LIST
 

REFERENCES 

Adams, T.A. and K. Sullivan. 1990. The physics of forest stream heating: A Simple model. Timber/Fish/ 

Wildlife Report TFW-WQ3-90-007. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 

Adkison, V.L. 1998. Clear Lake Cattle and Horse Allotment Heritage Resource Inventory. Doublehead 

Ranger District, Modoc National Forest, Alturas, California. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests, Island Press, 493pages. 

Aho, P.E. 1981. Decay Problems in True Fir Stands: Symposium Proceedings, Feb. 1981, Seattle WA 

Allen, C.D. etal. 2002. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad 

Perspective, (published in) Ecological Applications January 2002, 16 pages. 

Altman, B. 2000. Version 1.0. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the East slope of the Cascade 

Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight, American Bird 

Conservancy. Boring, OR. Available online at http://community.gorge.net/natres/pif/con_plans/ 

east_slope_plan.html. 

Amoozegar, A. 1992. Compact constant head permeameter: a convenient device for measuring hydraulic 

conductivity. In C.G. Topp et al., (Ed.) Advances in measurements of soil physical properties: 

Bringing theory into practice. Soil Sci. Am. Special Publication No. 30, Soil Sci. Am., Madison, WI. 

Angell, R.F. and R.F. Miller, 1994. Simulation of leaf conductance and transpiration in Juniperus 

occidentalis. Forest Science 40(1) pp.5-17. 

Anthony, Robert G. et. al. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. 

Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 1982. Wildlife 

Management Institute, Washington DC. 

Bach, Melva, 1981. History of the Fremont National Forest. Edited by Ward Tonsfeldt. USDA Forest 

Service, Fremont National Forest. 257 pp. 

Baker, C. O., F. E. Votapka, P.E. 1990. Fish passage through culverts. Prepared by USDA Forest Serv. Tech. 

and Develop. Prog. for the US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Report No. 

FHWA-FL-90-006. 67 pp. 

Baker, M.B., Jr., 1988. Selection of silvicultural systems for water. Pages 201-211 in proceedings of the 

conference on Ponderosa Pine: The Species and its Management. WSU Cooperative Extension 

Service, Pullman, WA. 

Beckham, S.D. 2000. The Gerber Block: Historical Developments on the Public Rangelands in Klamath 

County, Oregon. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Oregon 142 pages. 

Beckham, S.D. 1984. Taylor Grazing Act in Oregon 1934-1984. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

369 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Bedell, T.E, L.E. Eddleman, T. Deboodt, and C. Jacks, 1993. Western juniper. Its impact and management in 

Oregon Rangelands. Oregon State University Extension Service EC-1417. 15 pp. 

Behnke, R.J. 1981. Systematic and zoogeographic interpretation of Great Basin trouts. In: R.J. Naiman and 

D.L. Soltz (eds.), Fishes of North American Deserts. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp 95-124. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. 

Beschta, R.L., and W. S. Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams: Significance and function. 

Water Resour. Bull. 22(3):369-379. 

Beschta, R.L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperatures and 

aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E.O. and T. W. Cundy (Eds.), 

Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Proceedings of a Symposium, 

University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57:191-232. 

Bilby, R. E. and J. W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing 

size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 118:368-

378. 

Bisson, P.A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant, C. A. Doloff, G. B. Grette, R. A. House, M. L. Murphy, K. V. Koski, 

and J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest. In: Salo, 

E.O. and T. W. Cundy (Eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. 

Proceedings of a Symposium, University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 

57:143-190. 

Bisson, PA., T.P. Quinn, G.H. Reeeves, and S.V. Gregory. 1992. Best management practices, cumulative 

effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest river systems. In: Naiman, R.J., 

ed., Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change; proceedings of a 

symposium. Seattle, WA: Springer-Verlag. p. 189-232. 

Biswell, H. 1989. Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands (published in)Vegetation Management. 

University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication. 19:83-138. 

Bowles, J.E. 1979. Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 

New York. 

Brown, GH, and J T Krygier. 1970. Effects of clearcutting on stream temperature. Water Resource Bull 6(4) 

pp. 1133-1139. 

Brown, C.B., 1960. Effect of land use and treatment on pollution. Proc. National Conf. On Water Pollution. 

US Public Health Service, p. 201-218. 

Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and Water Quality. Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis. 142 pp. 

