United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

September 2013 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project 

and Forest Plan Amendment # MAL - 75

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Grant County, Oregon
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual 

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected 

genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not 

all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 

days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional 

information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at 

any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the 

information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

and Forest Plan Amendment # MAL - 75

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Grant County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Teresa Raaf, Forest Supervisor

Malheur National Forest Supervisors Office

431 Patterson Bridge Road, P.O. Box 909 

John Day, OR 97845 

For Information Contact: Randy Gould, Prairie City District Ranger 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

Prairie City Ranger District

327 Front Street, P.O. Box 337 

Prairie City, Oregon 97869 

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

contacting Randy Gould using the contact information noted above. 

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

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

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization (Summit Logan) project area includes all of the Lake 

Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments. The project area is located south and 

west of Prairie City, Oregon and includes approximately 40,279 acres of National Forest System lands 

administered by the Prairie City Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest. Embedded within the 

project area is approximately 5,000 acres of private land. The Forest Service developed four alternatives: 

the No Action, the Proposed Action, and two additional action alternatives generated in response to public 

comment (scoping) and grazing permittee issues. 

FEIS Errata Sheet

Page Currently Reads Should Read

Page 378 –

Row 2, column 7 of the table

See below for Riparian 

Pasture Adaptive Strategy.

Construct exclosures around West 

Fork Summit.

Page 379 –

Row 2, columns 3, 5 and 7

Additional rest within the 

West Summit Recovery Unit.

Additional rest within the Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest i 

Summary 

Introduction 

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the potential 

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

Logan) Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant 

federal and state laws and regulations. The Summit Logan project area includes all of the Lake Creek, 

Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Range Allotments.

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

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

portion of the Summit Prairie Allotment (371 acres or less than 0.6 percent of the analysis area) occurs in 

the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed (Crane Creek subwatershed). There are no streams within 

these 371 acres. 

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

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

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

maps are in FEIS appendix B.

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purposes of the proposed action are two-fold: 

• To review and evaluate continuation or modification of grazing authorizations on Lake Creek, 

Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments (within the Summit Logan 

project area) to ensure their effectiveness in meeting or moving toward desired conditions 

outlined in the amended Forest Plan, and to be consistent with agency policy, and other 

applicable laws and regulations and; 

• Improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat to recover important attributes of aquatic 

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

The need for the action is described below: 

• Allotment Management Plans - The Rescission Act (PL 104-19, Section 504) requires that each 

National Forest “establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments for which NEPA 

analysis is needed.” In addition the Forest Plan directs updates or revisions to allotment management 

plans to address emerging resource management issues and concerns. Since direction exists to update 

allotment management plans and conditions have changes (i.e. listing of bull trout as a threatened 

species) there is a need to review and evaluate existing allotment management plans to reflect current 

management direction, policies, other applicable laws and regulations, and to address resource 

concerns in allotments. 

• Management Direction Regarding Livestock - There is a need to meet the Malheur Forest Plan 

goals by providing a sustained production of palatable forage for grazing by livestock and dependent 

wildlife species while meeting the needs of other resources and uses at a level which is responsive to 

site-specific objectives (USDA Forest Service 1990 Forest Plan, page IV-2) as well as to contribute to 

the social and economic health of communities which are significantly affected by National Forest 

management (USDA Forest Service 1990 Forest Plan, page IV-3, # 42). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

ii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The Forest Plan also provides direction for continued range improvements as outlined in standards #87 

and 88 below: 

○ Employ all available methods to achieve the desired levels of utilization by permitted 

livestock and big game. Design the methods selected for controlled livestock use to fit the 

site-specific requirements for improving the riparian area to satisfactory condition. Any 

one combination of methods may be used to treat unsatisfactory riparian areas such as 

corridor fencing, herding, additional water developments, salting, nonuse for resource 

protection, early add/or late season use, shorter grazing seasons, reduced livestock 

numbers, reduced livestock numbers, control of degree of use, and/or creating additional 

pastures through fencing (USDA Forest Service 1990 Forest Plan, pg.IV-35). 

○ Design and implement structural and nonstructural range improvements to maintain 

productivity and range condition in addition to benefiting both wildlife and livestock. 

• Resource Condition for Aquatic Habitat in Range Allotments: There is a need to improve aquatic 

habitat in the range allotments within the project area to support all life stages of threatened bull trout 

populations and other aquatic species. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation and 

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

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

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

The Inland Native Fish Strategy directs that grazing practices be modified (e.g., accessibility of 

riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that 

retard or prevent attainment of riparian management objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland 

native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting riparian management 

objectives (USDA Forest Service 1995 INFISH GM 1).

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

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

upward recovery trends or properly functioning conditions toward desired conditions identified in 

appendix A (Table 102).

Proposed Action in Brief 

Figure 1 illustrates the arrangement of range allotments for the proposed action. Table 1 summarizes the 

basic proposals for each grazing allotment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest iii

Figure 1. Range allotment configuration for proposed action
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

iv Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 1. Summary of the proposed action

Element Lake Creek Allotment Logan Valley Allotment McCoy Creek Allotment Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

About half of the allotment 

(5,069 acres) would remain 

vacant in the McCoy Creek 

and newly designated Corral 

Basin units. 

Periods of rest or deferment 

during the season of use based 

on resource needs. Would not 

be a systematic or scheduled 

rotation. 

Deferred rotation grazing 

system. Systematic rotation of 

deferment among units. Provide 

flexibility to change the time of 

year when units would be used. 

Periods of rest or deferment 

during the season of use 

based on resource needs. 

Would not be a systematic or 

scheduled rotation. 

Boundary 

Changes

Remove 388 acres from Lake 

Ck. Allotment (298 acres from 

McCoy Ck. Unit and 90 acres 

from Horse Pasture Unit)

Add 388 acres from Lake Ck. 

Allotment to Logan Valley 

Allotment – (becomes Deardorff 

Unit) Remove 267 acres of Lake 

Creek Unit (218 ac.) and N. Fork 

Unit (49 ac.) from McCoy 

Allotment.

Add 4,449 acres from Lake Ck. 

Allotment to Summit Prairie 

Allotment - This new unit called 

Bosenberg Unit, which is now 

part of Summit Prairie 

Allotment. Remove 4,449 acres from 

Lake Creek Allotment 

(Bosenberg Unit). Rename 

2,430 ac. the Corral Basin Unit. 

Add 91ac. of Bosenberg Unit to

McCoy Ck. Unit. Eliminate 

Bosenberg Unit from Lake Ck. 

Allotment.

Add 267 acres from McCoy 

Creek Allotment to Logan Valley 

Allotment – Keep Lake Ck. Unit 

name (218 ac.) and add the 49 

acres from North Fork Unit to Flat 

Field Unit.

Add 52 acres from Front Field 

Unit in Logan Valley Allotment 

to Little Logan unit in Summit 

Prairie Allotment

Remove 52 acre Front Field Unit 

from Logan Valley Allotment and 

add to Summit Prairie Allotment.

Remove 53 acre Starvation Unit 

from McCoy Creek Allotment 

(possibly be added to Dollar Basin 

Allotment in future NEPA 

analysis)

Remove 349 acres from SW 

corner of McCoy Creek Unit of 

Lake Creek Allotment (possibly 

be added to Dollar Basin 

Allotment in future NEPA 

analysis)

Combine Big Ck. portion of E. 

Lake Ck. with North and South 

Big Creek Units to create 623 

acre Big Creek Riparian Pasture.

Combine Dry Unit (28 ac.) and 

Ridge unit (264 ac.) into one unit 

called Ridge Unit (292 ac.) 

The present allotment 

consisting of 10,196 ac. would 

decrease in size to 5,069 ac. 

The present allotment consisting 

of 3,756 ac. would increase in 

size to 4,359 ac.

The increase in size would allow 

additional rest for the Logan 

Valley allotment. 

The present allotment consisting 

of 980 acres would decrease in 

size to 660 acres. 

The present allotment 

consisting of 25,331 acres 

would increase in size to 29,832

acres. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest v 

Element Lake Creek Allotment Logan Valley Allotment McCoy Creek Allotment Summit Prairie Allotment

Livestock 

numbers 0 357 cow/calf pairsa

 63 cow/calf pairsa 260 cow/calf pairsa

Forage 

allocations N/A 1,983 AUMsb 416 AUMs b 1,546 AUMs b

Grazing Season

None 6/10 – 10/15 6/1 – 10/30 6/10 – 10/24

same as currently permitted

Changes 

About half of allotment, which 

had previously been vacant 

would be added to Summit 

Prairie and Logan Valley 

Allotments where it would be 

grazed.

Livestock would be distributed 

over a larger landscape by adding 

areas from the Lake Creek and 

McCoy Creek allotments. 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture unit 

would require livestock removal 

by August 15th to protect bull 

trout spawning habitat in Big 

Creek. 

Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators 

are listed in appendix E.

Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators 

are listed in appendix E. 

Livestock would be distributed 

over a larger landscape (4,501 

more acres) by adding areas 

from Lake Creek and Logan 

valley Allotments 

Forage allowable use, move 

triggers, and endpoint indicators 

are listed in appendix E.

Adaptive 

Management None proposed

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in appendix A (Table 104) 

are summarized in Table 23 in 

chapter 2.

None proposed

Adaptive management 

strategies shown in appendix A 

(Table 104) are summarized in 

Table 29 in chapter 2.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

vi Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Element Lake Creek Allotment Logan Valley Allotment McCoy Creek Allotment Summit Prairie Allotment

Improvements 

and Structures

Construct 2.5 miles of fence

to separate SW corner of 

McCoy Ck. Unit from Lake Ck. 

Allotment

Remove 0.3 miles of existing 

fence to combine N. Fork unit of 

McCoy Allotment into Flat Field 

Unit of Logan Valley Allotment.

Remove 1 mile of fence to 

create larger Ridge Unit by 

combining Dry (28 ac.) and 

existing Ridge units (264 ac.) of 

McCoy Allotment. 

Remove 0.7 miles of fence to 

combine Front Field Unit of 

Logan Valley Allotment with the 

Little Logan Unit of Summit 

Prairie Allotment. 

Construct 7 miles of fence to 

add Bosenberg unit from Lake 

Ck. Allotment to Summit Prairie 

Allotment.

Construct two water gaps

where National Forest System

road 1648 crosses Bosenberg 

Creek and an unnamed 

tributary of Big Creek. 

Convert 0.3 miles of electric 

fence in the North Fork unit along 

Big Creek to a permanent letdown fence.

Develop three ponds in the 

uplands to provide alternative 

water away from perennial 

streams. 

Construct 2.5 miles of fence to 

define Deardorff Unit which 

absorbs 298 ac. of the McCoy 

Creek unit and 90 ac. of the 

Horse Pasture from the Lake 

Creek allotment into the Logan 

Valley allotment.

Develop a headwater spring of 

Bosenberg Creek. Fence and 

pipe water to a trough located 

about 300 ft. from the spring. 

Remove 1.2 miles of fence to 

create Big Creek Riparian Unit 

through combining Big Creek 

portion of the East Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek and South Big 

Creek into one unit.

Pipe water from Bosenberg 

Creek to a trough located 

approximately 100 ft. from the 

stream.

a – Cow/calf pairs - a mature cow and her suckling calf.

b – AUMs – Animal Unit Month - The amount of forage required by one animal unit (AU) for one month is called an Animal Unit Month (AUM). One animal unit is defined as a 1,000 lb. 

beef cow with or without a nursing calf with a daily requirement of 26 lb. of dry matter forage. Therefore, one AUM is equal to 780 lbs of dry matter forage (30 days X daily forage 

requirement). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest vii

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan as amended by amendment 29. 

Specifically, the numeric value for shade in hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan amendment 

29 would be modified for site specific stream reaches. The numeric values in amendment 29 were based 

upon the best information available at the time the Decision Notice was signed by the Malheur National 

Forest Supervisor in August of 1994. The DN stated that “if new information becomes available in the 

future which indicates changes in the numeric values to achieve the stated desired condition, these values 

may be inserted as a clarification/correction to the individual standard”. New available information and 

data collected for the Summit Logan project would be used to amend the numberic values for hardwood 

meadow complexes on several stream reaches on Summit Creek, West Fork Summit Creek, Lake Creek, 

Big Creek, and Bosenberg Creek.The proposed amended percent shade values developed for 

hardwood/meadow complexes within the Summit Logan allotments are based on work by the Carex 

Working Group (2012) and the Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water 

Quality Management Plan completed by State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2010). 

Work carried out by the Carex Working Group involved estimating the expected (and perhaps maximum) 

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

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

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

reaches of Summit Creek the Carex Working Group considered the habitat characteristics of each reach, 

the habitats occupied by mature willow thickets, alder thickets, and sedge meadows on the reference sites, 

and similar plant communities we have observed elsewhere in Grant and Harney Counties (Carex 

Working Group 2010, 2011a, and 2011b). 

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

Table 2. Potential values for shade in the TMDL were derived using Ecoregion Based Effective Shade 

Curves if reference data was not available. These effective shade curves are general heat load allocations 

that are identified by region and channel width for various riparian plant communities. The given values 

represent the maximum possible effective shade if the potential height and density are present. The curves 

account for latitude, critical summertime period and stream aspect. The Carex Working Group only 

collected reference data for alder and/or willow riparian plant communities. As a result, the Native 

Floodplain Grasses effective shade curve was used from the TMDL. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

viii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 2. Proposed modifications to the Malheur Forest Plan 

Stream/Reach

Amendment 29 Numeric Value to be Modified 

Proposed Modification Amendment 29 Element Location Specific Value 

Summit Creek

Reach 1 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex 

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded Shade 65% or greatera

 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with hardwoodsb

or ≥25% in areas with native floodplain 

grassesa

 

Summit Creek 

Reach 4 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with hardwoodsb

or ≥25% in areas with native floodplain 

grassesa

 

Summit Creek 

Reach 5 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; 

shade ≥ 60%b

 

Summit Creek 

Reach 6 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded ≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

Summit Creek 

Reach 7 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; 

shade ≥ 80% for alder-dominated 

areas (Amendment 29), ≥ 60% for 

mixed shrub areasb

, or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain grassesa

 

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded ≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; 

shade ≥ 80% for alder-dominated 

areas (Amendment 29), ≥ 60% for 

mixed shrub areasb

, or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grassesa

 

Lake Creek 

Reach 1

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; 

shade ≥ 60% in hardwood areasb or ≥ 

25% in areas with native floodplain 

grassesa 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest ix

Stream/Reach

Amendment 29 Numeric Value to be Modified 

Proposed Modification Amendment 29 Element Location Specific Value 

Lake Creek 

Reach 2

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Increased hardwood shade 

component: shade ≥ 60%b or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grassesa

 

Lake Creek 

Reach 3

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and 

coniferb or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grassesa

 

Lake Creek 

(no proper 

functioning 

condition 

(PFC)c

assessment) 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

Big Creek (no 

PFC 

assessment, 

south side of 

FS rd 16 for 

0.15 miles)

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

Big Creek 

Reach 1

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

50-65% canopy closure 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and 

coniferb or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grassesa

 

Big Creek 

Reach 2

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and 

coniferb or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grassesa

 

Big Creek 

Reach 3

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and 

coniferb

 

Bosenberg 

Creek 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure b) Mixed Conifer species Hardwood/meadow complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

a – State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2012

b – Carex Working Group 2012

c- PFC - proper functioning condition - A methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

x Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Public Involvement 

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

Logan Grazing Authorization Project has transitioned from an Environmental Assessment (EA) to an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On February 1, 2012, a scoping letter providing information and 

seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 230 entities, including agencies, groups, 

individuals and other parties that had requested information on general forest or specific range projects. 

Four comments letters were received: Oregon Natural Desert Association in conjunction with Oregon 

Wild, Grant County Conservationists, Blue Mountain Biodiversity and an anonymous commenter. 

Original letters, emails and other scoping comments are contained in the project files. Additionally, on 

February 8, 2012, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register. 

Interaction with the Summit Logan allotment grazing permittees has been ongoing since the fall of 2007 

and has included several field trips and meetings. Field trips to the project area were facilitated by the 

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

the permittees. 

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

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation. This government-to-government consultation is being conducted under the terms of specific 

agreements with individual tribes and includes regular contact and meetings as appropriate. Scoping 

letters were mailed to the tribal governments. In the spring and fall of 2008 the District Ranger, 

Rangeland Management Specialist and various Interdisciplinary Team members met with the Burns 

Paiute Tribe to discuss their proposals for the Logan Valley area. Several partnership projects are ongoing 

in the project area involving the Burns Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley allotment permittees. The Burns 

Paiute Tribe is involved in constructing several riparian pasture and exclosure fences on Big Creek and 

Lake Creek to assist in grazing management and aquatic habitat recovery. On April 3, 2013 the Prairie

City Ranger District met with representatives from the Burns Paiute Tribe to discuss ongoing and future 

projects, which included the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project. 

Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

The Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project DEIS was completed in October 2012, and was made 

available to the public the week of November 5, 2012. The 45 day review period began on November 2, 

2012, the day that the Notice of Availability was printed in the Federal Register. The review period ran 

through December 17, 2012. Letters informing that the DEIS was available was mailed to over 100 

potentially interested publics. Copies of the DEIS were mailed to those individuals that responded during 

scoping. Additional copies were given to other individuals, agencies and groups following the initial 

mailing. Eight written and verbal comments were received from the public. These comments, with agency 

responses, are located in appendix F. 

Issues 

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

this analysis: 

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

action; however, the effects cannot be reduced by normal best management practices (BMPs) or 

project design criteria (PDCs). Alternatives were developed to address these issues. 

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

action; however, the effects could be reduced with normal best management practices and project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xi

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

these analysis issues will be tracked in the relevant resource area effects analyses in chapter 3 and in 

the Comparison of Alternatives in chapter 2. Several of the issues for this project fall into this 

category.

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

action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant 

to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The 

Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations require identification and elimination from 

detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 1506.3). 

Table 3. Significant issues

Significant Issue Significant Issue Indicator(s)

Bull trout critical habitat 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazing during spawning season by stream 

• Miles of critical bull trout habitata 

○ Not grazed 

○ Grazed annually

○ Grazed with periods of rest 

○ Riparian pastures with rest 

○ Riparian exclosures not grazed 

• Rate of Recovery

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 5 

years 

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 10 

years 

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve desired vegetation conditions and 

channel characteristics in 10 years 

Economic impacts to 

permittees and the local 

community 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

○ Available forage and Animal Unit Months 

○ Costs of improvements 

○ Acres rested or not grazed 

○ Acres available for grazing 

○ Miles of added fence maintenance 

a - Miles of 303d listed streams are included in the critical bull trout habitat miles

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

and allow further comparison of the proposed action and alternatives. The environmental consequences of 

the proposal are disclosed in chapter 3 of the FEIS. Issues are discussed in detail in chapter 1. The 

significant issues are noted below: 

• Bull Trout Critical Habitat – Grazing may degrade critical habitat for threatened bull trout. There 

may be direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of livestock use of streams and riparian areas that 

could negatively affect spawning and reproductive success. Livestock grazing may trample eggs, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

impact stream banks increasing sediment and widening stream channels, decrease shade-providing 

plants on the banks and increase water temperatures. Continued grazing on streams that are 

“functional at risk” may impact recovery of resource values including critical bull trout and beaver 

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

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

willows are under-represented in density and age classes, and water temperatures are high. 

• Economic Impacts to Permittees and Community – Changes in how allotments are managed can 

affect operational and implementation costs. Riparian exclosures and riparian pastures can exclude 

productive forage areas and impact livestock movement. The addition of fences can increase annual 

fence maintenance costs. Permittees, managers and employees of allotments reside in the local 

communities and contribute to the local economy. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The Forest Service developed four alternatives: the no action, the proposed action, and two other action 

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

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

chapter 2. Project design criteria, best management practices and monitoring are also listed in detail in 

FEIS chapter 2. 

Alternative 1 - No-Action 

For this FEIS, the no action alternative is interpreted to be no grazing. All term grazing permits would be 

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

given two years written advance notice of cancellation of their permits as provided for under 36 CFR 

222.4 (a)(1). Upon cancellation of the existing permit, there would be no livestock grazing under this 

alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 was developed to establish a grazing system that provides opportunities for rest and 

deferment (flexibility in season of grazing) in the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments to recover 

important attributes of aquatic habitat including riparian vegetation and hardwoods, stream shade, and 

streambank stability. 

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

allotments and a small geographically-isolated portion of Logan Valley would be added to Summit 

Prairie. These changes would create a larger landscape for grazing in those allotments with no proposed 

increase in livestock numbers (animal unit months or AUMs1

). Adding additional acres to these 

allotments, combined with other grazing unit adjustments within the allotments, provide the flexibility to 

periodically rest entire grazing units or defer the season of grazing to restore riparian area conditions, 

while maintaining enough acres to be grazed annually to support a viable grazing operation. 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit of the Lake Creek Allotment would be removed from the 

allotment. It may be added to an adjacent allotment in the future. This would be analyzed in a future 

NEPA analysis. The remainder of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant, as is has been for many 

 

1 The AUM is the amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” (AU) grazing for one month. The quantity of forage 

needed is based on the cow’s metabolic weight, and the animal unit is defined as one mature 1,000 pound cow and 

her suckling calf. It is assumed that such a cow nursing her calf will consume 26 pounds of dry matter (DM) of 

forage per day (20 lbs for the cow and 6 lbs for the calf).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xiii

years, to protect important habitat for the bull trout, which is listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Figure 2. Alternative 2 - range allotment configurations

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 

Combining two small units into one larger unit would help to improve livestock distribution for more 

uniform forage utilization. Small, geographically-isolated grazing units within this allotment would be 

added to adjacent allotments thus improving logistics of moving animals between units. Ongoing 

activities described in FEIS chapter 1 (Current Management) include fence construction that excludes 

grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to recover hardwoods,stream shade, and critical habitat 

for bull trout. 

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable 

use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture. See FEIS appendix E 

for specific details. 

Figure 2 displays the allotment configuration for alternative 2.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xiv Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternative 3

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

Lake Creek allotment would remain vacant in this alternative. The Lake Creek allotment contains all or 

portions of Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creek which are designated 

critical habitat for bull trout. 

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable 

use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing 

condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the 

presence of critical bull trout habitat. See FEIS appendix E for specific details. 

Ongoing water developments in the Logan Valley allotment would provide opportunities to defer the 

season of grazing and a change to a deferred grazing system. 

Figure 3. Alternative 3 range allotment configurations

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xv

Combining two small units into one larger unit would help to improve livestock distribution for more 

uniform forage utilization. Small, geographically-isolated grazing units within this allotment would be 

added to adjacent allotments thus improving logistics of moving animals between units. Ongoing 

activities described in chapter 1 (Current Management) would construct fences that exclude grazing from 

most of the Lake Creek grazing unit riparian area (McCoy Allotment) to recover hardwoods , stream 

shade, and critical habitat for bull trout. Riparian pastures and exclosures would be constructed on 

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

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

composition and vigor, and streambank stability. Figure 3 displays range allotment configurations for 

alternative 3.

Alternative 4

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

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

allotment. The portions of the Lake Creek allotment containing Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin 

Creek, and Bosenberg Creek (critical bull trout streams) would remain vacant. Adding acres from the 

Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment establishes a larger grazing landscape providing the 

flexibility to rest and defer (flexibility in season of grazing) grazing to recover important attributes of 

aquatic habitat, while maintaining enough acres to be grazed annually to support a viable grazing 

operation. 

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 

Combining two small units into one larger unit would help to improve livestock distribution for more 

uniform forage utilization. Small, geographically-isolated grazing units within this allotment would be 

added to adjacent allotments thus improving logistics of moving animals between units. Ongoing projects 

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

hardwoods, stream shade and critical habitat for bull trout. Management changes are proposed in the 

Summit Prairie allotment to encourage recovery of riparian vegetation to enhance stream shade, riparian 

vegetation composition and vigor, and streambank stability. Daily riding by the permittee would be 

required when livestock are within the Sagehen and Little Logan units to move and distribute animals into 

the uplands away from Summit Creek. Small exclosures would be constructed and cages placed in the 

Sagehen and Little Logan units. A riparian pasture would be constructed from a portion of the Summit 

Rock and North Summit units containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xvi Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 4. Alternative 4 range allotment configurations

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable 

use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing 

condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the 

presence of critical bull trout habitat. See FEIS appendix E for specific details. 

Figure 4 displays range allotment configurations for alternative 4.

Table 4 summarizes the various elements of the alternatives by range allotment in a comparative format. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xvii

Table 4. Summary of alternative actions

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Lake Creek Allotment

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

Grazing System No Grazing Vacant Vacant Vacant

Boundary Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 4,778 acres of the 

Lake Creek allotment would be 

absorbed into the adjacent Logan 

Valley and Summit Prairie 

allotments. An additional 349 would 

be removed from the Lake Creek 

allotment. This area may be added 

to the Dollar Basin allotment in the 

future. 

No boundary changes. Entire 

allotment would remain vacant. 

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake 

Creek allotment would be absorbed 

into the adjacent Logan Valley 

allotment. An additional 349 would 

be removed from the Lake Creek 

allotment. This area may be added 

to the Dollar Basin allotment in the 

future. 

Livestock Numbers 

(AUMs) 0 0 0 0 

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

Improvements and 

Structures 0 0 0 0 

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Forage Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, and 

Endpoint Indicators

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Special Requirements None None None None

Adaptive Management None None None None
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xviii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Logan Valley Allotment

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

Grazing System No Grazing Periods non-scheduled rest and 

deferment Deferred Rotation Periods non-scheduled rest and deferment 

Boundary Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 655 acres from the 

Lake Creek and McCoy Creek 

allotments would be added to the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

The Big Creek portion of the East 

Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and 

South Big Creek would be combined 

into a single large unit known as Big

Creek Riparian pasture.

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment. 

Approximately 267 acres of the 

McCoy Creek allotment would be 

absorbed into the Logan Valley 

allotment. 

The Big Creek portion of the East 

Lake Creek, North Big Creek, and 

South Big Creek would be 

combined into a single large unit 

known as Big Creek Riparian 

pasture.

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment. 

Approximately 655 acres from the 

Lake Creek and McCoy Creek 

allotments would be added to the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

The Big Creek portion of the East Lake 

Creek, North Big Creek, and South Big 

Creek would be combined into a single 

large unit known as Big Creek Riparian 

pasture.

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock Numbers

(AUMs) 0 1,983 1,983 1,983 

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

Improvements and 

Structures 0 

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional 

fences would be constructed and 2.3 

miles removed. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of 

additional fences would be 

constructed and 1.5 miles 

removed. 

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional 

fences would be constructed and 2.3 

miles removed. 

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable See FEIS chapter 2, Table 21 See FEIS chapter 2, Table 33 See FEIS chapter 2, Table 43

Forage Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, and 

Endpoint Indicators

Not Applicable See FEIS appendix E See FEIS appendix E See FEIS appendix E 

Special Requirements None 

Livestock would be removed by 

August 15th to protect bull trout 

spawning habitat in the Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture. 

Livestock would be removed by 

August 15th to protect bull trout 

spawning habitat in the Big Creek 

Riparian Pasture. 

Livestock would be removed by August 

15th to protect bull trout spawning 

habitat in the Big Creek Riparian 

Pasture.

Adaptive Management None

None – Lake Creek will be fenced 

(riparian exclosures) with no grazing 

as part of ongoing projects (see 

appendix C). 

None – Lake Creek will be fenced 

(riparian exclosures) with no 

grazing as part of ongoing 

projects (see appendix C). 

None – Lake Creek will be fenced 

(riparian exclosures) with no grazing 

as part of ongoing projects (see 

appendix C). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xix

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

McCoy Creek Allotment

Allotment Acres Not Applicable 660 660 660 

Grazing System No Grazing Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation

Boundary Changes Not Applicable

The Lake Creek and North Fork 

units (267 acres) of the McCoy 

Creek allotment would be removed 

from the McCoy Creek allotment 

and absorbed into the Logan Valley 

allotment.

The Starvation unit would be 

removed from the McCoy Creek 

allotment and possibly added to the 

Dollar Basin allotment in the future. 

A separate environmental analysis 

would be required.

Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 

Livestock Numbers

(AUMs) 0 416 416 416

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

Improvements and 

Structures 0 Approximately 1 mile of fence 

removed Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Forage Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, and 

Endpoint Indicators

Not Applicable See FEIS appendix E See FEIS appendix E See FEIS appendix E 

Special Requirements None None None None

Adaptive Management None None - Lake Creek fenced in 

riparian exclosures with no grazing.

None - Lake Creek fenced in 

riparian exclosures with no 

grazing.

None - Lake Creek fenced in riparian 

exclosures with no grazing.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xx Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Summit Creek Allotment

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

Grazing System No Grazing Periods non-scheduled rest and 

deferment Deferred Rotation Deferred Rotation

Boundary Changes Not Applicable

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment.

The Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) 

from the vacant Lake Creek allotment 

would be added to the Summit Prairie 

Allotment.

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment.

Riparian pastures and grazing 

exclosure would be constructed in 

the Sagehen, Little Logan and 

North Summit units allowing 

portions of Summit Creek to be 

rested. 

Approximately 52 acres would be 

removed from the Logan Valley 

allotment and absorbed into the 

Summit Prairie allotment.

A riparian pasture would be 

constructed containing portions of 

Summit Creek and West Fork Summit 

Creek in portions of the Summit Rock 

and North Summit units.

Livestock Numbers

(AUMs) 0 1,546 1,546 1.546

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

Improvements and 

Structures 0 

Approximately 7.0 miles of new fence 

would be constructed and 0.7 miles 

removed.

Approximately 12.2 miles of 

additional fences would be 

constructed and 0.7 miles 

removed.

Approximately 6.1 miles of additional 

fences would be constructed and 0.7 

miles removed.

Minimum Rest 

Requirements Not Applicable See FEIS chapter 2, Table 27 See FEIS chapter 2, Table 37 See FEIS chapter 2, Table 47

Forage Allowable Use, 

Move Triggers, and 

Endpoint Indicators

Not Applicable See FEIS appendix Ea See FEIS appendix E See FEIS appendix E 

Special Requirements None 

To ensure adequate protection of all 

streams in the unit, riding in the 

Bosenberg unit would be required to 

maintain livestock concentrations in 

the uplands.

Part of the Bosenberg Unit was 

burned in early 1990 wildfires. To 

allow continued recovery of 

Bosenberg Creek, specific monitoring 

criteria and stream bank alteration 

standards would be applied. (Chapter

2 (Monitoring) and appendix E). 

 

Daily riding by the permittee would 

ensure livestock stay in the uplands, 

reducing grazing use along Summit 

Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan 

units during the season of use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxi

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Adaptive Management None

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in FEIS appendix A (Table 

104) are summarized in chapter 2, 

Table 29

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in FEIS appendix A (Table 

104) are summarized in chapter

2, Table 39

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in FEIS appendix A (Table 104) 

are summarized in chapter 2, Table 

49. 

a - Move triggers and allowable use levels on herbaceous hydrophytic riparian species (riparian greenline), riparian woody shrubs, and bank alteration vary by grazing unit and 

alternative.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

chapter 3 of the FEIS. A concise summary of the effects is displayed in the tables below.

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives: significant and analysis issues

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Issue: Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazed 

during spawning season by stream 0 0 0 0 

Miles of critical 

bull trout 

habitat for 

occupied and 

unoccupied: 

Not grazed 35 9.9 14.3 14.3

Grazed annually 0.0 7.3 12.1 15.4

Grazed with periods of rest 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0

Riparian pasture with rest 0.0 2.7 7.4 4.8

Riparian exclosures not 

grazeda

 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Rate of 

Recovery:

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve proper 

functioning condition in 5 

years 

31.1 29.6 33.3 31.7

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve proper 

functioning condition in 

10years 

35 30.9 34.4 34.5

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve 

desired vegetation and 

channel conditions in 10 

years 

31 17.2 32.1 25.5

Issue: Economic Impacts to Permittees and the Local Community 

Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 0 

Upper limit AUMs are the same for every 

alternative: 

Lake Creek: 0

Logan Valley: 1,983 

McCoy Creek: 416

Summit Prairie: 1,546 

Total Available 

Forage 

(lbs. acre)/ Animal 

Unit Months 

Supported by 

Available Forage 

(AUMs) 

Note: Total Available 

forage was 

calculated using a 

45% forage use level 

by livestock. Wildlife 

use was not included 

in the estimate.

Lake Creek

No Forage or 

AUMS for 

Livestock

2,275,922/

2,918

No Livestock 

Use of 

Forage

4,382,366/ 

5,618

No Livestock 

Use of Forage

4,055,049/ 

5,199

No Livestock 

Use of Forage

Logan Valley 4,329,288/

5,550

4,164,989/ 

5,340

4,329,288/ 

5,550

McCoy Creek 775,585/

994

775,585/

994

775,585

994

Summit Prairie 8,030,701/

10,296

7,109,413/

9,115

7,111,601/ 

9,117
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxiii

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Costs of 

Improvements:

Lake Creek 

$0

$67,500 $0 $67,550

Logan Valley $74,400 $12,600 $80,100

McCoy Creek $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

Summit Prairie $224,100 $333,800 $155,600

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed (average 

minimum on an 

annual basis over 

the next 10 years):

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

Logan Valley 3,756 246 60 246

McCoy Creek 980 0 0 0 

Summit Prairie 25,331 3,453 94 20

Acres available for 

Grazing (average on 

an annual basis over 

the next 10 years)

b

: 

Lake Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan Valley 4,113 3,911 4,113

McCoy Creek 660 660 660

Summit Prairie 26,379 25,289 25,363

Miles of Added 

Fence Maintenancec

: 

Lake Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan Valley 4.8 2.3 2.3

McCoy Creek 1.4 1.4 1.4

Summit Prairie 7.3 12.5 4.6

Analysis Issues

Fences are 

movement barriers to 

wildlife 

Miles of 

Fence 

Removed

Lake 

Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan 

Valley 2.3 1.5 1.5

McCoy 

Creek 1.0 1.0 1.0

Summit 

Logan 0.7 0.7 0.7

Miles of Fence 

Constructed 

See Significant Issue “Miles of Added Fence Maintenance” for 

miles of fence constructed. 

Design Elements to 

Reduce Impacts 

Not 

Applicable 

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, 

Design Elements are in place requiring a smooth 

bottom wire at least 16 inches above the ground 

to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum top 

wire height of 42 inches, and spacing of 10 

inches between the top and next lower wire to 

reduce the potential of back legs being caught 

when animals jump the fence. 

Proposed Move 

Triggers, End-Point 

Indicators not 

capable of allowing 

for riparian recovery 

Move Triggers and 

End-Point Indicators See FEIS appendix E 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxiv Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Limited hardwoods 

have resulted in a 

loss of beaver 

habitat and reduction 

of animals within the 

project area

Short – and Long –

Term Effects on 

Shrub Development 

Not 

Applicable 

Adding the 

Bosenberg 

unit and 

requiring 

yearlong rest 

(3 out of 10 

years) would 

improve the 

height and 

vigor of 

existing 

shrubs. 

The creation of 

riparian 

pastures and 

exclosures 

with immediate 

rest (5 years) 

along with 

reduced woody 

browse would 

improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

expansion of 

willow 

densities. 

Site specific 

willow 

exclosures 

and a range 

rider along 

with reduced 

woody browse 

would improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

expansion of 

willow 

densities.

Shifting parts of 

vacant allotments 

into active livestock 

use 

Acres of Currently 

Vacant Allotment 

Grazed 

0 4,478 0 388

Miles of Critical Bull 

Trout Habitat Grazed 

in Currently Vacant 

Allotment 

0 4.4 0 0 

Livestock stocking 

levels should be 

reduced 

Capability, Suitability 

and Forage 

Production 

No Grazing 

The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and 

may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual 

adjustment of both numbers and/or season. The 

analysis of available forage and stocking rates 

shows that adequate forage is available to 

support AUMs levels currently permitted including 

any proposed allotment boundary and 

management changes.

a - Miles do not include 0.5 miles of Lake Creek to be excluded from grazing (riparian exclosures) in ongoing/foreseeable projects.

a - Acres do not include existing exclosures that would not be grazed.

b - Miles are cumulative, including acres from ongoing projects (see current management in chapter 1 for further detail).

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives: resource areas

Resource 

Areas

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Rangeland Vegetation

Range 

Vegetation 

and Health 

Vigor

No direct or 

indirect effects

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

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

Invasive 

Species

No direct or 

indirect effects

The ground disturbance for the new structural improvements could create an 

opportunity for invasive weed species to be introduced. 

Livestock grazing or associated permittee actions have not been identified as a 

major factor in the establishment and spread of noxious wees in the project area. 

Currently noxious weeds occupy less than .0001 percent (11 acres) of the 

analysis area and environmental effects are minimal. Implementing proposed 

grazing management practices and design criteria described in Chapter 2 would 

minimize noxious weed spread. Assuming noxious weed control continues, 

anticipate short term (<10 years) effects from infestation and spread of noxious 

weeds is expected to be relatively low. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxv

Resource 

Areas

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Botany 

(Sensitive 

Plants) 

See Table 7

Soils No direct or 

indirect effects Consistent with Forest Plan soil protection standards

Hydrology and Aquatics

Bull Trout 

Habitat 

Recovery

See Table 8

Threatened, 

Endangered 

and Sensitive 

Aquatic 

Species

See Table 8

Forest Plan 

Consistency

Consistent with Management Area 3A standards and INFISH. Amendments proposed to modify the 

numeric value for shade in hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan amendment 29. 

Clean Water 

Act 

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

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

beneficial uses. 

Recreation and Visual Quality

Recreation Meets recreation opportunity spectrum standard

Visual 

Quality Meets Forest Plan visual quality objectives

Malheur Wild 

and Scenic 

River 

Corridor

No direct or 

indirect effects

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

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

flowing conditions of the river.

Heritage No direct or 

indirect effects

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

grazing. 

Social Economics

Animal Unit 

Months 

See Table 5

Structural 

Improvement 

Costs 

See Table 5

Wildlife See Table 9

Table 7. Effects to sensitive plant species

Concern / Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale

1 2, 3, 4

Species where impacts 

from herbivory / grazing

is a concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI

These three species are palatable 

and have the potential to be 

negatively impacted by intensive 

grazing (Bakker et al. 2010, 

NatureServe 2012, Wilson et al. 

2008).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxvi Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Concern / Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale

1 2, 3, 4

Species where impacts 

from trampling and 

defecation is a concern.

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium montanum

Botrychium paradoxum

Botrychium pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI

These species are very small, 

delicate, and exists in areas with 

high soil moisture. Livestock are 

often concentrated in these areas. 

For these species, a single hoof 

print or cow pie can destroy an 

individual plant, and even a 

relatively small amount of hoof 

action and/or defecation can 

eliminate a small population.

Species where impacts 

from trampling, trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in peatlands 

is a concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium crenulatum

Harpanthus flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum pusillum

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

Splachnum ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/BI

Adaptive management strategies 

that benefit these species would 

be implemented if detrimental 

effects are occurring and 

management objectives are not 

met within a 5 year period 

(appendix A, Table 103 and Table 

104). 

BI=Beneficial Impact, NI=No Impact, MID=May Detrimentally Impact but would not lead to a tread toward federal listing [40 CFR

§1508.8, FSM 2672.42(5)]. Species identified in bold font are documented within the project area.