Brown, Herbert A., R. Bruce Bury, David M. Darda, Lowell V. Diller, Charles R. Peterson and Robert M. 

Storm, 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

370 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Brown, M.S., 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resources Research 5(1), pp. 68-75. 

Buckhouse, J.C. and J.L. Mattison. 1980. Potential soil erosion of selected habitat types in the high desert 

region of central Oregon. Journal Range Management 33:282-285. 

Buckhouse, J.C., and R.E. Gaither, 1982. Potential sediment production within vegetative communities 

within Oregon’s Blue Mountains. Jour. Soil Water Cons., pp. 120-122. 

Buettner, M.E. and G.G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life Histories and Status of Catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, 

Oregon. Unpublished manuscript. National Marine Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, 

Nevada. 108pp. 

Burkhardt, J. W. and E. W. Tisdale 1976 Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology 

57:472-484. 

Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, and J.W. Barrett. 1996. Changes in Ponderosa Pine Site Productivity fallowing 

Removal of Understory Vegetation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1614-1621. 

California State Water Resources Control Board (California SWRCB), 1999. 1998California 303(d) List and 

TMDL Priority Schedule. 128 pp. 

Campbell, R. S. 1954. Fire in relation to forest grazing. Unasylva 8:154-158. 

Cannon, W.J. 1984. Cultural Resource Survey of Gerber Reservoir. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Lakeview District, Lakeview, Oregon. 

Cannon, W.J. 1985. Gerber Reservoir Cultural Resource Management Plan. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Lakeview, Oregon. 

Church, J.E. 1912. The Conservation of Snow: its dependence on forest and mountains. Sci. Amer. Supp. 

74:152-155. 

Collings, M.R. and R.M. Myrick, 1966. Effects of juniper and pinyon eradication on streamflow from 

Corduroy Creek basin, Arizona. USGS Professional Paper 491-B. 15 pages. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985. 

Csuti, Blair, A. John Kimerling, Thomas A. O’Neil, Margaret M. Shaughnessy, Eleanor P. Gaines and 

Manuela M. P. Huso, 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, 

Oregon. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. JohnWiley and Sons, Inc. 

New York. 

DeBano, L.F., Ffolliott, P.F., Baker, M.B. Jr, 1996. Fire severity effects on water resources, in Proceedings of 

a Symposium held March 11-15, 1996, Tucson, Arizona. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 77-84. 

Decker, L. M. and D. C. Erman. 1992. Short-term seasonal changes in composition and abundance of fish in 

Sagehen Creek, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:297-306. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

371 
 

Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Donald, D. B. and D. J. Alger. 1992. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for 

lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 71:238-247. 

Eddleman, L.E. and P.M. Miller, 1991. Potential impacts of western juniper on the hydrologic cycle. 

Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities, May 

29-31, 1991, pp. 176-180. 

Eglitis, A., H. Maffei and M. Schafer. 1993. Forest health on the Fremont, an assessment of the existing 

conditions and a plan for restoration. White paper developed in cooperation with Forest Pest 

Management and the Fremont National Forest. 

Ellison, L. 1960 Influence of grazing on plant succession of rangelands. Botanical Review 26:1-78. 

Everest, F.H., R. L. Beschta, J. C. Scrivener, K. V. Koski, J. R. Sedell, and C, J. Cederholm. 1987. Fine 

sediment and salmonid production. In: Salo, E.O. and T. W. Cundy (Eds.), Streamside Management: 

Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Proceedings of a Symposium, University of Washington Institute 

of Forest Resources Contribution 57:98-142. 

Fausch, K.D., and T.G. Northcote. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British 

Columbia stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:682-693. 

FEMAT, 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report 

of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. D. Louise Kingsbury (Editor) USDA 

Forest Service - Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Fitzgerald, S.A. 2002. Fuel Reduction and Restoration Treatments for Oregon’s Forest (published in) Fire in 

Oregon’s Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Options—A Synthesis of Current Issues and 

Scientific Literature. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Follansbee, J.A. and N.L. Pollock. 1978. Cultural Resources Overview: Jackson-Klamath Planning Unit. 

Cultural Resources Consultant. Report prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Fremont Forest Fire Staff, 2002. Fire History Maps and Records for Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, OR. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication. 19:297-323. 

Gates, G.R. 1982. Cultural Resource Overview, Modoc National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Modoc National Forest, Alturas, California. 

General Land Office. 1868. Surveyor’s notes for the Gerber area. 

Gomez, A., R.F. Powers, M.J. Singer, and W.R. Horwath. 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth of young 

ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1334-

1343. 

Gottfried, G.J., and L.F. DeBano, 1988. Streamflow and water quality responses to preharvest prescribed 

burning in an undisturbed ponderosa pine watershed. Poster presented at the conference Effects of 

Fire in Management of Southwestern Natural Resources, 14-17 November 1988, Tucson, AZ. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

372 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Gottfried, G.J., and DeBano, L.F., 1990. Streamflow and water quality responses to preharvest prescribed 

burning in an undisturbed ponderosa pine watershed. Paper presented at a symposium on “Effects of 

Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources,” Nov 15-17, 1988, Tucson, Arizona. General 

Technical Report 191, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, p. 222-228. 

Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R.L. Player, A.P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The northern 

goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-22. Ogden UT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48p. 

Gruell, G. E. 1999 Historical and modern roles of fire in pinyon-juniper. Pages 24-28 in S.B. Monsen and R 

Stevens (compilers). Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within 

the Interior West. Proceedings RMRS-P-9, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Gruell, G.E. 2001. Fire in the Sierra Nevada Forest. Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, MT. 

Gurnell, A.M. 1998. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity. Progress in 

Physical Geography, 22(2), pp. 167-189. 

Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier, and F.S. Hsieh, 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after road 

building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research, 11(3), pp. 436-

444. 

Helfrich, Devere. (ed) 1972. Klamath Echoes: Langell Valley-Bonanza. Klamath County Historical Society. 

Vol. No. 10, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Hester, J.W., T.L. Thurow, and C.A. Taylor, Jr., 1997. Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as 

affected by prescribed burning, J. Range Manage., 50(2), pp. 199-204 

Hicks, Ron. 1994. Memorandum to BLM-KFRA Fisheries File. United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Hopkins, W.E. 1979. Plant Associations of the Fremont National Forest, R6-ECOL-79-004. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

Hopkins, B., S. Simon, M. Schafer, T. Lillybridge. June 1993. USDA, Forest Service, Region 6, Interim Old 

Growth Definition for Ponderosa Pine Series. 

Huddleson, Russell, CH2Mhill, Peoples Energy Resources Corporation Energy Facility Proposal, Pygmy 

rabbit detection, 2002. 

Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Washington, Oregon. Stanford University 

Press. 

Isaacs, F. B. and G. Silovsky. 1981. Bald eagle management plan: Fremont National Forest. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2001. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and the 

Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1972 through 2001. Oregon Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 21 pp. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

373 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Johnson, D.M., R.R. Petersen, D.R. Lycan, J.W. Sweet, M.E. Neuhaus, and A.L. Schaedel, 1985. Atlas of 

Oregon Lakes. Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR. 317 pp. 

Johnson, K.L, 1992. Management for water quality on rangelands through best management practices: The 

Idaho approach, pages 415-441 in Naiman, R. J., ed., Watershed Management: Balancing 

Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 

Jones, J.B. and P.J. Mulholland. 2000. Streams and Ground Water. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 

Kattelmann, R.A., 1987. Feasibility of more water from Sierra Nevada Forest. Report 16. Wildland Resource 

Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. 

Kattelmann, R.A., N.H. Berg, and J. Rector, 1983. The potential for increasing streamflow from Sierra 

Nevada watersheds. Water Resources Bulletin, 19:395-401. 

Kauffman, J.B., D. Cummings, C. Heider, D. Lytjen, and N. Otting, 2000. Riparian vegetation responses to 

re-watering and cessation of grazing, Mono Basin, California. Pages 251-256 in Proceedings of the 

American Water Resources Association International Conference on Riparian Ecology and 

Management in Multi-Landuse Watersheds, August 28-31 2000, Portland, OR. 

Kennedy, T.B., A.M. Merenlender, and G.L. Vinyard. 2000. A comparison of riparian condition and aquatic 

invertebrates community indices in central Nevada. Western North American Naturalist 60:255-272. 

Kienzle, J. 1999. Soil Survey of Lake County, Oregon, Southern Part. USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Klamath Bird Observatory. 2000-2002. Summary of constant effort mist netting, Rapid ornithological 

inventory and Point count census routes in Gerber watershed. 