Table 8. Effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) and management indicator aquatic species

Aquatic Species Statusa Effects Determinationb, c

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Columbia River Bull 

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

Columbia River Bull 

Trout Designated 

Critical Habitat

D NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE 

Columbia spotted frog S NI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Columbia River Bull 

Trout MIS

Continued 

viability is 

expected

Likely to impact 

viability of the 

Malheur 

population

Continued 

viability is 

expected

Continued viability 

is expected

Interior Redband Trout MIS

Continued 

viability is 

expected

Continued 

viability is 

expected

Continued 

viability is 

expected

Continued viability 

is expected
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxvii

Table 9. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species summary

Terrestrial 

Species Status 

Effects Determination

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Canada Lynx Threatened NE NE NE NE

Gray Wolf Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle Sensitive NI NI NI NI

American 

Peregrine 

Falcon

Sensitive NI NI NI NI

California 

Wolverine

Sensitive, 

Candidate NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Greater SageGrouseSensitive, 

Candidate NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Silverbordered 

Fritillary

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa Rosy 

Finch Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bobolink Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Grasshopper 

Sparrow Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland 

Sandpiper Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Tricolored 

Blackbird Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bufflehead Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

White-headed 

Woodpecker Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend's 

Big-Eared Bat Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid Bat Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed 

Myotis Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's 

Hairstreak Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Columbia 

Clubtail Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia 

Spotted Frog Sensitive See Aquatic 

Section

See Aquatic 

Section

See Aquatic 

Section

See Aquatic 

Section

Big Game 

Habitat (Elk) MIS NI Not expected to affect elk population numbers or viability. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxviii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Terrestrial 

Species Status 

Effects Determination

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Old Growth 

Habitat MIS

No direct or 

indirect effects to 

old growth habitat 

and the MIS 

species 

associated with 

this habitat. 

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to Old Growth 

Habitat and associated MIS pileated woodpecker, American 

marten, and three-toed woodpecker. 

Primary 

Cavity 

Excavators

MIS

No direct, indirect 

or cumulative

effects to the 

primary cavity 

excavators or 

their habitat.

No impact to snag and down wood habitat in ponderosa 

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

impact to woodpeckers utilizing these habitats. 

Unprotected aspen stands may continue decline impacting 

nesting and foraging habitat. 

Goshawk, 

Osprey, Blue 

Grouse, 

Antelope

Features 

Species

No direct, indirect 

or cumulative 

effects to featured 

species or their 

habitat. 

There would be no impacts to goshawk nesting habitat, 

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

Improvements in riparian shrub density and age classes, as 

well as herbaceous cover, would improve habitat for small 

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

prey), or blue grouse foraging areas.

Cattle grazing may displace female pronghorns. Because 

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

impact newly born fawns. Most antelope have had their 

young by June. 

Beaver

Species of 

Concern 

During 

Scoping

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Recovery of herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods 

could increase the expansion of beaver within the project 

area. 

Landbirds 

Including 

Neotropical 

Migratory 

Birds 

Migratory 

Birds 

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Overall disturbance from activities would be limited in time 

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

populations of species at the landscape level. 

a - Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

D Designated Critical Habitat 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

b - Effects Determination 

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

BE Beneficial Effect 

c - Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trent Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss 

of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxix

Identification of the Selected Alternative 

Alternative 4 with modifications is the deciding officials selected alternative. The modifications would be 

that Summit Prairie Allotment would be managed as outlined in alternative 3. In addition, the range rider 

described in alternative 4 would be used until the proposed riparian fencing is installed in the Summit 

Prairie Allotment. The remaining allotments: Lake Creek, Logan Valley, and McCoy Creek would be 

managed as described in alternative 4. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxxi

Table of Contents 

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... i

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................... i

Proposed Action in Brief .......................................................................................................................... ii

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments ....................................................................................................... vii

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................x

Draft EIS Comments and Responses .....................................................................................................x

Issues .........................................................................................................................................................x

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................................... xii

Alternative 1 - No-Action ................................................................................................................... xii

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ xii

Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................................... xiv

Alternative 4 ........................................................................................................................................xv

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................... xxii

Identification of the Selected Alternative ........................................................................................... xxix

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ..................................................................................................1

Document Structure ..................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1

Changes from Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................5

Decision Framework .................................................................................................................................6

Forest Plan .............................................................................................................................................6

Management Area Standards .................................................................................................................6

Listed Species Consultation ................................................................................................................10

Current Management ...............................................................................................................................10

Lake Creek Allotment .........................................................................................................................10

Logan Valley Allotment ......................................................................................................................11

McCoy Creek Allotment .....................................................................................................................13

Summit Prairie Allotment ....................................................................................................................15

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................................17

Range Allotment Management Plans ..................................................................................................17

Management Direction Regarding Livestock Grazing ........................................................................17

Resource Conditions for Aquatic Habitat within Range Allotments ...................................................18

Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................................19

Overview .............................................................................................................................................19

Allotment Management Plans (AMP) .................................................................................................22

Scoping....................................................................................................................................................22

Schedule of Proposed Actions .............................................................................................................22

Public Mailing and Field Trips ............................................................................................................22

Tribal Government Consultation .........................................................................................................23

Draft EIS Comments and Responses ......................................................................................................23

Issues .......................................................................................................................................................23

Significant Issues .................................................................................................................................24

Analysis Issues ....................................................................................................................................25

Project Record Availability .....................................................................................................................26

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .............................................................................27

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................27

Changes from Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement ..............................................................27

Development of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................27
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxxii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................... 27

Closure of National Forest System Roads .......................................................................................... 27

Beaver Recovery Projects ................................................................................................................... 28

Corridor Fencing of Big Creek ........................................................................................................... 28

Reduction of Permitted Grazing Numbers ......................................................................................... 28

Current Management .......................................................................................................................... 28

Scheduling Rest on all Stream Reaches that are Functioning at Risk ................................................ 29

Keep all Livestock out of Riparian Zones .......................................................................................... 29

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................................... 29

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing) ............................................................................................ 29

Actions Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ...................................................................................... 30

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ......................................................................................................... 32

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 43

Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 53

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

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

Design Criteria and Resource Protection Measures ............................................................................... 71

Design Criteria for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ......................................................................................... 71

Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................. 76

Annual Implementation and Compliance Monitoring for Range and Aquatics ................................. 76

Long Term Effectiveness for Range and Aquatics ............................................................................. 76

Other Resources .................................................................................................................................. 80

Summary of Effects in Relation to Issues .............................................................................................. 81

Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 81

Implementation and Management Schedule .......................................................................................... 84

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 87

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 87

Specialist Reports and Project Record ................................................................................................... 87

Changes from the Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement ....................................................... 87

Rangeland Vegetation and Management Section ............................................................................... 87

Invasive Species Section .................................................................................................................... 87

Botany Section.................................................................................................................................... 88

Soils Section ....................................................................................................................................... 88

Hydrology and Aquatics Section ........................................................................................................ 88

Recreation Section .............................................................................................................................. 88

Social Economics Section .................................................................................................................. 88

Wildlife Section .................................................................................................................................. 88

Analyzing Effects ................................................................................................................................... 89

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................. 89

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments .......................................................................................... 89

Forest Plan Consistency ......................................................................................................................... 89

Plans of Other Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 89

Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management ............................................................................. 90

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 90

Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 90

Analysis Method ................................................................................................................................. 90

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ 92

Environmental Consequences........................................................................................................... 103

Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................... 130

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 130

Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 132
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxxiii

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................132

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................133

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................134

Botany ...................................................................................................................................................139

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................139

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................139

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................139

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................140

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................143

Soils .......................................................................................................................................................147

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................147

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................147

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................148

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................148

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................152

Hydrology and Aquatics .......................................................................................................................155

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................155

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................155

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................158

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................164

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................184

Consistency with Direction and Regulations .....................................................................................227

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

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................228

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

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................228

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................228

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................229

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................234

Visual Quality .......................................................................................................................................238

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................238

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................238

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................240

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................241

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................243

Heritage .................................................................................................................................................244

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................244

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................244

Consultation with Others ...................................................................................................................245

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................245

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................245

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................247

Social and Economics ...........................................................................................................................250

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................250

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................250

Analysis Methods ..............................................................................................................................250

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................250

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................254

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................259

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................259

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................260
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxxiv Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................................. 260

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species ................................................................. 262

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive 

Species .............................................................................................................................................. 264

Management Indicator Species ......................................................................................................... 286

Featured Species ............................................................................................................................... 300

Affected Environment Featured Species .......................................................................................... 301

Environmental Consequences – Featured Species ........................................................................... 302

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds ........................................................................... 305

Environmental Consequences........................................................................................................... 310

Consistency with Direction and Regulations .................................................................................... 313

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................................................................ 314

Climate Change .................................................................................................................................... 314

Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 314

Alternative 1 – No Grazing .............................................................................................................. 315

Alternative 2, 3, & 4 ......................................................................................................................... 315

Other Laws, Regulations and Policies.................................................................................................. 317

National Historic Preservation, Treaty Rights, Executive Order 12875, Executive Order 13287 and 

American Antiquities Act of 1906.................................................................................................... 317

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 ............................................................................... 318

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ................................................................................................ 318

Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................................... 318

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 ................................................................................................ 318

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) .................................................................................................. 318

Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................................... 318

National Forest management Act (NFMA) ...................................................................................... 318

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 ...................................................................................... 318

Municipal Watersheds ...................................................................................................................... 318

Consumers, Civil rights, Women, and Minorities ............................................................................ 318

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................................................................................................... 318

Chapter 4. Preparation, Consultation and Distribution ............................................................................. 319

List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................... 319

Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................................ 319

Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................. 320

References Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 323

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 351

Appendix A - Existing and Desired Conditions, Management Objectives and Adaptive Management 

Strategies .................................................................................................................................................. 361

Appendix B - Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Maps ............................................. 381

Alternative 1 – No Grazing: ................................................................................................................. 381

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: ......................................................................................................... 381

Alternative 3: ........................................................................................................................................ 381

Alternative 4: ........................................................................................................................................ 381

Appendix C – Cumulative Activities Considered .................................................................................... 401

Appendix E - Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels......................................................................... 407

Appendix F – Response to Comments ..................................................................................................... 413

Comment Letter #1 – Grant County Conservationists ......................................................................... 414

Comment Letter #2 – United States Department of Interior- Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance .......................................................................................................................................... 421

Comment Letter #3 - Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project – Karen Coulter ...................................... 421

Comment Letter #4 – Alan Jacobs and Jim Jacobs .............................................................................. 475
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxxv

Comment Letter #5 – Alan Jacobs ......................................................................................................476

Comment Letter #6 – Jim Jacobs .........................................................................................................478

Comment Letter #7 – United States Environmental Protection Agency..............................................479

Comment Letter #8 – Alan and Jim Jacobs .........................................................................................481

Appendix G – Biological Evaluation ........................................................................................................483

Index ..........................................................................................................................................................485

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of the proposed action ................................................................................................... iv

Table 2. Proposed modifications to the Malheur Forest Plan .................................................................... viii

Table 3. Significant issues ........................................................................................................................... xi

Table 4. Summary of alternative actions .................................................................................................. xvii

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives: significant and analysis issues ....................................................... xxii

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives: resource areas ............................................................................... xxiv

Table 7. Effects to sensitive plant species .................................................................................................xxv

Table 8. Effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) and management indicator aquatic species

 ......................................................................................................................................................... xxvi

Table 9. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species summary ............................................ xxvii

Table 10. Management areas .........................................................................................................................8

Table 11. Logan Valley allotment enhancements .......................................................................................12

Table 12. McCoy Creek allotment enhancements .......................................................................................14

Table 13. Summit Prairie allotment enhancements .....................................................................................16

Table 14. Summary of the proposed action .................................................................................................20

Table 15. Significant issues and indicators .................................................................................................24

Table 16. Analysis issues ............................................................................................................................25

Table 17. Issues eliminated from detailed study .........................................................................................25

Table 18. Alternative 2, proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant........................................33

Table 19. Alternative 2, Lake Creek allotment summary ............................................................................34

Table 20. Alternative 2, proposed Logan Valley allotment grazing units ...................................................35

Table 21. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements ...........................................35

Table 22. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment summary ........................................................................37

Table 23. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies ....................................38

Table 24. Alternative 2, Proposed McCoy Creek allotment grazing units ..................................................38

Table 25. Alternative 2, McCoy Creek allotment summary ........................................................................40

Table 26. Alternative 2, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units ................................................40

Table 27. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements .........................................41

Table 28. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment summary ......................................................................41

Table 29. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies ..................................43

Table 30. Alternative 3, Proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant .......................................45

Table 31. Alternative 3, Lake Creek allotment summary ............................................................................46

Table 32. Alternative 3, Proposed Logan Valley allotment grazing units ...................................................46

Table 33. Alternative 3, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements ...........................................46

Table 34. Alternative 3, Logan allotment summary ....................................................................................48

Table 35. Alternative 3, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies ....................................48

Table 36. Alternative 3, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units ................................................50

Table 37. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements .........................................50

Table 38. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment summary ......................................................................52

Table 39. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies ..................................52

Table 40. Alternative 4, proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant........................................54
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxxvi Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 41. Alternative 4, Lake Creek Allotment ......................................................................................... 55

Table 42. Alternative 4, proposed Logan Valley grazing units .................................................................. 56

Table 43. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements .......................................... 56

Table 44. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment summary ....................................................................... 58

Table 45. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies ................................... 58

Table 46. Alternative 4, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units ............................................... 60

Table 47. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements ........................................ 60

Table 48. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment summary ..................................................................... 62

Table 49. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies ................................. 62

Table 50. Proposed modifications to the Malheur Forest Plan ................................................................... 64

Table 51. Summary of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 ........................................................................................... 66

Table 52. Design criteria (alternatives 2, 3, and 4) ..................................................................................... 72

Table 53. Summary comparison of alternatives ......................................................................................... 81

Table 54. Implementation schedule by alternative ..................................................................................... 84

Table 55. Summary of condition and trend transect and ecology plot data................................................ 94

Table 56. Allowable use of forage by percent weight removed ................................................................. 97

Table 57. Summary of capable and suitable range by allotment ................................................................ 98

Table 58. Forage production and AUMs .................................................................................................. 100

Table 59. Summary of allotment status and permitted use ....................................................................... 101

Table 60. Forage production and AUM summary by alternative ............................................................. 109

Table 61. Ongoing allotment activities..................................................................................................... 111

Table 62. Alternative 2 available forage and AUMs ................................................................................ 114

Table 63. Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements ............................................................... 115

Table 64. Summit Logan allotment minimum rest requirements ............................................................. 116

Table 65. Alternative 3 available forage and AUMs ................................................................................ 120

Table 66. Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements ............................................................... 122

Table 67. Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements............................................................. 122

Table 68. Alternative 4 available forage and AUMs ................................................................................ 126

Table 69. Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements............................................................. 127

Table 70. Summary of alternative effects ................................................................................................. 128

Table 71. Documented sensitive species populations............................................................................... 141

Table 72. Selected sensitive species habitats, and presence in the area ................................................... 142

Table 73. Direct/indirect effects to sensitive species by alternative ......................................................... 144

Table 74. Standard 127 ............................................................................................................................. 147

Table 75. Ground cover on condition and trend clusters on forested sites ............................................... 149

Table 76. Ground cover on a condition and trend cluster on a meadow .................................................. 151

Table 77. Data used for the hydrology and aquatics analysis................................................................... 159

Table 78. Streams listed as 303(d) in the project area .............................................................................. 165

Table 79. History of large wildfires in the project area ............................................................................ 166

Table 80. Acres of wetland type within the allotments for the Summit Logan Grazing Project .............. 167

Table 81. Bull trout redd counts in the Upper Malheur watershed and primary spawning areas ............. 169

Table 82. Miles of potential and occupied habitat for juvenile bull trout in the Upper Malheur 

subpopulation area ............................................................................................................................ 170

Table 83. Miles of suspected bull trout spawning habitat in the Upper Malheur subpopulation area ...... 171

Table 84. Miles of occupied redband trout habitat within the allotment boundaries in the project area for 

Summit Logan .................................................................................................................................. 172

Table 85. Streams within the Lake Creek Allotment ............................................................................... 173

Table 86. Water temperatures for Lake Creek, Big Creek, and Summit Creek ....................................... 175

Table 87. Streams within the Logan Valley Allotment ............................................................................ 176

Table 88. Streams within the McCoy Allotment ...................................................................................... 179

Table 89. Properly functioning stream reaches on Summit Creek with unit, rating and miles ................ 181
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest xxxvii

Table 90. Vegetative type on Summit Creek with habitat type and reach ................................................182

Table 91. Threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species ..............................................................185

Table 92. Alternative 1 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition ratings by unit 

based on the actions proposed ...........................................................................................................187

Table 93. Alternative 2 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by 

unit based on the actions proposed ....................................................................................................209

Table 94. Alternative 3 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by 

unit based on the actions proposed ....................................................................................................216

Table 95. Alternative 4 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by 

unit based on the actions proposed ....................................................................................................224

Table 96. Scenic integrity ..........................................................................................................................242

Table 97. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species summary .............................................262

Table 98. Management indicator species summary (Malheur National Forest) ........................................286

Table 99. Featured species habitat .............................................................................................................300

Table 100. Neotropical migratory birds – priority habitat features and associated focal landbirds species 

within project area .............................................................................................................................306

Table 101. BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, USFS birds of conservation concern – 2008 .................307

Table 102. Existing and desired conditions ...............................................................................................361

Table 103. Management objectives ...........................................................................................................371

Table 104. Adaptive management strategies .............................................................................................377

Table 105. Past activities in the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project Area ..............................401

Table 106. Present or ongoing activities (2012) ........................................................................................404

Table 107. Foreseeable activities ..............................................................................................................405

Table 108. Move triggers and allowable use levels by alternative ............................................................407

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Range allotment configuration for proposed action ..................................................................... iii

Figure 2. Alternative 2 - range allotment configurations .......................................................................... xiii

Figure 3. Alternative 3 range allotment configurations ............................................................................. xiv

Figure 4. Alternative 4 range allotment configurations ............................................................................. xvi

Figure 5. Current configuration of range allotments in project area .............................................................2

Figure 6. Current configuration of grazing units with the four range allotments ..........................................3

Figure 7. Project area location within Upper Malheur watershed .................................................................4

Figure 8. Vicinity map ...................................................................................................................................5

Figure 9. Management areas..........................................................................................................................7

Figure 10. Current range allotment configuration .........................................................................................9

Figure 11. Current grazing unit configuration within the Lake Creek Allotment .......................................10

Figure 12. Current grazing unit configuration in Logan Valley Allotment .................................................11

Figure 13. Current configuration of grazing units within McCoy Creek Allotment ...................................13

Figure 14. Current configuration of grazing units within Summit Prairie Allotment .................................15

Figure 15. Proposed action range allotment configurations ........................................................................32

Figure 16. Alternative 2 - Lake Creek Allotment boundary changes ..........................................................34

Figure 17. Alternative 2 - Logan Valley Allotment boundary changes ......................................................36

Figure 18. Alternative 2 - McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes ......................................................39

Figure 19. Alternative 2 Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes ......................................................42

Figure 20. Alternative 3 range allotment configuration ..............................................................................44

Figure 21. Alternative 3 Lake Creek Allotment - no proposed boundary changes .....................................45

Figure 22. Alternative 3 Logan Valley Allotment boundary changes .........................................................47

Figure 23. Alternative 3 McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes ........................................................49
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

xxxviii Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 24. Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes ........................................................................... 51

Figure 25. Alternative 4 range allotment configuration ............................................................................. 53

Figure 26. Alternative 4 Lake Creek Allotment boundary changes ........................................................... 55

Figure 27. Alternative 4 Logan Valley Allotment changes ........................................................................ 57

Figure 28. Alternative 4 McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes ....................................................... 59

Figure 29. Alternative 4 Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes ..................................................... 61

Figure 30. Proper functioning condition rating relationship to vegetation, aquatic habitat composition 

(channel characteristics), water quality standards and livestock forage ........................................... 162

Figure 31. Rosgen stream channel classification ...................................................................................... 165

Figure 32. Recreation opportunities in the project area ............................................................................ 230

Figure 33. Visually sensitive areas within the project area ...................................................................... 240

Figure 34. Aspen stands within the project area. Mature trees are present, but replacement saplings and 

suckers are missing. Aspen snags and down aspen logs are abundant in some stands. ................... 310

Figure 35. Vicinity map of the four allotments ........................................................................................ 382

Figure 36. Alternative 1 - Lake Creek allotment ...................................................................................... 383

Figure 37. Alternative 1 - Logan Valley allotment .................................................................................. 384

Figure 38. Alternative 1 - McCoy Creek allotment .................................................................................. 385

Figure 39. Alternative 1 - Summit Prairie allotment ................................................................................ 386

Figure 40. Alternative 2 - Lake Creek allotment ...................................................................................... 387

Figure 41. Alternative 2 - Logan Valley allotment .................................................................................. 388

Figure 42. Alternative 2 - McCoy Creek allotment .................................................................................. 389

Figure 43. Alternative 2 - Summit Prairie allotment ................................................................................ 390

Figure 44. Alternative 3 - Lake Creek allotment ...................................................................................... 391

Figure 45. Alternative 3 - Logan Valley allotment .................................................................................. 392

Figure 46. Alternative 3 - McCoy Creek allotment .................................................................................. 393

Figure 47. Alternative 3 - Summit Prairie allotment ................................................................................ 394

Figure 48. Alternative 4 - Lake Creek allotment ...................................................................................... 395

Figure 49. Alternative 4 - Logan Valley allotment .................................................................................. 396

Figure 50. Alternative 4 - McCoy Creek allotment .................................................................................. 397

Figure 51. Alternative 4 - Summit Prairie allotment ................................................................................ 398

Figure 52. Bull trout critical habitat within the project area..................................................................... 399

Figure 53. Monitoring sites and stream reaches within the project area .................................................. 400
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure 

The US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service) has prepared this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

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

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

sections: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for the Action: This chapter includes background information on the 

project proposal, the purpose and need for the project and the proposal for achieving that purpose and 

need. This section describes how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and identified 

the significant issues that drive the analysis. 

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

description of the Proposed Action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose and 

need. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public, the 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) and other agencies. 

• Chapter 3. Existing Condition and Environmental consequences: This chapter describes the physical, 

biological and human environments potentially affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives, and 

describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No Action 

Alternative. 

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and those who 

responded during the scoping period. 

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

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

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

located at the Prairie City Ranger District Office, 327 Front Street, P.O. Box 337, Prairie City, OR 97869. 

For information regarding project record files please contact Randy Gould, Prairie City District Ranger at 

(541) 820.3800. 

Introduction 

The Forest Service prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. It discloses the 

environmental consequences of authorizing livestock grazing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization (Summit Logan) project. The Summit Logan project area includes Lake Creek, Logan 

Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments. These four allotments were combined into this 

analysis because they have similar geographic, vegetative and ecological attributes. They are all located in 

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

critical habitat for threatened bull trout and have similar aquatic habitat needs. The map below shows the 

arrangement of these range allotments in the project area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

2 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 5. Current configuration of range allotments in project area

Figure 6 shows the grazing units within each range allotment as well as the location of major streams.

Shades of blue represent grazing units with the Lake Creek Allotment. Shades of green represent grazing 

units with the Logan Valley Allotment. Shades of grey represent grazing units within the McCoy Creek 

Allotment and shades of brown represent grazing units within the Summit Prairie Allotment. To avoid 

confusion in discussions that follow, note that two allotments and two grazing units have similar names 

(see Figure 5 and Figure 6). The Lake Creek grazing unit is in the McCoy Creek Allotment and the

McCoy Creek grazing unit is in the Lake Creek Allotment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 3 

Figure 6. Current configuration of grazing units with the four range allotments

The project area (shown in cross-hatching on Figure 7) is predominately within the Upper Malheur River 

watershed. Numerous streams flow within the project area including Lake Creek, Big Creek, Bosenberg 

Creek, and Summit Creek. A minor portion of the Summit Prairie Allotment (371 acres shown on map 

below, <0.6 percent of the analysis area) occurs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed (Crane 

Creek subwatershed). There are no streams within these 371 acres.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

4 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 7. Project area location within Upper Malheur watershed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 5 

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

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

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

Figure 8. Vicinity map

Changes from Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. The listing does not include minor 

correction, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of the changes resulted from public 

comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

• New Clean Water Act information has been supplemented in the FEIS. All streams listed for stream 

temperature were de-listed from the 303(d) list when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

accepted the 2010 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Integrated Report Decision 

Framework. References to Lake Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek as streams 303(d) listed for 

water temperature have been removed from the Purpose and Need section. 

• A summary of the comment period on the DEIS and comments received has been added to the 

Scoping section. 

• Issues eliminated from detailed study have been added to the Issues section.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

6 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• The purpose and need for the project was modified. 

Decision Framework 

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

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

to authorize some level of livestock grazing, then a decision will be made about which management 

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

project are met.

Forest Plan

This FEIS tiers to the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (1990) and incorporates by reference the 

accompanying land and resource management plan (Forest Plan (1990)), as amended. Additional 

management direction is provided by Forest Plan amendments approved since 1990, some of which 

include: 

• “Columbia River Anadromous Fish Management Policy and Implementation Guide” (USDA Forest 

Service 1994; herein referred to as Amendment 29). The amendment included changes to both 

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

• “Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada” (USDA Forest Service 1995; also known as 

INFISH). This amendment provides riparian goals, management objectives, and standards and 

guidelines that reduce the risk of loss of populations of inland fish and potential negative impacts to 

aquatic habitat. 

• The Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Program, 

2005, herby referred to as the R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS. The R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS 

culminated in a Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005 R6 ROD) that amended the Malheur 

Forest Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants and released all National 

Forests from direction established by the 1988 ROD and Mediated Agreement for invasive plant 

management. Parts of the 1988 ROD and 1989 Mediated Agreement for unwanted native plants were 

not affected by the R6 2005 ROD. 

• “Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber 

Sales” (USDA Forest Service 1995; also known as Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan 

Amendment 2 or Eastside Screens). Amendment 2 is not applicable to this analysis. 

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

of Decision; and Decision Notices for INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) and Amendment 29 (USDA 

Forest Service 1994). 

Management Area Standards 

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

management goals and standards. In addition, INFISH created riparian habitat conservation areas 

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

except if the existing direction provided more protection for inland native fish habitat. Management areas 

1, 2, 3a, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 22b are located within the project area (see Table 10).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 7 

Figure 9. Management areas
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

8 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 10. Management areas

Management Areas Acres % of Area

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

3A: Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas (including RHCAs) 4,719 12

12: Developed Recreation 8 <1

13: Old Growth 2,115 5 

14: Visual Corridors 24,278 60

19: Administrative Sites 27 <1

22B: Wild and Scenic River 15 <1

TOTAL 40,279 100%

Management Area 1 - General Forest

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

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

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

Management Area 2 – General Rangeland

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

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

sustained yield basis while providing for other resource values. This management area is usually included 

as non-forested lands within other management areas, primarily MA 1 – General Forest (see MA-1 for 

acres). 

Management Area 3A – Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas 

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

to be managed to protest and enhance their value for wildlife, resident fish habitat and water quality. Fore 

Plan Amendment 29 incorporated the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Policy Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1994) establishing specific desired condition numeric values. The Inland Native 

Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA 1995) provided riparian goals, riparian management objectives and 

standards and guidelines that amended the Forest Plan. The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) also 

directed that riparian habitat conservation areas be delineated to include portions of watersheds where 

riparian dependent resources of would receive primary emphasis. Riparian habitat conservation areas are 

subject to specific standards. See aquatic section in chapter 3 for further detail. 

Management Area 12 – Developed Recreation Sites

Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing interpretation and enhancement of cultural and 

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

Management Area 13 – Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth

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

Management Area 14 – Visual Corridors

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

the wild and scenic rivers where traveling public has a high-to-medium sensitivity to the scenery. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 9 

Management Area 19 – Administrative Sites

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

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

Management Area 22b – Wild and Scenic River

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

located in the project area. The goal is within the corridor is to protect and enhance the scenic, geologic, 

wildlife habitat, and historic values of the river corridor. Preserve the free-flowing conditions of the river 

for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. A Decision Notice was signed on August 7, 

1992 authorizing a management strategy for the Malheur Wild and Scenic River. This decision amended 

the Forest Plan and established a new Forest Plan management area (MA 22b) replacing management area 

22. The management strategy from the decision was incorporated into the Malheur Wild and Scenic River 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1992). 

Figure 10. Current range allotment configuration
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

10 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Listed Species Consultation 

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

information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office for concurrence on the effects of 

grazing from 14 allotments on Columbia Basin bull trout designated critical habitat. The Logan Valley, 

McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments were included in the biological assessment. Lake Creek was 

not included because no action was proposed. On September 6, 2012, the Malheur National Forest 

received a Biological Opinion/Concurrence Letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service concurred that the proposed livestock management for the Logan Valley allotment is not 

likely to adversely affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service also 

concurred and wrote a letter of opinion that the proposed livestock management in the Summit Prairie and 

McCoy Creek allotments is likely to adversely affect bull trout critical habitat. 

Current Management 

This project area contains four grazing allotments: Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit 

Prairie (Figure 10).

Lake Creek Allotment 

Figure 11. Current grazing unit configuration within the Lake Creek Allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 11

The Lake Creek Allotment totals 10,196 acres and contains three units with separation fences: McCoy 

Creek, Horse Pasture and Bosenberg. Portions of the fence were burned during the 1990 Snowshoe fire. 

There are two developed springs on the allotment in the Bosenberg unit. 

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

reduced forage base; so the permittee waived the allotment back to the Forest Service. Since then it has 

been vacant and not been grazed for over 20 years. Currently, range conditions are capable and suitable 

for grazing on this allotment.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Figure 12. Current grazing unit configuration in Logan Valley Allotment

The Logan Valley Allotment totals 3,756 acres with 11 grazing units in which fences separate the West 

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

Corral Holding, Front Field, Lower Field, Big Field and Flat Field units. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

12 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The current grazing system is continuous/seasonal with a maximum authorized use of 357 head of cattle 

(1,983 AUMs) from June 10 to October 15. 

Livestock normally enter the allotment on the south side of the 1600 road in East Bosenberg, West 

Bosenberg, Front Field, Lower Field, and Flat Field units when the range is ready and stock water is 

available. They are moved to the units on the north side of the 1600 road (North and South Big Creek, 

East and West Lake Creek, and Big Field) when the range is ready later in the season. Livestock grazing 

is not permitted after August 15th in the North and South Big Creek and Big Creek portion of the East 

Lake Creek units to protect bull trout spawning habitat. 

Table 11. Logan Valley allotment enhancements

Project Name Project Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated 

Implementation

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

Big Creek Fence 

and Water-Gap

Construct about 0.2 mile 

of riparian pasture fence 

along Big Creek. 

Construct hardened 

water-gap (not 

exceeding 20 ft.) within 

fence line to provide 

water to the remainder 

of the West Bosenberg 

unit.

Restoration of critical bull 

trout habitat on Big Creek 

while maintaining livestock 

access to water

Logan Valley 

allotment/West 

Bosenberg unit 

Creates West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture 

2012-2013

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

Projects (signed: 10-05-2011)

Big Creek & 

Lake Creek OffSite Water 

Source 

Develop solar system to

pump water from Big 

and Lake Creeks to 

troughs located in the 

uplands of the units.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock along Big and 

Lake Creeks by providing 

water sources in the 

uplands of the allotment.

Logan Valley 

allotment/Big 

Field, Flat Field, 

East Lake Creek 

and West Lake 

Creek units. 

2013-2014

West Lake 

Creek Riparian 

Fence

Construct about 1 mile 

of riparian pasture fence 

along Lake Creek

Reduce impacts of 

livestock along Lake 

Creek, allowing the 

herbaceous plant 

community to recover and 

stabilize the streambank.

Logan Valley 

allotment/West 

Lake Creek unit

Creates West 

Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

2013-2014

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

Big Creek and 

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

Plant hardwoods within 

the newly created West 

Bosenberg and West 

Lake Creek Riparian 

pastures.

Restore shade and cover 

(undercut banks) along Big 

and Lake Creeks

Logan Valley 

allotment/West 

Bosenberg and 

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pastures 

2013-2014

There is a lack of off-stream water in this allotment. One existing developed water source aids in the 

distribution of livestock through the Flat Field unit. Other livestock water is provided by Lake Creek and 

Deardorff Ditch. Some units can only be grazed in the early season because water sources are not 

available later in the year. 

Since completing Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments in 2007 changes in management have 

occurred on the West Lake Creek unit which was determined to be functioning at risk (FAR) with a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 13

downward trend condition. Adaptations to grazing management in the West Lake Creek unit were made 

during the 2008-2012 grazing seasons to improve streambank stability and the composition of stream 

bank stabilizing species. Adaptations include moving to early season grazing and reductions in authorized 

duration of grazing (head months2

), as well as the development of a portable solar panel pump with 

troughs placed in the uplands away from Lake Creek. In 2011, three Decision Memos were signed by the 

Prairie City District Ranger authorizing projects within the Logan Valley allotment to enhance livestock 

management and improve shade and hardwood communities associated with bull trout habitat on Big 

Creek and Lake Creek (Table 11).

McCoy Creek Allotment 

Figure 13. Current configuration of grazing units within McCoy Creek Allotment

The McCoy Creek Allotment utilizes a continuous/seasonal grazing system that authorizes 63 head of 

cattle (416 AMUs) from about June 1 to October 30. 

 

2 Head month is one month's use and occupancy of the range by one animal
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

14 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The 980 acres allotment contains seven fenced grazing units: Lake Creek, Cow Camp, Dry, Ridge, 

Government Flat, Starvation, and North Fork units. 

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

Creek allotment and are not consistently grazed because of the logistics of moving livestock. Each of 

these units has a single source of water provided by ponds or streams. The pond in the Lake Creek unit 

only provides early season water. Irregular use has allowed the palatability and vigor of upland vegetation 

to decline. 

In the four units that are grazed on a yearly basis (Cow Camp, Dry, Ridge and Government Flat) a stream, 

accessed through the Cow Camp unit, is the only consistent source of water. In the remaining three units, 

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

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

have decreased livestock distribution and use in uplands. 

In 2011, three Decision Memos were signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing projects 

within the McCoy Creek allotment to enhance livestock management and improve shade and hardwood 

communities associated with bull trout habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek (Table 12).

Table 12. McCoy Creek allotment enhancements

Project Name Project Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated 

Implementation

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

Lake Creek Unit 

Division Fence 

Reconstruction 

Reconstruct about 1.0 mile of 

fence 

Restore fence to an 

acceptable condition to 

control livestock 

movement and protect 

critical bull trout habitat 

on Lake Creek. 

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Lake Creek unit 2013-2014

Lake Creek 

Fence and WaterGap

Construct about 0.2 miles of 

fence along Lake Creek. 

Construct a hardened water gap 

within the fence line to provide 

water for livestock.

Vegetation and stream 

channel to recovery while 

maintaining a functional 

water source for livestock 

McCoy Creek/ Cow 

Camp unit 

Create temporary 

exclosure identified in this 

analysis as the Lake 

Creek Exclosure 

Completed in 2012

Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery 

Fence 

Construct about 0.5 mile of fence 

along Lake Creek 

Provide protection of 

willow gallery along Lake 

Creek that is utilized by 

beaver and is critical 

habitat for bull trout. 

McCoy Creek/Cow Camp 

unit 

Create temporary 

exclosure identified in this 

analysis as the Lake 

Creek Willow Exclosure 

Completed in 2012

Big & Lake Creek Off-Site Water Sources and West Lake Creek Riparian Fence Range Aquatic Projects (10-05-2011)

Big Creek & Lake 

Creek Off-Site 

Water Source

Develop solar system to pump 

water from Big and Lake Creeks 

to troughs located in the uplands 

of the units.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock along Big and 

Lake Creeks by providing 

water sources in the 

uplands of the allotment.

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Cow Camp unit 2013-2014

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

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

Plant hardwoods within Lake 

Creek and Lake Creek Willow 

gallery fences. 

Restore shade and cover 

(undercut banks) along 

Lake Creek

McCoy Creek 

allotment/Cow Camp 

Grazing unit 

2013-2014
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 15

Summit Prairie Allotment 

Figure 14. Current configuration of grazing units within Summit Prairie Allotment

The Summit Prairie Allotment encompasses 25,331 acres with seven fenced units: Summit Rock, North 

Summit, South Summit, West Summit, Little Logan, Crane Rock and Sagehen. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

16 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The continuous/seasonal grazing system used on this allotment has a maximum authorized use of 260 

head of cattle (1,546 AUMs) from about June 10th and October 24th. Livestock generally enter the 

Sagehen and Crane Rock units when the range is ready for grazing. They move up Summit Creek to the 

Little Logan, Summit Rock, North Summit, West Summit and South Summit units as the range is ready. 

Within the allotment, 31 ponds and springs have been developed for livestock water to help distribute 

livestock use in the uplands and away from Summit Creek. Use levels are generally reached in the 

Summit Creek riparian area before forage can be fully utilized in the uplands.

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

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

plants. Adaptations include reductions in authorized Head Months in the Sagehen unit in 2008-2011; 

installation of electric fencing along West Fork Summit Creek in 2009-2011; and the removal of all 

livestock that congregate along the West Fork of Summit Creek in the Summit Rock unit when 

approaching allowable use standards. 

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

Summit Prairie allotment to provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock distribution throughout 

grazing units. 

Table 13. Summit Prairie allotment enhancements

Project 

Name Project Description Objective Allotment/Unit Estimated 

Implementation

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

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek Fence 

and Water 

Gap 

Construct about 0.3 miles 

of fence along the West 

Fork of Summit Creek. 

Construct a hardened water

gap within the fence line to 

provide water for livestock.

Reduce impacts of 

livestock on West Fork of 

Summit Creek while 

maintaining a water source 

for livestock 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/ West 

Summit unit 

Creates West 

Summit Creek 

Riparian pasture 

Completed in 

2011

West Fork 

Summit 

Creek 

Parallel Tree 

Felling 

Fell green lodgepole pine 

parallel to West Fork of 

Summit Creek to restrict/ 

deflect livestock and/or wild 

ungulates from the 

streambanks

Reduce streambank 

impacts of livestock and 

wild ungulates, protecting 

establishing hardwoods 

and other riparian plant 

communities 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Summit 

Rock unit 

Completed in 

2012

Little Logan 

Willow 

Restoration 

Enlarge or replace existing 

cages around willows. 

Remove cages that have 

significantly grown above 

browse height. 

Construct a buck-n-pole 

exclosure approximately 1⁄4 

mile in length along Summit 

Creek

Continue monitoring willow 

recovery and browsing that 

occurs along Summit 

Creek 

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Little 

Logan unit 

2013-2014

Sagehen 

Stock Ponds 

Construct three uplands 

stock ponds

Provide functional water 

source in the uplands, 

reducing livestock impacts 

along Summit Creek

Summit Prairie 

allotment/Sagehen 

unit 

Completed in 

2012
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 17

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose for the proposal is outlined below: 

1. To review and evaluate continuation or modification of grazing authorizations on Lake Creek, 

Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments (within the Summit Logan project 

area) to ensure their effectiveness in meeting or moving toward desired conditions outlined in 

the amended Forest Plan, and to be consistent with agency policy, and other applicable laws and 

regulations. 

Range Allotment Management Plans

• Desired condition – The Forest Plan has an objective that “All allotment management plans will be 

prepared or updated based on the goals, objectives, and standards in this Forest Plan (USDA FS 1990. 

pg. IV-18). In addition, Forest Plan standard and guideline #79 directs preparation, updates, or 

revisions to “allotment management plans (AMPs) ... to address emerging resource management 

issues and concerns.” (USDA Forest Service 1990. Pg. IV-34).