Knapp, P. A. and P. T. Soule’. 1996. Vegetation change and the role of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on a 

relict site in Central Oregon: 1960-1994. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 

86:387-411. 

Knighton, D., 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Arnold, London, United Kingdom. 218 pp. 

Kondolf, G.M., 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure, White Mountains, California. 

Restoration Ecology pp. 226-230. 

Krutilla, J.V., M.D. Brown, and P. Sherman, 1983. Watershed management for joint production of water and 

timber: a provisional assessment. Water Resources Bulletin, 19: 403-414. 

Lamarca, C.C. 1996. Stubble Over the Soil. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin 

Lane, L.J. and F.J. Barnes, 1987. Water balance calculations in southwestern woodlands, pages 474-479 in 

Proceedings of the Pinyon-Juniper Conference, Reno, NV, January 13-16 1986. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report INT-215. 

Langbein, W.B., and S.A. Schumm. 1958. Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual precipitation. 

American Geophysical Union Trans. 39:1076-1084. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

374 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Lantz, R. L., 1971. Influence of water temperature on fish survival, growth, and behavior, pp. 182-193 in 

Krygier, J. T., and J. D. Hall, eds., Forest land uses and stream environment, OSU Extension: 

Corvallis, OR. 

Leffler, A.L., Ryel, R., Hipps, L., Ivans, S., and M.M. Caldwell, 2002. Carbon acquisition and water use in a 

northern Utah Juniperus osteosperma (Utah Juniper) population. Tree Physiology, 22, pp. 1221-

1230. 

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Mille, 1964. Fluvial Process in Geomorphology, W. H. Freeman and 

Co., San Francisco, CA. 

Lindsey, William. December 2001. Juniper Control: Suggested Area Selection Criteria, 8 pages. United 

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area, 

Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Lusby, G. C., 1970. Hydrologic and Biotic Effects of Grazing Versus Nongrazing Near Grand Junction, 

Colorado. USGS Prof. Paper 700-B, pp B232-B236. 

Mallea-Olaetxe, J., 2000. Speaking Through the Aspens, Basque Tree Carvings in California and Nevada. 

University of Nevada, Reno and Las Vegas. 

Marcot, B. G. and D.D. Murphy. 1996. On population viability analysis and management. pp 58-76. In: 

Biodiversity in managed landscapes - theory and practice. Edited by Robert C. Szaro and David W. 

Johnston. Oxford University Press. New York, New York. 

Marshall,D.B., M.W. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1996. Species At Risk: Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered 

Vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd Edition. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 

McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source distances for 

course woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research, 20, pp. 326-330. 

Meffe, G. K. 1996. Conservation genetic diversity in natural systems, pp 41-57. In: Biodiversity in 

managed landscapes: theory and practice. Edited by Robert C. Szaro and David W. Johnston. 

Oxford University Press. New York, New York. 

Mendenhall, W., D.D. Wackerly, and R.L. Scheaffer. 1990. Mathematical Statistics with Applications. 

Duxbury Press. Belmont, California. 

Miller, R.F. 1984. Water Relations in Western Juniper. Pages 36 to 43 in Proceedings Western Juniper 

Management Short Course, October 15-16, 1984. Bend, Oregon. Sponsored by Oregon State 

University Extension Service and the Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis Oregon 97331. 

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1995. Historic Expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in Southeast 

Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist, Vol. 55, No. 1, pages 37-45. 

Miller, R. F. and J.A. Rose, 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. 

Journal of Range Management 52: 550-559. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

375 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Miller, R. F. and P. E. Wigand 1994. Holocene changes in semi-arid pinyon-juniper woodlands: response to 

climate, fire and human activities in the U.S. Great Basin. BioScience 44: 465-474. 

Miller, R.F., T. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose, 1999. The impacts of juniper encroachment on understory cover and 

diversity. Range Field Day 1999 Progress Report. Juniper Woodlands: History, Ecology, and 

Management. 

Miller, Rick, et al. 1999. History, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper Woodlands and Associated 

Shrublands: An Annual Report of Preliminary Results and Progress. Eastern Oregon Agricultural 

Research Center, Oregon State University and USDA Agricultural Research Service. 

Miller, R.C., Baisan, J. Rose and D. Pacioretti, 2001. Pre-and Post-Settlement Fire Regimes in Mountain Big 

Sagebrush Steppe and Aspen: The Northwestern Great Basin. Final Report 2001 to the National 

Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch, 2001. The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A Descriptive 

Analysis. Pages 15-30 in K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds). Proceedings of the Invasive Species 

Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: 

the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous 

Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Mitsch, W. J., 1995. Restoration of our lakes and rivers with wetlands - an important application of 

ecological engineering. Wat. Sci. Tech. 31(8): 167-177. 

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 

Montgomery, D.R., 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. Water Resources 

Research, 30(6), pp. 1925-1932. 

Murphy, M.L., and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19:179-46. 

Myers, T.J. and S. Swanson, 1996. Temporal and geomorphic variations of stream stability and morphology: 

Mahogany Creek, Nevada. Water Resour. Bulletin, 32(2), pp. 253-265. 

Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P. L. 

Olson, and E. A. Steel, 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the 

Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. Pages 127-188, in Naiman, R. J., ed., Watershed Management: 

Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 

Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat 

Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D. C., and Covelo, 

California. 246 pp. 

O’Neill, B.L., T.J. Connolly, and G. Kramer. 2001. Cultural Resource Inventory Planning Document for the 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Eastern (Klamath Falls) Region. State Museum of Anthropology 

and University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. OSMA Report No. 2001-5. University of 

Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. 

Ochoco National Forest, 1995. Bottomline survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon. 39 pages. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

376 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1995. Temperature: 1992-1994 water quality standards 

review, report of the State of Oregon Technical Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, 

Temperature Subcommittee, Portland, OR. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon, Kathryn 

Kostow, editor. Portland, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Klamath River Basin, Oregon Fish Management Plan. 

Klamath District Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Aquatic Inventories 

Project, Stream Habitat Surveys 2001, Gerber Tributaries, Klamath River Basin. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Water Quality Limited Streams 303(d) List. http:// 

www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. The 2002 303(d) list of impaired waters in Oregon. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Rare, threatened and endangered species of Oregon. Oregon 

Natural Heritage Program. Portland, Or. 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 1999. Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (in) Water Quality 

Monitoring Guidebook, version 2.0. Governor’s Natural Resource Office, Salem, Oregon. 

Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren, 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an 

unimproved, all-year grazed watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 18: 232-238. 

Pagel, Joel E. 1991. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific 

Northwest. Symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest. Region 6, USFS. 

Pagel, Joel E. 1999. Habitat analysis of some lands in south central and southeastern Oregon for peregrine 

falcons: Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management. 

Pagel, Joel E. In press. Management and monitoring of peregrine falcon nest sites in northern California and 

Oregon. In Memoria de Tercer Congreso Internacional de Recursos Naturales y Vida Silvestre. The 

Wildl. Soc. de Mexico. 

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas E. King, 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties. In National Register Bulletin No. 38, Technical Information on Comprehensive 

Planning, Survey of Cultural Resources, and Registration in the National Register of Historic Places. 

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nr/nrb38/ 

Partners in Flight. 2000. East-slope of the Cascades Landbird Conservation Plan. http:// 

community.gorge.net/natres/pif/con_plans/east_slope/east_slope_page1.html 

Pater D.E., S.A. Bryce, T.D. Thorson, J. Kagan, C. Chappell, J.M. Omernik, S.H. Azevedo, and A.J. Woods. 

1998. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon, United States Derpartment of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

377 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Peffer, E.L. 1951. The Closing of the Public Domain: Disposal and Reservation Policies 1900-1950. 

Stanford University Press, Stanford, California 

Piaskowski, R. and M. Buettner, 2003. Review of Water Quality and Fisheries Sampling Conducted in 

Gerber Reservoir, OR, with Emphasis on the Shortnose Sucker and its Habitat Needs. United States 

Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Basin Area Office. 

Platts, W.S., 1991. Livestock Grazing. In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and Their Habitats, ed. W. Meehan, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 

389-423. 

Poole, G., J. Risley, and M. Hicks. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of stream temperature. EPA Issue 

Paper EPA-910-D-01-003. 33 pages. 

Prichard, D. 1998. A users guide to assessing proper function condition and the supporting science for lotic 

areas, TR 1737-15 Riparian Area Management. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Denver, CO. 

Pyne, Stephen J., Patricia L. Andrews, and Richard D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

Quigley, T.M., K.M. Lee, and S.J. Arbelbide. 1997. Evaluation of the EIS Alternatives by the Science 

Interaction Team: Volume II. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-406. Portland, OR: U.S.D.A., Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: p. 537-1094. 