• Existing condition - Although allotment management plans (AMPs) are in place for the grazing 

allotments within the Summit Logan planning area, they pre-date the 1990 Forest Plan. Lake Creek 

allotment management plan was completed in 1966, Logan Valley and McCoy Creek allotment 

management plans were completed in 1971 and Summit Prairie allotment management plan was 

completed in 1965. Over the years both allotment and grazing unit boundaries have changed 

numerous times. In addition, many adjustments have been made to improve both upland and riparian 

conditions, provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock distribution including fencing, water 

and pond development, herding, strategic salt placement, exclosure fencing, hardwood planting, and 

improved grazing systems and pasture design to name a few. 

• Why consider taking action? The Rescission Act (PL 104-19, Section 504) requires that each 

National Forest “establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments for which NEPA 

analysis is needed.” In addition, the Forest Plan directs updates or revisions to allotment management 

plans to address emerging resource management issues and concerns. Since direction exists to update 

allotment management plans and conditions have changed since the allotment management plans 

were completed (such as development of the Malheur Forest Plan and the listing of bull trout as a 

threatened species) there is a need to review and evaluate existing allotment management plans in the 

planning area to reflect current management direction, policies, other applicable laws and regulations, 

and to address resources concerns on the allotments. 

Management Direction Regarding Livestock Grazing

• Desired Condition: Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives there is 

congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). 

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands 

suitable for grazing consistent with forest plans (FSM 2203.1). It is also Forest Service policy to 

continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for 

economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for 

their livelihood (FSM 2202.1). 

By regulation, forage-producing lands are to be managed for livestock grazing where consistent with 

forest plans (36 CFR 222.2 (c)). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

18 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• Existing Condition: The Summit Logan allotments contain lands identified as suitable for domestic 

livestock grazing in the Malheur Forest Plan. Domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan.

Current range conditions do not always allow for periodically resting of entire grazing units to allow 

for recovery of vegetation, etc. In addition current grazing unit configurations and existing water 

sources do not always encourage well-distributed livestock use for more uniform grazing of the 

allotment. For instance, in Summit Prairie Allotment, use levels are often reached in riparian areas 

before forage can be fully utilized in the uplands. Current range management is addressing some of 

these issues through on-going range improvement projects, but not all of the issues have been 

addressed in current allotment management plans. 

• Why Consider Taking Action? There is a need to meet the Malheur Forest Plan goals by providing a 

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

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

(USDA Forest Service 1990 Forest Plan, page IV-2) as well as to contribute to the social and 

economic health of communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management 

(USDA Forest Service 1990 Forest Plan, page IV-3, # 42). 

The Forest Plan also provides direction for continued range improvements as outlined in standards 

#87 and 88 below: 

 Employ all available methods to achieve the desired levels of utilization by permitted livestock 

and big game. Design the methods selected for controlled livestock use to fit the site-specific 

requirements for improving the riparian area to satisfactory condition. Any one combination of 

methods may be used to treat unsatisfactory riparian areas such as corridor fencing, herding, 

additional water developments, salting, nonuse for resource protection, early add/or late season 

use, shorter grazing seasons, reduced livestock numbers, reduced livestock numbers, control of 

degree of use, and/or creating additional pastures through fencing (USDA Forest Service 1990

Forest Plan, pg.IV-35). 

 Design and implement structural and nonstructural range improvements to maintain productivity 

and range condition in addition to benefiting both wildlife and livestock. 

2. To improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat, including threatened bull trout habitat, 

within range allotments in the project area. 

Resource Conditions for Aquatic Habitat within Range Allotments

• Desired Conditions include diverse, native plant communities (species composition, structural and 

age class diversity) that perpetuates the distribution of woody debris, nutrients, soil cover, streambank 

stability and thermal controls characteristic of resilient riparian ecosystems. In addition, ground cover 

including shrubs, down wood, grasses and forbs is sufficient to provide sediment buffering from soil 

movement from upslope areas. Additional desired conditions include: hiding cover (undercut banks), 

pool habitat and other essential stream components that provide food, protection and habitat is aquatic 

species. 

• Existing Condition - The existing condition shows many stream reaches lack diverse age classes of 

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

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

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

migratory, and reproductive) for bull trout and other aquatic species. Quantity and diversity of 

riparian vegetation is also limiting habitat for various wildlife species including beaver. For further 

information see Table in appendix A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 19

Segments of Lake Creek, Summit Creek and West Fork of Summit Creek are functioning-at-risk with 

either an upward (5.1 miles) or downward (4.6 miles) trend. Functioning-at-risk riparian areas have 

an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute that makes them more susceptible to degradation during 

moderately high flow events. Most frequently, vegetation is the primary determining factor for trend 

on low-gradient streams common to those in the Summit Logan project area (appendix A, Table 102

shows proper functioning condition). 

• Why consider taking action? There is a need to improve aquatic habitat in the range allotments 

within the project area to support all life stages of threatened bull trout populations and other aquatic 

species. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation and hardwoods to enhance stream shade, 

temperature, riparian vegetation composition and vigor and streambank stability. Water temperature 

and streambank stability are important aquatic habitat features (riparian management objectives) 

identified in the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH. 

The Inland Native Fish Strategy directs that grazing practices be modified (e.g., accessibility of 

riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that 

retard or prevent attainment of riparian management objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland 

native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting riparian management 

objectives (USDA Forest Service 1995 INFISH GM 1).

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

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

upward recovery trends or properly functioning conditions toward desired conditions identified in 

appendix A (Table 102).

Proposed Action 

Overview 

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

the Interdisciplinary Team and gives the public and other agencies specific information on which to focus 

comments. Using those comments (see the discussion of significant issues later in chapter 1) and 

information from preliminary analysis, the Interdisciplinary Team developed alternatives to the proposed 

action. 

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

Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments and update grazing management 

direction by revising four allotment management plans to address the purpose and need and meet Forest 

Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines and the desired conditions for the analysis area. The 

specific elements of the proposed action are discussed in brief below. A more detailed description of the 

proposed action can be found in chapter 2. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

20 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 14. Summary of the proposed action

Element Lake Creek Allotment Logan Valley Allotment McCoy Creek Allotment Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

About half of the allotment 

(5,069 acres) would remain 

vacant in the McCoy Creek 

and newly designated Corral 

Basin units. 

Periods of rest or deferment 

during the season of use based 

on resource needs. Would not 

be a systematic or scheduled 

rotation. 

Deferred rotation grazing 

system. Systematic 

rotation of deferment 

among units. Provide 

flexibility to change the time 

of year when units would 

be used. 

Periods of rest or deferment during 

the season of use based on 

resource needs. Would not be a 

systematic or scheduled rotation. 

Boundary 

Changes

Remove 388 acres from Lake 

Ck. Allotment (298 acres from 

McCoy Ck. Unit and 90 acres 

from Horse Pasture Unit)

Add 388 acres from Lake Ck. 

Allotment to Logan Valley 

Allotment – (becomes Deardorff 

Unit) Remove 267 acres of Lake 

Creek Unit (218 ac.) and N. 

Fork Unit (49 ac.) from 

McCoy Allotment.

Add 4,449 acres from Lake Ck. 

Allotment to Summit Prairie Allotment - 

This new unit called Bosenberg Unit, 

which is now part of Summit Prairie 

Allotment.

Remove 4,449 acres from 

Lake Creek Allotment 

(Bosenberg Unit). Rename 

2,430 ac. the Corral Basin Unit 

and combine remaining 91ac. 

with McCoy Ck. Unit. 

Eliminating Bosenberg Unit 

from Lake Ck. Allotment.

Add 267 acres from McCoy 

Creek Allotment to Logan Valley 

Allotment – Keep Lake Ck. Unit 

name (218 ac.) and add the 49 

acres from North Fork Unit to Flat 

Field Unit.

Remove 52 acre Front Field Unit 

from Logan Valley Allotment and 

add to Summit Prairie Allotment.

Remove 53 acre

Starvation Unit from McCoy 

Creek Allotment (possibly 

be added to Dollar Basin 

Allotment in future NEPA 

analysis)

Add 52 acres to from Front Field Unit 

in Logan Valley Allotment to Little 

Logan unit in Summit Prairie Allotment

Remove 349 acres from SW 

corner of McCoy Creek Unit of 

Lake Creek Allotment (possibly 

be added to Dollar Basin 

Allotment in future NEPA 

analysis)

Combine Big Ck. portion of E. 

Lake Ck. with North and South 

Big Creek Units to create 623 

acre Big Creek Riparian Pasture.

Combine Dry Unit (28 ac.) 

and Ridge unit (264 ac.) 

into one unit called Ridge 

Unit (292 ac.) 

The present allotment 

consisting of 10,196 ac. would 

decrease in size to 5,069 ac. 

The present allotment consisting 

of 3,756 ac. would increase in 

size to 4,359 ac.

The increase in size would allow 

additional rest for the Logan 

Valley allotment. 

The present allotment 

consisting of 980 acres 

would decrease in size to 

660 acres. 

The present allotment consisting of 

25,331 acres would increase in size to 

29,832 

Livestock numbers 0 357 cow/calf pairsa 63 cow/calf pairsa 260 cow/calf pairsa 

Forage allocations N/A 1,983 AUMsb 416 AUMsb 1,546 AUMsb
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 21

Element Lake Creek Allotment Logan Valley Allotment McCoy Creek Allotment Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing Season

None 6/10 – 10/15 6/1 – 10/30 6/10 – 10/24

same as currently permitted

Changes 

About half of allotment, which 

had previously been vacant 

would be added to Summit 

Prairie and Logan Valley 

Allotments where it would be 

grazed.

Livestock would be distributed over 

a larger landscape by adding 

areas from the Lake Creek and 

McCoy Creek allotments. 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture unit 

would require livestock removal by 

August 15th to protect bull trout 

spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Forage allowable use, 

move triggers, and 

endpoint indicators are 

listed in appendix E. 

Livestock would be distributed over a 

larger landscape (4,501 more acres) 

by adding areas from Lake Creek and 

Logan valley Allotments 

Adaptive 

Management None proposed

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in appendix A (Table 104) 

are summarized in Table 23 in 

chapter 2.

None proposed

Adaptive management strategies 

shown in appendix A (Table 104) are 

summarized in Table 29 in chapter 2.

Improvements and 

Structures

Construct 2.5 miles of fence

to isolate SW corner of McCoy 

Ck. Unit from Lake Ck. 

Allotment

Remove 0.3 miles of existing 

fence to combine N. Fork unit of 

McCoy Allotment into Flat Field 

Unit of Logan Valley Allotment.

Convert 0.3 miles of electric fence 

in the North Fork unit along Big 

Creek to a permanent let-down 

fence.

Construct 2.5 miles of fence to 

define Deardorff Unit which 

absorbs 298 ac. of the McCoy 

Creek unit and 90 ac. of the Horse 

Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment into the Logan Valley 

allotment. 

Remove 1.2 miles of fence to 

create Big Creek Riparian Unit 

through combining Big Creek 

portion of the East Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek and South Big 

Creek into one unit. 

Remove 1 mile of fence

to create larger Ridge Unit 

by combining Dry (28 ac.) 

and existing Ridge units 

(264 ac.) of McCoy 

Allotment. 

Remove 0.7 miles of fence to 

combine Front Field Unit of Logan 

Valley Allotment with the Little Logan 

Unit of Summit Prairie Allotment. 

Construct 7 miles of fence to add 

Bosenberg unit from Lake Ck. 

Allotment to Summit Prairie Allotment.

Construct two water gaps where 

National Forest System road 1648 

crosses Bosenberg Creek and an 

unnamed tributary of Big Creek. 

Develop three ponds in the uplands

to provide alternative water away from 

perennial streams. 

Develop a spring on a headwater 

spring of Bosenberg Creek. Fence and 

pipe water to a trough located about 

300 ft. from the spring. 

Pipe water from Bosenberg Creek 

to a trough located approximately 100 

ft. from the stream. 

a – Cow/calf pairs - a mature cow and her suckling calf.

b – AUMs – Animal Unit Month - The amount of forage required by one animal unit (AU) for one month is called an Animal Unit Month (AUM). One animal unit is defined as a 1,000 lb. 

beef cow with or without a nursing calf with a daily requirement of 26 lb. of dry matter forage. Therefore, one AUM is equal to 780 lbs. of dry matter forage (30 days X daily forage 

requirement).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

22 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Allotment Management Plans (AMP)

Authorization of grazing would be implemented with grazing permits and allotment management plans. 

An allotment management plan as defined in the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) is a 

document prepared in consultation with lessees or permittees that applies to livestock operations on the 

public lands and prescribes: 

3. The manner and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet multiple use, 

sustained yield, economic and other needs and objectives.

4. Range improvements to be installed and maintained. 

5. Range fences constructed to a standard that is compatible with wildlife and human uses, i.e. gates 

would be placed at a minimum of every one mile and bottom fence wire would be 16 inches off the 

ground. 

6. Such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary to be 

consistent with provisions of FLPMA.

The allotment management plans also include upland and riparian vegetation community objectives 

(long-term goals), upland and riparian forage use standards and guidelines (short-term goals), required 

management practices (e.g. salting and riding/herding for proper distribution), maintenance standards for 

structural improvements and monitoring plans. 

Scoping 

The Center for Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “...an early and open process for 

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a 

proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). Among other things, the scoping process is used to invite public 

participation, to help identify public issues and to obtain public comment at various stages of the NEPA 

process. Although scoping is to begin early, it is really an iterative process that continues until a decision 

is made. To date, the public has been invited to participate in the project in the following ways: 

Schedule of Proposed Actions

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project has been listed on the Malheur National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions since April 2008. 

Public Mailing and Field Trips

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

Logan Grazing Authorization Project has transitioned from an Environmental Assessment (EA) to an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On February 1, 2012, a letter providing information and seeking 

public comment was mailed to approximately 230 entities, such as, agencies, groups, individuals and 

other parties who had requested information on general forest or specific range projects. Four comments 

letters were received: Oregon Natural Desert Association in conjunction with Oregon Wild, Grant County 

Conservationists, Blue Mountain Biodiversity and an anonymous commenter. Additionally, on February 

8, 2012, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register. 

Interaction with the Summit Logan allotment grazing permittees has been ongoing since the fall of 2007 

and has included several field trips and meetings. Field trips to the project area were facilitated by the 

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

the permittees. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 23

Tribal Government Consultation 

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

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation. This government-to-government consultation is being conducted under the terms of specific 

agreements with individual tribes and includes regular contact and meetings as appropriate. Scoping 

letters were mailed to the tribal governments. In the spring and fall of 2008 the District Ranger, 

Rangeland Management Specialist and various Interdisciplinary Team members met with the Burns 

Paiute Tribe to discuss their proposals for the Logan Valley area. Several partnership projects are ongoing 

in the project area involving the Burns Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley allotment permittees. The Burns 

Paiute Tribe is constructing several riparian pasture and exclosure fences on Big Creek and Lake Creek to 

assist in grazing management and aquatic habitat recovery. On April 3, 2013 the Prairie City Ranger 

District met with representatives from the Burns Paiute Tribe to discuss ongoing and future projects, 

which included the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project. 

Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

The Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project DEIS was completed in October 2012, and was made 

available to the public the week of November 5, 2012. The 45 day review period began on November 2, 

2012, the day that the Notice of Availability was printed in the Federal Register. The review period ran 

through December 17, 2012. Letters informing that the DEIS was available was mailed to over 100 

potentially interested publics. Copies of the DEIS were mailed to those individuals that responded during 

scoping. Additional copies were given to other individuals, agencies and groups following the initial 

mailing. Eight written and verbal comments were received from the public. These comments, with agency 

responses, are located in appendix F.

Issues 

Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to the effects of the proposed action. An issue is an 

unresolved conflict or public concern over a potential effect on a physical, biological, social or economic 

resource as a result of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to it. An issue is not an activity; 

instead, the projected effects of the proposed activity create the issue. Issues are generated by the public, 

other agencies, organizations and Forest Service resource specialists and are in response to the proposed 

action. Issues provide focus for the analysis of environmental effects and may influence alternative 

development, including development of project design criteria. In this document issues are tracked and 

are used to display differing effects of the proposed action and the alternatives.

The issues were separated into three groups for the purpose of this analysis: 

Significant issues, analysis issues and issues eliminated from detailed study. The CEQ NEPA regulations 

give guidance (40 CFR Sec. 1501.7) to “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are 

not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).” 

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

action; however, the effects cannot be reduced by normal best management practices (BMPs) or 

project design criteria (PDCs). Alternatives were developed to address these issues. 

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

action; however, the effects could be reduced with normal best management practices and project 

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

these analysis issues will be tracked in the relevant resource area effects analyses in chapter 3 and in 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

24 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

the Comparison of Alternatives in chapter 2. Several of the issues for this project fall into this 

category.

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

action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant 

to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The 

CEQ NEPA regulations require identification and elimination from detailed study the issues which are 

not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (40 CFR Sec. 1506.3). 

The Interdisciplinary Team identified and carried through the analysis the significant issues and the 

analysis issues in order to fully develop and allow further comparison of the proposed action and 

alternatives. The environmental consequences of the proposal are disclosed in chapter 3 for each resource 

affected by these issues. Each issue has indicators to allow members of the public and the Responsible 

Official (Forest Supervisor) to determine how well issues are addressed by the alternatives (see Table 5

Comparison of Alternatives in chapter 2 for effects of the alternatives on issues). A complete issue 

identification summary is in the project record files. A discussion of all issue groups and indicators are 

presented below: 

Significant Issues

After reviewing the public comments received during scoping, two significant issues were identified by 

the Responsible Official: 

Table 15. Significant issues and indicators

Significant Issue Significant Issue Indicator(s)

Bull Trout Critical 

Habitat 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazing during spawning season by stream 

• Miles of critical bull trout habitata 

○ Not grazed 

○ Grazed annually

○ Grazed with periods of rest 

○ Riparian pastures with rest 

○ Riparian exclosures not grazed 

• Rate of recovery

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 5 years 

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 10 years 

○ Miles of critical habitat expected to achieve desired vegetation conditions and 

channel characteristics in 10 years 

Economic Impacts 

to Permittees and 

the Community 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

○ Available Forage and Animal Unit Months 

○ Costs of improvements 

○ Acres rested or not grazed 

○ Acres available for grazing 

○ Miles of added fence maintenance 

a - Miles of 303d listed streams are included in the critical bull trout habitat miles

• Bull Trout Critical Habitat – Grazing may degrade critical habitat for threatened bull trout. There 

may be direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of livestock use of streams and riparian areas that 

could negatively affect spawning and reproductive success. Livestock grazing may trample eggs, 

impact stream banks increasing sediment and widening stream channels, decrease shade-providing 

plants on the banks and increase water temperatures. Continued grazing on streams that are 

“functional at risk” may impact recovery of resource values including critical bull trout and beaver 

habitat. In areas that are functioning at risk, channels may not be interacting with the floodplain, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 25

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

willows are under-represented in density and age classes, and water temperatures are high. 

• Economic Impacts to Permittees and Community – Changes in how allotments are managed can 

affect operational and implementation costs. Riparian exclosures and riparian pastures can exclude 

productive forage areas and impact livestock movement. The addition of fences can increase annual 

fence maintenance costs. Permittees, managers and employees of allotments reside in the local 

communities and contribute to the local economy. 

Analysis Issues

Table 16 lists the analysis issues considered for this analysis generated from public comments and/or the 

project Interdisciplinary Team.

Table 16. Analysis issues

Analysis Issue Analysis Issue Indicator(s)

Fences are Movement Barriers to Wildlife

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Miles of Fence Removed 

• Miles of Fence Constructed 

• Design Elements to Reduce Impacts 

Proposed Move Triggers, End-Point Indicators 

not capable of allowing for riparian recovery

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Move Triggers and End-Point Indictors 

Limited hardwoods have resulted in a loss of 

beaver habitat and reduction of animals within 

the project area

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Short- and Long-Term Effects on Shrub Development 

Shifting parts of vacant allotments into active 

livestock use 

Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Acres of Currently Vacant Allotment Grazed 

• Miles of Critical Bull Trout Habitat Grazed in Currently 

Vacant Allotment 

Livestock Stocking Levels Should be Reduced Measure or element for evaluation: 

• Capability, Suitability and Forage Production

Table 17. Issues eliminated from detailed study

Issues Eliminated Rationale

Trying to attract or divert livestock away from riparian 

area will afford adequate protection to bull trout and 

riparian ecosystems.

Comment not supported by available science.

Techniques to attract or herd livestock away from 

riparian areas have proven to be successful strategies.

Areas like Sagehen should include measures to address 

impacts from elk.

Comment is addressed by direction in the Malheur 

Forest Plan. The Malheur Forest plan directs that 

methods be employed to achieve the desire levels of 

utilization by permitted livestock and big game. See 

Forest Plan standard #87, on page IV-35. 

The management decision must be coordinated with the 

water quality restoration plan that is being developed this 

spring to respond to a number of TMDL violations on the 

Malheur River.

A water quality management plan is being developed 

and due to the Department of Environmental Quality in 

April, 2012. Development of this plan is outside the 

scope of this analysis.

There should be no livestock allowed in riparian pastures 

given the extreme loss of riparian biodiversity and 

historic degradation. As soon as livestock are allowed 

back in, these gains will be largely lost.

Scientific literature indicates that riparian pastures can 

recover with managed grazing.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

26 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Issues Eliminated Rationale

Troughs attract concentrated livestock use a lot of 

compaction, denuding of plants, etc. Piping from a creek 

to a trough 100 feet from the stream is to close-still well 

within the sediment contribution zone of at least 200 feet. 

Troughs would be located outside of riparian areas 

greater than 200 feet from streams.

Fence off springs with a trough outside the exclosure still 

attracts destruction by livestock to an area within the 

broader spring zone of influence, compacting soils, and 

potentially reducing water recharge rates. 

One spring is proposed for development. The spring 

source will be fenced with the trough located 

approximately 400 feet from the spring. The entire 

spring zone of influence (wet area) will be fenced and 

protected from grazing.

Propose closures of roads that threaten trout or are 

redundant in nature.

Comment is outside the scope of the analysis. No road 

closures are proposed.

Project Record Availability 

This FEIS hereby incorporates, by reference, the project record. The project record contains all projectspecific information including resource reports, the watershed analysis and other results of field 

investigations. The record also contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The 

project record is available for review during regular business hours at Prairie City Ranger District in 

Prairie City, Grant County, Oregon. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 27

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Introduction 

Chapter 2 describes and compares the no action (no grazing), the proposed action and alternatives 

considered by the Forest Service for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. This 

chapter is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the issues and 

providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14). 

Changes from Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. The listing does not include minor 

correction, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of the changes resulted from public 

comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

• Keeping all livestock out of riparian zones has been added as an alternative considered but eliminated 

from detailed study. 

• Design criteria addressing Greater Sage-Grouse was added for all action alternatives.

• Aspen monitoring has been added to evaluate impacts of browsing on sucker and sapling recruitment.

• The estimated implementation and management schedule was updated.

Development of Alternatives 

The Interdisciplinary Team used information from public scoping comments, the significant issues 

identified for the project (see chapter 1) and direction given by the District Ranger including Forest Plan

direction and amendments, existing State and Federal laws, and field-related resource information to 

formulate a reasonable range of alternatives. A reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action was 

developed to 1: Meet the purpose and need for the project, and 2: Consider a reasonable range of 

solutions for the significant issues. 

This chapter includes a detailed description of each alternative, a list of design criteria, and other features 

of the alternatives. A summary of the alternatives is provided in Table 51. 

Each alternative is analyzed in detail to disclose environmental effects associated with its implementation 

in chapter 3. A summary comparing the effects to the significant and analysis issues is provided at the end 

of this chapter in Table 53. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in 

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The following alternatives or components of alternatives were considered, but 

eliminated from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. 

Closure of National Forest System Roads 

Public comments during the scoping period requested road closures to be considered as part of the 

proposed action. A recent access travel management plan was implemented in Logan Valley area with the 

Merit Project. Over the last several years several miles of road closures and decommissioning were 

implemented in areas overlapping portions of the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, and McCoy Creek 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

28 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

allotments benefiting aquatic and wildlife habitat. The Line Officer made a decision to not propose 

additional road closures in this analysis.

Beaver Recovery Projects 

Public comments requested that a credible and substantive beaver restoration alternative be considered. 

Although alternatives considered in detail do not specifically propose to restore beaver habitat, grazing 

management changes considered are expected to move riparian areas toward desired conditions resulting 

in improved habitat for beaver across the project area. The quality of beaver habitat will depend on the 

stream-type and vegetation potential. Closing roads was a beaver restoration strategy recommended in 

public comments. As stated above, the responsible official decided not to include road closures within the 

scope of the analysis.

Corridor Fencing of Big Creek 

A proposal was brought forward from the Burns Paiute Tribe to consider constructing corridor fences on 

Big Creek to eliminate livestock access and rest. Proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments on big 

creek stream reaches were conducted in 2007. All reaches of big creek assessed were determined to be in 

a proper functioning condition with an upward recovery trend, therefore corridor fencing of all stream 

reaches was eliminated from detailed study. The Forest Service is working cooperatively with the Burns 

Paiute Tribe and the Logan Valley allotment permittee to restore aquatic habitat on Big Creek and Lake 

Creek. In 2011, the Prairie City District Ranger authorized creating a riparian pasture on approximately 

0.2 miles of Big Creek that was not reviewed during the 2007 proper functioning condition assessments. 

The pasture fence is scheduled to be completed in 2012. In all alternatives the riparian pasture (West 

Bosenberg Riparian Pasture) is proposed to be rested and planted with willows to expedite recovery. 

Reduction of Permitted Grazing Numbers 

An alternative was considered that would have decreased the annual permitted livestock numbers and 

Animal Unit Months (AUMs) to improve stream conditions and habitat for bull trout. A capability and 

suitability and forage production analysis was completed for all allotments in the project area. The study 

showed that forage availability with the currently permitted livestock AUMs is not a limiting factor in the 

allotments within the project area.

Reducing numbers as a stand-alone strategy would have economic impacts to the permittee and fails to 

fully consider the stressors on the riparian systems that are slowing or preventing their recovery. Recovery 

of stream conditions can successfully be accomplished using a combination of timing, duration and 

frequency of grazing. Within the alternatives considered in detail, changes in management were designed 

specifically for the stream reaches based on the existing condition. Strategies considered related to the 

timing, duration, and frequency of grazing include: periodic rest of entire grazing units, fencing to create 

riparian pastures and exclosures to better control the duration and frequency of grazing, changes in 

allowable streambank impacts and forage use levels in riparian areas, and development and management 

requiring daily riding by the permittee to move livestock away from riparian areas. In addition, the AUMs 

proposed in all alternatives considered in detail were established as a maximum limit, maintaining 

flexibility for periodic adjustments in livestock numbers if needed to achieve desired conditions for 

streams.

Current Management 

Although current grazing strategies are facilitating recovery of most stream reaches, it was eliminated as 

an alternative studied in detail because there is still a need for changes in management to improve shrub, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 29

herbaceous vegetation, bank stability and stream shade conditions on specific reaches of Summit Creek. 

Summit Creek is critical habitat for bull trout.

Scheduling Rest on all Stream Reaches that are Functioning at Risk

Several sources of data were used by the Interdisciplinary team to determine the existing condition and 

desired condition (see appendix A, Table 102). This includes a proper functioning condition assessment 

completed in 2007 (Elmore 2007). The assessment identified several stream reaches in the project area as 

“functional at risk”. Some stream reaches that are functioning at risk, have an upward recovery trend and 

scheduling rest to achieve the desired condition is not always necessary. Combinations of management 

that change the timing, duration and frequency of grazing are being considered based on the specific 

recovery needs of each stream reach. Scheduling rest as a stand-alone strategy for recovery all streams 

that are functioning at risk was eliminated from detailed study.

Keep all Livestock out of Riparian Zones

An alternative was considered that would have removed livestock grazing from riparian areas. The 

strategies proposed in the action alternatives address the timing, duration, and frequency of grazing in 

riparian areas without removing livestock entirely from all riparian zones. The strategies vary by 

alternative with consideration of the existing condition and desired condition of riparian conditions. 

Strategies proposed include periodic rest of riparian areas, fencing to create riparian pastures and 

exclosures to better control the duration and frequency of grazing, variations in use levels and move 

triggers, and herding techniques such as daily riding to move livestock away from riparian areas. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

This FEIS assesses the potential effects of four alternatives: a no action alternative and three action 

alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)

For this FEIS, the no action alternative is interpreted to be no grazing. 

Under alternative 1, all term grazing permits would be cancelled upon implementation of the decision and 

resolution of the appeal process. No permits would be issued for any of the affected allotments until or 

unless there was a subsequent NEPA analysis and a decision made to re-stock any or all of the allotments. 

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

for under 36 CFR 222.4 (a)(1). 

Upon cancellation of the existing permit, there would be no livestock grazing under this alternative. 

During the two years prior to cancellation of the permits, livestock would continue to be managed under 

current management regimes for the existing permits.

Permittees would be reimbursed for their amortized share of cooperative range improvements where they 

participated in the development (FSH 2209.13 Chapter 70). 

Allotment exterior boundary fences would be assigned to adjacent permittees for continued maintenance. 

Private land boundary fences would remain intact with ownership assumed to belong to the private 

landowners. Subsequent decisions would need to be made regarding retention of any improvements for 

other resource needs.

The purpose of the no grazing alternative is to describe the effects of cancellation of grazing permits, with 

no livestock grazing taking place. Other management activities taking place in the area would continue if 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

30 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

this alternative was selected. Activities such as motorized access travel management, road maintenance, 

dispersed recreation, noxious weed management and fire protection would be allowed to continue as they 

currently take place in the project area. 

Actions Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Adaptive Management

All action alternatives are based on “adaptive management,” a process/model that uses monitoring and 

assessment information to determine if management changes are needed and, if so, what changes and to 

what degree. It is a process to cope with uncertainty and changing conditions over time. It gives the 

authorized officer the flexibility to adapt to changes on a yearly basis or after a period of longer term 

monitoring. 

Adaptive management strategies that may be used with each alternative are identified in appendix A 

(Table 104). Monitoring would be used to determine if management objectives identified in appendix A 

(Table 103) are being achieved in a timely manner. If it is determined through monitoring that objectives 

are not being achieved through the actions prescribed, then the pre-determined adaptive management 

strategy would be applied. 

The factors that would be considered in determining if or when adaptive management strategies would be 

applied include:

• Were management objectives identified in appendix A (Table 103) achieved within the desired 

timeframes?

• If management objectives were not achieved:

○ Did unplanned circumstances cause non-attainment of the objectives (i.e., unauthorized 

or natural disturbance [ice scour, wildfire, flood event])?

○ If some of the objectives were achieved, but not others: Were the objectives met for the 

indicators driving the upward trend for steam recovery and bull trout habitat reached? If 

so, then other management objectives need more time to develop but the rate of recovery 

is similar to reference designated monitoring areas (DMAs). 

○ Were the objectives achievable or appropriate? This provides flexibility of changing the 

numerical values or indicators for management objectives as time progresses, more 

monitoring data becomes available and future research improves the understanding of 

structure and function of riparian area. 

Chapter 3 discloses the effects of implementing the specific adaptive management strategies proposed, so 

they can be implemented without additional analysis in the future. 

Other Requirements 

Grazing would be based on AUMs; Permits would be based on average animal use and 

cow/calf pairs or yearlings

The action alternatives establish a maximum limit for animal unit months (AUMs) for each allotment. 

Alternatives propose livestock numbers (an average number of livestock) and the average season of use. 

Flexibility is maintained for annual adjustment of both numbers and/or season as long as the permitted 

use level (AUMs) is not exceeded. On an annual basis the actual livestock numbers and period of use may 

be adjusted in response to discussions with resource specialists and in response to resource needs, range 

readiness and monitoring. The grazing season beginning and ending dates could be varied by as much as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 31

two weeks (from the average season of use) allowing flexibility for differences in annual range readiness. 

Flexibility that allows for annual adjustments provides a management tool to assure that riparian and 

rangeland objectives are met. 

Changes to numbers and season of use would be displayed in the annual operating instructions. The 

permit would display the “average” number of livestock for the “average” season of use (Grazing Permit 

Administration Handbook FSH 2209.13, Section 15.13; these dates and numbers may vary year by year 

in annual operating instructions but when combined, would be equal to or less than the maximum 

permitted AUMs). 

Allotment Facilities are maintained

Permittees would be required to perform all annual maintenance of range improvements (i.e. fences and 

water developments) assigned in their permits. All fences would be functional before animals are turned 

out into the unit to be used. Range improvements would be reconstructed as the need arises (i.e., end of 

life span).

Appropriate Administrative Actions Would Occur

Appropriate administrative actions would be taken when the permittee’s management is not in compliance 

with the annual operating instructions. Consequences would occur (as described in FSH 2209.13, Section 

16.21). Under the terms and conditions of the Forest Service term grazing permit (Part 2, number 8(b) and 

Part 3) the Forest Officer in charge may modify the permitted number to protect resources. This is 

consistent with Forest Service Manual (FSM 2200). 

Recent Changes in Current Management 

Since completion of proper functioning condition assessments in 2007, several projects were authorized 

within the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie Allotments to enhance livestock management 

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

Creek; and to provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock distribution along Summit and West Fork 

Summit Creeks. Projects include:

• Construction of riparian pasture fences on approximately 0.2 miles of Big Creek and 1.0 mile of Lake 

Creek. Riparian pasture fences are called West Bosenberg Riparian pasture and West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture. (The contract was let for this project, but it has not been built yet due to fire 

restrictions)

• Construction of riparian exclosure fences on approximately 0.7 miles of Lake Creek.

• Hardwood planting in riparian pastures and exclosures on Lake Creek and Big Creek.

• Development of solar water systems from Big Creek and Lake Creek to troughs located in the 

uplands. 

• Reconstruction of 1.0 mile of division fence in the McCoy Creek allotment to control livestock 

movement.

• Fence construction to create a temporary livestock pasture called West Summit Recovery unit. 

Streambank protection with trees on West Fork Summit Creek.

• Construction of a buck and pole fence on 0.25 miles of Summit Creek. Existing willow cage 

replacement, enlargement, and removal on Summit Creek. (This project is scheduled to occur in the 

fall of 2013). 

• Construction of upland stock ponds to provide functional upland water sources. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

32 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Decisions were signed in 2011 for all projects and are expected to be completed prior to 2014 turnout. 

These projects are considered as part of current management for all action alternatives (see chapter 1, 

Current Management for more detail). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2, the proposed action, was developed to establish a grazing system that provides 

opportunities for rest and deferment (flexibility in season of grazing) in the Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments to recover important attributes of aquatic habitat including riparian vegetation and 

hardwoods, stream shade, and streambank stability. Portions of the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be 

added to the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments, creating a larger landscape for grazing with no 

proposed increase in livestock numbers (AUMs). Adding additional acres to these allotments, combined 

with other grazing unit adjustments within the allotments provides the flexibility to periodically rest entire 

grazing units or defer the season of grazing to restore riparian area conditions, while maintaining enough 

acres to be grazed annually to support a viable grazing operation. 

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 

Alternative 2 in combination with ongoing activities described in chapter 1 (current management) was 

developed to address the purpose and need to improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat. Ongoing 

activities include fence construction that excludes grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to 

recover hardwoods,stream shade, and critical habitat for bull trout. 

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 51. See 

appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities. 

Figure 15. Proposed action range allotment configurations
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 33

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System 

About half of this allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie allotments. The 

remaining half would remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and Corral Basin units (see Table 18 below). 

Table 18. Alternative 2, proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant

Unit Acres

McCoy Creek unit 2,639

Corral Basin unita 2,430

Total 5,069

Part of the existing Bosenberg Unit

Boundary Changes

Refer to Figure 16 which illustrates the following boundary changes for this allotment.

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

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

environmental analysis. 

Approximately 4,449 acres of the 6,970 acre Bosenberg Unit in the Lake Creek Allotment would be 

added to the Summit Prairie Allotment. This pasture would retain the Bosenberg Unit name in the Summit 

Prairie Allotment. Of the remaining 2,521 left in the Bosenberg Unit in Lake Creek Allotment, about 

2,430 acres would be renamed the Corral Basin Unit and 91 acres would be added to the McCoy Creek 

Unit. 

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would be added to the Logan Valley Allotment. 

(About 298 acres comes from the McCoy Creek Unit and 90 acres comes from the Horse Pasture Unit of 

the Lake Creek Allotment). The resulting new pasture would become the Deardorff Unit in the Logan 

Valley Allotment.

The remainder of the Lake Creek Allotment (McCoy Creek Unit and the newly designated Corral Basin) 

would remain vacant. Lake and Big Creeks which lie within the McCoy Creek Unit of the vacant 

allotment contain occupied bull trout habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

34 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 16. Alternative 2 - Lake Creek Allotment boundary changes

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

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

Table 19. Alternative 2, Lake Creek allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of 

Livestock AUMs Season of 

Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 5,069 0 0 Vacant None

Improvements and Structures

Construct 2.5 miles of new fencing to exclude the southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 35

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

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

use. Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and would not be a 

systematic or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period critical to plant development, 

full growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis would be placed on resting units with 

aquatic habitat recovery needs. See Table 21 for minimum rest requirements.

Table 20. Alternative 2, proposed Logan Valley allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

Deardorff unit 388

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 4,359

The following table shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley allotment.

Table 21. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2013) and willows 

are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieveda

, 

with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is 

resumed. When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would 

be applied.

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2013 or 2014) and 

willows are planted. Grazing would resume after willows have established, with rest 

(season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period. When grazing is resumed the 

move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Big Creek 

Riparian 

pasture

Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

a - Management objective is defined as conditions that have resilient vegetation and stream channel characteristics capable of 

withstanding disturbance and moving towards the desired condition when grazing is resumed. Site specific management objectives 

by target time periods are shown in appendix A (Table 103). If it is determined through monitoring that management objectives are 

not being achieved through the actions prescribed, then the respective adaptive management strategy would be applied to 

accelerate recovery. Adaptive management strategies are shown in appendix A (Table 104).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

36 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Boundary Changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 3,756 acres to 4,359 acres. Approximately 655 acres 

Figure 17 displays the boundary changes for this allotment. 

Figure 17. Alternative 2 - Logan Valley Allotment boundary changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 3,756 acres to 4,359 acres. Approximately 655 acres 

from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to the Logan Valley allotment and 

about 52 acres of the Logan Valley Allotment would be added to the Summit Prairie Allotment. Specific 

allotment and unit changes include: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 37

• A total of 388 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment (Horse Pasture unit – 90 acres and McCoy Creek 

unit 298 acres) would be moved to the Logan Valley Allotment. This new unit would be called the 

Deardorff unit.

• The Lake Creek unit (218 acres) and North Fork unit (49 acres) of the McCoy Creek allotment would 

be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment (totaling approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit 

would remain as an individual unit and North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit for 

better livestock distribution.

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

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

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

and absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, distributed 

over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy allotments to the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 15th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

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

combined into a single riparian pasture would require livestock removal by August 15th to protect bull 

trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Table 22. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of 

Livestock AUMs 

Season of 

Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 4,359 357a 1,983 06/10-10/15 Periods non-scheduled 

rest and deferment 

a - Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

Improvements and Structures

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

removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted to a permanent letdown fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. A let-down fence is a three or fourstand fence that can be laid down as a unit. It is commonly used in mountainous areas where snow packs 

tend to loosen or break wires, or pull posts over, in standard fences. 

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

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence and 0.8 miles of 

fence removal. The new unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit. 

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

would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

38 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in appendix A (Table 104) are summarized in Table 23 below. 

Table 23. Alternative 2, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management Strategy

Lake Creek/West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture Additional rest within riparian pasture 

Big Creek/West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture Additional rest within riparian pasture 

Big Creek/Big Creek Riparian pasture Scheduled rest or additional rest 

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen area 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Grazing System 

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

systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to change the time of year when 

units would be used. 