Rawley, W.D. 1994. Forest and Water Supply: Robert L. Fulton, Science and U.S. Forest Service Policy. 

Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 37: 215-224. 

Ray, Verne F. 1963. Primitive Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern California. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 

Reeves, G. H., J. D. Hall, T. D. Roelofs, T. L. Hickman, and C.O. Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating and modifying 

stream habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:519-557. 

Reeves, G., F. Everest, and J. Hall, 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner and the steelhead trout in 

western Oregon: The influence of temperature. Can. Jour. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 1603-1613. 

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-141. 118 pp. 

Richardson, C.J. 2000. Freshwater Wetlands. In: North American Terrestrial Vegetation, Second Edition. 

(Eds.) M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Riegel, G., Weixelman, D.A., D.C. Zamudio, and K.A. Zamudio, 2002. Draft South-central Oregon Riparian 

Field Guide R6-ECOL-00-02, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. 

Robison, E. G., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Coarse woody debris and channel morphology interactions for 

undisturbed streams in southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol. 15, 

149-156. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

378 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Rodnick, Kenneth J., A. Kurt Gamperl, Karen R. Lizars, Max T Bennett, and Ernest R. Keeley. 2002. Draft 

Manuscript. Thermal tolerance, metabolic Physiology and morphological variation among redband 

trout populations (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) in southeastern Oregon. Idaho State University, 

Pocatello, ID. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1991. Handouts from the Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Training Session. Wildland Hydrology, 

Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. 

Royce, E.B. and M.G. Barbour, 2001. Mediterranean climate effects. I. Conifer water use across a Sierra 

Nevada ecotone. American J. of Botany 88: 911-918. 

Salwasser, H.J. 1979. Ecology and management of the Devil’s Garden Interstate deer herd and range. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. Univ. California, Berkeley. 377 p. 

Satterlund, D. 1972. Wildland Watershed Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Schmidt, L.J., 1987. Present and future themes in pinyon-juniper hydrology. Pages 474-479 in: Proceedings 

of the Pinyon-Juniper Conference, Reno, NV. January 13-16 1986. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-215. 

Scoppettone, G. Gary and Mark E. Buettner. 1995. Information on population Dynamics and Life History of 

shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) in Tule and 

Clear Lakes. National Biological Service, Northwest Biological Science Center, Reno Field Station 

and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Sedell, J.R., G.H. Reeves, F.R. Hauer, J.A. Stanford, and C.P. Hawkins. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery 

from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environ. Manag. 14:711-

724. 

Sigler, W.S., and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin, A Natural History. University of Nevada 

Press. 425 pp. 

Silvermoon, J.M. 1985. Cultural Resource Overview, Fremont National Forest. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, Oregon. 

Silvermoon, J.M. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at the Peninsula Site, 35KL87,Gerber Reservoir, 

South-Central Oregon. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon State Office, Cultural Resource Series No. 11, Portland, Oregon. 

Simon, A., 1989. Model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, 14, pp. 11-26. 

Smith, W.K. 1985. Western Montane Forest. In: Physiological Ecology of North American Plant 

Communities. (Eds.) B.F. Chabot and H.A. Mooney. Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Sobel, Elizabeth, D. Hann, R. Hicks, J. Foran. 1992. Oral Histories of the DeVaul Ranch. (Unpublished 

transcription of tape recording of Mr. and Mrs. Orval and Bee DeVaul oral history interview.) 

Appendix D - Reference List 

379 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Manuscript at Klamath Falls Resource Area, Lakeview District, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual, USDA Handbook No. 18. US Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Soil Survey Staff, 2002. Ecological sites for Gerber Block. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Soil Survey Staff, 2002b. Ecological unit inventory of the Winema National Forest, September 3, 2002 

Progress Review. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Winema National Forest. 

Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Speaker, R., and S. Gregory. 1984. Analysis of the process of retention of organic matter in stream ecosystems. 

Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22:1835-1841. 

Strahler, A.N., 1964. Part II Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks, In: (Ed. 

Ven Te Chow) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, New York. 

Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil Survey Manual, USDA Handbook No. 18, US Department of Agriculture, 

Washington DC. 

Swanson, F. J., and G. W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in pacific 

northwest streams. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-69. Portland, OR: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 12 p. 