Table 24 below shows the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 24. Alternative 2, Proposed McCoy Creek allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Cow Camp unit 157 (23 ac. excluded in riparian protection exclosuresa) 

Ridge unit (Combed Ridge/Dry) 292

Government Flat unit 211

Total 660

a - Includes Lake Creek and Lake Creek Willow exclosures

Boundary Changes

Refer to Figure 18 which illustrates the following boundary changes for this allotment.

The existing 980-acre allotment would decrease to 660 acres. The Dry (28 acres) and Ridge (264 acres) 

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

identified as the Ridge unit (totaling 292 acres). The Lake Creek unit (218 acres) and North Fork unit (49 

acres) of the McCoy Creek allotment would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment and would be 

absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment (a total of 267 acres). Both units are isolated from the main 

body of the McCoy Creek allotment and would be more efficiently managed as part of the Logan Valley 

allotment.

The Starvation unit (53 acres) is a small, isolated area not easily managed with the McCoy Creek 

allotment. This unit would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment and possibly added to the Dollar 

Basin allotment in the future in a separate environmental analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 39

Figure 18. Alternative 2 - McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 63 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 1th and October 30th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 416 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

40 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 25. Alternative 2, McCoy Creek allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs Season of Use Grazing System

McCoy Creek 660a 63b 416 06/01-10/30 Deferred Rotation

a – Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

b - Although the allotment acres would decrease from approximately 980 acres to 660 acres the authorized head of cattle would 

remain as presently grazed. Grazing numbers would not change for the following reasons: 1) the Lake Creek, North Fork, and 

Starvation units are currently disconnected from the main body of the allotment and therefore are not often grazed; 2) The three 

grazing units (Cow Camp, Government Flat, and Ridge) remaining in the allotment are primarily upland areas reducing the potential 

for concentrations of livestock within the Lake Creek riparian area and bull trout habitat.

Improvements and Structures

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

of 1 mile of fence. The combined units would be identified as the Ridge unit, providing better livestock 

distribution. 

Adaptive Management

No additional adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System 

The Summit Prairie allotment would be managed with periods of rest or deferment during seasons of use. 

Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and would not be a systematic 

or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period critical to plant development, full 

growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis would be placed on resting units with aquatic 

habitat recovery needs. See Table 27 for minimum rest requirements.

Upon the completion of the boundary fences to incorporate the portion of the Bosenberg unit (4,449 

acres) into the Summit Prairie allotment, the Sagehen unit would be rested 3 years out of the 10 year 

period. This would provide a period of non-use or rest to allow desired vegetation composition and stream 

channel characteristics to improve. Until completion of the new boundary fences, the Sagehen unit would 

continue to be grazed early season with reduced numbers. 

Part of the Bosenberg Unit was burned in early 1990 wildfires. To allow continued recovery of Bosenberg 

Creek, specific monitoring criteria and stream bank alteration standards would be applied. See chapter 2 

(Monitoring) and appendix E (Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels).

Table 26. Alternative 2, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Bosenberg unit 4,449

Crane Rock unit 7,838

Little Logan unit 3,270

North Summit unit 195

Sagehen unit 3,767

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,222

West Summit unit (holding unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit (temporary) 19

Total 29,832
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 41

Table 27. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest

Sagehen 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest). 

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary 

fence) 

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). Grazing 

would resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is 

resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Bosenberg Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Little Logan Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Note: Entire unit would be rested

Boundary Changes

Figure 19 illustrates the boundary changes for the Summit Prairie allotment.

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

include the following:

• The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be absorbed into the Little 

Logan unit to provide a larger unit for better livestock distribution. 

• The Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) from the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added as a separate 

grazing unit. 

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, distributed 

over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley 

allotment. 

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 24th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

Since direct impacts to bull trout spawning is not likely to occur from livestock activities, livestock may 

use the North Summit Unit after August 15 (start of the bull trout spawning period). 

Table 28. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of 

Livestock AUMs Season of 

Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 29,832 260a 1,546 06/10-10/24 Periods non-scheduled 

rest and deferment 

a - Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

42 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 19. Alternative 2 Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley allotment with the Little Logan unit. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) from the Lake Creek allotment would require construction of 

approximately 7 miles of additional fence. Water gaps in the fence line would be located where National 

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

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

would be constructed in the far northeastern portion of the unit well above the headwaters of Bosenberg 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 43

Creek and Corral Basin Creek. A spring would be developed off a headwater spring for Bosenberg Creek. 

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

The spring is located approximately 1.5 miles from the junction of the National Forest System road 1648 

and 1649. Water would also be piped from Bosenberg Creek to a trough located approximately 100 feet 

from the stream. The withdrawal site would be located approximately 1⁄2 mile from the junction of 

National Forest System road 1648 and 1649. To ensure adequate protection of all streams in the unit, 

riding in the Bosenberg unit would be required to maintain livestock concentrations in the uplands. 

To alleviate existing safety concerns on National Forest System road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property boundary (T. 

16 S. , R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed with railroad timbers. 

The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in size and constructed out of wood 

or wire material.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in appendix A (Table 104) are summarized in Table 29 below. 

Table 29. Alternative 2, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management Strategy

Bosenberg Creek/Bosenberg unit Scheduled rest or additional rest 

Summit Creek/Sagehen unit Scheduled rest or additional rest 

Summit Creek/Little Logan unit Scheduled rest or additional rest 

Summit Creek & West Fork Summit Creek/ 

Summit Rock unit Change allowable use levels (see appendix E )

Summit Creek/North Summit unit Change allowable use levels (see appendix E )

West Fork Summit Creek/West Summit 

Recovery unit Additional rest within the Recovery unit 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response public concern over bull trout critical habitat. All of the Lake 

Creek allotment would remain vacant in this alternative. The Lake Creek allotment contains all or 

portions of Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creek which are designated 

critical habitat for bull trout.

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable 

use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing 

condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the 

presence of critical bull trout habitat. See appendix E for specific details. 

Ongoing water developments in the Logan Valley allotment would provide opportunities to defer the 

season of grazing and a change to a deferred grazing system. 

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 

Ongoing activities described in chapter 1 (Current Management) would construct fences that exclude 

grazing from most of the Lake Creek riparian area to recover hardwoods,stream shade, and critical habitat 

for bull trout. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

44 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Riparian pastures and exclosures would be constructed on Summit Creek in the Little Logan and Sagehen 

pastures. Riparian pastures would be rested for several years to accelerate recovery of riparian vegetation 

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

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 51. See 

appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities. 

Figure 20. Alternative 3 range allotment configuration

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System 

The allotment (Bosenberg, Horse Pasture and McCoy Creek units) would remain vacant with no 

authorized grazing in the three existing grazing units. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 45

Table 30. Alternative 3, Proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant

Unit Acres

Bosenberg unit 6,970

Horse Pasture unit 90

McCoy Creek unit 3,136

Total 10,196

Boundary Changes

The entire allotment would remain vacant with no change in the allotment boundary. 

Figure 21. Alternative 3 Lake Creek Allotment - no proposed boundary changes

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on the allotment. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

46 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 31. Alternative 3, Lake Creek allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs Season of Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 10,196 0 0 Vacant None

Improvements and Structures

There are no proposed improvements or structures. Existing structures needed for other resource 

management such as existing aspen protection fences would continue to be maintained. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed.

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

The grazing system would change to a deferred system with opportunities to defer the season of use.

Table 32. Alternative 3, Proposed Logan Valley allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 3,971

Table 33 shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley allotment.

Table 33. Alternative 3, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Rest for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2013) and willows are planted. Grazing 

would resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing resumes. When grazing resumes the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would apply.

West Lake 

Creek Riparian 

pasture

Rest for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2013) and willows are planted. Grazing 

would resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing resumes. When grazing resumes the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 47

Boundary Changes 

Figure 22. Alternative 3 Logan Valley Allotment boundary changes

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

absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the into the 

Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would remain as an individual 

unit, while the North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit. The added acres would allow 

for additional rest within the Logan Valley allotment. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

48 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

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

combined into a single 623 acre Big Creek Riparian Pasture. 

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 3,756 acres to 3,971 acres. This change would allow for 

additional rest for this allotment.

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 15th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

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

combined into a single riparian pasture that would require livestock removal by August 15th to protect 

bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Table 34. Alternative 3, Logan allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs Season of Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 3,971 357a 1,983 06/10-10/15 Deferred Rotation

a - Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

Improvements and Structures

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

the removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted to a permanent letdown fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. 

The combining the Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units 

would require the removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in appendix A (Table 104) are summarized in Table 35 below. 

Table 35. Alternative 3, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management 

Strategy 

Lake Creek/West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture

Additional rest within the 

riparian pasture

Big Creek/West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Additional rest within the 

riparian pasture

Big Creek Riparian pasture Change allowable use 

levels (see appendix E )

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen 

area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 49

McCoy Creek Allotment

The grazing system, boundary changes, livestock numbers and grazing season, improvement and 

structures, and adaptive management strategies are the same as in alternative 2. 

Figure 23. Alternative 3 McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

50 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System 

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally move from 

unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. Riparian exclosures (with no grazing) and 

riparian pastures would be constructed along portions of Summit Creek. The riparian pastures would be 

rested as proposed in Table 37 below. 

Table 36 shows the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 36. Alternative 3, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Crane Rock Unit 7,838

Little Logan Unit 3,191

Lower Little Logan Riparian pasture 64

Upper Little Logan Riparian pasture 15

North Summit unit 108

North Summit Riparian pasture 87

Sagehen unit 3,730

Sagehen Riparian exclosure 8 

Sagehen Riparian pasture 29

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,222

West Summit unit (holding unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit (temporary) 19

Total 25,383

Table 37shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Summit Prairie allotment.

Table 37. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest

Sagehen 

Riparian pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 

3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Upper and Lower 

Little Logan 

Riparian 

pastures

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 

3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary 

fence)

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 

3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

North Summit 

Riparian pasture 

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012). Grazing would 

resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) required 

3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Note: Only the riparian pasture or recovery area would be rested
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 51

Boundary Changes

The present allotment consisting of 25,331 acres would increase to 25,383 acres. Changes to the allotment 

include the following:

• The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be absorbed into the Little 

Logan unit. 

Riparian pastures or grazing exclosure would be constructed in the Sagehen, Little Logan and North 

Summit units allowing portions of Summit Creek to be rested. No grazing would occur within the 

exclosure. 

Figure 24. Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

52 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 24th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

Table 38. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs Season of Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 25,383 260a 1,546 06/10-10/24 Deferred Rotation

Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley allotment to the Little Logan unit. 

Approximately 7.3 miles of fence would be constructed in the Little Logan unit to create the Lower Little 

Logan Riparian pasture fence (5.9 miles) and the Upper Little Logan Riparian pasture fence (1.4 miles) 

along Summit Creek. 

Approximately 4.1 miles of fence would be constructed in the Sagehen unit to create the Sagehen 

Riparian exclosure fence (1.5 miles) and the Sagehen Riparian pasture (2.6 miles) fence containing 

Summit Creek.

Approximately 0.8 miles of fence would be constructed in the North Summit unit to create the North 

Summit Riparian pasture fence. 

To alleviate current safety concerns on National Forest System road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property boundary (T. 

16 S., R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed with railroad timbers. 

The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in size and constructed out of wood 

or wire material.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in appendix A (Table 104) are summarized in Table 39. 

Table 39. Alternative 3, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management Strategy

Summit Creek/Sagehen Riparian pasture Change allowable use levels (see appendix E) Summit Creek/Sagehen unit (outside of Riparian pasture)

Summit Creek/Little Logan unit 

Summit Creek/Lower Little Logan Additional rest within the Riparian pasture 

Summit Creek/Upper Little Logan 

Summit Creek & West Fork Summit Creek/ Summit Rock unit Change allowable use levels (see appendix E)

West Fork Summit Creek/West Summit Recovery unit Additional rest within the Recovery unit Summit Creek/North Summit Riparian pasture
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 53

Alternative 4

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

allotment grazing permittees. 

Part of the vacant Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The portions of 

the Lake Creek allotment containing Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creek 

(critical bull trout streams) would remain vacant. 

In the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, proposed move triggers and allowable 

use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration vary by pasture based on the existing 

condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing effects and other disturbances, and the 

presence of critical bull trout habitat. See appendix E for specific details. 

Figure 25. Alternative 4 range allotment configuration
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

54 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

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

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

important attributes of aquatic habitat, while maintaining enough acres to be grazed annually to support a 

viable grazing operation. 

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

rotation grazing system allowing flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used. 

Alternative 4 in combination with ongoing activities described in chapter 1 (Current Management) was 

developed to address the purpose and need to improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat. Ongoing 

activities would construct fences that exclude grazing from most of Lake Creek within the allotment To 

recover hardwoods, stream shade, and critical habitat for bull trout. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creek and West Fork Summit Creek.

Management plans for each allotment are discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 51. See 

appendix B (maps) showing allotment and unit configurations and proposed activities. 

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System

Portions of the allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The remaining 9,459 acres would 

remain vacant in the McCoy Creek and Bosenberg units. 

Table 40. Alternative 4, proposed Lake Creek allotment units to remain vacant

Unit Acres

McCoy Creek unit 2,581

Bosenberg unit 6,878

Total 9,459

Boundary Changes

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the adjacent Logan Valley 

allotment. Areas containing Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek and Bosenberg Creek would 

remain vacant. Lake Creek and Big Creek contain occupied bull trout habitat. 

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

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

analysis would be required to add this area to the Dollar Basin allotment. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 55

Figure 26. Alternative 4 Lake Creek Allotment boundary changes

Livestock Numbers and Grazing Season

No livestock would be authorized on 9,459 acres of the allotment. 

Table 41. Alternative 4, Lake Creek Allotment

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs Season of Use Grazing System

Lake Creek 9,459 0 0 Vacant None

Improvement and Structures

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

require the construction 2.5 miles of new fencing. 

Adaptive Management

No adaptive management strategies are proposed. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

56 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

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

use. Deferment and rest periods would be determined based on resource needs and would not be a 

systematic or scheduled rotation. The rest periods would vary from a period critical to plant development, 

full growing season or one forage crop (one year). Emphasis would be placed on resting units with 

aquatic habitat recovery needs. See Table 43 for minimum rest requirements.

Table 42. Alternative 4, proposed Logan Valley grazing units

Unit Acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 623

Big Field unit 1,024

Corral holding unit 22

Deardorff unit 388

East Bosenberg unit 118

East Lake Creek unit 399

Flat Field unit 595

Lake Creek unit 218

Lower Field unit 283

West Bosenberg unit 269

West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 14

West Lake Creek unit 271

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 135

Total 4,359

Table 43 shows the rest requirements for the grazing units in the Logan Valley allotment.

Table 43. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest

West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) and willows 

are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. 

When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2012) and willows 

are planted. Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with 

rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. 

When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Big Creek Riparian 

pasture Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Boundary Changes

The Logan Valley allotment would increase from existing 3,756 acres to 4,359 acres. Approximately 655 

acres from the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. 

Specific allotment and unit changes include: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 57

• The Horse Pasture and a portion of the McCoy Creek unit of the Lake Creek allotment would be 

absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment (approximately 388 acres). This new unit is identified as the 

Deardorff unit.

• The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the 

Logan Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would remain as an 

individual unit and North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit for better livestock 

distribution. 

Figure 27. Alternative 4 Logan Valley Allotment changes

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

combined into a single large unit known as Big Creek Riparian pasture. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

58 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

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

absorbed into the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Livestock Numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted, distributed 

over the larger landscape provided by adding areas from the Lake Creek and McCoy allotments to the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

Up to 357 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 15th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,983 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

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

combined into a single riparian pasture that would require livestock removal by August 15th to protect 

bull trout spawning habitat in Big Creek. 

Table 44. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of 

Livestock AUMs Season of 

Use Grazing System

Logan Valley 4,359 357a 1,983 06/10-10/15 Periods of deferment and 

non-scheduled rest 

Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

Improvements and Structures

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

removal of approximately 0.3 miles of fence. 

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

allotment into the Logan Valley allotment would require 2.5 miles of additional fence and 0.8 miles of 

fence removal. The new unit would be identified as the Deardorff unit. 

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

would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit would be converted from a permanent to 

a let-down fence to exclude livestock from a small section of Big Creek. 

Adaptive Management

Table 45. Alternative 4, Logan Valley allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management Strategy

Lake Creek/West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture Additional rest within riparian pasture 

Big Creek/West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture Additional rest within riparian pasture 

Big Creek/Big Creek Riparian pasture Scheduled rest or additional rest 

Big Field (Fen area) Install fence around Fen area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 59

McCoy Creek Allotment

The grazing system, boundary changes, livestock numbers and grazing season, improvement and 

structures, and adaptive management strategies are the same as in alternatives 2 and 3. 

Figure 28. Alternative 4 McCoy Creek Allotment boundary changes
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

60 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System 

The grazing system would change to a deferred system with opportunities to defer the season of use. 

Riparian exclosures (with no grazing), willow cages and a riparian pasture would be constructed along 

portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. The riparian pasture would be rested as 

proposed in Table 47 below. 

Daily riding by the permittee would ensure livestock stay in the uplands, reducing grazing use along 

Summit Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. 

Table 46 shows the grazing units and associated acres.

Table 46. Alternative 4, proposed Summit Prairie allotment grazing units

Unit Acres

Crane Rock Unit 7,838

Little Logan Unit 3,270

North Summit unit 143

Prairie Riparian pasture 126

Sagehen unit 3,767

South Summit unit 45

Summit Rock unit 10,148

West Summit unit (holding unit/handing facility) 27

West Summit Recovery unit (temporary) 19

Total 25,383

Table 47shows the rest and season of use requirements for the grazing units in the Summit Prairie 

allotment.

Table 47. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Required Rest 

Prairie Riparian 

pasture 

A deferred rest grazing system would be applied. The riparian pasture would be grazed 

early season one year and late season the following year. 

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 

(temporary 

fence)

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 2013). Grazing 

would resume after management objectives have been achieved. When grazing is 

resumed, the area within the recovery unit would be grazed as part of the Prairie 

Riparian pasture utilizing the same use levels and use triggers (see appendix E). 

Boundary Changes

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) from the Logan Valley allotment would be absorbed into 

the Little Logan unit. 

The total acres in the allotment would increase from 25,331 to approximately 25,383 acres. A riparian 

pasture named Prairie Riparian pasture would be constructed from a portion of the Summit Rock and 

North Summit units containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 61

Figure 29. Alternative 4 Summit Prairie Allotment boundary changes

Livestock numbers and Grazing Season

The permitted livestock number and grazing seasons would remain as currently permitted.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

62 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Up to 260 head of cattle would be authorized for a season generally between June 10th and October 24th. 

Authorized use would not exceed 1,546 AUMs. Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint 

indicators are listed in appendix E. 

Table 48. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment summary

Allotment 

Name Acres Number of Livestock AUMs 

Season of 

Use Grazing System

Summit Prairie 25,383 260a 1,546 06/10-10/24 Deferred Rotation

Cow/calf pairs or individual steers or heifers not to exceed AUMs

Improvements and Structures

Approximately 0.7 miles of fence would be removed to absorb the Front Field unit (52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley allotment to the Little Logan unit. 

Small exclosures (combination of buck and pole, and wire) and cages would be constructed along 

approximately 10 percent of the total riparian length along Summit Creek within the Little Logan and 

Sagehen units. Exclosures and cages would be located in areas with the highest potential for willow 

development (as identified by the Carex Working Group). 

The Prairie Riparian pasture would absorb part of the North Summit and Summit Rock units. 

Approximately 3.1 miles of fence would be constructed to create a riparian pasture. 

To alleviate current safety concerns on National Forest System road 1647, a loading ramp with attached 

catch pen would be constructed in the uplands of the Sagehen unit near the private property boundary (T. 

16 S. , R. 34 E., NE corner of Section 1). The loading ramp would be constructed with railroad timbers. 

The attached catch pen would be approximately 300 feet by 500 feet in size and constructed out of wood 

or wire material.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management strategies shown in appendix A (Table 104) are summarized in Table 49 below. 

Table 49. Alternative 4, Summit Prairie allotment adaptive management strategies

Stream/Unit Adaptive Management Strategy

Summit Creek/ Prairie Riparian 

pasture Rest riparian pasture 

Summit Creek/Sagehen unit Change allowable use levels (see 

appendix E )

Summit Creek/Little Logan unit Change allowable use levels (see 

appendix E )

West Fork Summit Creek/West 

Summit Recovery unit 

Additional rest within the recovery 

unit 

Summit Creek/Little Logan unit Construct exclosure around a higher 

percentage of the area 

Summit Creek/Sagehen unit Construct exclosure around a higher 

percentage of the area
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 63

Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as 

Amended 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan as amended by amendment 29. 

Specifically, the numeric value for shade in hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan amendment 

29 would be modified for site specific stream reaches. The numeric values in amendment 29 were based 

upon the best information available at the time the Decision Notice (DN) was signed by the Malheur 

National Forest Supervisor in August of 1994. The DN stated that “if new information becomes available 

in the future which indicates changes in the numeric values to achieve the stated desired condition, these 

values may be inserted as a clarification/correction to the individual standard”. New available 

information and data collected for the Summit Logan project would be used to amend the numberic 

values for hardwood meadow complexes on several stream reaches on Summit Creek, West Fork Summit 

Creek, Lake Creek, Big Creek, and Bosenberg CreekThe proposed amended percent shade values 

developed for hardwood/meadow complexes within the Summit Logan allotments are based on work by 

the Carex Working Group (2012) and the Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and 

Water Quality Management Plan completed by State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(2010). Work carried out by the Carex Working Group involved estimating the expected (and perhaps 

maximum) level of streamside shade (height and density) that could be attained from willows, sedges, and 

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

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

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

reach, the habitats occupied by mature willow thickets, alder thickets, and sedge meadows on the 

reference sites, and similar plant communities we have observed elsewhere in Grant and Harney Counties 

(Carex Working Group 2010, 2011a, and 2011b). 

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

Table 50. Potential values for shade in the TMDL plan were derived using Ecoregion Based Effective 

Shade Curves if reference data was not available. These effective shade curves are general heat load 

allocations that are identified by region and channel width for various riparian plant communities. The 

given values represent the maximum possible effective shade if the potential height and density are 

present. The curves account for latitude, critical summertime period and stream aspect. The Carex 

Working Group only collected reference data for alder and/or willow riparian plant communities. As a 

result, the Native Floodplain Grasses effective shade curve was used from the TMDL plan (Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

64 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 50. Proposed modifications to the Malheur Forest Plan 

Reach

Amendment 29 Numeric Value to be Modified 

Proposed Modification Amendment 29 Element Location Specific Value 

Summit Creek

Reach 1 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex 

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded Shade 65% or greatera

 

Reach 2 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with hardwoodsb

 or 

≥25% in areas with native floodplain grassesa

 

Reach 4 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade ≥60% in areas with hardwoodsb

 or 

≥25% in areas with native floodplain grassesa

Reach 5 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 60%b

 

Reach 6 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded ≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

Reach 7 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment 29)

c

, ≥ 60% for mixed shrub 

areasb, or ≥ 25% in areas with native 

floodplain grassesa

. 

West Fork Summit Creek

Reach 1 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded ≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

 

Reach 2 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 80% for alder-dominated areas 

(Amendment 29)

c

, ≥ 60% for mixed shrub 

areasb, or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grassesa

. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 65

Reach

Amendment 29 Numeric Value to be Modified 

Proposed Modification Amendment 29 Element Location Specific Value 

Lake Creek

Reach 1 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increase hardwood shade component; shade 

≥ 60% in hardwood areasb or ≥ 25% in areas 

with native floodplain grassesa

. 

Reach 2 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Increased hardwood shade component: 

shade ≥ 60%b or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grassesa

. 

Reach 3 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and coniferb or 

≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

. 

(no PFC 

assessment) 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grassesa

 

Big Creek 

no proper 

functioning 

condition

assessment, 

south side of FS 

rd 16 for 0.15 

miles

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grassesa

 

Reach 1 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and coniferb

 or 

≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses 

Reach 2 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and coniferb

 or 

≥ 25% for native floodplain grassesa

. 

Reach 3 D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure

b) Mixed Conifer species 

d) Hardwood/ Meadow 

Complex

Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and coniferb

 . 

Bosenberg Creek

Bosenberg 

Creek 

D. Riparian Vegetation: 

4) Shade/Canopy Closure b) Mixed Conifer species Hardwood/Meadow Complex 

80% shaded

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrubb or ≥ 25% for 

native floodplain grassesa

 

a – Oregon Department if Environmental Quality 2010

b – Carex Working Group 2012

c – USDA Forest Service 1994
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

66 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Summary of Alternatives

Table 51. Summary of alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Lake Creek Allotment

Grazing System 5,069 acres would remain vacant. 10,196 acre allotment would remain 

vacant. 9,459 acres would remain vacant. 

Boundary 

Changes 

4,778 acres would be would be absorbed into the 

adjacent Logan Valley and Summit Prairie 

allotments. 

The southwest corner of McCoy Creek (349 acres) 

would be removed from the Lake Creek allotment. 

No change in allotment boundary. 

Boundary would remain as 

approximately 10,196 acres. 

Approximately 388 acres of the 

allotment would be absorbed into the 

Logan Valley allotment. 

The southwest corner of McCoy Creek 

(349 acres) would be removed from the 

Lake Creek allotment. 

Unit and Acres 

(all units would 

remain vacant)

McCoy Creek unit: 2,639 acres

Corral Basin unit: 2,430 acres 

Bosenberg unit: 6,970 acres

Horse Pasture unit: 90 acres

McCoy Creek unit: 3,136 acres 

McCoy Creek unit: 2,581 acres

Bosenberg unit: 6,878 acres 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

0 Head of Cattle 

0 AUMs 

No Season of Use

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details.

Improvements 

and Structures 

2.5 miles of fence construction to remove the 

southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit from this 

allotment. 

No improvements or structures are 

proposed. See alternative 2 for details. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Grazing System

This allotment would be managed with periods of 

rest of deferment during the season of use. Rest or 

deferment would be determined based on resource 

needs. 

The grazing system would change to a 

deferred system with opportunities to 

defer the season of use. 

See alternative 2 for detail. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 67

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Boundary 

Changes 

The Big Creek Portion of the East Lake Creek, North 

Big Creek and South Big Creek would be combined 

into a single large unit (Big Creek Riparian pasture).

The Front Field unit (approximately 52 acres) would 

be removed from this allotment. 

Approximately 655 acres from the Lake Creek and 

McCoy allotments would be added to the Logan 

Valley allotment: 

Horse Pasture and a portion of McCoy Creek unit of 

the Lake Creek allotment (388 acres). New unit 

identified as Deardorff unit. 

Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy 

Creek allotment would be absorbed into Logan 

Valley allotment (267 acres). The Lake Creek unit 

would remain as an individual unit while the North 

Fork unit would be absorbed in to the Flat Field unit.

The allotment size would be approximately 4,359 

acres.

Alternative 3 would include the same 

boundary changes as described in 

alternative 2, expect alternative 2 would 

not create the Deardorff unit (excluding 

388 acres from this alternative). 

The allotment size would be 

approximately 3,971 acres. 

See alternative 2 for details. 

Unit and Acres 

Big Creek Riparian pasture: 623 acres

Big Field unit: 1,024 acres

Corral Holding unit : 22 acres

Deardorff unit: 388 acres

East Bosenberg unit: 118 acres

East Lake Creek unit: 399 acres

Flat Field unit: 595 acres

Lake Creek unit: 218 acres

Lower Field unit: 283 acres

West Bosenberg unit: 269 acres

West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture: 14 acres

West Lake Creek unit: 271 acres 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture: 135 acres

Acres for this alternative are the same as 

alternative 2, excluding the Deardorff unit 

and acres. 

See alternative 2 for details. 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

357 Head of Cattle

1,983 AUMs

June 10th to October 15th

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

68 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Improvements 

and Structures 

Absorbing the North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek 

allotment into the Flat Field would require removal of 

0.3 miles of fence. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of electric fence in the 

North Fork unit along Big Creek converted to a 

permanent let-down fence.

Absorbing a portion of the McCoy Creek unit along 

with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek 

allotment creating the Deardorff unit (2.5 miles of 

additional fence and 0.8 miles of fence removal). 

Combining the Big Creek Portion of the East Lake 

Creek, North Big Creek and South Big Creek units 

would require removal of 1.2 miles of fence. 

Alternative 3 would include all of the 

improvements and structures as 

described in alternative 2 except the 

creation of the Deardorff unit.

See alternative 2 for details. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Grazing System A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied 

throughout the allotment. See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 

Boundary 

Changes 

The present allotment consisting of 980 aces would 

decrease to 660 acres. 

The Dry and Ridge units would be combined into a 

single unit (called Ridge unit) as currently managed. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units (267 acres) 

would be absorbed into the Logan Valley allotment. 

The Starvation unit (53 acres) would be removed 

from the Lake Creek allotment. 

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 

Unit and Acres 

Cow Camp unit: 157 acres (23 acres excluded in 

riparian protection exclosure)

Ridge unit: 292 acres 

Government Flat unit: 211 acres 

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

63 head of Cattle 

416 AUMs 

June 1st to October 30th

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 

Improvements 

and Structures 

Combining the Dry and Ridge units would require 1 

mile of fence removal. See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 69

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Summit Prairie Allotment

Grazing System

This allotment would be managed with periods of 

rest or deferment during the season of use. Rest or 

deferment would be determined based on resource 

needs. 

The grazing system would change to a 

deferred system with opportunities to 

defer the season of use. 

The grazing system would mirror 

alternative 3. Additionally, daily riding 

by the permittee to ensure livestock 

stay in the uplands in the Sagehen and 

Little Logan units. 

Boundary 

Changes 

The total allotment acres would be increased to 

approximately 29,832 acres:

The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the Logan 

Valley allotment would be absorbed into the Little 

Logan unit.

The Bosenberg unit (4,449 acres) from the vacant 

Lake Creek allotment would be added as a separate 

grazing unit.

The total allotment acres would be 

increased to approximately 25,383 acres:

The Front Field unit (52 acres) from the 

Logan Valley allotment would be 

absorbed into the Little Logan unit.

See alternative 3 for details. 

Unit and Acres 

Bosenberg unit: 4,449 acres

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 acres

Little Logan unit: 3,270 acres

North Summit unit: 195 acres

Sagehen unit: 3,767 acres

South Summit unit: 45 acres

Summit Rock unit: 10,222 acres

West Summit unit: 27 acres (holding unit/handling 

facility)

West Summit Recovery unit: 19 acres

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 acres 

Little Logan unit: 3,191 acres 

Lower Little Logan Riparian pasture: 64 

acres 

Upper Little Logan Riparian pasture: 15 

acres 

North Summit unit: 108 acres 

North Summit Riparian pasture: 87 acres 

Sagehen unit: 3,730 acres 

Sagehen Riparian exclosure: 8 acres 

Sagehen Riparian pasture: 29 acres

South Summit unit: 45 acres 

Summit Rock unit: 10,222 acres 

West Summit unit: 27 acres

(holding/handling facility) 

West Summit Recovery unit: 19 acres 

Crane Rock unit: 7,838 acres 

Little Logan unit: 3,270 acres 

North Summit unit: 143 acres 

Prairie Riparian pasture: 126 acres 

Sagehen unit: 3,767 acres 

South Summit unit: 45 acres 

Summit Rock unit: 10,148 acres 

West Summit unit: 27 acres

(holding/handling facility) 

West Summit Recovery unit: 19 acres 

Livestock 

numbers and 

Grazing

260 head of Cattle 

1,546 AUMs 

June 10th to October 24th

See alternative 2 for details. See alternative 2 for details. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

70 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Improvements 

and Structures 

Remove approximately 0.7 miles of fence to absorb 

the Front Field from the Logan Valley allotment to 

the Little Logan unit. 

Adding the Bosenberg unit would require 

construction of 7 miles of fence. Three upland ponds 

would be developed. A spring would be developed 

off a headwater spring for Bosenberg Creek. 

A loading ramp with attached catch pen would be 

constructed in the Sagehen unit near the private 

property boundary.

Remove approximately 0.7 miles of 

fence to absorb the Front Field from the 

Logan Valley allotment to the Little 

Logan unit.

Approximately 7.3 miles of fence 

constructed to create Lower Little Logan 

and Upper Little Logan Riparian pastures 

in Little Logan unit. 

Approximately 4.1 miles of fence 

construction to create the Sagehen 

Riparian exclosure and the Sagehen 

Riparian pasture in Sagehen unit. 

Approximately 0.8 miles of fence 

construction in North Summit unit to 

create North Summit Riparian pasture.

A loading ramp with attached catch pen 

would be constructed in the Sagehen 

unit near the private property boundary.

Remove approximately 0.7 miles of 

fence to absorb the Front Field from 

the Logan Valley allotment to the Little 

Logan unit.

Small exclosures (combination of buck 

and pole, and wire) and cages would 

be constructed along approximately 

10% of the total riparian length along 

Summit Creek within the Little Logan 

and Sagehen units. Exclosures and 

cages would be located in areas with 

the highest potential for willow 

development. 

Approximately 3.1 miles of fence would 

be constructed to create the Prairie 

Riparian pasture along Summit and 

West Fork Summit Creeks. The new 

pasture would absorb 86 acres from 

the North Summit unit and 311 acres 

from the Summit Rock unit. 

A loading ramp with attached catch 

pen would be constructed in the 

Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 71

Design Criteria and Resource Protection Measures 

The Forest Service developed the following additional design criteria to be used as part of the 

alternatives. 

Design Criteria for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

Throughout the project, all applicable watershed management and vegetative management best 

management practices (BMPs) (General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest 

Region, USDA Forest Service 2011) would be used to enable the achievement of water quality standards.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

72 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 52. Design criteria (alternatives 2, 3, and 4)

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

To avoid 

damaging 

regeneration 

Place salt blocks outside of conifer where the trees are less than 6’ high. Salt blocks would not be placed in aspen stands or 

aspen plantations. 2,3,4 Range Specialist, 

Silviculturist 

To avoid over 

utilization of 

hardwoods

Reference to Use Level Table (Table 108 appendix E) 2,3,4 Range Specialist 

Protect Water 

Quality 

Livestock would be herded when moving to a new unit on or off the Forest. Drift movement (e.g., simply opening a gate and 

allowing stock to move of their own accord) is not permitted. 2,3,4

Range Specialist, 

Hydrologist, Fish 

Biologist

Throughout the project, all applicable Watershed Management and Vegetative Management Best Management Practices 

(Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, USDA Forest Service 

2011) would be used to facilitate the achievement of water quality standards, including:

• RM-1: Rangeland Management Planning 

• RM-2: Rangeland Permit Administration 

• RM-3: Rangeland Improvements 

2,3,4

Spring 

Developments 

Avoid impacting vegetation and creating wheel tracks in wet meadows or riparian areas. Preferable to implement project when 

sites and access are dry. Alternately, designate access routes to cross areas of higher and drier ground. Rehabilitate any 

impact to vegetation after project implementation to remove visible wheel tracks (to avoid encouraging additional use by the 

general public).

2 Range Specialist, 

Wildlife Biologist 

Water source must be fenced if wet or boggy 2

Range Specialist, 

Hydrologist, Fish 

Biologist

Do not place water troughs in draw bottoms or ephemeral channels. 2

Bosenberg unit (spring developments): developed spring source would be fenced and water piped to troughs located a 

minimum of 300 feet from the spring. 

Bosenberg unit (Bosenberg Ck.): The trough from the developed water source that withdraws water from the stream channel 

would be located a minimum of 100 feet away from the channel. 

2 

Water not utilized shall be returned to the existing draw or channel with the appropriate slope in order to prevent cutting of the 

channel banks. 2 

Trench excavation for pipe shall be buried in a manner that does not impede overland flow of water nor concentrate/capture 

overland flow on hill slopes. Trench excavation area would be re-vegetated using natural grass seed. 2 

For channel protection trees > 21 inches in diameter would not be cut. 2

Where available in forested areas, retain effective shade of water developments and associated channels at >50%. 2

Use suitable measures to protect the spring when preparing the site for construction or maintenance activities.

• Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of work area boundaries, streamside management zones, 

wetlands and sensitive soil areas.

• Refuel and service equipment only in designated staging areas 

• Consider using small, low ground pressure equipment and/or hand labor where practicable.

• Ensure all equipment operated in or adjacent to the waterbody is clean of aquatic invasive species as well as oil and grease.

2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 73

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

Spring 

Developments 

(cont’d)

Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when clearing the site.

• Clearly delineate the geographic limits of the area to be cleared.

• Use suitable drainage measures to improve the workability of wet sites.

• Avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to existing vegetation, especially plants that are stabilizing the spring.

2 

Range Specialist, 

Hydrologist, Fish 

Biologist

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterbody when implementing construction and maintenance 

activities.

• Minimize heavy equipment entry into/or crossing water as is practicable.

• Conduct operations during dry periods.

• Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize disturbed areas as needed following construction or maintenance activities. 

• Stockpile topsoil for reuse in site re-vegetation.

• Properly compact fills to avoid or minimize erosion.

• Contour site to disperse runoff, minimize erosion, stabilize slopes and provide a favorable environment for plant growth.

• Use suitable species and establishment techniques to re-vegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements 

per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

2 

Excavate head boxes by shovel and hand tools or small low ground pressure excavator. 2

All troughs will have float to conserve water and will be turned off when the pasture not in use. 2

Protect Wildlife

To avoid disturbance or potential trampling of nesting upland sandpipers, delay grazing Big Field pasture (upland sandpiper 

nesting area) until late season (August 1). To negotiate early season grazing of this pasture, monitoring would be required for 

upland sandpiper presence in May and June. If upland sandpipers are documented in any given year, turn-out in affected 

pastures would be postponed to avoid impacts to nesting sandpipers during critical breeding and nesting periods. Avoid grazing 

Big Field and Flat Field at the same time; upland sandpipers may use areas north and south of the FS 16 road. 

2,3,4

Range Specialist, 

Wildlife Biologist 

Retain wildlife snags (dead trees) at levels to provide for 100% population levels of primary cavity excavators. Avoid as much as 

possible layout of new fencelines through snag patches or near large snags (12 inch dbh or greater). 2,3,4

If active nests (raptors, sensitive species, sandhill cranes) are discovered during project implementation (fence construction, 

construction of water developments, etc.), the District wildlife biologist would be consulted to determine appropriate buffers or 

timing restrictions, if necessary, to minimize disturbance for nesting birds.

2,3,4

Greater Sage-Grouse- If an existing or newly established lek or greater sage-grouse nest(s) are discovered during monitoring, 

the District wildlife biologist and range managers would evaluate and negotiate the timing and location of cattle turnout to avoid 

concentrations of cattle in the vicinity of the lek or nest. 

Chainsaw or large equipment use (for fence construction, spring/pond development, etc.) within 1⁄2 mile of occupied goshawk 

nest sites within or adjacent to the project area are prohibited between April 1-September 30. Management activities are 

prohibited at all times within occupied nest stands. Exceptions to this element would require clearance from District Wildlife 

Biologist and Ranger. 

2,3,4

Chainsaw or large equipment use (for fence construction, spring/pond development, etc.) within 666 feet of occupied raptor nest 

sites (including osprey and eagles) within or adjacent to the project area are prohibited between April 1-September 30. 

Management activities are prohibited within 100 feet of occupied nest tree. Exceptions to this element would require clearance 

from District Wildlife Biologist and Ranger. 

2,3,4

In known calving/fawning areas, off-road vehicle use is restricted from May 1 through June 31 (Forest Plan 36, IV-29). Most of 

these animals readily move and avoid areas of human activity. However, if newborn fawns (antelope, mule deer) or elk calves 

are observed, the area should be avoided, allowing the mothers to move the young away from the project.