Swanston, D. N. 1991. Natural processes. (published in) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management 

on salmonid fishes and their habitats. William R. Meehan, editor. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19:139-179. 

Tausch, R.J., N.E. West and A.A. Nabi, 1981. Tree age and dominance patterns in Great Basin pinyonjuniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management 34: 259-264. 

Taylor, S.A., and G.L. Ashcroft, 1972. Physical Edaphology. W.H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco, 

California. 

Thomas, J.W. 1998. “What would Aldo have done?”—A personal Story. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 761-

766. 

Topp, G.C., W.D. Reynolds, and R.E. Green. (Eds.) 1992. Advances in measurement of soil physical 

properties: bringing theory to practice. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication Number 

30. Madison, Wisconsin. 

Troendle, C.A., 1982. The effects of small clearcuts on water yield from the Deadhorse Watershed: Fraser, 

Colorado. Pages 75-83 In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Western Snow Conference, 

April 20-22 1982, Reno, NV. 

Troendle, C.A. and R.M. King, 1987. The effect of partial and clearcutting on streamflow at Deadhorse 

Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology, 90, pp. 145-157. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

380 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-007. 

Washington, D.C. 135 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan. Fremont National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY (INFISH) Environmental Assessment 

and Decision Notice. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest 

Regions. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Watershed Protection and Management, Chapter 2520, Pacific Northwest 

Supplement 2500-98-1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Upper Sycan Watershed: Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Fremont 

National Forest, Lakeview Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service 2001. WEPP Version 2001.10.10.Water Erosion Prediction Project, Disturbed WEPP 

Results based on WEPP Version 2000.100., Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow Forest 

Science Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho. http://fsweb.moscow.rmrs.fs.fed.us/fswepp 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Eastside draft environmental impact 

statement. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Volume 1. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Protocol for Addressing Clean Water 

Action Section 303(d) Listed Waters, Version 2.0, 21 pages 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. National Fire Plan: Managing the 

Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment. A Report to the President in Response to 

the Wildfires of 2000. (Online at http://www.fireplan.gov). 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Grazing Lands Technology 

Institute, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. Draft Klamath and Shasta Valleys and Basins (MLRA 

D-21) Rangeland Ecological Site Descriptions. 

USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality – Water Erosion. Soil 

Quality Information Sheet – Rangeland Sheet 9. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental 

Impact Statement. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 295 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control 

Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 151 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Assessment 

Number OR-014-93-09, Integrated Weed Control Plan. June 1993. 73 pages. Klamath Falls, OR. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper 

functioning condition. Technical Report TR-1737-9. 60 pages. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

381 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Lakeview District Fire Management Activity Plan. Lakeview, 

Oregon. 40 pages. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. July 22, 1993. Gerber Underburning Project. Memorandum to Oregon 

State Director from Lakeview District Manager. 

USDI- Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final Klamath Ralls Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Klamath Falls Resource Area Environmental Assessment 

Number OR-014-94-09, Fire Management. April 1994. 48 pages. Klamath Falls, OR. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Stream habitat inventory data. Klamath Falls Resource Area 

Fisheries files. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the 

States of Oregon and Washington. August 12, 1997. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Riparian Area Management – A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. 

136 pages. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management (et.al.). 2000. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health – Technical 

Reference 1734-6. National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Manual H-4180-1 –Rangeland Health Standards. January 19, 

2001. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003 (In draft). Lakeview Interagency Fire Management Plan. 

Lakeview, OR. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003 (in draft). Little Canyon Mountain Environmental Assessment, 

148pages. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management & USDA Forest Service. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Mnagement 

Policy & Program Review. Final Report—December 18, 1995. 45 pages. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation 1999. Klamath Irrigation Project sucker salvage and North Canal Langell 

Valley Fish survey report – 1998. Unpublished report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin 

Area Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 1992. Biological Assessment on Long Term Project Operation. Klamath Project, 

Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2002 Draft Report. Review of Water Quality and Fisheries Sampling 

Conducted in Gerber Reservoir, OR with Emphasis on the Shortnose Sucker and its Habitat Needs. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

382 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for the Shortnose and Lost River Sucker. Federal Register (FR). 53(137):27130-

27134. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Biological opinion on effects of long-term operation of the Klamath 

project. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) 

Sucker Recovery Plan. Region 1, Portland Oregon. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and 

Shortnose Suckers. FR. 50 (17): 61744-61759. December 1, 1994. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological and Conference Opinions on Horsefly, Dry Prairie, and 

Pitchlog Grazing Allotments. 1-ERO-95-F-001. 28pp. 