2,3,4
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

74 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

Protect Wildlife

(cont’d)

Four-wire fence construction would consist of smooth wire on the lower wire, to facilitate fawn movement. Lower wire height 

would be a minimum of 16 inches above the ground. Maximum height of the topmost wire would be 42 inches. Spacing between 

top wire and next wire down would be a minimum of 10 inches to avoid catching back legs (between the two wires) of animals 

jumping the fence (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2011).See handbook “A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife 

Friendly Fences” (Paige 2008) for additional recommendations for increasing fence visibility to reduce impacts to big game as

well as raptors, bats, and neotropical songbirds.

2,3,4

Range Specialist, 

Minimize impacts to riparian vegetation by placing fences on higher ground outside of the active floodplain, except where Wildlife Biologist 

crossing are necessary for designed water gaps. 2,3,4

To protect amphibians: Avoid early season pond clean-out or resealing, to reduce impact to egg masses or tadpoles. 2,3,4

Wildlife escape ramps: Expanded metal ramps would be installed to provide a means of escape for birds and small mammals 

that may fall into the trough when seeking water. (See “Water for Wildlife” handbook for (Taylor 2007) examples of effective 

placement and design of escape ramps.)

2,3,4

Protect NRHPa

eligible and 

potentially 

eligible sites 

from significant 

grazing related 

impacts

If site inspection indicates a need for mitigation measures at any archaeological or historic sites these would be developed in 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and would be tailored to the specific conditions at each 

site.

2,3,4

Archaeologist, 

Range Specialist

Cultural sites identified in the project report that were not monitored during this project would be placed on a monitoring 

schedule to be visited in the future. 2,3,4

If cultural resources are located during implementation of the alternatives, work would be halted and the District Archaeologist 

would be notified. The cultural resource would be evaluated and a mitigation plan would be developed in consultation with 

Oregon SHIP, if necessary.

2,3,4

Salt blocks would not be located on archeological and historic sites. Site specific salting areas would be established for each 

grazing unit. 2,3,4

For proposed range improvement projects, clearances under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be 

completed and concurred with as needed by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office before the projects are implemented. 2,3,4

To maintain 

visual quality 

along the visual 

corridor 

Move prolonged congregation of livestock at the junction of National Forest System roads 1600-815 and 1600 (visual corridor). 2,3,4

Range Specialist, 

Recreation 

Specialist 

Watering troughs would be built with natural colored materials to blend with the surrounding landscape if visible from National 

Forest System road 1600 (visual corridor). 2,3,4

Structures such as fences would be constructed with materials that would blend with the existing landscape where they can be 

seen from Forest Road 1600 (visual corridor). 2,3,4

To reduce the 

risk of 

introducing 

noxious weeds 

Any gravel, fill, sand and rock used in the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of water developments would be judged 

to be weed free by district weed specialists. 2,3,4

Range Specialist 

Native plant materials are to be used for re-vegetation unless accepted extenuating circumstances are identified. 2,3,4

Permittees would identify infestations of noxious weeds and report these annually to the Forest Service. New populations of 

weeds would be scheduled for treatment (introduction, spread and establishment of noxious weeds). 2,3,4

All equipment used (including ORVs) would be cleaned in a manner sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried onto 

the project area. This requirement does not apply to passenger vehicles or other equipment used exclusively on roads. Cleaning 

would occur off of National Forest System lands. Cleaning would be inspected and approved by the Forest Officer in charge of 

administering the project.

2,3,4
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 75

Objective Design Criteria Alternative Responsible 

Person

Defer season of 

use to maintain 

vegetation 

health 

Rotation of livestock from unit to unit may change from one year to the next and would be reflected in the annual operating 

instructions. This would be worked out jointly between the Forest Service and grazing permittee with end of the season 

allowable use levels.

2,3,4 Range Specialist 

Aquatic 

Restoration 

Biological 

Opinion 

(Endangered 

Species Act) 

compliance and 

minimize effects 

to Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat 

Fence placement should allow for lateral movement of stream. 2,3,4

Range Specialist, 

Hydrologist, Fish 

Biologist

Minimize vegetation removal, especially potential large wood recruitment source, when constructing fence lines. 2,3,4

When constructing livestock crossings and water gaps, use the following design criteria:

• Locate crossings or water gaps where streambanks are naturally low.

• When possible, crossings and gaps should not be constructed within known or suspected spawning areas (e.g. pool tailouts 

where spawning may occur).

• Fences at stream crossings and water gaps should not inhibit upstream or downstream movement of fish or significantly 

impede bedload movement. Where appropriate, construct fences at water gaps as to allow passage of large wood and other 

debris.

• If necessary, the streambank and approach lanes can be stabilized with native vegetation and angular rock to reduce chronic 

sedimentation. The stream crossing or water gap should be armored with cobble-size rock, and use angular rock if natural 

substrate is not of adequate size.

• Livestock crossings or water gaps must not be located in areas where compaction or other damage can occur to sensitive 

soils and vegetation (e.g., wetlands) due to congregating livestock.

• The maximum width of a water gap or stream crossings should be no less than 10 feet and no more than 20 feet in the 

upstream-downstream direction.

• When using pressure treated lumber for fence posts only, complete all cutting/drilling offsite so that treated wood chips and

debris do not enter water or flood prone areas.

2,3,4

If other aquatic restoration activities are used as complementary actions, follow the associated design criteria and conservation 

measures. 2,3,4

a - National Register of Historic Places
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

76 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Monitoring 

The following monitoring is applicable to alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

Monitoring is a key component of successful management and compliance with pertinent laws and policy. 

Decisions regarding identifying any need to change management, and the direction that the change should 

take are based upon evaluation of the results of monitoring. Monitoring should be targeted at those 

indicators that are both annually influenced by livestock grazing (implementation monitoring) and those 

that indicate the long term condition (effectiveness monitoring) from annual effects. The management 

objectives (appendix A, Table 103) were developed with the most pressing issues identified for each site 

specific reach during data collection and analysis. This was primarily developed from analyzing the 

departure of the existing to desired conditions in appendix A, Table 102 and reviewing the proper 

functioning condition assessments. Annual implementation monitoring, including allowable use are used 

to make short-term adaptive decisions regarding removal of livestock and adjustments in timing, intensity, 

duration, and frequency of grazing. The long term effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if 

satisfactory progress is being made toward meeting the management objectives and thus the desired 

conditions (appendix A, Table 102). If not, this would inform the decision maker to determine what 

additional changes to management would be needed from the suite of adaptive management options. 

Annual Implementation and Compliance Monitoring for Range and Aquatics 

Use Levels 

Allowable use levels proposed for annual implementation monitoring of Riparian and Upland Vegetation 

are found in appendix E. Riparian implementation monitoring for bank alteration, stubble height and 

woody browse would be collected as outlined in Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) of Stream 

Channels and Streamside Vegetation (USDI 2011). Implementation monitoring would be done at 

designated monitoring areas. 

Compliance with Permit and Annual Operating Instructions

Follow FSH 2209.13 Grazing Permit Administration Handbook and Terms and Condition of the Term 

Grazing Permit parts 1, 2 and 3. 

Future Consultation (BA for project) 

Consultation for this project with the US Fish and Wildlife Service may identify additional monitoring 

needs that would supplement this plan. 

Long Term Effectiveness for Range and Aquatics 

Overview

The Forest Plan established utilization standards for grass and grass-like species and shrubs. In 1995, the 

Forest Plan was amended by PACFISH3 and INFISH4

. PACFISH INFISH amendments identified six 

riparian management objectives and four standards and guidelines for grazing management activities 

(USDA Forest Service 1995a, Attachment A Standards and Guidelines GM-1 to GM-4). 

 

3 PACFISH – Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho and Portions of California.

4 INFISH – Inland Native Fish Strategy to provide inteim direction to protect habitat and populations of resident 

native fish outside of anadromous fish habitat in Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho, western Montana and 

part of Nevada.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 77

Among other things, PACFISH INFISH standards and guidelines call for modification of grazing 

practices that retard or prevent the attainment of riparian management objectives 5

. Enclosure B of the 

PACFISH Grazing Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1995b) clarifies this direction by stating that its 

primary objective to not "retard" or "measurably slow" recovery of degraded riparian features is to avoid 

authorizing grazing practices that are likely to "carry over to the next year." Any effect of sufficient 

magnitude such that its influence is still present in some meaningful way at the beginning of the following 

grazing season has the potential to result in cumulative negative effects, and therefore measurably slow 

recovery of degraded riparian features to an unacceptable rate under the PACFISH INFISH standards and 

guidelines. Thus, a primary focus of the standards and guidelines is to avoid negative effects, the 

influence of which is likely to still be existent at the beginning of the next grazing season to a degree that 

would meaningfully impede recovery. Some environmental impacts are inherent with the presence of 

livestock. However, "near natural" rates of recovery can be provided if environmental impacts are limited 

to those that do not carry through to the next year, thereby avoiding cumulative, negative effects ( USDA 

Forest Service 1995, PACFISH INFISH Enclosure B).

The PACFISH INFISH riparian management objectives that may be most directly affected by grazing 

activities are: 1) bank stability, 2) bank angle, 3) width to depth ratio, 4) and percent undercut banks. As 

reported in the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) 2011 Tech Reference (1737-23), unstable banks can 

lead to accelerated bank erosion and subsequent channel widening, increased sediment supply, decreased 

sediment transport capability, and damaged fisheries habitat (Burton et al. 2011). Of all the indicators of a 

correct channel type, the relation between its width and depth is perhaps the most revealing (Bengeyfield 

2006). It is this relationship that determines whether or not the stream can perform the various tasks that 

lead to a healthy riparian area (Bengeyfield 2006). 

Clearly understanding the direction of change would ensure compliance with Forest Plan amendment 29 

and INFISH goals, objectives and standards, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

INFISH provides overview related to long-term trends, INFISH, appendix A (Table 102 and Table 103). 

The effectiveness monitoring would show if plant communities and channel characteristics are moving 

towards desired conditions. Monitoring grazed and exclosed reaches in Summit Creek Reaches 2 and 5 

would best illustrate the natural rate of recovery that should be expected in herbaceous and hardwood 

plant communities, bank stability and habitat complexity characteristics that are ideal for aquatic 

dependent species. 

Monitoring protocols for each indicator may change into the future. Research is actively being done to 

reduce the variability of monitored data and trying to make it as accurate to the measured disturbance that 

is cost effective. 

Management objectives that were developed identify which riparian monitoring protocol that would be 

used in appendix A (Table 103).

Riparian Monitoring 

Monitoring Locations

Three types of designated monitoring areas that inform land managers include Representative, Reference 

and Critical. Representative designated monitoring areas are sites in a riparian complex that are

 

5 More specifically, GM-1 states as follows: “Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to 

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

Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Suspend grazing if 

adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objects and avoiding adverse effects on listed 

anadromous fish.”
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

78 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

representative of the riparian resources found in a pasture. If more than one riparian complex is present in 

a pasture, the most sensitive complex is chosen for monitoring. Reference designated monitoring areas are 

sites in riparian complexes that are not grazed and representative of grazed riparian complexes in adjacent 

pastures. Critical designated monitoring areas are monitoring sites that warrant monitoring because of 

higher sensitivity within the riparian complex. Critical designated monitoring areas are not representative 

of the larger area. Monitoring would occur at all established representative designated monitoring areas 

other than Big Creek (see appendix B). 

The representative designated monitoring area in the Big Creek Riparian Pasture would be moved to a 

more sensitive riparian complex than where it is currently located. This is due to the pasture increasing in 

size and adding different riparian complexes to the larger unit. A representative designated monitoring 

area would be established in the Bosenberg Unit on Bosenberg Creek in a riparian complex in 2013. 

Reference designated monitoring areas would be established in the exclosure on Summit Creek Reach 2 

in the Sagehen Unit and in the 1⁄4 mile buck and pole fence that would be built in Summit Creek Reach 5 

in the Little Logan Unit. These designated monitoring areas would serve to provide a baseline in ungrazed 

natural recovery rates of vegetative and channel attributes. This would validate if the management 

objectives are achievable. 

One Critical designated monitoring area would be established in the Bosenberg Unit on Bosenberg Creek. 

The purpose of this designated monitoring area is to monitor grazing effects on the areas that were burnt 

in the 1990 High Roberts Wildfire. A 10 percent bank alteration endpoint indicator was established for 

this designated monitoring area to ensure bank stability and bankfull width/depth characteristics continue 

to maintain and improve. 

Designated monitoring areas may not be monitored if livestock grazing is not authorized for any unit. 

Monitoring Types

PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring sites exist within the project area. This 

information would provide effectiveness monitoring of riparian vegetation species, channel characteristics 

and macroinvertebrate assemblages every five years. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring 

sites were read in 2001, 2006, 2011 and would be read again in 2016 and 2021. PACFISH/INFISH 

Biological Opinion monitoring tracks riparian vegetation species composition along the greenline6

 and 

perpendicularly across the stream channel. They monitor channel attributes of undercut bank, bank 

stability, bank angle, bankfull width/depth, pool quality and quantity that would inform us of the channel 

characteristics. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring also tracks macroinvertebrate 

assemblages. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring has a crew from Logan, Utah that 

monitors indicators. Information on PIBO monitoring can be found 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/ 

The multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation (Interagency 

Technical Reference 1737-23) protocol would be used to monitor both implementation and effectiveness 

indicators. Multiple indicator monitoring monitors riparian vegetative species composition along the 

greenline only. Multiple indicator monitoring tracks channel characteristics for the greenline to greenline 

width and bank stability. Multiple indicator monitoring is collected by District interdisciplinary teams of a 

range and aquatics (fisheries or hydrologist) specialists. Effectiveness monitoring is usually conducted 

every five years on riparian areas and stream banks. This period of time is usually necessary to detect 

long term changes. 

 

6 The greenline is defined as the first communities dominated by perennial vegetation as you proceed outward from 

the center of the channel.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 79

Channel characteristics would be monitored using surveyed cross sections and longitudinal profiles to 

assess changes in bankfull width and width/depth, pool quality and quantity. These sites would be located 

mainly at designated monitoring areas and would be permanently benchmarked. Survey procedures would 

follow principles outlined in Harrelson et al. 1994. Channel characteristics would be collected by district 

aquatics specialists. 

Carex Working Group (CWG) monitoring sites were used to describe a baseline of riparian shrub heights 

and densities across 32 representative plots across all reaches of Summit Creek. The Carex Working 

Group monitoring protocol was developed to be a rapid, simple, and easily repeatable assessment of key 

riparian vegetation types over relatively long stream reaches. The method provides basic data useful for 

monitoring changes in important plant community traits, such as density and height classes of riparian 

shrubs. Carex Working Group monitoring would be collected by District range and aquatics (fisheries or 

hydrologist) specialists. 

Shade measurements would be monitored at designated monitoring areas in coordination with PIBO, 

multiple indicator monitoring and channel characteristic measurements. Shade would be measured using a 

solar pathfinder on the order of every 10 years. 

Monitoring of the fen areas and associated sensitive species populations and habitats would be 

accomplished using (1) the USDA Forest Service Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Level 2 

protocol with modifications to adequately assess the extent and distribution sensitive moss populations, 

(2) methods described in the fen proper functioning condition assessment guide, (3) the threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species module of the USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Information 

System, and (4) photo points. This would achieve the goal of monitoring key components of fen condition 

and function, such as peat formation and peatland maintenance, as well as trends of the extent and 

distribution sensitive species.

Photo point monitoring would occur at benchmarked locations to ensure photos are repeatable and can be 

used to illustrate clearly change in vegetative and channel characteristics. Photo point locations would be 

selected by the interdisciplinary team. 

USDA Forest Service Region 6 stream surveys may be collected into the future on the creeks in the 

project area. This may inform land managers on changing channel conditions from previous Stream 

Surveys for larger geographical areas than already mentioned monitoring sites. Stream surveys are 

identified as an inventory and not a monitoring tool and should be used with caution. With this, they are 

not tested for repeatability and accuracy as rigidly as multiple indicator monitoring and PIBO monitoring 

designs. However, using stream surveys with monitoring results may provide a better understanding of 

trends across larger areas. 

Upland Monitoring

Beginning in the 1930s, permanent camera points were established on the Malheur National Forest. Their 

purpose was to monitor the effects of management on the resources of the Forest (USDA 1989). Many 

camera points have been re-photographed a number of times. This monitoring would continue. 

In the 1950s and early 1960s Parker Three-Step condition and trend transects were installed throughout 

the Forest. The majority of these were established in the uplands. Over the last five years some of these 

transects have been re-examined. The procedure has been to read the transect using the original three-step 

method and then reread the transect using a modified Daubenmire cover /frequency method (see USDI 

1996). This allows comparisons between old and new information to determine ecological condition and 

trend and establishes a baseline using the more accurate cover/frequency method for gathering future 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

80 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

data. The re-examining of these established transects would continue. If new trend transects are 

established the modified Daubenmire cover/frequency would be used.

There are a variety of additional or other monitoring methods available for use. The method or methods to 

be used would depend on the questions needing to be answered and considering other priorities. In some 

cases ocular observation (qualitative) would be sufficient to measure utilization, but when specific 

concerns are identified the forest may need quantitative methods such as Paired Clipped plots or 

development and use of height/weight curves may be necessary. Some of the more commonly used 

methods can be found in “Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements” (USDI and USDA 1996). 

(Please refer to Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines, October 16, 2006 for additional 

accepted methodology). 

All of the monitoring methods used by the Forest are also intended to facilitate communications between 

forest range and resource personnel, grazing permittees and consulting agency personnel. This would 

largely be accomplished through participation and one-on-one interaction during the interdisciplinary, on 

the ground implementation.

Other Resources 

Wildlife 

Upland Sandpiper Monitoring

For any early season grazing (prior to August 1) of the Big Field pasture, monitoring for upland 

sandpipers would occur. If upland sandpipers are documented in any given year, turn-out in affected 

pastures would be postponed to avoid impacts such as trampling to nesting sandpipers during critical 

breeding and nesting periods. 

To protect upland sandpiper breeding and nesting areas, lack of monitoring, whether because of funding 

or personnel constraints, would automatically postpone cattle turnout into the Big Field pasture until after 

August 1. 

Monitoring would consist of qualified birders (district wildlife biologist, district wildlife technician, 

trained volunteers, etc.) walking, watching, and listening for upland sandpipers in vicinity of their historic 

nesting and use areas within the Big Field pasture. Monitoring would occur weekly during morning hours 

(dawn to noon) from May 1st through June 15th. Weather conditions would be calm, with no rain, to 

maximize potential detection of the birds. If upland sandpipers are discovered, no further walk-throughs 

of the area would occur to minimize disturbance from Forest Service personnel and volunteers as well. 

Areas covered during monitoring, and results (upland sandpipers found or not found) would be 

documented in the Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) wildlife database, with a summary 

report shared with district range management personnel. 

Aspen Monitoring

In addition to aspen that may be associated with currently established monitoring plots within riparian 

areas, one to two representative upland aspen stands within each allotment and one to two aspen stands 

associated with the Logan Valley Fen would be chosen to monitor sucker release and growth, and sapling 

recruitment. One recently fenced aspen stand protected by 4-strand barb wire (fenced in 2010) would be 

monitored to determine success of sucker growth with exclusion of cattle. Elk and mule deer may still 

utilize the stand. Taller cages would be placed in this stand, providing a measure of sucker recruitment in 

absence of all grazing by any ungulates, whether wild or domestic. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 81

Photo points would be established, and baseline evaluation of existing suckers, both relative numbers and 

condition, would be recorded. Stands would be evaluated every other year. The District wildlife biologist, 

Forest botanist, or qualified field technicians would be responsible for monitoring. If sucker and sapling 

recruitment in unprotected stands are still impacted by grazing pressure, adaptive management strategies 

including fencing or other protection methods may be utilized. 

Heritage 

All monitoring activities would be in accordance with the Grazing Allotment Review Strategy for Section 

106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006 “Grazing Permit 

Reauthorization and the National Historic Preservation Act”. See Section 5: Monitoring, in the Grazing 

Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance. 

Summary of Effects in Relation to Issues 

Table 53 compares the effects of the alternatives in relation to the issues identified in chapter 1. 

The information used to compare alternatives in Table 53 is summarized from chapter 3, “Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences.” For a full understanding of the effects of the 

alternatives, refer to chapter 3, as well as the specialist reports available in the project file at the Prairie 

City Ranger District.

Comparison of Alternatives

The following tables provide a summary comparison of the effects of implementing each alternative in 

regard to purpose and need and the significant and analysis issues identified in chapter 1. 

Table 53. Summary comparison of alternatives

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

Miles of occupied bull trout habitat grazed 

during spawning season by stream 0 0 0 0 

Miles of critical 

bull trout 

habitat for 

occupied and 

unoccupied: 

Not grazed 35 9.9 14.3 14.3

Grazed annually 0.0 7.3 12.1 15.4

Grazed with periods of rest 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0

Riparian pasture with rest 0.0 2.7 7.4 4.8

Riparian exclosures not 

grazed 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Rate of 

Recovery:

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve proper 

functioning condition in 5 

years 

31.1 29.6 33.3 31.7

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve proper 

functioning condition in 

10years 

35 30.9 34.4 34.5

Miles of Critical Habitat 

expected to achieve 

desired vegetation and 

channel conditions in 10 

years 

31 17.2 32.1 25.5
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

82 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Economic Impacts to Permittees and the Local Community 

Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 0 

Upper limit AUMs are the same for every 

alternative: 

Lake Creek: 0

Logan Valley: 1,983 

McCoy Creek: 416

Summit Prairie: 1,546 

Total Available 

Forage 

(lbs. acre)/ Animal 

Unit Months 

Supported by 

Available Forage 

(AUMs) 

Note: Total Available 

forage was 

calculated using a 

45% forage use level 

by livestock. Wildlife 

use was not included 

in the estimate.

Lake Creek

No Forage or 

AUMS for 

Livestock

2,275,922/

2,918

No Livestock 

Use of 

Forage

4,382,366/ 

5,618

No Livestock 

Use of Forage

4,055,049/ 

5,199

No Livestock 

Use of Forage

Logan Valley 4,329,288/

5,550

4,164,989/ 

5,340

4,329,288/ 

5,550

McCoy Creek 775,585/ 

994

775,585/

994 

775,585/ 

994

Summit Prairie 8,030,701/

10,296

7,109,413/

9,115

7,111,601/ 

9,117

Costs of 

Improvements:

Lake Creek 

$0

67,500 0 67,550

Logan Valley 74,400 12,600 80,100

McCoy Creek 3,000 3,000 3,000

Summit Prairie 224,100 333,800 155,600

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed (average 

minimum on an 

annual basis over 

the next 10 years):

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

Logan Valley 3,756 246 60 246

McCoy Creek 980 0 0 0 

Summit Prairie 25,331 3,453 94 20

Acres available for 

Grazing (average 

minimum on an 

annual basis over 

the next 10 years)a

: 

Lake Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan Valley 4,113 3,911 4,113

McCoy Creek 660 660 660

Summit Prairie 26,379 25,289 25,363 

Miles of Added 

Fence Maintenanceb

: 

Lake Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan Valley 4.8 2.3 2.3

McCoy Creek 1.4 1.4 1.4

Summit Prairie 7.3 12.5 4.6

Analysis Issues

Fences are 

movement barriers to 

wildlife 

Miles of 

Fence 

Removed

Lake 

Creek 

0 

0 0 0 

Logan 

Valley 2.3 1.5 1.5

McCoy 

Creek 1.0 1.0 1.0

Summit 

Logan 0.7 0.7 0.7
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 83

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fences are 

movement barriers to 

wildlife (cont’d)

Miles of Fence 

Constructed 

See Significant Issue “Miles of Added Fence Maintenance” for 

miles of fence constructed. 

The miles of fence construction is the same as listed in under the 

Significant Issue “Miles of Added Fence Maintenance”. See Table 

4 for fence miles.

Design Elements to 

Reduce Impacts 

Not 

Applicable 

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, 

Design Element requirements include a smooth 

bottom wire at least 16 inches above the ground 

to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum top 

wire height of 42 inches, and spacing of 10 

inches between the top and next lower wire to 

reduce the potential of back legs being caught 

when animals jump the fence. 

Proposed Move 

Triggers, End-Point 

Indicators not 

capable of allowing 

for riparian recovery 

Move Triggers and 

End-Point Indicators See FEIS appendix E 

Limited hardwoods 

have resulted in a 

loss of beaver 

habitat and reduction 

of animals within the 

project area

Short – and Long –

Term Effects on 

Shrub Development 

Not 

Applicable 

Adding the 

Bosenberg 

unit and 

requiring 

yearlong rest 

(3 out of 10 

years) would 

improve the 

height and 

vigor of 

existing 

shrubs. 

The creation of 

riparian 

pastures and 

exclosures 

with immediate 

rest (5 years) 

along with 

reduced woody 

browse would 

improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

expiation of 

willow 

densities. 

Site specific 

willow 

exclosures 

and a range 

rider along 

with reduced 

woody browse 

would improve 

height, vigor 

and potential 

expiation of 

willow 

densities.

Shifting parts of 

vacant allotments 

into active livestock 

use 

Acres of Currently 

Vacant Allotment 

Grazed 

0 4,478 0 388

Miles of Critical Bull 

Trout Habitat Grazed 

in Currently Vacant 

Allotment 

0 4.4 0 0 

Livestock stocking 

levels should be 

reduced 

Capability, Suitability 

and Forage 

Production 

No Grazing 

The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and 

may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual 

adjustment of both numbers and/or season. The 

analysis of available forage and stocking rates 

shows that adequate forage is available to 

support AUMs levels currently permitted including 

any proposed allotment boundary and 

management changes.

a – Miles do not include 0.5 miles of Lake Creek to be excluded from grazing (riparian exclosures) in ongoing/foreseeable projects.

b – Miles are cumulative, including acres from ongoing projects (see current management in chapter 1 for further detail).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

84 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Implementation and Management Schedule 

Depending on which alternative is selected by the Responsible Official, activities included in the decision 

would occur in approximately the following timescale. All activities and improvements are expected to 

occur within 10 grazing seasons of the decision. All improvements would be maintained during the same 

time period. Boxes checked represent the approximate time period when all or portions of the proposed 

activity would be completed. 

Table 54. Implementation schedule by alternative

Activity Timeframe

Alternative 1 – No Grazing 2014 2017 

Notices of permit cancellation given to permittees X 

No grazing implemented X 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 2014-2016 2017-2020 2021-2024

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan Valley allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine Big Ck. portion of East Lake Ck., North Big Ck. and South 

Big Ck. units. New unit called Big Ck. Riparian pasture. X 

Remove fence to absorb the North Fork unit of the McCoy allotment into the Flat Field 

unit of the Logan Valley allotment. X 

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture and West 

Bosenberg riparian pasture. X 

Convert about 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit along Big Creek to a 

permanent let-down fence. X 

Absorb Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. X 

Construct new fence and remove exiting fence to absorb a portion of the McCoy Creek 

unit with the Horse Pasture from the Lake Creek allotment (new unit would become 

part of the Logan Valley allotment, named the Deardorff unit). 

X X 

Begin resting the Big Creek Riparian pasture (3 years out of 10). X X X 

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the Logan Valley allotment. X X X 

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine the Ridge and Dry units. Combined areas would be called 

the Ridge unit. X 

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for Summit Prairie allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 3-5 years. X 

Remove fence to absorb Front Field unit from the Logan Valley allotment to into the 

Little Logan unit. The additional 52 acres would be grazed as part of the Summit Prairie 

allotment. 

X 

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary. X 

Construct fence and water gap to add the Bosenberg unit of the Lake Creek allotment 

to the Summit Prairie allotment. New unit would be named the Bosenberg unit. X 

Construct pond and develop spring in the Bosenberg unit. X 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 85

Activity Timeframe

Begin grazing the Bosenberg unit. X 

Begin resting the Sagehen, Little Logan and Bosenberg units (3 years out of 10 years). X X X 

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the Summit Prairie allotment. X 

Alternative 3 2014-2016 2017-2020 2021-2024

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan Valley allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine the Big Creek portion of the East Lake Creek, North Big 

Creek and South Big Creek units. New unit would be named the Big Creek Riparian 

pasture. 

X 

Remove fence to absorb the North Fork unit of the McCoy Creek allotment into the Flat 

Field unit of the Logan Valley allotment. X 

Convert about 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit along Big Creek to a 

permanent let-down fence. X 

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture and West 

Bosenberg Riparian pasture. X 

Absorb the Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek allotment into the Logan Valley 

allotment. X 

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in the Logan Valley allotment. X 

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine the Ridge and Dry units. Combined areas would be named 

the Ridge unit. X 

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for Summit Prairie allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 3-5 years. X 

Remove fence to absorb the Front Field unit from the Logan Valley allotment into the 

Little Logan unit. X 

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary. X 

Construct fence to create the Lower Little Logan, Upper Little Logan, North Summit, 

Sagehen, Riparian pastures and the Sagehen Riparian exclosure. X 

Begin resting the Lower Little Logan, Upper Little Logan, North Summit, Sagehen 

Riparian pastures and the Sagehen Riparian exclosure. All areas would be rested from 

3-5 years after fences are constructed. 

X 

Begin deferment rotation on Summit Prairie allotment. X 

Alternative 4 2014-2016 2017-2020 2021-2024

Lake Creek Allotment: No AMP needed.

Logan Valley Allotment: Complete AMP Logan Valley allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine the Big Ck. portion of the East Lake Ck., North Big Ck. and 

South Big Ck. units. New unit called Big Creek Riparian pasture. X 

Remove fence to absorb the North Fork unit of the McCoy Ck. allotment into the Flat 

Field unit of the Logan Valley allotment. X 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

86 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Activity Timeframe

Begin resting (3-5 years rest) the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture and West 

Bosenberg Riparian pasture. X 

Convert about 0.3 miles of electric fence in the North Fork unit along Big Creek to a 

permanent let-down fence. X 

Absorb the Lake Creek unit of the McCoy Creek allotment into the Logan Valley 

allotment. X 

Construct new fence and remove existing fence to absorb a portion of the McCoy Ck. 

unit with the horse pasture from the Lake Ck. Allotment (new unit would become the 

part of the Logan Valley Allotment and called the Deardorff unit).

X 

Begin resting the Big Creek Riparian pasture (3 years out of 10 years). X X 

Begin rest and deferment grazing system in Logan Valley allotment. X X 

McCoy Creek Allotment: Complete AMP McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Remove fence to combine the Ridge and Dry units. Combined areas would be named 

the Ridge unit. X 

Begin deferred rotation grazing system in the McCoy Creek allotment. X 

Summit Prairie Allotment: Complete AMP for Summit Prairie allotment. X 

Application of grazing use levels and move triggers shown in appendix F. X 

Begin resting the West Summit Recovery unit for 3-5 years. X 

Start use of rider in the Sagehen and Little Logan units. X 

Remove fence to absorb the Front Field unit form the Logan Valley allotment into the 

Little Logan unit. X 

Construct the Prairie Riparian pasture along Summit and West Fork Summit Creeks. X X 

Start resting Prairie Riparian pasture in North Summit unit (3 to 5 years). X X 

Install cages and small riparian exclosures in Sagehen and Little Logan units. Begin 

resting riparian exclosures. X 

Construct a loading ramp with catch pen in the Sagehen unit near the private property 

boundary. X 

Begin deferment rotation on the Summit Prairie allotment. X X 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 87

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Introduction 

This chapter provides information concerning the affected environment of the Summit Logan Project 

area, and potential consequences to that environment from the Proposed Action (alternative 2), alternative

3, alternative 4, or the likely results of taking no action (alternative 1). All types of effects, including 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects, are disclosed. Effects are quantified where possible, or discussed 

qualitatively. The means by which potential adverse effects would be reduced are described (see also 

chapter 2). 

Specialist Reports and Project Record 

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement hereby incorporates by reference the Rangeland Vegetation

and Invasive Species, Botany, Soils, Hydrology, Aquatics, Recreation, Visual Quality, Heritage, Social 

and Economics, and Wildlife Specialist Reports in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Record (40 CFR 1502.21). Specialist Reports are located in each specialist’s section of appendix F 

(Specialist Reports) and contain the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, 

references, and technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions 

in this environmental impact statement. Appendix F is available for review upon request. 

The project record for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project includes all projectspecific information, including field investigations and other data. The record also contains information 

resulting from public involvement efforts. The project record is located at the Prairie City Ranger District 

Office in Prairie City, Oregon, and is available for review during regular business hours. 

Changes from the Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. The listing does not include minor 

correction, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of the changes resulted from public 

comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Rangeland Vegetation and Management Section

• Numerical errors in the forage production and stocking rate analysis were corrected. The analysis was 

supplemented by providing available forage and stocking rate estimates for each grazing pasture by

alternatives. 

• Additional analysis of the effects of adaptive management on rangeland management was added. 

• The references cited were updated and corrected. 

• A consistency error between the Range Vegetation and Social-Economic sections was noted. The 

miles of fence to be constructed in the Summit Prairie allotment (alternative 4) were corrected in the 

Range Vegetation section. 

Invasive Species Section

• The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were updated and additional references were added.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

88 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Botany Section

• The assumptions used in the effects analysis were updated. 

• Information regarding the potential presence of some sensitive species in the project area was 

updated. 

• The analysis of potential cumulative effects was supplemented.

Soils Section

• Numerical table errors were corrected regarding percent ground cover.

• Clarifications were made to the effects analysis to address public comments. 

• Clarification regarding consistency with Forest-Wide standard #127 was added. 

Hydrology and Aquatics Section

• New Clean Water Act information has been added. 

• Citation errors related to the Bull Trout Recovery Plan were corrected.

• The overall section was edited to improve the readability. 

• Additional analysis was added for bull trout, bull critical habitat, and spotted frog. 

• The section on Endangered Species Act consistency was updated to correct errors factual errors.

• The references section was updated.

• An error was corrected. The Regional Forester removed redband trout from the sensitive species list 

in 2011, except in the Oregon closed basin. This project is outside of the closed basin, so redband 

trout are not considered sensitive here. They are however, a management indicator species (MIS) and 

are addressed in that section of the document. 

Recreation Section

• Additional information defining and clarifying the Malheur Forest Niche was added to address public 

comments.

• Information clarifying unauthorized livestock accessing Murray Campground was added.

• Information regarding a horse group special use event in the Lake Creek allotment has been clarified.

Social Economics Section

• Additional information was added to supplement the social-economics analysis. This includes 

providing additional disclosure on adaptive management effects.

Wildlife Section 

• Additional references were added.

• The affected environment for aspen habitat was supplemented. 

• The status, existing condition, and effects analysis for California wolverine and greater sage-grouse 

were updated. Both species are now Region 6 candidate species. 

• The status, existing condition and effects analysis for gray wolf was updated with new information. 

• The existing condition and effects determination for upland sandpiper were supplemented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 89

Analyzing Effects 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. 

Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. 

Cumulative effects are those effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the agency or person that 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. These “related actions” may be 

influencing current conditions. If so, their current (or foreseeable) effects are relevant to considerations of 

whether the proposed action would add to their effects. 

In the descriptions of cumulative effects of the proposed action, relevant related actions that are known 

are identified and discussed. (A full listing of relevant related actions is provided in appendix C). Each 

cumulative effects analysis, for each environmental component, is guided by and consistent with the 

Council on Environmental Quality letter, “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative 

Effects Analysis” of June 24, 2005. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

NEPA regulations also state that the Forest Service must show any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives. An irreversible commitment is a 

permanent resource loss including the loss of future options. It usually applies to nonrenewable resources, 

such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors that are renewable only over long periods, such as soil 

productivity. Such commitments are considered irreversible because the resource has deteriorated to the 

point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time, at a great expense or because the resource 

has been permanently destroyed or removed. An irretrievable commitment is the loss of use or production 

of a natural resource for some time. This analysis determined there are no irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources due to this project. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The proposed action is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) and its 

amendments. Applicable Forest-wide and land use designation standards and guidelines have been 

incorporated. The Forest Service uses design elements in the planning and implementation of land 

management activities. The application of these elements begins during the planning and design phases of 

a project.

Plans of Other Agencies 

The CEQ regulation implementing NEPA requires a determination of possible conflicts between the 

proposed action and the objectives of Federal, State, and Local land use plans, policies, and controls for 

the area. The major land use regulation of concern is the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. See the 

“Other Disclosures” section at the end of this chapter for a discussion of compliance with this and other 

laws.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

90 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management Report that evaluates the 

potential effects of livestock grazing on the rangeland within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project. The full report can be found in appendix F which is available for review by 

request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Granger-Thye Act of 1950

Granger-Thye authorizes the Forest Service to issue grazing permits and use grazing receipts for range 

improvements; provides direction on establishment of local grazing advisory boards and other purposes. 

National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976

The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable 

resources on National Forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of 

Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield 

principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is 

the primary statute governing the administration of National Forests. 

The Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19)

Requires each National Forest to establish and adhere to a schedule for completing NEPA analysis and 

decisions on all grazing allotments within a 15 year period. 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

The principle guiding document relevant to range management on the Forest is the 1990 Malheur 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to as the Forest Plan for the remainder of 

this section. The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for range management. Standards and 

guidelines are presented at the Forest level (USDA Forest Service 1990, Forest Plan, pp. IV-34 to IV-35) 

or Management Area level (Applicable sections of the Forest Plan to this report include: Management 

Area 3A -Non-Anadromous Riparian Areas pp. IV-57 to IV-58) 

Analysis Method 

Vegetation Information

The project area was mapped using an existing vegetation cover according to the R6 Ecological 

Classification (Ecoclass) standards. The mapping was completed using existing GIS mapping and field 

reconnaissance. Forage production is related to the plant communities and species, soil productivity, and 

tree densities (canopy cover) on the landscape. The Forest Plan established percent allowable use of 

available forage based on vegetation type (i.e. forested stands, grasslands, and shrublands). Vegetation 

information was used in combination with Forest Plan direction to conduct the forage production and 

livestock stocking rate analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 91

Condition and Trend

In the 1950s and early 1960s Parker three-step condition and trend transects were installed throughout the 

Forest. The majority of these were established in the uplands. Four sites were established in the Summit 

Logan project area between 1953 and 1956. The procedure has been to read the transect using the original 

Three-Step method and then reread the transect using a modified Daubenmire cover/frequency method 

(Coulloudon, 1999). This allows comparisons between old and new information to determine ecological 

condition and trend and establishes a baseline using the more accurate cover/frequency method for 

gathering future data. These sites have been re-examined which allows comparisons between old and new 

information to determine ecological condition and trend. In the 1990s and 2000s ecology plots were 

established across the Blue Mountains with some plots overlapping the project area. Information from 

condition and trend transects and ecology plots were used in the analysis to analyze forage conditions and 

trends.

Forage Condition 

Forage condition is a resource value rating for livestock forage condition and is designed to depict grazing 

impacts on understory vegetation; the condition is derived from species density and species composition. 

Forage condition evaluates departure from potential under existing environmental conditions, including 

density of woody cover. There are four classes of forage condition: good, which equals 76-100 percent of 

species density and composition; fair, which equals 51-75 percent of species density and composition; 

poor, which equals 26-50 percent of species density and composition; or, very poor, which equals 0-25 

percent of species density and composition. Current forage condition was also determined based on the 

condition and trend data from 1995 and scored using Hall 1973. This source was chosen over the 

Tentative Forage Condition Guide (USDA Forest Service 1984) because it is more site specific and 

comparable to past data. 

Photo Points

Beginning in the 1930s, permanent camera points (photo points) were established on the Malheur 

National Forest. Their purpose was to monitor the effects of management on the resource. Many camera 

points have been re-photographed a number of times. In the Summit Logan project area several points 

have been identified from which photographs are taken at periodic intervals. In the analysis photographs 

were used to supplement data and served as a valuable tool in determining and/or interpreting vegetation 

trends. Photo point information is available in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

file. 

Global Information System (GIS)

An analysis of rangeland capability was completed for the project area using existing GIS data and 

mapping. Site conditions such as slope, soil type and productivity, and landscape features were used to 

determine the percentage of the landscape that is capable of producing forage and grazing management at 

a given level. 

Forest Plan 

The analysis also considered direction in the Forest Plan regarding range and livestock management for 

specific management areas. Developed campgrounds (MA-12) and administrative sites (where not 

compatible with livestock grazing), (MA-19), are designated as unsuitable in the Forest Plan. In addition, 

fenced road rights of ways, long-term enclosures that exclude livestock grazing, and areas with over-story 

tree canopy cover greater than seventy percent (70 percent) were considered to be unsuitable. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

92 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Other Information 

The analysis also uses information from a variety of sources including: 

• Annual compliance monitoring

• Submitted permittee monitoring 

• Contracted surveys and assessments

• Actual use records and end of year reports. 

• Existing range and environmental analysis files (1950, 2080, 2210/2230/2240/2270) 

• Other historical records of the allotments/pastures. 

Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of rangeland vegetation and forage conditions, and rangeland 

management for the Summit Logan Valley project area. The rangeland vegetation section discusses 

vegetation types in the project area and trends in range and forage conditions. The rangeland management 

discussions provide an overview of past grazing management, existing grazing management, current 

monitoring protocols, capability and suitability of the area for grazing, and potential forage 

production/stocking rates for each of the allotments. 

Rangeland Vegetation

Vegetation Types

Vegetation in the project area consists primarily of forested types with shrub and elk sedge/pinegrass 

understories. At the lower elevations, sagebrush, bunchgrass communities, and dry meadows are some 

common plant communities. As the elevation rises, ponderosa pine and grand fir become dominant. 

Lodgepole pine is found on poorly drained cold pockets. Aspen stands are interspersed throughout the 

project area. The following descriptions of the plant associations found in the project area are from Plant 

Association of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains (Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992), Mid-Montane Wetland 

Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallow-Whitman National Forests (Crowe and

Clausnitzer 1997), Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington (Hall 1973), and Bunchgrass Plant Communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains a Guide 

for Mangers (Johnson and Swanson 2005). 

For this analysis, the project area has been mapped at an existing vegetation cover according to the R6 

Ecological Classification (Ecoclass). The mapping was completed using existing GIS mapping and field 

reconnaissance. In 2007, forage production studies were conducted on these allotments to support that 

areas are capable of supporting livestock grazing across the project area.

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Area is a mix of forested and non-forested 

vegetation types as well as other land features such as rock and water. Forested lands account for 86 

percent of the area, non-forested lands account for 13 percent of the area and rock and water account for 1 

percent of the area. 

Forested Types

Of the forested vegetation types, all but the grand fir associations are considered capable of producing 

forage for livestock. 

The majority of the conifer plant association acres are thought to be outside the range of the natural fire 

regimes represented by the type with the exception of portions in the Lake Creek allotment which has had 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 93

two major wildland fires (Snowshoe Fire in 1990 and the High Roberts Wildland Fire in 2002). 

Commercial thinning activities have recently been completed on this allotment with the Merit Timber 

Sale. 

The Sheep Mountain Fire occurred in 1990, overlapping a small portion of the Summit Rock unit of the 

Summit Prairie Allotment. Much of the fire area was salvage logged and replanted. Throughout the fire 

large patches of snowbrush ceanothus exist, some of which are inaccessible to livestock grazing.

Subapline Fir Types

Subalpine fir stands occur across approximately 988 acres within the project area. High elevations, cold, 

dry habitats, subalpine fir dominants in absence of spruce due to the droughtiness of the sites. The 

dominant herbaceous plant is elk sedge. Sites are too cold to support pinegrass which requires warmer, 

moister conditions to complete and persist with elk sedge.

Mixed Conifer, Pinegrass, Elk Sedge Types

Mixed conifer stands occur across approximately 20,063 acres within the project area. The mixed conifer 

plant community occupies drier sites than grand fir. Soils have the lowest water-holding capacity of the 

grand fire plants associations. Residual soils are prominent substrates; this reduces pinegrass abundance 

and favors elk sedge.

Other conifers species found within the mixed conifer stands are lodgepole pine stands which occur 

across approximately 1,118 acres within the project area. Ponderosa pine stands occur across 

approximately 4,161 acres within the project area. Douglas-fir stands occur across approximately 314 

acres within the project area. Grand fir stands occur across approximately 5,242 acres within the project 

area. 

Non-Forested Types/Juniper

Juniper stands occur across approximately 120 acres within the project area. This plant community forms 

a mosaic with scattered western juniper among mountain big sagebrush and bunchgrass. 

The majority of the sage types are thought to be outside the range of the historical fire disturbance regime 

for these types. Fire return intervals of 10 to 50 years maintained these types in a mix of structural height 

and ecological status. Fire suppression and the focus on timber management have caused these types to 

miss at least one and probably several fire disturbance events. These plant community types are mostly in 

late seral condition, with sagebrush dominating and grasses and forbs decreasing as cover components. 

Fire suppression has also contributed to the encroachment of conifer into non-forested vegetation types.

Other non-forested types of lands found within the project area are grassland which is comprised 853 

acres. Aspen which includes 126 aspen stands totals approximately 372 acres in the project area. 

Encroachment by conifers is typical with the suppression of fire. Lack of fire, as well as a combination of 

historic overuse by livestock combined with timing of grazing and use by wildlife has resulted in a 

decrease of aspen regeneration. Decadent stands benefit from the introduction of fire and thinning of 

encroaching conifers. Where aspen stands have been treated by removal overstory conifers or protection 

to exclude or restrict browsing, regeneration has been successful. Within the project area approximately 

39 acres of aspen have been protected with fences. 

Meadows comprise 2,864 acres. Non-forested uplands within the watershed are characterized by dry, 

moist, and wet meadows. The majority of the Logan Valley and McCoy Creek allotments are comprised 

of moist and dry meadows. Logan Valley is the most expansive grassland area and is dominated by 

several introduced grasses which were seeded after the valley was plowed and disked in the 1920s. These 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

94 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

species have replaced the native Idaho fescue and bunchgrass communities that were native to the area. 

Introduced grasses including timothy, crested wheatgrass, orchard grass, and red fescue are the dominant 

grasses within the Logan Valley and McCoy grazing allotments. Bull trout were listed at threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act in 1998, resulting in changes to grazing seasons to protect bull trout 

spawning areas. With season of use changes these species have become “wolfy” and decadent, which has 

started to reduce their vigor and palatability to ungulates. Lodgepole pine is currently encroaching into 

Logan Valley as a result of fire suppression. 

Low sage is comprised of 898 acres. These sites are characterized by shallow to very shallow soils with 

rock fragments common while big sage is comprised of 714 acres. The majority of the sagebrushdominated communities are in mid-to-late seral ecological status, primarily due to the suppression of fire 

on these rangelands. 

Measured upland vegetative conditions varied throughout all of the pastures under analysis from poor to 

excellent. Factors which resulted in poor condition did not appear to be related only to livestock grazing. 

The data collection forms for specific monitoring sites provide additional detail on the reasons for 

individual condition determinations. This data is maintained within the ecology database located on the 

Wallow-Whitman National Forest Tri-Forest Ecology Department. A print out of these sites is located in 

the analysis file for this project at the Prairie City Ranger District Office.

Condition and Trend 

Available data shows that forage condition and trends are improving in the project area. At the most 

recent reading, forage condition ranges from fair to good and trend range from fair to good at all 

condition and trend and Ecology plot sites. The general trend for the condition and trend plots is an 

increase in litter and canopy cover and a decrease in bare soil in ponderosa pine and western juniper sites. 

Table 55. Summary of condition and trend transect and ecology plot data

Allotment Site Year 

Read Trend Forage Condition Rationale

Lake 

Creek

Ecology 

Plot 

(MA057)

2002 Fair Fair

Quaking aspen/ponderosa pine/elk 

sedge/mountain brome/pinegrass community rated 

in fair forage condition base on the amount of

palatable species to livestock.

Ecology 

Plot 

(QA514)

2000 Fair Fair

Quaking aspen/elk sedge/sweet-cicely community 

rated in fair forage condition because of the 

amount of palatable species to livestock.

Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(C-201)

1991

1993

1995

1997

2004

2010

Good

Poor

Poor

Poor

Fair

Fair

Good

Poor

Poor

Poor

Fair

Fair

In 2010, the Ponderosa pine/shrub/bunchgrass 

community was rated in fair condition with an 

increase in pinegrass over the years following the 

Snowshoe fire. The fire was seeded in 1990 and 

1991 with seral rye. Over a 20 year period, seral 

rye has decreased and native plants (pinegrass 

and elk sedge) have increased. Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(C-202)

1991

1993

1995

1997

2004

2010

Poor 

Very Poor

Very Poor

Very Poor

Poor

Poor 

Very Poor

Very Poor

Very Poor

Poor

Fair
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 95

Allotment Site Year 

Read Trend Forage Condition Rationale

Logan 

Valley

Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(Logan 3)

1954

1995

2003

Poor

Fair

Fair

Poor

Good

Good

In 2003, the grassland community rated in fair 

forage condition with an increase in desirable 

species such as red fescue, orchard grass, and 

crested wheatgrass which where all seeded in the 

late 1950’s. 

Summit 

Prairie 

Ecology 

Plot 9312 1995 Good

The site is transitioning from a sagebrush 

bunchgrass community to a lodgepole pine 

sagebrush understory. The site was rated in fair 

forage condition because of the amount of 

palatable species to livestock.

Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(Logan 1)

1953

1995

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

In 1995, the decreaser species composition was 

over 65% and the percentage of palatable 

increaser species was only 20%, with a ground 

cover score of 84%. The site was rated in fair 

forage condition because of the amount of 

palatable species to livestock.

Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(Logan 4)

1954

1995

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

In 1995, the decreaser species composition was 

66% and the percentage of palatable increaser 

species was 6 %, with a ground cover score of 

92%. The site was also rated in fair forage 

condition because of the amount of palatable 

species to livestock.

Condition 

and Trend 

Plot 

(Logan 11)

1956

2004

2010

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

The percentage of decreaser species composition 

was 66% and the percentage of palatable 

increasers was only 6 % with a ground cover score 

of 92%. The site was rated in fair forage condition 

because of the amount of palatable species to 

livestock. 

Rangeland Management

History and Past Livestock Grazing Management

Domestic livestock grazing first occurred in the project area as early as the mid-1850s when the first 

miners and homesteaders entered the area. The Malheur National Forest, like many areas in the Western 

United States, has a reputation of livestock overuse that started in the late 1800s and continued into the 

mid-1930s. Thousands of sheep grazed the planning area from the late 1860s until the 1940s. From the 

1940s until the present day, domestic livestock grazing in the area has been primarily cattle. Sheep and 

cattle utilized available forage in a continuous season grazing regime. Early grazing was essentially 

unregulated and resulted in significant impacts, some of which are still observable today. High stocking 

levels, stock driveways, and lack of management resulted in degraded upland and riparian conditions 

(Erickson 1906). 

Livestock use was not managed until the early 1900s with establishment of the Forest Reserves in 1906 

and the Malheur National Forest in 1908. Historical livestock grazing data for Grant County ranges from 

1890 through 1959, after that time actual use records were reported. In 1918, the Forest Service instituted 

a permit system, which defined areas to be grazed, set the season of use and established the number of 

livestock to be permitted. During the early part of the century, the Forest Service also took significant 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

96 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

action to regulate numbers and seasons, and to establish workable grazing seasons and allotments. This 

action continued into the latter half of the century when emphasis shifted to development of management 

systems and regulation of effects on specific resources.

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) were developed in the 1960s-70s to manage livestock grazing. The 

allotment and unit boundaries in the analysis area have been changed numerous times. 

Improved grazing systems and pasture designs were implemented to accelerate riparian area recovery in 

the late 1970s to the present. Specific changes have included construction of fences, installation of water 

tanks and ponds, and herding and strategic salt placement to improve livestock distribution while 

reducing riparian area impacts. Implementation of the Malheur Forest Plan in the early 1990s lowered the 

allowable use standard for livestock grazing to accelerate the rate of recovery in riparian areas. In the late 

1990s, when bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, changes to utilization 

levels of grass and riparian species were further. 

More recent management changes have occurred and are ongoing to improve upland and riparian area 

conditions, reduce negative effects to aquatic species and increase management flexibility. In 2011, three 

Decision Memos were signed by the Prairie City District Ranger authorizing projects within the Logan 

Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments to enhance livestock management and improve 

shade and hardwood communities associated with bull trout habitat on Big Creek and Lake Creek; and to 

provide aquatic restoration and improve livestock distribution along Summit and West Fork Summit 

Creeks. All projects are scheduled to be implemented between 2012 and 2013. Projects include 

construction of exclosure and riparian pasture fences, water and pond development, and hardwood 

planting (see Current Livestock Grazing Management below for a summary of projects). 

Grazing Utilization Standards (History)

In 1990, Region 6 of the Forest Service developed grazing utilization standards to be included in the 

Forest Land Management Planning process. Upon approval, the Forest Plan incorporated the Region 6 

utilization standards and guidelines. The Malheur Forest Plan lists a range of allowable use standards to 

be applied based upon: 

1. Management area designation (riparian or non-riparian). See Forest Plan table IV-2, page IV-35 (nonriparian areas) and table IV-4, page IV-58 (non-anadromous riparian areas) for more detail. 

2. The allotment condition classification. Is the area in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition (to be 

determined in a site-specific analysis completed in accordance with the activity schedule in Forest 

Plan appendix A, Table A-10 on page A-18 through 21 

3. The management intensity level (Stewardship or Extensive). 

The four allotments in the Summit Logan analysis have been managed under an extensive management 

strategy since the Forest Plan was approved in 1990. The Forest Plan (page IV-35) defines extensive 

management as a strategy where “management seeks full utilization of forage available to livestock. Costeffective management systems and techniques, including fencing and water development, are designed to 

obtain relatively uniform livestock distribution and use of forage to maintain plant vigor.” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 97

Range forage conditions in the project area were evaluated using a combination condition and trend 

transects, ecology plots, and photo point information. The evaluation determined that forage conditions on 

suitable rangeland are in a satisfactory condition7 based on the Forest Plan definition. 

Table 56 summarizes the Forest Plan allowable use levels for allotments in satisfactory condition under 

extensive management.

Table 56. Allowable use of forage by percent weight removed

Plant Community Sub-type Range Condition

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Non-Anadromous 

Riparian

Grassland 45 0-35

Shrubland 40 0-30

Non-riparian

Grassland 55 0-35

Shrubland 50 0-30

Forestland 45 0-35

Note: Utilization of grasslands is based on percent removed by weight for grass, grasslike, and forbs. Utilization of shrubs is based 

on weight and twig length.

After bull trout were listed as threatened in 1998, utilization standards were developed for allowable use 

of herbaceous riparian species, riparian woody shrubs, grass and grasslike species, and bank alteration 

through the consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). From 1998 through 

2004, utilization levels were 6-inch stubble height along the greenline, moderate browse use, 45 percent

utilization in uplands, and 10 percent bank alteration. 

From 2005 through 2011, utilization standards were 4-inches stubble height along the greenline, light to 

moderate browse use, 45 percent utilization in uplands, and 20 percent bank alteration. These levels are 

used as both livestock move triggers and end-point indicators. 

Between 2005 and 2011 utilization standards have been met consistently in most grazing units with the 

exception of the West Lake Creek unit in the Logan Valley allotment and the North Summit and Sagehen 

units in the Summit Prairie Allotment.

Rangeland Capability and Rangeland Suitability Analysis

Forest planning regulations require the determination of capability and suitability at the Forest level. 

These regulations are derived from the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(Section 6, (g) (2) (a) & (3). 

The 1990 Malheur Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1990, FEIS V-20, and appendix B, B-60 and 

B-71-75) used FORPLAN8 to estimate Animal Unit Months (AUMs) and rangeland capability/suitability 

of the Forest, including Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments. A 

capability/suitability analysis was conducted during the development of the Forest Plan for the Malheur 

National Forest, which made management direction determinations based upon Management Area 

designation. Subsequent changes to the definitions of capability and suitability have been made since the 

 

7 The Forest plan defines Satisfactory Range Condition as “on suitable range, forage condition is at least fair with 

stable trend, and allotment is not classified as PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage)”. 8 FORPLAN is a Forest Planning Language Simulator which is a linear programming model used for multiple use 

planning.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

98 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Forest Plan was completed. Information queries have updated the capability and suitability analysis to 

incorporate the most current information available and most recent Region 6 Guidance in Attachment C 

of the Range Specialist Report (USDA Forest Service 2003). 

Rangeland Capability 

Capable rangelands comprise approximately 94 percent of the total acres within the allotments in the 

planning area (Table 57). Capability is defined as the potential of an area of land to produce resources, 

supply goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at 

a given level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site 

conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management 

practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.

The analysis of capability began with all lands in the project area. The following were subtracted from 

these acres.

• Soil types that are dominated by large percentage of rock, areas with highly erosive soils, very wet 

and boggy soils and sites with high mass movement risk.

• Areas with soil types that are not inherently capable of producing more than 200 pounds or 

forage/acre.

• Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds.

• Major rivers 

• Perennial streams

• National Forest System Roads

• Steep slopes

The remaining acres were considered Capable Rangeland. 

Table 57 summarizes the amount of capable range within the project area by allotment and the amount of 

land that meets the capability and suitability criteria for the variables identified in the Region 6 guidance. 

See appendix C in the range report for more detail.

Table 57. Summary of capable and suitable range by allotment

Allotment Acres Capable Range Capable & Suitable Range

Lake Creek 10,196 9,130 9,041 (87%)

Logan Valley 3,756 3,698 3,698 (98%)

McCoy Creek 980 958 955 (97%)

Summit Prairie 25,331 23,890 23,293 (92%)

Total 37,676 (94%) 36,987 (92%)

Source: Malheur NF GIS. May 2009 (Janet Braymen) 

Note: The capability and suitability analysis acres are slightly different than the project area acres. This is the result of small 

mapping differences in the project area boundary.

Rangeland Suitability 

Forest Service Manual 1905 (91) indicates that suitability is a determination of “the appropriateness of 

applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis 

of the economic and environmental consequence and alternative uses forgone...” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 99

Most Forest Plan management areas in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area are 

suitable for grazing. The project area includes the Big Creek and Murray Campgrounds (MA 12), and 

Lake Creek Organization Camp (MA 19) which were determined to be unsuitable for grazing. 

In the suitability analysis for the project area fenced road rights of ways, long-term enclosures, areas with 

over-story tree canopy cover greater than seventy percent (70 percent) were also considered to be 

unsuitable. Within the project area unsuitable acres total approximately 689 acres. 

Capable and suitable rangelands comprise approximately 92 percent of the project area. Based on this 

information the majority of the project area is capable and suitable for livestock grazing; and consistent 

with the analysis in 1990 Forest Plan. 

Forage Production and Stocking Rates Analysis

Forage production helps determine a guideline for carrying capacity on allotments. Forage production is 

related to the plant communities and species on the landscape and determines how much vegetation is 

available for forage. There are many different ways to calculate forage production, ranging from 

collecting data in the field to using maps. To determine production in this analysis, the focus was on plant 

associations mapped in a GIS database by acres, supplemented with production field data collected in 

2007. Forage pounds per acre (pounds/acre), as determined by the Plant Associations of the Blue and 

Ochoco Mountains (Hall 1973 and Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992), were calculated with some 

adjustments, as follows. See appendix D in the range report for more detail. 

• Rangelands not suitable or capable were removed from the forage production analysis. 

• The average annual production of the Plant Association was used (pounds/acre air dry). Where 

supplemental information from field data (clipping information) was available, average plant 

association estimates were adjusted.

• Percent forage allocated. A 45 percent use level was used to generate allocated forage levels.

Allowable utilization levels from the Forest Plan in satisfactory condition with an extensive 

management strategy (See Forest Plan Tables IV-2 on page IV-35) are show below. See previous 

discussions (above) under Grazing Utilization Standards. 

○ Forested 45 percent 

○ Grasslands 55 percent 

○ Shrublands 50 percent 

• Wildlife use of available forage was not factored into forage estimates.

To determine the carrying capacity (typically expressed in AUMs, or how many 1,000 lb. cows with a calf 

could graze for one month) you take the total production of an area divided by the pounds of forage 

required (26 pounds/day) divided by the days in a month (30). 

For Example Lake Creek Allotment:

• 2,638,833 lbs. Forage Produced X .45 = 1,187,474 lbs. of Forage Available 

• 1,187,474 lbs./26 lbs./30 days = 1,522 AUMS

Table 58 summarizes forage production and carrying capacity (AUMs) by allotment and pastures; please 

refer to the project file (Prairie City Ranger District) for further information.

Areas not capable or suitable for grazing were removed from forage estimates (See Table 57). 

Approximately 8 percent of the total project area acres are not capable or suitable. The percentage in the 

Logan Valley (2 percent) and McCoy Creek (3 percent) allotments is lower than the project area average. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

100 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Summit Prairie is at the project area average of 8 percent and the vacant Lake Creek allotment has the 

highest percentage of acres not capable or suitable acres at 13 percent. Available forage and AUM 

calculations shown in Table 58 were generated using a 45 percent use level for all vegetation types 

(forested, grasslands, and shrublands). The Forest Plan allows higher use levels in grasslands (55 percent) 

and shrublands (50 percent), therefore the analysis under-estimates the available forage for livestock in 

these vegetation types.

Table 58. Forage production and AUMs

Allotment Total Forage 

(lbs.)

Available 

Forage (lbs.)

Calculated

AUMs

Existing 

Permitted 

AUMs

Lake Creek (total) 9,739,767 4,382,895 5619 0 

Bosenberg 6,294,417 2,832,488 3631

Horse Pasture 42,154 18,969 24

McCoy Creek 3,403,196 1,531,438 1963

Logan Valley 9,056,136 4,075,261 5,225 1,983

West Lake Creek 82,643 37,189 48

East Lake Creek 1,245,377 560,420 718

North Big Creek 911,655 410,245 526

South Big Creek 420,742 189,334 243

West Bosenberg 548,657 246,896 317

East Bosenberg 151,086 67,989 87

Corral Holding 32,435 14,596 19

Front Field 161,783 72,802 93

Lower Field 539,964 242,984 312

Big Field 3,108,164 1,398,674 1,793

Flat Field 1,853,630 834,134 1,069

McCoy Creek (total) 2,350,278 1,057,625 1,356 416

Cow Camp 82,644 37,190 48

Dry 162,363 73,063 94

Government Flat 1,198,285 539,228 691

Lake Creek 353,837 159,227 204

North Fork 33,601 15,120 19

Ridge 280,575 126,259 162

Starvation 238,973 107,538 138

Summit Prairie (total) 15,650,691 7,042,811 9,029 1,546

Sagehen 1,976,561 889,452 1,140

Crane Rock 5,384,364 2,422,964 3,106

Little Logan 1,837,942 827,074 1,060

Summit Rock 6,173,112 2,777,900 3,561

North Summit 204,076 91,834 118

South Summit 21,465 9,659 12

West Summit 53,171 23,927 31
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 101

The analysis of available forage and corresponding animal unit months (AUMs) indicates that adequate 

forage is available to support AUMs at currently permitted levels in the McCoy Creek, Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie Allotments. The ability to utilize available forage is dependent on several factors. These 

include: 

• The distribution of livestock and the ability to evenly utilize forage in the pasture. In some pastures 

water availability in uplands has limited distribution. 

• The ability to utilize upland forage before riparian area move triggers are met. 

• The amount of wildlife forage use. Wildlife use is factored into Forest Plan grazing utilization 

standards. When use levels are achieved, regardless of the type of use (i.e. livestock or big game), 

livestock are moved out of the pasture.

• Weather conditions. Available forage is reduced during drought years. 

Permitted Livestock Use 

For the most part authorized use has been the same as permitted use over the last 12 years. Actual use of 

livestock grazing, however, has declined in the allotments over the last several years. Actual use is 

monitored throughout the season to ensure grazing effects are consistent with meeting Forest Plan 

standards and bull trout consultation requirements. Over the last five years the average of actual use has 

decreased on the allotments due to livestock distribution and water availability, range readiness, and 

operational changes to address resource needs. Actual use (average annual head months) has fluctuated 24 

percent on Logan Valley, 13 percent on McCoy Creek and 13 percent on Summit Prairie. 

Current Livestock Grazing Management

The allotments in the analysis area are currently permitted for livestock grazing as follows: 

Table 59. Summary of allotment status and permitted use

Allotment Acres Status Grazing System AMP Permit 

Type

Permitted 

Numbers

Permitted 

AUMs Season

Lake Creek 10,196 Vacant Vacant 1966 Term 0 0 -- 

Logan Valley 3,756 Active Continuous/Seasonal 1971 Term 357 cow/calf 

pairs 1,983 6/10-10/15

McCoy Creek 980 Active Continuous/Seasonal 1971 Term 63 cow/calf 

pairs 416 6/1-10/30

Summit Prairie 25,331 Active Continuous/Seasonal 1965 Term 260 cow/calf 

pairs 1,546 6/10-10/24

Lake Creek Allotment

Allotment contains three units (Bosenberg, Horse Pasture and McCoy Creek) with separation fences, 

although some portions of the fence were burned during the 1990 Snowshoe fire. 

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

and reduced forage base; the permittee waived the allotment back to the Forest Service. Since then it has 

been vacant and not been grazed for over 20 years. Currently, range conditions are capable and suitable 

for grazing. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

102 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan Valley Allotment

Livestock generally enter the unit on the south side of the 1600 road (East Bosenberg, West Bosenberg, 

Front Field, Lower Field, and Flat Field) when the range is ready and stock water is available. The 

livestock are moved to the units on the north side of the 1600 road (North and South Big Creek, East and 

West Lake Creek, and Big Field) when the range is ready later in the season. Per consultation agreement 

livestock grazing is not permitted after August 15th in the North and South Big Creek and Big Creek 

portion of the East Lake Creek units to prevent livestock redd interaction. 

In the Logan Valley allotment the lack of off-stream water sources has been a problem. One existing 

developed water source helps distribute livestock through the Flat Field unit. Other livestock water is 

provided by Lake Creek and Deardorff Ditch. Because of the lack of water opportunities to defer the 

season of use has been very limited. Some units can only be grazed early season because water sources 

are not available later in the year. 

Several projects are ongoing in the Logan Valley allotment that reduce the impacts of livestock along 

Lake Creek and Big Creek by providing functional water sources in the uplands which would provide for 

better livestock distribution throughout grazing units. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Livestock generally enter the unit on the south side of the 1600 road (Ridge/Dry, Government Flat, 

Starvation and Cow Camp) when the range is ready and stock water is still available. The livestock are 

moved to Lake Creek unit when the range is ready later in the season. 

There are limited opportunities to defer the season of grazing because of current pasture configurations 

and water availability. Off-stream water sources are needed to reduce livestock use of the Lake Creek 

riparian area while allowing better use of upland forage. The primary stock water source is Lake Creek. 

One other existing water development is located within the Lake Creek unit. 

Several projects are ongoing in the McCoy Creek allotment that are reducing the impacts of livestock 

along Lake Creek and allowing vegetation and stream channel recovery while still maintaining a 

functional water source for livestock.

Summit Prairie Allotment

Livestock would generally enter the Sagehen and Crane Rock units when the range is ready for grazing. 

Then move up Summit Creek to the Little Logan, Summit Rock, North Summit, West Summit and South 

Summit units as the range is ready.

Upland water sources are needed to pull livestock use away from Summit Creek and allow better forage 

utilization in upland areas. Use levels are generally reached in the Summit Creek riparian area before 

forage can be fully utilized in upland areas. 

Several projects are ongoing in the Summit Logan Allotment. These ongoing projects are to improve 

aquatic habitat conditions on Summit Creek and improve the distribution of cattle through the 

development of upland water sources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 103

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation 

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the no grazing alternative. No action does not result in direct or 

indirect effects but rather removes the effects of previous management that authorized and managed 

livestock grazing. While not technically an effect of a Federal action, when compared to the effects of the 

action alternatives there would be an evolution of vegetation conditions as biophysical processes continue 

to occur on the ground in the absence of domestic livestock grazing. The degree that this evolving 

condition would differ from current conditions for any given portion of land would be determined in part 

on the past level or degree of the grazing activities impacts on that portion of land. In general, the degree 

of impact from past grazing activities relates to location on the landscape particularly as that location 

relates to other resource factors such as water and forage. The primary category division related to 

landscape location is the split between upland vegetation types and riparian vegetation types. 

Removal of livestock grazing as a disturbance to the forest and non-forest vegetative upland portions of 

the planning area is not expected to result in substantial changes in plant distribution, density, or 

composition. 

The elimination of livestock grazing would result in the fastest improvement to riparian vegetation. The 

production and composition of sedges, rushes, and hardwoods in riparian areas and mesic meadows 

should improve more rapidly than uplands due to their inherent productivity and resiliency as a result of 

greater soil moisture availability. The effects to riparian vegetation are discussed in detail in the Aquatic 

Habitat Specialist Report.

Discontinuation of grazing and other activities associated with livestock use would allow areas where 

vegetation has been impacted in the past to recover over time. The rate of recovery would vary based on 

current site condition and other factors like recreation and wildlife use. Overall an upward trend in range 

conditions is expected to continue with vegetation compositions slowly changing late seral species in 

locations where the potential exists. 

As vegetation increases, the percentage of bare ground would be expected to decrease. Dead plant matter 

(litter) would accumulate, helping to protect and stabilize soils. In the absence of grazing, plant matter 

accumulates on the soil surface. After years of this accumulation (which surpasses the rate of decay in 

arid environments), some plants (many grass species in particular) go into a “self-imposed stress” 

whereby the litter chokes out new shoots competing for light (Knapp et al. 1986). The vigor of the entire 

plant is reduced. When this occurs over a broad scale rangelands become less productive and healthy. 

Healthy and productive grass and shrub lands are important for many invertebrate and wildlife species 

that depend upon them particularly for winter range. With the accumulation of dead plant matter (litter) 

fine fuels would build potentially increasing the susceptibility of the landscape to wildfire. 

Some grass species that evolved with the periodic removal of vegetative material by fire, insects, or 

ungulates would probably not benefit over the long term under this alternative. Plant productivity, 

diversity and species composition may change over time. Plants with low tolerance to grazing may 

actually increase in abundance. Shrub communities without fire or other disturbance would gradually 

move towards the predominance of shrubs over grasses and forbs. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

104 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Rangeland Management

Under this alternative, all existing Term Grazing Permits would be cancelled two years after the decision 

and resolution of the appeals process. No permits would be issued for any of the affected allotments until 

or unless there was a subsequent NEPA analysis and a decision was made to restock any or all of the 

allotments. The existing permittees would be given two years written advance notice of the cancellation 

of their permits as provided for under 36 CFR 222.4(a)(1). 

With no action (no grazing) all range improvements and fences would be, abandoned, removed, or 

assigned to another entity (i.e. adjacent permittee, private land owner, etc.) for maintenance. Maintenance 

of range developments such as fences and water improvements on the allotments would no longer be the 

responsibility of the permittees. Existing improvements may continue to be maintained by the Forest 

Service if considered a benefit to other resources. 

Elimination of livestock grazing permits in this locality could jeopardize the viability of the ranches 

associated with those permits. Re-zoning and land use changes such as development of smaller 

subdivisions on private lands could occur adjacent to Forest Service Lands, and could affect soils and 

vegetation in watersheds already impacted by other uses, potentially leading to increased runoff and 

stream sedimentation, and decreased soil productivity. 

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects with no action (no grazing), there are no cumulative or 

additive effects. Ongoing and foreseeable activities listed in appendix C would continue in the project 

area. However, ongoing activities directly associated with grazing management may be terminated or 

cancelled. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation (All Allotments) 

Grazing Use Levels

Allowable use levels of herbaceous forage for the action alternatives are displayed in detail in appendix E 

of the FEIS. 

All action alternatives allow use of herbaceous vegetation by livestock. Herbaceous vegetation includes 

grasses, grasslike, and forbs (nonwoody flowing plants). In general cattle prefer grasses and grasslike 

vegetation over forbs, but preferences depend on many variables, including season of use and available 

forage. Application of allowable use is based on the concept that plants can withstand removal of part of 

their current year’s growth and still achieve normal growth the following year. 

A review of available science (summarized below) on the intensity of grazing shows that proposed use 

levels in all action alternatives are adequate to maintain or improve plant vigor (health) and allow 

continued improvement in forage condition trends. Studies show that light to moderate levels of livestock 

grazing have positive effects on maintaining, sustaining, and improving rangelands that are either in a 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition. All alternative propose the same use levels with riparian benches 

and upland areas of grazing units. Action alternatives vary in the proposed standards for the riparian 

communities along the “greenline” directly adjacent to streams. The greenline is defined as the first 

communities dominated by perennial vegetation as you proceed outward from the center of the channel. 

The amount of forage left along the stream’s edge has been found to be important in catching sediments 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 105

during the runoff periods, both from the stream channel as well as from overland flow. The trapping of 

sediment is critical in rebuilding of streambanks and maintaining water quality. 

In an intensive literature review Clary and Webster (1989) concluded that vegetation appears to be more 

affected by grazing intensity than by grazing systems. They found that the success of grazing systems 

depend in part upon managerial control of intensity and forage utilization. Eight years of research at 

Meadow Creek, Starkey, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, in 

Northeastern Oregon, indicated that herbage production was increased 1-to-4 fold through timing and 

intensity of grazing (Bryant 1985). Several grazing rotations were tested including deferred rotation, restrotation, and season-long grazing. There was no statistically different change in plant composition among 

the systems tested however the production of riparian vegetation increased dramatically when utilization 

was 70 percent or less. 

Use levels for riparian areas have been studied by many authors. Clary and Webster (1989) compiled 

information from numerous sources and recommended that “utilization of streamside herbaceous forage 

should be limited to about 65 percent of current growth. Utilization based on current growth, however, 

does not translate directly to utilization based on annual production. The authors went on to note that 

recommendations of 40-50 percent utilization (approximately 3 to 4 inches of residual height) would 

maintain plant vigor. They noted, however, that stubble height (e.g. 6 inches or more) might be necessary 

to protect riparian ecosystem function. The values or stubble heights in each alternative vary by stream 

reach and were based on the departure of the existing condition to the desired condition. Best available 

science was considered for establishing allowable use levels of forage along the stream edge (greenline). 

The effects of proposed differences in greenline stubble heights between the action alternatives on 

riparian vegetation and stream function and recovery is discussed in detail in the Aquatic Habitat section. 

In more recent publications, Hall and Bryant (1995) maintain that undesirable grazing impacts can occur 

any time stubble height in riparian areas reaches three inches or less. Maintaining a minimum stubble 

height can help preserve forage plant vigor, reduce browsing on willows, stabilize sediments and 

indirectly limit streambank trampling (Clary and Leininger 2000). Clary 1995 noted that 10 cm (4 inches) 

or greater stubble heights appear to be required to ensure full biomass production in mountain meadow 

sedge communities. Clary also noted that non-riparian vegetation grazed to about 5 cm (2-inch) stubble 

height at end of growing season would maintain vigor and biomass. Clary and Leininger (2000) explain 

that stubble height is a short-term monitoring tool and not an objective itself. Desired conditions are the 

long-term objective.

Available data shows that forage condition and trends are improving in the Summit Logan project area. 

The most recent information from Condition and Trend Transects and Ecology plots shows that forage 

conditions ranges from fair to good and trend range from fair to good (see Affected Environment for more 

detail). Literature acknowledges a relationship between range condition and appropriate grazing 

intensities. Buckhouse et al. 1979, Chaney et al. 1990, Buckhouse et al. 1981, Clary and Webster 1989, 

Chaney et al. 1993 documents that light to moderate grazing/proper stocking levels sustains and improved 

degraded rangeland areas, restoring long-term productivity. 

Deferred Rotation Grazing System

All action alternatives propose deferred rotation as part of the grazing system. Rotational grazing, where 

each area is grazed at a different season each year, was developed because different plant communities 

and physical features are affected differently at different seasons. All sites and species, over the grazing 

cycle, are grazed equally during seasons beneficial for each characteristic and seasons that are 

detrimental. This prevents preferred sites from receiving continuous detrimental timing (seasonal) effects 

and also limits the frequency of use during any one year. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

106 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Deferment is defined as a period of non-grazing during part of the growing season. There are several 

benefits to upland and riparian vegetation with application of deferred grazing. This type of system 

provides flexibility to change the timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing on an annual basis. The 

frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants and species of plants varies depending on 

preference and availability. In a given grazing season, the result is that most preferred plants would be 

defoliated more frequently or severely than less preferred plants. With variations in the season of use 

there is decreased likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired plants species, allowing for longer periods 

of plant recovery. In general, the year to year variability in pasture use under a deferred rotation grazing 

system would protect the phonological stages of plant species and improve species compositions. Plant 

vigor would be increased and species recruitment would improve. 

Deferred grazing has been successful in restoring and improving riparian areas (Wyman et al. 2006). The 

season of grazing is important factor for willow recovery. Kovalchik and Elmore (1991) documented that 

early season upland grasses have crude protein levels of 15-17 percent, but levels fall below 5 percent as 

grasses mature. As this occurs, cattle increase the amount of available palatable forbs and browse in their 

diets and soon move into the riparian zone. In the spring, cattle often avoid riparian zones because of the 

cold temperatures, soil wetness, and forage immaturity (Kruger 1983). Therefore, spring grazing can 

encourage cattle to graze uplands where forage maturity and climate are more favorable compared to the 

riparian zone (Platts 1984). As a result, spring-grazed riparian zoned have less than half the cattle 

occupancy compared to fall use (Kruger 1983). As spring grazing precludes late-summer use, willow 

browsing is light and seedling survival high (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

Riparian Pastures

All action alternatives propose to construct riparian pastures. The quantity and location of pastures varies 

by alternative. With riparian pastures there is closer management and control to achieve goals and 

objectives (Wyman et al. 2006). 

In the project area, pastures along Lake Creek, Big Creek, Summit Creek, and West Fork Summit Creek 

contain a mix of riparian and upland vegetation. The riparian zones within the pasture are much different 

from the terrestrial systems, making management of the riparian systems difficult. Livestock are selective 

grazers, therefore the frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants or species of plants varies 

depending on preference and availability. The result is that most preferred plants would be defoliated 

more frequently or severely than less preferred plants. Because of this preference livestock tend to 

concentrate in the riparian areas, making management of the frequency and intensity of use in these areas 

a challenge. Use levels and move triggers in the riparian portion of units have historically been reached 

before authorized forage in upland areas can be utilized. 

Rest

All alternatives include rest as part of proposed management. All alternatives proposed resting of riparian 

pastures or riparian exclosures. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose rest as part of the grazing system (termed 

periods of non-scheduled rest and deferment). In most cases, rest is proposed as part of the management 

strategy to meet riparian area recovery objectives. The length of rest proposed in all action alternatives for 

the West Bosenberg, West Lake Creek, and West Summit Recovery unit pastures is 3 to 5 years. After this 

period of rest, grazing would resume with management strategies that vary between action alternatives 

(effects of rest are similar to those discussed under alternative 1, no grazing.) 