USDI United States Geological Survey Biological Resource Division. 2003. Preliminary data on Gerber fish 

sampling. Klamath field Office. Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Veihmeyer, F.J., and A.H. Hendrickson, 1948. Soil density and root penetration. Soil Sci.65:487-493. 

Vinson, M., 1998. Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring report, prepared for the United States 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area. Klamath Falls, 

Oregon. 

Wall T.G. and T. Svejcar 2001. Western juniper encroachment into aspen communities in the northwestern 

Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 54: 691-698. 

Weixelman, D.A., D.C. Zamudio, and K.A. Zamudio, 1996. Central Nevada Riparian Field Guide. R4-

ECOL-96-01. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 

Weixelman, D.A., D.C. Zamudio, and K.A. Zamudio, 1999. Eastern Sierra Nevada Riparian Field Guide. 

R4-ECOL-99-01. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 

Wenzel, D.L. 1979. Soil Resource Inventory, Fremont National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

West N.E. 1999. Juniper-pinyon savannas and woodlands of western North America. Pages 288-308 in R.C. 

Anderson, J.S. Fralish and J.M. Baskin (eds). Savannas, barrens and rock outcrop plant communities 

of North America. Cambridge University Press, London, United Kingdom. 

West N.E., and J.A. Young, 2000. Intermountain Valleys and Lower Mountain Slopes. In: North American 

Terrestrial Vegetation, Second Edition. (Eds.) M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings. Cambridge 

University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

White, E.M., 2001. Arid and semiarid grasslands have rapid soil erosion? Soil Survey Horizons, 42:64-67. 

Willers, B. 1991. Trout biology. A Natural History of Trout and Salmon. Lyons & Burford Publishers. New 

York, NY. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

383 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Williams, G.P., and M.G. Wolman, 1984. Downstream effects of dams on alluvial rivers. United States 

Geological Survey. Prof. Paper 1286. 

Winward, A.H., 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. USFS-RMRS-GTR-47. 

Wooley, Robert. 1992. Penstemon glaucinus Conservation Strategy. Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, 

OR. 45 pp. 

Young, J. and R. Evans. 1981. Demography and Fire History of a Western Juniper Stand. Journal of Range 

Management 34: 501-506. 

Zimmerman, R.C., J.C. Goodlet, and G.H. Comer. 1967. The influence of vegetation on channel form of 

small streams. In: International Symposium on River Morphology, International Association of 

Hydrologic Sciences, Publication 75:255-275. 

Zucker, J., etal. 1983. Oregon Indians; Culture, History & Current Affairs; An Atlas& Introduction. Western 

Imprints. The Press of the Oregon Historical Society. 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Alexander, John. Executive Director, Klamath Bird Observatory. Personal communication. 

Buettner, Mark. 1998. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Area Office, Telephone 

conversation 

Forbes, Todd. 2003. Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area, Personal 

communication. 

Gates, Gerald. 2003. Heritage Resource Program Manager, Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA. Personal 

communication. 

Hayner, Steve. 2003. Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

Personal communication. 

Hedrick, Mary Jo. Assistant District Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Summer Lake, 

Oregon. Personal communication. 

Hershey, Terry. 2000. District Ranger, United States Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Personal communication. 

Huddleson, Russell. 2003. Biologist, CH2M HILL. Personal communication. 

Kellam, John. 2003. Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

Personal communication. 

Messmer, Rhine. 2000. Personal interview. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Miller, R.F., 2002. “Impact of Western Juniper on Hillslope Hydrology: Steens Mountain, OR”, delivered via 

personal communication. 

Pyke, D. A., 1994. Comments submitted to the BLM regarding the Lakeview District’s Warner Lakes 

Proposed Plan Amendment for Juniper Management. At the time, Mr. Pike was the Senior Rangeland 

Ecologist for the Cooperative Research and Technology Unit, Pacific Forest and Basin Rangeland 

Systems, National Biological Survey. 

Skelton, Gerald. 2002. The Klamath Tribes Culture and Heritage Director. Personal communication. 

Appendix D - Reference List 

384 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

APPENDIX E - MAPS
 

Appendix E - Maps 385 
Gerber - Willow Valley Watershed Analysis 

Appendix E - Maps 386