In all action alternatives rest would benefit vegetation recovery. With rest, “plants are not affected by 

herbivory, and streambanks are not affected by livestock trampling. Woody riparian plants are allowed to 

reach escapement height. There is quick recovery period, especially in the first few years after grazing is 

eliminated (Wyman et al. 2006).” Rest or non-use may be one of the best methods for rapid improvement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 107

of woody plant regeneration (Davis 1982). Grinder et al. (1995) referenced Manning and Padgett (1995) 

who noted that while there is not data that specifically state how long it will take a community to change 

from unsatisfactory to satisfactory condition, the amount of time it takes to move toward the desired 

future condition can be decreased through increased rest. 

Skovin (1984) found that exclusion of livestock had produced improved riparian and aquatic habitat 

following 4 to 7 years of rest, woody plant (shrub) recovery following 5 to 8 years of rest. A study in 

northern Utah concluded that a minimum of 6 to 8 years of rest was necessary to restore a deteriorated 

streamside riparian area to the point where livestock grazing would be allowed at reduced levels (Duff 

1983). However, recovery of streambanks and vegetation was observed following 4 years of rest from 

grazing.

Adaptive Management

All actions alternatives are based on “adaptive management,” a process that uses monitoring information 

to determine if management changes are needed. Adaptive management strategies proposed for each 

alternative are shown in appendix A (Table 104). Strategies have been identified to ensure that riparian 

recovery objectives are met with specified timeframes. Short-term objectives for riparian areas are 

primarily focused on vegetation recovery. Specific recovery objectives for the streams in the project area 

are identified by stream reach and pasture (see appendix A Table 103). If monitoring indicates that 

specific objectives are not being achieved, at any given time the Line Officer can choose to apply the 

analyzed adaptive strategy to reduce delays in recovery timeframes. Specific adaptive management 

strategies with their potential effects are described below: 

• Changes in use levels of riparian areas (herbaceous forage use, bank alteration, shrub use) – An 

increased rate of riparian vegetation recovery is expedited by decreasing the grazing intensity.

• Rest or exclusion of riparian areas from grazing – Rest would benefit vegetation recovery. With rest,

plants are not affected by herbivory, and streambanks are not affected by livestock trampling. Woody 

riparian plants are allowed to reach escapement height. There is quick recovery period, especially in 

the first few years after grazing is eliminated. Rest or non-use may be one of the best methods for 

rapid improvement of woody plant regeneration (Davis 1982). Padgett (1995) noted that while there 

is not data that specifically state how long it would take a community to change from unsatisfactory 

to satisfactory condition, the amount of time it takes to move toward the desired future condition can 

be decreased through increased rest, lower utilization levels, and/or rehabilitation. 

• Fencing to create riparian pastures – Construction of fences would have minimal ground effects to 

vegetation. With riparian pastures there is closer management and control to achieve goals and 

objectives (Wyman et al. 2006). Each riparian pasture may be managed individually or rested 

depending on current conditions. 

Logan Valley Allotment

All action alternatives would combine the Big Creek portion of East Lake Creek, North Big Creek and 

South Big Creek units into one large riparian unit. These units are currently being grazed as a single unit 

which is allowing riparian recovery with noted improvement in density, cover, and composition of 

stabilizing riparian vegetation species (i.e. sedges and rushes). Removal of fences to combine the pastures 

is expected to continue the upward recovery trend in vegetation.

Over the last several years a section of electric fence (0.3 miles) has been maintained in the North Fork 

unit to exclude livestock grazing from Big Creek. All alternatives would replace the electric fence with a 

permanent let-down fence. The permanent fence would continue to protect the Big Creek Riparian area 

and effectively distribute livestock into the upland portions of the unit. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

108 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Logan 

Valley allotment (approximately 267 acres). The Lake Creek unit would remain as an individual unit and 

North Fork unit would be absorbed into the Flat Field unit for better livestock distribution. A larger unit 

would improve distribution of forage use (effects to vegetation are similar to those in the Effects Common 

to All Action Alternatives, Deferred Rotation Grazing).

McCoy Creek Allotment

A deferred rotation grazing system would be applied throughout the allotment (see Deferred Rotation 

Grazing System under Effects Common for additional effects analysis). This grazing system provides for 

a systematic rotation of deferment among units and provides flexibility to change the time of year when 

units would be used. 

To develop pasture sizes and configurations that will facilitate a rotation of deferment several unit and 

allotment boundary changes are proposed. The Dry and Ridge units of the allotment would be combined 

into a single unit as currently managed and would be identified as the Ridge unit. 

The Lake Creek and North Fork units (267 acres) of the McCoy Creek allotment would be absorbed into 

the Logan Valley allotment. Due to past private land fencing, these pastures are geographically isolated 

from the main allotment and are best suited for management with the adjacent allotment. This would also 

decrease fence maintenance.

The Starvation unit (53 acres) would be removed from the McCoy Creek allotment as it is geographically 

isolated from the main allotment. This area may be added to the Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A 

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

Summit Prairie Allotment

All the action alternatives propose enlarging the Little Logan unit by adding the Front Field unit (52 

acres) from the Logan Valley allotment. The larger unit would provide a larger landscape for better 

livestock distribution. The Front field unit does not have adequate water for livestock and the Little Logan 

unit has adjacent water sources. Improve livestock water availability is expected to improve use 

distribution and continue recovery of forage conditions. 

Rangeland Management (All Allotments)

Grazing Use Levels

The proposed stubble heights in upland areas are the same for all action alternatives. Allowable use levels 

of herbaceous forage for the action alternatives are displayed in detail in appendix E of the EIS. 

The values or stubble heights adjacent to the stream edge (greenline) in each alternative vary by stream 

reach and were based on the departure of the existing condition to the desired condition. Best available 

science was considered for establishing allowable use levels of forage along the greenline. The forage use 

levels (required endpoint stubble heights) that are proposed along the greenline are generally higher in 

alternatives 3 and 4 than proposed in alternative 2, ranging from 4 to 7 inch stubble heights. Requiring 

higher stubble heights in the area along the edge of the stream will result in some direct loss of available 

forage. More restrictive stubble heights along the greenline may compound problems in pastures where 

forage use levels in the riparian portions of units have been historically been reached before authorized 

forage in upland areas. Separating the riparian and uplands into separate pastures (riparian pastures) 

provides an opportunity to better utilize forage in the uplands and allows for closer management and 

control to achieve recovery of riparian areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 109

Forage Production and Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 

All action alternatives propose to retain the currently permitted AUMs. The analysis of available forage 

and stocking rates for each alternative (Table 60) indicates that adequate forage is available to support 

AUMs at these levels. The ability to utilize permitted forage in the allotments is dependent on several 

factors. These include: 

• The proposed grazing strategies of each alternative to achieve the management objectives and long 

term desired conditions for specific riparian areas (See appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103).

• The ability to utilize upland forage before move triggers and allowable use levels are reached in 

riparian areas. Specific move triggers for each alternative are listed in appendix E.

• The amount of wildlife forage use. Wildlife use is factored into Forest Plan grazing utilization 

standards. When use levels are achieved, regardless of the type of use (i.e. livestock or big game), 

livestock are moved out of the pasture. 

• Yearly weather conditions. Available forage is reduced during drought years.

The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual adjustment 

of both numbers and/or season based on the above factors. The action alternatives identify the permitted 

livestock numbers (an average number of livestock) and the average season of use which includes the

earliest possible “on” dates related to range readiness and the latest dates that livestock are permitted to be 

on the allotment. Flexibility that allows for annual adjustments provides a management tool to assure that 

riparian and rangeland objectives are met. 

Table 60. Forage production and AUM summary by alternative

Allotment Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed AUMs

Total Total Total Total

Lake Creek

Acres 0 5,069 10,196 9,459

Allocated 

Forage 2,275,922 4,382,366 4,055,049

AUMS 0 0 0 0 0

Logan Valley

Acres 0 4,359 3,971 4,359

Allocated 

Forage 4,329,288 4,164,989 4,329,288

AUMS 0 5,550 5,340 5,550 1,983

McCoy Creek

Acres 0 660 660 660

Allocated 

Forage 775,585 775,585 775,585

AUMS 0 994 994 994 416

Summit Prairie

Acres 0 29,832 25,383 25,383

Allocated 

Forage 8,030,701 7,109,413 7,111,601

AUMS 0 10,296 9,115 9,117 1,546

Areas where grazing is not allowed in the Forest Plan (i.e. developed campgrounds, Lake Creek Youth 

Camp) were removed from the forage analysis. The forage estimates were generated using the average 

pounds per acres for each pasture shown in Table 59. Where pastures were combined a weighted average 

of pounds per acre was use. Some areas not capable or suitable for grazing were still included in the 

forage analysis acre which results in a slight over-prediction of the amount forage that would be available 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

110 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

for grazing (See Table 57). The over prediction in forage is mostly compensated for by using a 45 percent 

use level for all vegetation types (forested, grasslands, and shrublands). The Forest Plan allows higher use 

levels in grasslands (55 percent) and shrublands (50 percent) which would allow higher use of forage by 

livestock than the analysis estimates. 

Management Practices

Implicit in all action alternatives is active livestock management, with distribution tools, (including 

additional infrastructure). Each alternative prescribes a series of actions that include physical changes 

(such as constructing new water developments, fences and changes in allotment/pasture boundaries and 

configurations) to address the site specific concerns within the planning area. 

Management practices may affect cattle distribution. Neither salt placement nor alternate water location 

away from riparian zones influenced the use of riparian areas appreciably in a study by Bryant (1982). 

Bryant found that the best alternative for rapid restoration of streamside riparian zones is fencing. A study 

by Workman indicated that cost effective measures for improving distribution were spring development, 

salting (18.6 percent improvement) and herding (20 percent improvement), but that fencing was not cost 

effective (Workman and Hooper 1968). It may be concluded from these seemingly contradictory study 

results that water development and salting are effective methods of improving distribution, but by 

themselves may not be adequate to obtain desired levels of use on riparian areas. Fencing may change the 

location of excessive use from one site to another, but does little for overall distribution. Fencing may be 

cost effective if it provides for implementation of improved grazing systems which improve timing and 

duration of use more than distribution. Salting practices have been utilized for many years and, with few 

exceptions, appear to be effective to improve livestock distribution, especially on gentle slopes within the 

project area. Activities proposed are expected to improve livestock forage use and distribution in upland 

areas while allowing rest and lower use levels in riparian areas.

Fence Maintenance

Fence maintenance would be required as part of the term grazing permit. All action alternatives propose 

to construct new fences which would increase the miles of fence maintenance required by the permittee. 

Fence maintenance requirements include replacement or splicing of broken wires, removal of trees or 

limbs that have fallen across the fence, and replacement of deteriorated wood pieces and structures. The 

time and cost of completing fence maintenance repairs depends on the terrain (steep or gentle slopes, 

accessibility (access by ATV or vehicle), age or state of deterioration of the fence, and vegetation type 

(timbered or grassland). Year to year maintenance needs can vary based on weather conditions. High 

winds can increase the number of down trees or limbs that fall across the fence. Cold weather and heavy 

snows can increase wire breakage and structural damage. 

Adaptive Management

Specific adaptive management strategies with their potential effects to rangeland management are 

described below: 

• Changes in use levels in riparian areas (herbaceous forage use, bank alteration, shrub use) – The 

duration of grazing riparian areas may decrease. The amount of forage available for livestock in the 

unit may also decrease. Decreased forage availability in riparian areas may also reduce forage 

utilization in upland areas that are part of the same pasture unless strategies that attract livestock away 

from the riparian area or herding techniques such as range riding that control livestock distribution are 

used. Frequent riding and herding of livestock may increase utilization of the upland and decrease 

grazing pressure in the riparian area (Wyman et al. 2006). Labor intensive management techniques 

such as range riding would potentially increase grazing operator costs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 111

• Rest or exclusion of riparian areas from grazing - Rest or livestock exclusion may impose 

additional economic hardship (Wyman et al. 2006) on the grazing operator with reduced land base 

and forage available for grazing. 

• Fencing to create riparian pastures- Construction of fences and fence maintenance could increase 

operation costs to the grazing operator. See Social Economic section for more detail.

Cumulative Effects

Several ongoing projects in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area would provide 

additive benefits when combined with the actions proposed in the action alternatives. The specific 

ongoing projects and their effects are described in Table 61. Additional cumulative effects discussions are 

provide for each specific alternative.

Table 61. Ongoing allotment activities 

Project Name Specific Management Technique and General Effects 

Logan Valley Allotment

Big Creek Fence 

and Water-Gap

Creates West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Constructing a riparian pasture would protect riparian values. The pasture would provide closer 

management and control to achieve riparian goals and objectives. In the pasture may be 

managed individually or rested depending on resource conditions. Depending on the type and 

level of management in the riparian pasture there may be a loss of forage to the livestock 

operator. For this specific fence construction costs and maintenance labor costs would be 

incurred by a Forest Service partner. The water gap in the fence would maintain access to Big 

Creek from the adjacent upland unit for watering. The water gaps would limit access to only a

few feet of the stream (approximately 20 feet) minimizing streambank impacts. The water gap 

would be hardened with rock material to reduce hoof impacts.

Big Creek & Lake 

Creek Off-Site 

Water Source

Water developments would provide key water in units that currently lack distributed water 

sources, and/or units where the available water from streams would be excluded by fences 

(i.e., exclosures and riparian pastures). Water developments would reduce livestock 

concentrations in riparian areas allowing recovery of vegetation and aquatic habitat. Water 

developments would improve livestock distribution and more uniform utilization of forage in the 

uplands. In some upland pastures operators have not been able to utilize available forage 

because move triggers and utilization levels in riparian areas are reached first. Improved water 

and livestock distribution would provide better utilization of forage in some upland pastures. 

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Fence

Creates West 

Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

The effects would be similar to the Big Creek Fence (Bosenberg Riparian Pasture). Effects that 

are different include:

Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing permittee.

Water gaps would not be constructed.

Big Creek and 

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood

Planting

Planting of hardwood would increase the rate of willow recovery on Big Creek and Lake Creek. 

Expediting recovery would improve vegetation resiliency, allowing the pastures to be managed 

for grazing in the future. 

Ongoing Activities in the McCoy Creek Allotment

Lake Creek Unit 

Division Fence 

Reconstruction 

Fencing would control livestock movement and distribution to protect critical bull trout habitat. 

Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing permittee. 

Lake Creek 

Fence and 

Water-Gap

Riparian exclosure fence to exclude livestock from this portion of Lake Creek to allow 

vegetation and stream channel recovery while also providing a functional water source to 

livestock. Constructed water-gap would maintain livestock water to upland portions of the unit.

The fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by a Forest Service partner.

Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery 

Fence 

Riparian exclosure to provide protection of a willow gallery along Lake Creek. The stream is 

being utilized by beaver and is critical habitat for bull trout. The fence maintenance labor costs 

would be incurred by a Forest Service partner.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

112 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Project Name Specific Management Technique and General Effects

Big Creek & Lake 

Creek Off-Site 

Water Source

See Big Creek & Lake Creek Off-Site Water Source (above)

Lake Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

See Big Creek and Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood Planting (above)

Ongoing Activities in the Summit Prairie Allotment

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Fence and Water 

Gap

Creates West 

Summit Creek 

Riparian pasture

Constructing a riparian pasture would protect riparian values and improve degraded stream 

bank conditions. The pasture would provide closer management and control to achieve riparian 

goals and objectives. In the pasture may be managed individually or rested depending on 

resource conditions. Depending on the type and level of management in the riparian pasture 

there may be a loss of forage to the livestock operator. For this specific fence construction 

costs and maintenance labor costs would be incurred by a Forest Service partner. The water 

gap in the fence would maintain access to the stream from the adjacent upland unit for 

watering. The water gaps would limit access to only a few feet of the stream (approximately 20 

feet) minimizing streambank impacts. The water gap would be hardened with rock material to 

reduce hoof impacts. Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing 

permittee.

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Parallel Tree 

Felling

Barriers formed by placing trees and brush on the edge of the stream would discourage 

livestock use and help stabilize eroding streambanks. Felled trees would protect established 

hardwoods and other riparian plant communities from livestock and ungulate use.

Little Logan 

Willow 

Restoration

Riparian exclosure and caging would improve age class and height development of willows on 

Summit Creek.

Sagehen Stock 

Ponds

Ponds would help reduce impacts of livestock on Summit Creek by providing functional water 

sources in the uplands. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation 

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 4,733 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. Effects to rangeland forage 

would be same similar to those described under alternative 1, no action. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Portions of the Lake Creek and McCoy Creek allotments would be absorbed into the Logan Valley 

allotment. The larger landscape (which is made up of larger grazing units) would be managed with 

periods of rest or deferment during the season of use. The grazing system would allow changes in the 

timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing which benefit both upland and riparian plant species 

development and vigor (effects to vegetation are similar to those in the Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives, Deferred Rotation Grazing).

The portions of the Lake Creek allotment absorbed into the Logan Valley Allotment have not been grazed 

since 1988. Initiation of the proposed use levels would keep grass vegetation vigorous by removing the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 113

decadence (wolfiness) from the plants which would increase the photosynthetic surface and the plants 

ability to synthesize carbohydrates. This would increase root mass as well as plant mass.

Summit Prairie Allotment

The addition of approximately 4,449 acres from the Lake Creek allotment to the Summit Prairie allotment 

would allow periods of rest or deferment during seasons of use. Rangeland vegetation would benefit from 

periods of rest and deferment in the season of grazing. Effects to vegetation are similar to those in the 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Deferred Rotation Grazing. 

A new fence could be constructed to configure the new Bosenberg unit added from the Lake Creek 

allotment. Big Creek and Corral Basin Creek would not be included within the new unit. To ensure 

adequate protection of Bosenberg Creek and other streams in the unit, riding to move livestock away from 

riparian areas into the uplands would be required. Ponds or springs would be developed in the uplands to 

provide alternative water away from the streams. The new water developments would facilitate desired 

cattle distribution in the upland by providing more water in appropriate locations. Upon establishment of 

the new fences in the allotment, the Bosenberg, Sagehen, and Little Logan units would be rested 3 years 

out of the 10 year period. This would provide a period of non-use or rest to allow desired vegetation 

composition and stream channel characteristics to maintained or improved. Until completion of the new 

boundary fences, the Sagehen unit would continue to be grazed early season with reduced numbers. 

Herbaceous vegetation recovery has been observed since management was changed in 2008 to early 

season with reduced numbers. See aquatic habitat specialist report, located in the project record, for more 

detail.

The Lake Creek allotment has not been grazed since 1988. Initiation of proper grazing would have 

positive effects to plant physiology including increased photosynthesis, increased tillering, reduced shade, 

reduction of excessive mulch accumulations that may be inhibiting growth (Holecheck et al. 1989). 

Rangeland Management

Forage Production and Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

Alternative 2 proposes to retain the currently permitted AUMs. The AUMs proposed are maximum limits 

and may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual adjustments of both numbers and/or season. 

The analysis of available forage and stocking rates in Table 62 indicates that adequate forage is available 

to support AUMs at levels currently permitted with proposed allotment boundary and management 

changes. The table shows acres, available forage, and AUMS that would potentially be grazed on average 

over the next 10 years with the minimum rest requirements. Even with proposed minimum rest 

requirements, the analysis indicates that adequate forage would be available to support proposed AUMS.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

114 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 62. Alternative 2 available forage and AUMs

Allotment Pasture Acres Available 

Forage 

Available 

AUMs 

Minimum Rest Requirements 

(Table 63 and Table 64) 

Acres 

Grazed Per 

Year 

Available 

Forage Per 

Year

AUMS

10 Year Average

Lake 

Creek 

Corral Basin 2430 987431 1266 0 0 0 

McCoy Creek 2639 1288492 1652 0 0 0 

Total 5069 2275922 2918 0 0 0 

Logan 

Valley 

Big Creek 

Riparian 623 710968 911 436 497677 638

West Lake Creek

Riparian Pasture 135 12332 16 81 7399 9 

West Lake Creek 271 24756 32 271 24756 32

East Lake Creek 399 448875 575 399 448875 575

W. Bosenberg 269 234595 301 269 234595 301

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 14 12209 16 8 7326 9 

East Bosenberg 118 59844 77 118 59844 77

Corral Holding 22 14593 19 22 14593 19

Lower Field 283 242984 312 283 242984 312

Big Field 1024 1398528 1793 1024 1398528 1793

Lake Creek 218 159216 204 218 159216 204

Deardorff 388 164299 211 388 164299 211

Flat Field 595 846090 1085 595 846090 1085

Total 4359 4329288 5550 4113 4106181 5264

McCoy 

Creek 

Cow Camp 157 37162 48 157 37162 48

Ridge (Combined 

Ridge/Dry) 292 199202 255 292 199202 255

Government Flat 211 539221 691 211 539221 691

Total 660 775585 994 660 775585 994

Summit 

Prairie 

Bosenberg 4449 1807851 2318 3114 1265496 1622

Sagehen 3767 1695 2 2637 1187 2 

Crane Rock 7838 2419591 3102 7838 2419591 3102

Little Logan 3270 899087 1153 2289 629361 807

Summit Rock 10222 2778340 3562 10222 2778340 3562

North Summit 195 91787 118 195 91787 118

South Summit 45 9437 12 45 9437 12

West Summit 

Holding 27 13450 17 27 13450 17

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 19 9465 12 11 5679 7 

Total 29832 8030701 10296 26379 7214325 9249
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 115

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 4,778 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley and Summit 

Prairie allotments. The remaining 5,069 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would continue to be vacant 

and not managed for livestock grazing. Effects for the vacant acres would be the same as that described 

under the No Action alternative (alternative 1). 

Logan Valley Allotment 

The Logan Valley allotment would have a larger landscape (gain of 603 acres) for grazing with no net 

gain in number of grazing units allowing a change from a deferred rotation grazing system to a system 

that includes rest and deferment. Although there would be an overall increase in allotment acres, there is 

no proposed change in currently permitted AUMs. The objective of alternative 2 is to increase flexibility 

in allotment management to adapt to future changes. The acres added from the Lake Creek and McCoy 

Creek allotments would increase the overall forage available in the allotment, which would help offset 

forage losses with resting pastures. The majority of rest would occur in units with riparian habitat. The 

following table shows the minimum rest requirements for the units in the allotment. 

Table 63. Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture 14

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after 

management objectives have been achieved, with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed.

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 135

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013 or 2014) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after 

willows have established, with rest (season long rest) required 3 years 

out of a 10 year period.

Big Creek Riparian 

pasture 623 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an Annual 

Basis (Average)

246 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 2.3 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

To ensure adequate protection of Bosenberg Creek and other streams in the Bosenberg unit, riding would 

be required to maintain livestock concentrations in the uplands. A rider may be able to train cows and 

calves to use uplands and discourage their use of riparian areas by consistently moving them away from 

riparian area to other locations. When cattle are regularly herded from riparian areas to uplands, generally 

the best practice is to herd cattle away from the stream after they have watered. Some research has found 

that herding combined with strategic placement of desirable supplement appears to be even more effective 

in attracting cattle to graze previously underutilized areas. Herding lessens impacts on riparian areas and 

provides better distribution of livestock. Better distribution increases useable forage and thus capacity of a 

pasture or allotment. It may also result in the ability to keep livestock in management units longer because 

they spend less time in riparian area. Use of a rider would be an economic impact to the permittee. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

116 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 64. Summit Logan allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

Sagehen 3,767 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary fence)

19

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013). Grazing would resume after management objectives have been 

achieved with rest (season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year 

period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is resumed the move 

trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Bosenberg 4,449 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Little Logan 3,270 Rest 3 years out of 10 year period (season long rest).

Acres Rested or 

Not Grazed on an 

Annual Basis 

(Average)

3,453 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Approximately 7.0 miles of new fence would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with implementation 

of alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects to Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland management. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current condition in the analysis area. See Affected Environment discussions. 

The effects of several ongoing projects in the Summit Logan project area were considered cumulatively 

with the effects of actions proposed in the alternatives. The specific ongoing projects and their effects are 

described in Table 61. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

In the Logan Valley allotment the combination of ongoing off-site water developments in upland areas 

and construction of the West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek riparian pastures would allow riparian area 

recovery while still allowing upland areas to be grazed (See Table 61). Proposed resting of riparian 

pastures in alternative 2 would improve herbaceous vegetation and hardwood recovery (see Aquatic 

report for specific details). Ongoing off-site water developments (See Table 61) in upland areas in 

combination with proposed actions in alternative 2 would provide better water distribution and 

opportunities to defer the season of grazing providing for better livestock distribution and even forage 

utilization. Riparian areas generally receive heavier grazing use than upland areas. Separating the riparian 

and uplands into separate pastures provides for closer management and control to achieve recovery of 

riparian areas. 

The availability of livestock water in Logan Valley allotment has been problem, limiting the opportunity 

to vary the season of grazing within the allotment. Improved water distribution and providing late season 

water in some pastures would provide greater flexibility in grazing rotations and season of use to adapt to 

resource needs in the future. The ongoing or foreseeable construction of the West Bosenberg and West 

Lake Creek riparian pastures facilitates the ability to rest riparian pastures as proposed in alternative 2 

which would be beneficial to vegetation recovery. With rest, plants would not be affected by herbivory. 

Willows and other woody riparian plants would be allowed to reach escapement height (See Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives under Deferred Rotation Grazing, Riparian Pastures, and Rest). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 117

Riparian areas in the Logan Valley allotments are productive forage areas and resting or excluding these 

acres from grazing will reduce the amount of forage available to livestock which may pose economic 

hardship to the grazing operators in the short-term. Alternative 2 adds acres from the vacant Lake Creek 

and McCoy Creek allotments to the Logan Valley allotment. By adding these additional acres it helps 

offset the economic impacts of periodically resting areas within the allotment (see minimum rest 

requirements). The areas being added from the Lake Creek allotment exclude areas containing occupied 

bull trout habitat in Lake Creek, Big Creek, Corral Basin Creek, and Bosenberg Creeks. These areas 

would continue to remain vacant (no grazing) in the Lake Creek allotment. 

The Big Creek and Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood project would plant willows in the West Bosenberg 

and West Lake Creek riparian pastures which is expected to expedite the rate of recovery in these areas.

With accelerated vegetation recovery the time needed for rest may be reduced, thereby lessening the 

economic impact to the grazing operators. Grazing would resume in these areas after management 

objectives for respective riparian area have been achieved. 

Areas that were thinned and underburned in the Merit project over the last decade in the vacant Lake 

Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. Thinning and fuel treatments reduced 

debris on the forest floor and density of tree thickets. Past wildfires reduced dense tree canopies and 

excessive down material. Vegetative conditions have recovered from past wildfires. The combined effect 

of thinning, underburning, and past wildfires has increased water, sunlight and nutrients available to 

grasses and shrubs, thereby improving forage conditions. Adding areas thinned and underburned from the 

Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley allotment would provide additional forage for livestock.

Several vegetation restoration activities are ongoing in the Logan Valley allotment with the Logan Valley 

Meadow/Grassland Enhancement/Aspen Restoration Project. This project includes removal of 

encroaching conifers in meadows, underburning, commercial thinning, and aspen restoration on more 

than 300 acres in the Logan Valley area which is expected to increase the forage production potential for 

livestock and big game. Restoration activities exclude livestock grazing within approximately 18 acres of 

aspen. As a whole, activities in the Merit project combined with activities in the Logan Valley 

Meadow/Grassland Enhancement/Aspen Restoration project are expected to increase available forage and 

forage production in the Logan Valley allotment.

Approximately 2.8 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 2.3 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 2. Ongoing projects listed in Table 61 would add an additional 2.8 miles of 

fence. Combined a total of 5.2 miles of fence would be constructed, of which 4.8 miles would be 

permittee maintenance responsibility. The other 0.4 miles of fence would be maintained by a Forest 

Service Partner. The miles of proposed fence construction combined with fence construction in ongoing 

projects would increase the fence maintenance responsibilities and operational costs of the grazing 

operator (permitee). See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives under Fence Maintenance.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Several range/aquatic projects are ongoing in the McCoy Creek allotment. These include the Big Creek & 

Lake Creek Off-Site Water Source project that would be beneficial to grazing operations by providing 

water in upland portions of units that currently lack water sources or where available water from streams 

would be excluded by exclosures constructed in the Lake Creek Fence (with water gap) and Lake Creek 

Willow Gallery Fence projects. Providing water in the uplands affords most of Lake Creek in the McCoy 

Creek allotment to be excluded from grazing allowing recovery of vegetation and aquatic habitat. Water 

development projects would improve livestock distribution and more uniform utilization of forage in the 

uplands. Having upland water also facilitates the proposed deferred rotation grazing system allowing the 

rotation and season of use to be adjusted. There are several benefits to upland and riparian vegetation with 

application of deferred grazing. In general, the year to year variability in grazing pasture use under a 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

118 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

deferred rotation grazing system would protect the phonological stages of plant species and improve 

species compositions. Plant vigor would be increased and species recruitment would improve. (See

Effects Common To All Action Alternatives under Deferred Rotation). 

The Big Creek and Lake Creek Riparian Hardwood project would plant willows along Lake Creek 

riparian pastures which is expected to accelerate willow recovery in these areas. Grazing would resume in 

these areas after management objectives for respective riparian area have been achieved. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Several ongoing projects would continue to be implemented in the Summit Prairie allotment (see Table 

61). The combination of ongoing projects and proposed actions proposed in alternative 2 would improve 

livestock water availability (Sagehen Stock ponds) and livestock distribution and riparian recovery in the 

Sagehen unit (see Aquatic report for specific details). This is especially important because the operators 

have not been able to utilize available upland forage because move triggers and utilization levels in 

Summit Creek riparian areas are generally reached first. 

Creation of the West Summit Creek riparian pasture with scheduled rest for 3 to 5 year period plus 

parallel tree felling (see Table 61) will aid in vegetation and stream channel recovery of West Fork 

Summit Creek (see Aquatic report for specific details).

Resting of the West Summit Creek riparian pasture combined with periodic rest of the Little Logan, 

Sagehen, and Bosenberg units (3 years out of 10) would result in a loss of forage and potential economic 

impact on the grazing operators. The riparian areas within these units are productive forage areas. The 

economic impacts of proposed rest of grazing units containing Summit Creek and West Fork Summit 

Creek would be offset by adding the Bosenberg unit from the vacant Lake Creek allotment 

(approximately 4,449) acres to the Logan Valley allotment.. 

Approximately 7.0 miles of additional fences would be constructed under the implementation of 

alternative 2. Ongoing projects listed in Table 61 would add an additional 0.3 miles of fence. Combined a 

total of 7.3 miles of fence would be constructed. Maintenance of all new fences constructed would be the 

permittee responsibility which would increase operational costs. See Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives under Fence Maintenance. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation 

Lake Creek Allotment

All of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. The effects of alternative 3 would be the same as 

no action (alternative 1). 

Logan Valley Allotment

No acres from the vacant Lake Creek Allotment would be added to the Logan Valley Allotment. 

Approximately 267 acres from the Lake Creek and North Fork units of the McCoy Creek allotment would 

be absorbed into the into the Logan Valley allotment. See effects Common to All Action alternatives.

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally move from 

unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use on an annual basis. Opportunities to utilize more 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 119

uplands of the allotment would improve with water source development (See cumulative effects 

discussions). 

Summit Prairie Allotment

This alternative would create several riparian pastures and exclosures on Summit creek and West Fork 

Summit Creek. Portions of Summit Creek in the Sagehen unit would be fenced into riparian pastures (29 

acres) and riparian exclosure (8 acres). The riparian pasture (Sagehen Riparian Pasture) would be rested 

for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. The constructed Lower Little Logan Riparian Pasture (87 

acres) and Upper Little Logan Riparian Pasture (15 acres) would be rested the same as the Sagehen 

riparian pasture. Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved with rest 

(season long rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. Within the fenced 

areas the density, cover and composition of stabilizing riparian vegetation species (i.e. sedges and rushes) 

are expected to improve. Water gaps would be constructed into the riparian pastures and exclosures on 

Summit Creek to provide access to water from upland pastures. Management objectives for each of the 

reaches on Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek are identified in appendix A (Table 103). A 

primary objective in the Sagehen and Little Logan unit is to expand willow species shrub density and 

heights across the floodplain over the next 5 to 10 years. Excluding livestock use is expected allow 

recovery to meet these objectives. See Aquatic report for specific details.

Recovery in upland areas of these units is expected with application of proposed use levels. Forage use in 

upland areas should increase with riparian portions of the units being removed and fenced into exclosures 

and riparian pastures. With current management, use levels in riparian areas has been a limiting factor 

with use levels and move triggers being reached before allocated forage in upland areas can be utilized.

The North Summit Riparian pasture (87 acres) would be created containing Summit Creek in the North 

Summit unit. The riparian pasture would be rested for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed with an 

objective of improving the greenline vegetation and streambank stability. 

Rangeland Management

Forage Production and Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

Alternative 3 proposes to retain the currently permitted AUMs. The AUMs proposed are maximum limits 

and may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual adjustments of both numbers and/or season. 

The analysis of available forage and stocking rates in Table 65 indicates that adequate forage is available 

to support AUMs at levels currently permitted with proposed allotment boundary and management 

changes. The table shows acres, available forage, and AUMS that would potentially be grazed on average 

over the next 10 years with the minimum rest requirements. Even with proposed minimum rest 

requirements, the analysis indicates that adequate forage would be available to support proposed AUMS.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

120 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 65. Alternative 3 available forage and AUMs

Allotment Pasture Acres Available 

Forage 

Available 

AUMs 

Minimum Rest Requirements 

(Table 66 and Table 67) 

Acres 

Grazed Per 

Year

Available 

Forage Per 

Year

AUMS

10 Year Average

Lake Creek

Bosenberg 6970 2832260 3631 0 0 0 

Horse Pasture 90 18954 24 0 0 0 

McCoy Creek 3136 1531152 1963 0 0 0 

Total 10196 4382366 5618 0 0 0 

Logan 

Valley 

Big Creek 

Riparian 623 710968 911 623 710968 911

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 135 12332 16 81 7399 9 

West Lake Creek 271 24756 32 271 24756 32

East Lake Creek 399 448875 575 399 448875 575

W. Bosenberg 269 234595 301 269 234595 301

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 14 12209 16 8 7326 9 

East Bosenberg 118 59844 77 118 59844 77

Corral Holding 22 14593 19 22 14593 19

Lower Field 283 242984 312 283 242984 312

Big Field 1024 1398528 1793 1024 1398528 1793

Lake Creek 218 159216 204 218 159216 204

Flat Field 595 846090 1085 595 846090 1085

Total 3971 4164989 5340 3911 4155173 5327

McCoy 

Creek 

Cow Camp 157 37162 48 157 37162 48

Ridge (Combined 

Ridge/Dry) 292 199202 255 292 199202 255

Government Flat 211 539221 691 211 539221 691

Total 660 775585 994 660 775585 994
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 121

Allotment Pasture Acres Available 

Forage 

Available 

AUMs 

Minimum Rest Requirements 

(Table 66 and Table 67) 

Acres 

Grazed Per 

Year

Available 

Forage Per 

Year

AUMS

10 Year Average

Summit 

Prairie 

Sagehen 3730 879534 1128 3730 879534 1128

Sagehen 

Exclosure 8 1886 2 0 0 0 

Sagehen 

Riparian Pasture 29 6838 9 17 4103 5 

Crane Rock 7838 2419591 3102 7838 2419591 3102

Little Logan 3191 877365 1125 3191 877365 1125

Upper Little 

Logan Riparian 15 4124 5 9 2475 3 

Lower Little 

Logan Riparian 64 17597 23 38 10558 14

Summit Rock 10222 2778340 3562 10222 2778340 3562

North Summit 108 50836 65 108 50836 65

North Summit 

Riparian 87 40951 53 52 24571 32

South Summit 45 9437 12 45 9437 12

West Summit 

Holding 27 13450 17 27 13450 17

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 19 9465 12 11 5679 7 

Total 25383 7109413 9115 25289 7075937 9072

Lake Creek Allotment

All of the existing 10,196 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant and would not be 

managed for grazing. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

The grazing system will not change from current management. Livestock would generally move from unit 

to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. The Logan Valley allotment would increase from 

3,756 acres to 3,971 acres as a result of adding the Lake Creek and North Fork units (267 acres) from the 

McCoy Creek allotment into the Logan Valley allotment. 

The West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek Riparian pastures (149 acres) would be rested for a minimum 

of 3-5 years after the fences are constructed. Although this is a relatively small number of acres when 

compared to the allotment as a whole, the acres are very productive forage areas which may have an 

impact to the economics of the grazing operation. The added productive forage acreage from the McCoy 

Allotment is anticipated to offset the planned rest. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

122 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 66. Logan Valley allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Unit Acres Required Rest

West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture 14

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after 

management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. 

When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix

E would be applied.

West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 135

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013) and willows are planted. Grazing would resume after 

management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long 

rest) required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. 

When grazing is resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix

E would be applied.

Acres Rested or Not 

Grazed on an Annual 

Basis (Average) 

60 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed 

above. 

Approximately 0.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 1.5 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 3. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

The grazing system would not change from current management. Livestock would generally move from 

unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. 

Table 67. Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Unit 

Acres Required Rest

Sagehen 

Riparian pasture 29

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would resume 

after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is 

resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Upper and 

Lower Little 

Logan Riparian 

pastures

75

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would resume 

after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is 

resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(temporary 

fence)

27

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would resume 

after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is 

resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

North Summit 

Riparian pasture 87

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed. Grazing would resume 

after management objectives have been achieved with rest (season long rest) 

required 3 years out of a 10 year period after grazing is resumed. When grazing is 

resumed the move trigger and use levels in appendix E would be applied.

Acres Rested or 

Not Grazed on 

an Annual Basis 

(Average)

94 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Note: Only the riparian pasture or recovery area would be rested. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 123

Riparian exclosures (with no grazing) and riparian pastures (with controlled gazing) would be constructed 

along portions of Summit Creek and West Fork of Summit Creek. Approximately 8 acres would be fenced 

into exclosures and 218 acres fenced into riparian pastures in this alternative. All riparian pastures would 

be rested for 3-5 years. Although this is a relatively small number of acres when compared to the 

allotment as a whole, the acres are very productive forage areas which would have an impact to the 

economics of the grazing operation. Table 67 shows the minimum rest requirements for the Summit 

Logan allotment.

Approximately 12.2 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 3. 

Cumulative Effects to Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland management. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Cumulative effects of alternative 3 are similar to alternative 2 (see alterative 2 effects discussions). In the 

Logan Valley allotment the combination of ongoing offsite water developments in upland areas and 

construction of the West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek riparian pastures (with water gaps) would allow 

riparian area recovery while still allowing upland areas to be grazed (See Table 61). Proposed resting of 

these riparian pastures would improve herbaceous vegetation and hardwood recovery (see Aquatic report 

for specific details). Ongoing offsite water developments (See Table 61) in upland areas in combination 

with proposed actions would provide better water distribution and opportunities to defer the season of 

grazing providing for better livestock distribution and even forage utilization. The availability of livestock 

water in Logan Valley allotment has been problem, limiting the opportunity to vary the season of grazing 

within the allotment. Improved water distribution and late seasons water availability in some pastures 

would provide greater flexibility in grazing rotations and the ability to adapt to resource needs in the 

future. 

The ongoing or foreseeable construction of the West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek riparian pastures 

facilitates the proposed resting of these areas for approximately 3-5 years which would be beneficial to 

vegetation recovery. With rest, plants would not be affected by herbivory. Willows and other woody 

riparian plants would be allowed to reach escapement height (See Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives under Deferred Rotation Grazing, Riparian Pastures, and Rest). Riparian areas in the Logan 

Valley allotments are productive forage areas and resting or excluding these acres from grazing would 

reduce the amount of forage available to livestock which could pose economic hardship to the grazing 

operators in the short-term. Willow planting in the West Bosenberg and West Lake Creek riparian pastures 

is expected to accelerate the rate of recovery in these areas. With the expedited vegetation recovery the 

time needed for rest may be reduced, thereby lessening the economic impacts to the grazing operators.

The main difference between alternative 3 and alternative 2 is that acres from the vacant Lake Creek 

allotment would not be added to the Logan Valley Allotment. Forage enhanced by thinning and 

underburning in the Merit project would not be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The ongoing Logan 

Valley Meadow/Grassland Enhancement/Aspen Restoration Project which includes removal of 

encroaching conifers in meadows, underburning, commercial thinning, and aspen restoration in the Logan 

Valley area would increase the forage production potential for livestock and big game on more than 300 

acres in the Logan Valley allotment.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

124 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Approximately 0.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed and1.5 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 3. Ongoing projects listed in Table 61 would add an additional 0.3 miles of 

fence. Combined 2.7 miles of fence would be constructed of which 2.3 miles would be permittee 

maintenance responsibility. The other 0.4 miles of fence would be maintained by a Forest Service Partner. 

Maintenance of all new fences constructed would be the permittee responsibility which would increase 

operational costs. See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives under Fence Maintenance. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Cumulative effects are the same as alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Several ongoing projects would continue to be implemented in the Summit Prairie allotment (see Table 

61). The combined effects of these projects and the action proposed in alternative 3 would aid in 

vegetation and stream channel recovery of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. The actions 

combined would increase the availability of upland water sources, while maintaining access to water in 

streams through constructed water gaps. Combined the actions would allow better utilization forage and 

more even distribution of forage in upland areas allowing vegetation condition to continue their upward 

recovery trend. 

Construction and resting of riparian pastures and exclosures on Summit Creek and West Fork of Summit 

Creek as part of ongoing actions and actions proposed in alternative 3 would reduce the amount of 

available forage thus having potential economic impact to the grazing operator. The Sagehen Riparian 

Pastures, Upper and Lower Little Logan Riparian Pastures, West Summit Recovery unit, and North 

Summit Riparian pasture would all be rested for 3 to 5 years after fences are constructed. The forage 

within these exclosures is high quality and more productive compared to the forage in the uplands. 

Approximately 7.0 miles of additional fences would be constructed with implementation of alternative 3. 

Ongoing projects listed in Table 61 would add an additional 0.3 miles of fence. Combined 7.3 miles of 

fence would be constructed. Maintenance of all new fences would be the permittee responsibility. 

Maintenance of all new fences constructed would be the permittee responsibility which would increase 

operational costs. See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives under Fence Maintenance. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Rangeland Vegetation 

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 9, 459 acres of the Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant. Effects to rangeland 

forage would be same similar to those described under alternative 1, no action. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Effects are the same as described for alternative 2 

Summit Prairie Allotment

The allotment would be managed with a deferred grazing system with livestock generally moving from 

unit to unit with opportunities to defer the season of use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 125

A key part of this alternative is the required use of a rider on a daily basis to ensure livestock stay in the 

upland portions of the Little Logan and Sagehen units. A comparison of the existing and desired 

conditions for the stream reaches in the Sagehen and Little Logan units shows a difference for stream 

shade, shrub development, and stable stream banks. The general management objectives established for 

the stream reaches is to improve willow and stream bank recovery (see Aquatics report, located in the 

project record, for specific details). To accomplish these objectives more restrictive move triggers and 

allowable use levels for herbaceous riparian species on the greenline, shrubs, and percent bank alteration 

would be applied with this alternative compared to current management (see appendix E for specific use 

levels). With use of a rider, cattle would be consistently moved away from the Summit Creek riparian area 

and distributed in upland areas. In the past move trigger and use levels in the riparian area have been 

reached prior to allowable use levels being met in the uplands. The goal in using a rider is to increase 

upland forage use and distribution, while decreasing the shrub use levels and stream bank impacts on 

Summit Creek. In addition to using a rider, riparian small riparian exclosures and cages would be placed 

on approximately 10 percent of the length of Summit Creek within the Sagehen and Little Logan units to 

provide additional protection and expedited recovery of willows (see Aquatics report, located in the 

project record, for more detail). 

Based on these management changes upland and riparian vegetation recovery is expected to improve (see 

Aquatic report for specific details regarding riparian areas).

A riparian pasture containing portions of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Creek would be 

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

Creek and West Fork Summit Creek. 

The creation of the Prairie Riparian pasture along Summit Creek and the West Fork Summit Creek in 

portions of the North Summit and Summit Rock units with the construction of 3.1 miles of fence would 

allow the rest of the unit to be grazed in the upland portions. Livestock grazing is not expected to slow the 

upward or improving trend of upland vegetation conditions because riparian management standards 

would be expected to be met far in advance of substantial livestock grazing impacts occurring on the 

uplands. 

Rangeland Management

Forage Production and Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

Alternative 4 proposes to retain the currently permitted AUMs. The AUMs proposed are maximum limits 

and may be adjusted to allow flexibility for annual adjustments of both numbers and/or season. 

The analysis of available forage and stocking rates in Table 68 indicates that adequate forage is available 

to support AUMs at levels currently permitted with proposed allotment boundary and management 

changes. The table shows acres, available forage, and AUMS that would potentially be grazed on average 

over the next 10 years with the minimum rest requirements. Even with proposed minimum rest 

requirements, the analysis indicates that adequate forage would be available to support proposed AUMS.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

126 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 68. Alternative 4 available forage and AUMs

Allotment Pasture Acres Available 

Forage

Available 

AUMs

Minimum Rest Requirements 

(Table 66 and Table 67) 

Acres Grazed 

Per Year

Available 

Forage Per 

Year

AUMS

10 year average

Lake Creek

Bosenberg 6878 2794875 3583 0 0 0

McCoy Creek 2581 1260173 1616 0 0 0

Total 9459 4055049 5199 0 0 0

Logan 

Valley

Big Creek Riparian 623 710968 911 436 497677 638

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 135 12332 16 81 7399 9

West Lake Creek 271 24756 32 271 24756 32

East Lake Creek 399 448875 575 399 448875 575

West Bosenberg 269 234595 301 269 234595 301

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 14 12209 16 8 7326 9

East Bosenberg 118 59844 77 118 59844 77

Corral Holding 22 14593 19 22 14593 19

Lower Field 283 242984 312 283 242984 312

Big Field 1024 1398528 1793 1024 1398528 1793

Lake Creek 218 159216 204 218 159216 204

Deardorff 388 164299 211 388 164299 211

Flat Field 595 846090 1085 595 846090 1085

Total 4359 4329288 5550 4113 4106181 5264

McCoy 

Creek

Cow Camp 157 37162 48 157 37162 48

Ridge (Combined 

Ridge/Dry) 292 199202 255 292 199202 255

Government Flat 211 539221 691 211 539221 691

Total 660 775585 994 660 775585 994

Summit 

Prairie 

Sagehen 3763 887315 1138 3763 887315 1138

Sagehen Exclosures 4 943 1 0 0 0

Crane Rock 7838 2419591 3102 7838 2419591 3102

Little Logan 3262 896887 1150 3262 896887 1150

Little Logan 

Exclosures 8 2200 3 0 0 0

Summit Rock 10148 2758226 3536 10148 2758226 3536

North Summit 143 67310 86 143 67310 86

Prairie Riparian 

Pasture 126 46778 60 126 46778 60

South Summit 45 9437 12 45 9437 12

West Summit Holding 27 13450 17 27 13450 17

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 19 9465 12 11 5679 7

Total 25383 7111601 9117 25363 7104672 9109
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 127

Lake Creek Allotment

Approximately 388 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be added to the Logan Valley allotment. The 

remaining 9,459 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would continue to be vacant and not managed for 

livestock grazing. Effects for the vacant areas would be the same as that described under the no action 

alternative (alternative 1). 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Effects are the same as described for alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Small riparian exclosures (with no grazing) and riparian pastures would be constructed along portions of 

Summit Creek. There would be some forage lost by excluding livestock from the exclosures. The 

exclosures would be small in size (built tight to the steam) and contain approximately 10 percent of the 

total length of Summit Creek in these two pastures. 

Daily riding by the permittee would ensure livestock stay in the uplands, reducing grazing use along 

Summit Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. Providing the rider would 

be the permittees responsibility which would increase management costs. 

Approximately 4.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed and 0.7 miles removed with 

implementation of alternative 4. All new fences would be the maintenance responsibility of the permittee.

Table 69. Summit Prairie allotment minimum rest requirements

Unit Acres Required Rest 

Prairie Riparian 

pasture 126 A deferred rest grazing system would be applied. The riparian pasture would 

be grazed early season one year and late season the following year. 

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 

(temporary fence)

19

Rest would occur for 3-5 years after the fence is constructed (estimated 

2013). Grazing would resume after management objectives have been 

achieved. When grazing is resumed, the area within the recovery unit would 

be grazed as part of the Prairie Riparian pasture utilizing the same use 

levels and use triggers (see appendix E). 

Sagehen and Little 

Logan Exclosures

12 Approximately 10% of Summit Creek Riparian Area

Acres Rested or 

Not Grazed on an 

Annual Basis 

(Average) 

20 Note: Average is based on the minimum rest requirements listed above. 

Cumulative Effects to Rangeland Vegetation and Rangeland Management

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland management. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Several projects in the allotments are ongoing in the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie 

Allotments. The combined effects of the actions proposed in alternative 4 with these ongoing projects 

would continue to improve vegetation conditions throughout the allotments. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

128 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan Valley Allotment 

Cumulative Effects are the same as described for alternative 2. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

Cumulative Effects are the same as described for alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Daily riding by the permittee would ensure livestock stay in the uplands, reducing grazing use along 

Summit Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. Use of a rider combined 

with upland water source development (Sagehen Pond Construction) will help retain livestock in the 

upland areas. Some research has found that herding combined with strategic placement of desirable 

supplement appears to be even more effective in attracting cattle to graze previously underutilized areas.

Herding lessens impacts on riparian areas and provides better distribution of livestock. Better distribution 

increases useable forage and thus capacity of a pasture or allotment. It may also result in the ability to 

keep livestock in management units longer because they spend less time in riparian area. Providing the 

rider would be the permittees responsibility which would increase operational costs. 

Creation of the West Summit Creek riparian pasture with scheduled rest for 3 to 5 year period plus 

parallel tree felling (see Table 61) will aid in vegetation and stream channel recovery of West Fork 

Summit Creek (see Aquatic report for specific details).

Approximately 4.3 miles of additional fences would be constructed with implementation of alternative 4. 

Ongoing projects listed in Table 61 would add an additional 0.3 miles of fence. Combined 4.6 miles of 

fence would be constructed. Maintenance of all new fences would be the permittee responsibility. 

Maintenance of all new fences constructed would be the permittee responsibility which would increase 

operational costs. See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives under Fence Maintenance. 

Summary of Effects

Table 70. Summary of alternative effects

Allotment Existing 

Management

Alternative 1 

(No Grazing) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Allotment 

Acres 

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

Logan Valley 3,756 -- 4,359 3,971 4,359

McCoy Creek 980 -- 660 660 660

Summit Prairie 25,331 -- 29,832 25,383 25,383

Grazing 

System 

Lake Creek Vacant No Grazing Vacant Vacant Vacant

Logan Valley Continuous/

Seasonal No Grazing

Periods of 

NonScheduled 

Rest and 

Deferment

Deferred 

Rotation

Periods of NonScheduled 

Rest and 

Deferment

McCoy Creek Continuous/

Seasonal No Grazing Deferred 

Rotation

Deferred 

Rotation

Deferred 

Rotation

Summit Prairie Continuous/

Seasonal No Grazing

Periods of 

NonScheduled 

Rest and 

Deferment

Deferred 

Rotation

Deferred 

Rotation
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 129

Allotment Existing 

Management

Alternative 1 

(No Grazing) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed 

Animal Unit 

Months 

(AUMs) 

Note: AUMs 

are Upper 

Limits

Lake Creek 0 0 0 0 0 

Logan Valley 1,983 0 1,983 1,983 1,983

McCoy Creek 416 0 416 416 416

Summit Prairie 1,546 0 1,546 1,546 1,546

Estimated 

Available 

Forage in 

pounds and 

available 

AUMs

Lake Creek -- 

No Forage 

or AUMS for 

Livestock

2,275,922 lbs

(2,918 AUMs) 

No Livestock 

Use

4,382,366 lbs

(5,618 AUMs) 

No Livestock 

Use

4,055,049 lbs

(5,199 AUMs) 

No Livestock 

Use

Logan Valley -- 

No Forage or 

AUMS for 

Livestock

4,329,288 lbs

(5,550 AUMs) 

4,164,989 lbs

(5,340 AUMs) 

4,329,288 lbs

(5,550 AUMs) 

McCoy Creek -- 

No Forage or 

AUMS for 

Livestock

775,585 lbs

(994 AUMs) 

775,585 lbs

(994 AUMs) 

775,585 lbs

(994 AUMs) 

Summit Prairie -- 

No Forage or 

AUMS for 

Livestock

8,030,701 lbs

(10,296 AUMs)

7,109,413 lbs

(9,115 AUMs) 

7111,601 lbs

(9,117 AUMs) 

Average 

Available for 

Livestock 

Grazing Over 

Next 10 years 

(using 

minimum rest 

requirements)

Lake 

Creek

Acres -- 0 0 0 0 

Available 

Forage -- No Forage 

for Livestock

No Forage for 

Livestock

No Forage For 

Livestock

No Forage For 

Livestock

AUMs -- 0 0 0 0 

Logan 

Valley

Acres -- 0 4,113 3971 4,113

Available 

Forage -- No Forage For Livestock 4,106,181 4,155,173 3,875,102

AUMs -- 0 5,264 5,327 4,968

McCoy 

Creek

Acres -- 0 660 660 660

Available 

Forage -- No Forage For Livestock 775,585 775,585 775,585

AUMs -- 0 994 994 994

Summit 

Prairie 

Acres -- 0 26,379 25,289 25,363

Available 

Forage -- 7,214,325 7,075,937 7,104,672

AUMs -- 0 9,249 9,072 9,109

Miles of new 

fence 

construction 

(cumulative 

miles w/ added 

miles from 

ongoing 

projects)

Lake Creek -- 0 2.5 2.5 2.5

Logan Valley -- 0 2.8 (5.2) 0.3 (2.7) 0.3 (2.7)

McCoy Creek -- 0 0 (1.4) 0 (1.4) 0 (1.4)

Summit Prairie -- 0 7.0 (7.3) 12.2 (12.5) 4.3 (4.6)

Miles of Fence 

Removal 

Lake Creek -- 0 0 0 0 

Logan Valley -- 0 2.3 1.5 1.5

McCoy Creek -- 0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Summit Prairie -- 0 0.7 0.7 0.7
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

130 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Allotment Existing 

Management

Alternative 1 

(No Grazing) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Added Fence 

Maintenance 

(cumulative 

miles w/ added 

miles from 

ongoing 

projects) 

Lake Creek -- 0 -- 0 0 

Logan Valley -- 0 2.8(4.8) 0.3(2.3) 0.3(2.3)

McCoy Creek -- 0 0(1.4) 0(1.4) 0(1.4)

Summit Prairie -- 0 7.0(7.3) 12.2(12.5) 4.3(4.6) 

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives are consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan standards related to range management. Key 

Forest Plan standards include:

• Forest Wide Standard #80, page IV-34 

• Forest Wide Standard #84, page IV-34 

• Forest Wide Standard #86, Page IV-34 

• Forest Wide Standard #87, Page IV-35 

• Forest Wide Standard #88, Page IV-35 

• Management Area 3A Standard #16, Page IV-57 

• Management Area 3A Standard #18, Page IV-57 

• Management Area 3A Standard #19, Page IV-58 

• Management Area 3A Standard #20, Page IV-58 

• Management Area 3A Standard #21, Page IV-58 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

No irreversible or irretrievable effects would occur to rangeland vegetation as the result of implementing 

the action alternatives.

Invasive Species 

Introduction

The lands comprising the Summit Logan Valley Grazing planning area on the Malheur National Forest 

are managed to achieve a desired condition as described in the Malheur Forest Plan and to maintain a 

healthy ecosystem. Once introduced, noxious weeds interfere with the achievement of the desired 

conditions. Therefore, to achieve the desired condition on the land, noxious weeds must be managed. 

Areas of soil disturbance or plant communities of low health and vigor are more susceptible to weed 

establishment than areas with healthy, diverse vegetation. Simply killing a weed is an inadequate 

objective in most situations, especially for large scale infestations. Management must foster a healthy, 

weed-resistant plant community which consists of a collection of species diverse enough to fill all the 

niches (Sheley et al. 2002).

The Malheur National Forest recognizes and emphasizes prevention as the first and most important aspect 

of noxious weed management. The most effective strategy against noxious weeds is to prevent them from 

ever being introduced and established. The primary method to the prevention of noxious weeds is to 

detect and ameliorate (improve) the conditions that cause or favor the presence of competing or unwanted 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 131

vegetation. Undisturbed or otherwise healthy, vigorous native plant communities are fairly resistant to 

invasion by weeds. Unfortunately, much of the planning area has been actively managed, creating 

windows of opportunity for noxious weed introduction and establishment. 

Sometimes considered the “second line of defense” after prevention, early detection and rapid response is 

a critical component of the Forest’s weed management program. When new weed sites are discovered, a 

quick response can reduce environmental and economic impacts. With limited resources, effective 

prevention, detection and rapid response must include education of both administrative personnel, 

contractors, permittees and the public. 

Noxious weeds are spread by many agents including wind, water, animals, vehicles, and people. Weed 

infestations within the planning area are primarily located along roads, old logging units and landings, 

recreational use areas (campgrounds and trailheads), rock-pits and other disturbed areas. Livestock appear 

to be a minor causal agent or vector within the planning area. 

The majority of the planning area has been inventoried for noxious weeds. Currently eight Oregon 

Department of Agriculture and Grant County listed noxious weed species occur within the planning area. 

This project proposes no specific treatments of noxious weeds on National Forest System land, as the 

Malheur National Forest does not have an approved noxious weed management plan for use of herbicides. 

This has effectively limited control to manual and biological treatments. Noxious weed prevention and 

manual treatment is an on-going Forest program. 

Noxious Weeds Defined

A “weed” is defined as a plant growing outside of its desired location. The term “noxious weed” is a legal 

designation, usually established by the State Department of Agriculture or Local Weed Districts, and 

refers to any species of plant which is, or is liable to be, detrimental or destructive and difficult to control 

or eradicate. Noxious categorization may result due to the potential economic consequences of a weed 

invasion, or because of the threat to native vegetation communities. In a general sense, they are plants that 

are usually not native to the area in which they are growing and whose growth is so rapid, dominant, or 

toxic that they out-compete native plants, often taking over complete sites or ecosystems over time. 

Noxious weeds have acquired attributes which allow them to gain a competitive edge over other plants, 

rapidly invade, establish and dominate disturbed sites. These traits also make them difficult or impossible 

to eradicate once established. These characteristics include wide ranges of adaptability, rapid growth rates 

from vegetative stage to flowering, abundant seed production (up to one half million per single plant), the 

ability to re-sprout from root nodes, the ability to spread through vegetative or root fragments, and the 

extended duration of seed viability in the soil (ten years or more for some weeds). 

Undisturbed native forest and range plant communities are fairly resistant to invasion by weeds; however, 

many weeds introduced to the United States in the last century can compete successfully with native 

plants. Many noxious weeds are early seral, pioneering species and the disturbance which they need in 

order to succeed as well as they do, is caused predominantly by human activity. 

Noxious weeds most commonly get established in areas where ground-disturbing activities (coupled with 

import of non-native seed) have occurred and created even very small areas of bare soil and where a seed 

source is already present or in some way is brought in to the area. Once established, they often spread into 

adjacent areas of native vegetation. Areas where noxious weeds are expected to occur in higher densities 

are road systems, timber harvest units, skid trails and decking/landing sites, campgrounds, recreation 

trails and trailheads, areas of livestock concentration (i.e. corrals), utility corridors, water transportation 

ditches, stream systems, rock pits and rock crushing sites. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

132 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Regulatory Framework 

Forest Service Strategies, Regulations and Policies 

• National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management

• National Interagency “Pulling Together” Strategy 

• Federal Noxious Weed Act 

• Invasive Species Executive Order (Feb. 3, 1999) 

• Forest Service National Weed Direction, FSM 2080

• Pacific Northwest Region, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS and Record of Decision 

(October 2005). The following standards from the 2005 record of decision are relevant to this project: 

 Standard 1: Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be 

addressed in watershed analysis; roads analysis; fire and fuels management plans, Burned Area 

Emergency Recovery Plans; emergency wildland fire situation analysis; wildland fire 

implementation plans; grazing allotment management plans, recreation management plans, 

vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments. 

 Standard 3: Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the 

Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not 

available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be weed-free using the North 

American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process. 

 Standard 6: Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention 

practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are 

not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual 

operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation 

with the grazing permit holder. 

• Record of Decision for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation (1988) and the Mediated 

Agreement (1989) 

• Malheur Forest Plan (1990), Forest-Wide Standard 188 - Requires Implementation of a weed control 

program to confine present infestations and prevent establishment of noxious weeds in now areas. 

Oregon Noxious Weeds Laws 

• Chapter 452-Vector and Weed Control 

• Chapter 541-State Department of Agriculture 

• Chapter 570-Plants: Inspection, Quarantine, Pest and Weed Control 

• Noxious Weed Quarantine; OAT 603-52-1200 

Analysis Methods 

The analysis area for evaluating existing noxious weed populations is consistent with the planning area, 

with the exception of noteworthy adjacent infestations or infestations in road rights of way to and through 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization planning area. 

Noxious weed surveys have been conducted throughout the Malheur Forest. All documented weed sites 

from these surveys are recorded in a National data base, Natural Resources Information System (NRIS).

The data base includes individual site records indicating the location, size of infestation, plant numbers 

and density, type of treatment implemented, follow-up treatments and effectiveness. The NRIS data base 

was used as a source to identify known weed sites within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 133

Other sources of information used in this analysis include:

• Malheur National Forest GIS data base

• Malheur Forest Plan

• Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Program, 

2005. 

The units of measures would be the number of sites and the size of the sites.

Affected Environment

Prairie City Ranger District personnel continually identify new noxious weed infestations and report 

occurrences to the District weed specialist for inclusion into the national/forest/district database, Natural 

Resources Information System (NRIS). This database includes individual species site records that include 

location and size of infestation, plant numbers and density, type of treatment implemented, follow-up 

treatments and effectiveness of treatments. Noxious weed species occurring in the Malheur National 

Forest and Prairie City Ranger District are hounds-tongue (Cynoglossum officinale), spotted and diffuse 

knapweeds (Centaurea sp.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), dalmation toadflax (Linaria

dalmatica),white top (Cardaria draba), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), St. Johnswort (Hypericum

perforatum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorium), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). 

The noxious weeds found in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Area by allotment 

area as follows: 

• Lake Creek allotment has spotted knapweed (3.0 acres), Canada thistle (0.2 acres), and yellow 

toadflax (0.2 acres); 

• Logan Valley allotment has spotted knapweed (0.3 acres), diffuse knapweeds (2.1 acres), Canada 

thistle (0.1acres), dalmation toadflax (0.1 acres), yellow toadflax (0.1 acres), and bull thistle (0.1 

acres); 

• McCoy Creek allotment has diffuse knapweed (0.1 acres); and 

• Summit Prairie allotment has hounds-tongue (0.1 acres), spotted knapweed (0.3 acres), diffuse 

knapweeds (0.2 acres), Canada thistle (2.1 acres), dalmation toadflax (1.5 acres), and St. Johnswort 

(0.2 acres). 

Species known to occur along highways and roadsides accessing the project area are houndstongue, 

spotted knapweed diffuse knapweeds, Canada thistle, dalmation toadflax, yellow toadflax, St. Johnswort.

These areas can be vectors for the spread of weeds into other areas in the Malheur National Forest.

Design criteria are in place to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds (See chapter 2). 

• All heavy equipment will be cleaned prior to entering National Forest System Lands.

• Seed, straw, and other materials used for road decommission and erosion control will be certified to 

be free of noxious weed seed.

• Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by district weed specialists if 

needed for a project.

• Native plant materials are required for revegetation unless accepted extenuating circumstances are 

identified.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

134 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects under alternative 1 because no actions are being proposed. 

Introduction and spread of noxious weeds by cattle, horses used by range riders and associated vehicles 

would not occur. Soil disturbance from cattle movement would not occur so there would be fewer places 

for weeds to become established. A natural rate of spread and introduction of weeds would be expected. 

Existing upland and riparian conditions would continue to improve over time (EIS chapter 3, Rangeland 

Vegetation). Competitive desirable grasses and forbs would not be grazed by livestock and would provide 

more competition with invasive species, slowing the establishment and spread. Weed surveys conducted 

by Forest Service personnel would continue however there would be no livestock management and much 

less range vegetation management on the allotments. This could reduce the degree of new infestation 

recognition and reporting, resulting in longer establishment time frames and larger infestation sizes prior 

to initial treatment. 

Cumulative Effects

Because alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects, there would be no additive or cumulative effects.

Even though no activities are proposed under alternative 1 there have been a number of past activities 

which have occurred within the planning area which can and do provide a moderate to high risk of the 

introduction and spread of noxious weed propagules. Eliminating livestock grazing would not eliminate 

this risk. Information indicates that areas that are not grazed are still susceptible to invasion (Sheley et al. 

1997, Wagner et al. 2001). As a consequence of past activities such as timber sales, wildfires, fire 

suppression efforts, road construction and maintenance, underburning, range improvements, and roads 

areas of damaged and disturbed soils exist and provide a potential risk of noxious weed introduction and 

spread. Other vectors, such as people, vehicles and wildlife would still be present, so new introductions 

are likely. Therefore, weed risk would continue under no action. 

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow livestock grazing to continue within the Summit Logan Valley 

Authorization Project planning area. Alternatives 2 and 4 initiate grazing on portions of the 10,196 acre 

Lake Creek allotment which has been vacant for the last 20+ years. Under alternative 2 - 4,778 acres 

would be absorbed into the Summit Prairie and Logan Valley allotments, 5,069 acres would remain 

vacant. Under alternative 4 - 388 acres of the Lake Creek allotment would be absorbed into the Logan 

Valley allotment and 9,459 acres would remain vacant. Under alternative 3 the entire allotment would 

remain vacant and there would be no direct or indirect effects to the Lake Creek Allotment. The effects 

for the portions of the Lake Creek allotment where grazing is reinitiated are described below. Domestic 

grazing animals can contribute to plant invasion through: (1) selective eating of native plants which 

means invasive species not preferred by cattle would be left, thus favoring an increase in invasive plants; 

(2) ingesting invasive plant seeds in one area and spreading them to other areas through scat, digestive 

products, skin, fur and hooves, and (3) disturbing the soil and creating conditions favorable to invasive 

plants or the germination of invasive plant seed though scarification (USDA Forest Service 2005). In 

many instances cattle and other browsers will avoid areas where invasive weeds are prevalent in 

monocultures, and move to areas where there is desirable forage. In areas where invasive species are 

interspersed with desirable forage, it is likely that seed would either attach to hair or mud on hooves or 

even be ingested and dispersed in feces. Some weed seeds are destroyed within the gastrointestinal tract; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 135

however, seeds can pass through grazing animals with some of the seeds still remaining viable (Lacey et 

al. 1992). Long-lived seeds and hard seeded species of forbs and grasses consumed by grazers have been 

reported to survive passage through gastrointestinal tracts of cattle (Janzen 1984). 

The action alternatives provide for new structural improvements (fence construction and removal, a 

loading ramp and catch pen, and three upland ponds and a spring development under alternative 2) which 

are ground disturbing. This would create risk for noxious weed introduction. The risk would be reduced 

by following the design criteria to reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds described in chapter 2 of 

the EIS. The applicable design criteria include but are not limited to any gravel, fill, sand and rock used in 

the construction. Reconstruction or maintenance of water developments would be judged to be weed free 

by district weed specialists. Native materials are to be used for revegetation unless accepted extenuating 

circumstances are identified; all equipment used (including ATVs) would be cleaned in a manner 

sufficient to prevent noxious weed from being carried into the planning area. Cleaning would occur off of 

National Forest System lands and approved by the Forest Officer in charge of administering the project. 

Livestock water developments with frequent animal visitation and other range structural improvements 

such as corrals where the ground is disturbed have the potential for invasive plant establishment and 

spread. Additionally, livestock often exhibit trailing behavior that may result in disturbed areas for 

invasive species to establish and spread. Areas with the highest potential for trailing impacts from 

livestock are fence lines, road shoulders, and travel routes between foraging areas and water sites. Cattle 

loafing areas create suitable disturbance for invasive plant establishment. The cattle may carry new 

invader weed seeds on their coats or in their intestinal tracts that could cause weed infestations. The risk 

of invasive plant establishment and spread would be reduced by range personnel surveying for noxious 

weeds while conducting compliance checks and monitoring and the permittee surveying for weeds while 

performing required management and maintenance, allowing more early detection and treatment before 

threshold damage can occur. 

Under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 livestock would graze competitive desirable grasses and forbs, potentially 

reducing their ability to compete with invasive plants. All action alternatives propose deferred rotation as 

part of the grazing system. This type of system provides the flexibility to change the timing, frequency, 

and intensity of grazing on an annual basis (EIS chapter 3, Rangeland Vegetation). Under this grazing 

system plant vigor and species composition would be improved increasing their ability to compete with 

invasive plants. Additionally, the potential for noxious weed seed dispersal would be reduced in pastures 

with a deferred rotation grazing strategy where there is alternating early and late season rest. By annually 

alternating early and late season grazing, the potential for weed spread by cattle would be every other 

year. There would be no reduction in the potential for weed spread by cattle in those pastures that are 

grazed late each year. On the landscape scale, forage utilization would be managed to maintain the vigor 

of desirable plants, however, within localized areas of high forage utilization (hot spots) and/or loafing 

areas desirable vegetation can be diminished to the extent that invasive plants can dominate the species 

composition. Range personnel would survey for noxious weeds while conducting compliance checks and 

monitoring and the permittee would survey for weeds while performing required management, allowing 

more early detection and treatment before threshold damage can occur. Proper grazing management is 

important to on-going weed management programs in order to minimize these hot spots. Utilization 

monitoring indicates that available forage is adequate for the numbers of livestock allowed to graze under 

alternative 2, 3, and 4 (EIS chapter 3, Rangeland Vegetation) and it is expected that the desirable 

vegetation will continue to provide competition for noxious weeds. 

Noxious weeds may threaten riparian systems by directly displacing native vegetation, potentially 

affecting resources such as forage used by livestock and wildlife. Weeds can also indirectly threaten 

riparian habitats and water quality by increasing risk of erosion, as these non-native plants commonly 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

136 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

provide little root-binding strength to soils (Sheley et al. 1999). This could alter riparian habitat and affect 

resources such as sensitive plants, fish, and wildlife. The action alternatives create riparian pastures. Some 

riparian pastures would be rested 3-5 years after they are created, others would be rested for 3 years out of 

a 10 year period to allow recovery of riparian vegetation to recover. Riparian vegetation vigor and species 

composition would be improved increasing their ability to compete with invasive plants. Additionally, if 

monitoring indicates that specific objectives are not being achieved, at any given time the Line Officer 

can choose to apply an analyzed adaptive management strategy to reduce delays in recovery timeframes.

Adaptive management strategies include: Changes in use levels (herbaceous forage use, bank alteration, 

shrub use); rest or exclusion from grazing; and fencing to create riparian pastures. For a more detailed 

discussion of adaptive management refer to the Rangeland Vegetation section in chapter 3 of the EIS and 

appendix A Table 104 of the EIS. Alternative 4 also requires daily riding by the permittee along Summit 

Creek in the Sagehen and Little Logan units during the season of use. The goal of using a rider is to 

increase upland forage use and distribution, while decreasing the shrub use and stream bank impacts on 

Summit Creek. Based on these management changes upland and riparian vegetation recovery is expected 

to improve which would increase their ability to compete with noxious weeds. 

Livestock grazing or associated permittee actions have not been identified as a major factor in the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds in the project area. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may increase the 

chance of noxious weed spread by livestock within the project area. However, the presence of permittees 

and Forest Service Range Management Personnel on the allotments would assist in detection and control 

of noxious weeds. In addition, grazing fee funds (range betterment funds) would be available for noxious 

weed treatment under these alternatives.

Specific instructions on weed prevention practices would be included in the annual operating instructions 

including weed identification and mapping procedures. Instructions that the permittees use only pelletized 

or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System lands would be enforced. Grazing management 

practices, including riparian area fencing, water source development, and grazing systems would be 

implemented to properly distribute livestock on the allotments. As previous discussed under the action 

alternatives there would be more management options available to reduce soil disturbance from livestock. 

The proposed changes in livestock management (creating riparian pastures, manipulating pasture use 

periods) under the action alternatives would reduce impacts to soil and vegetation reducing the risk of 

noxious weed introduction and spread. Implementing the proposed grazing management practices and the 

design criteria described in chapter 2 would help slow or prevent the increase in established noxious weed 

populations, or reduce the weed spread to new areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are those that are expected from implementing the alternatives, when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. These actions are discussed below and are described in 

detail in appendix C of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Project Environmental Impact Statement. The 

geographic boundary is the entire Summit Logan Valley Planning Area plus adjacent private lands. The 

temporal boundary is the period of time when the activities associated with this project are occurring from 

the 1800s to 10 years in the future, when the allotment management plan would be scheduled for renewal. 

Past road construction and maintenance, road closures and decommissioning, water withdrawal, timber 

harvest, cattle and sheep grazing, wildlife, recreational activities, firewood cutting, railroad line 

construction, and wildfire and suppression activities have provided environments for noxious weed 

species establishment, vectors for noxious weed dispersal, and infestations to provide propagule source 

material. Some of these conditions continue to exist and have increased the potential for introduction and 

spread by removing vegetation and exposing soils, creating an ideal seedbed for noxious weeds. The 

planning area currently has 34 known noxious weed sites. These sites total approximately 11 acres. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 137

exact source of present infestations is unknown. The location pattern shows concentrated sites along 

roads. The primary vector for noxious weeds appears to be vehicles.

Not all past activities have increased the long term risk for noxious weed introduction and spread. For 

example, the Merit Road Closure and Decommissioning Project was completed in 2010. Approximately 

10.4 miles of road were closed with gates and another 15.3 miles with dirt berms. Additionally 12.6 miles 

of road were decommissioned. Decommissioned roads were reseeded with native or non-native grasses 

and forbs to occupy the site and reduce potential for noxious weed introduction or spread. The seed used 

was certified noxious weed-free by an approved testing laboratory. Closing and decommissioning roads 

reduces vehicle access and the potential for noxious weed spread.

Non-native invasive plants primarily occupy heavily disturbed areas, such as roads, log landings, and 

mineral material sources. Existing conditions favor establishment and spread of noxious weeds, and 

weeds are likely to continue to be introduced and spread to new areas within the Malheur National Forest. 

A history of grazing, road construction, and logging has increased the potential for introduction and 

spread by removing vegetation and exposing soils, increasing susceptibility to invasion by noxious weeds. 

Present and reasonably foreseeable activities, including recreation, wildfire suppression, and other 

activities suggest a risk for introduction and spread of noxious weeds. As described earlier, this risk can 

be exacerbated by livestock grazing (DiTomaso 1997, Belsky and Gelbard 2000). 

Human use on the Malheur National Forest is greatest September through November during hunting 

seasons. Late hunting season is a wet time of year, and is particularly conducive to weed spread due to 

mud clinging to tires. The potential for new infestations and spread is somewhat reduced by compliance 

with the FEIS for the Invasive Plant Program-Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Standard #4 

requires use of state certified weed-free hay or crop products on all National Forest System lands within 

the Pacific Northwest Region. Standard # 2 requires prevention of invasive plant introduction, 

establishment and spread to be addressed in recreation management plans. 

Fire suppression can result in introduction or spread of weeds by equipment brought in from different 

areas that may contain weed seed or plant parts. Due to the emergency nature of wildfire, prevention 

measures including equipment cleaning are not always implemented or feasible. Dozer lines, hand lines, 

drop points, safety zones, staging areas, etc. all create bare ground with heavy travel and disturbance. 

Vehicle traffic, during and after suppression activity can introduce weeds to highly susceptible soils. Fire 

rehabilitation efforts mitigate many of the negative effects through seeding, weed control, erosion control 

and closing off areas to vehicles. Additionally, Standard #2 from the ROD for the FEIS for the Invasive 

Plant Program-Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants requires prevention of invasive plant 

introduction, establishment and spread to be addressed in fire and fuels management plans; Burned Area 

Emergency Recovery Plans; emergency wildland fire situation analysis; and wildland fire implementation 

plans. 

The Forest’s weed management program consisting of annual surveys combined with mechanical and 

hand pulling treatments would continue. The amount of treatment within the project area would vary 

annually based on funding and Forest priorities. Upon completion of the Malheur National Forest SiteSpecific Invasive Plant Treatment NEPA analysis and plan for treatment of invasive plants Forest wide, 

additional weed treatments may occur in the planning area.

Proposed road closure and decommissioning combined with past road closures would reduce vehicle 

access and the potential for noxious weed spread. It is foreseeable that the Malheur National Forest 

Access Travel Management Plan (travel management plan) would prohibit cross country travel on the 

Malheur National Forest, with the exception of cross country travel from designated open routes for the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

138 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

sole purpose of dispersed camping (see appendix C). The access travel management plan would include a 

motorized vehicle use map showing roads that are designated to allow motor vehicle use. It is expected 

that with the implementation of the travel management plan and motorized vehicle use map, there would 

be reduced vehicle access and decrease in the spread of noxious weeds. 

Ongoing or foreseeable future restoration projects include: The Big Creek and Lake Creek Off-site Water 

Source Project, The West Lake Riparian Fence Project, The Big Creek and Lake Creek Riparian 

Hardwood Restoration Project, The Logan Valley Meadow/Grassland Enhancement, Aspen Restoration 

Project, and the Summit Creek Range Aquatics Project. All of these projects disturb soil and have the 

potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds. All of the projects have design criteria to minimize the 

potential risks associated with noxious weed introduction and spread. These design criteria include: all 

equipment associated with treatment to be cleaned prior to arriving on site; seed, straw, and other material 

used for road decommissioning and erosion control to be certified to be free of noxious weed seed; all 

temporary roads, landings, and skid trails to be seeded with native seed mix after activities occur; the use 

of only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by district weed specialist if needed for 

the project; and noxious weed surveys to be done 1 to 5 years after the project. 

The Logan Valley/Meadow Grassland Enhancement, Aspen Restoration Project is the only timber sale 

currently active in the planning area. Standard # 2 from the ROD for the FEIS for the Invasive Plant 

Program-Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants requires actions conducted or authorized by written 

permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism (including public works 

and service contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, 

backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System lands. Compliance with this 

standard reduces the potential for the establishment and spread of noxious weeds. 

The cumulative effects of present and reasonably foreseeable activities indicate a risk for introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds. Studies have shown that noxious weeds have the potential to invade sites with 

relatively little grazing or other activity (Sheley et al 1997, Wagner et al. 2001). Weeds will continue to be 

introduced and spread by vehicles, wildlife, windborne seed, and other sources. Therefore, new 

infestations are likely in the analysis area, regardless of the alternative chosen, including no action.

The degree of environmental impact due to noxious weeds is relative to the acres infested. Though 

approximately 34 sites have been recorded within the analysis area, collectively they occupy less than 

0.001 percent (11 acres) of the analysis area. Therefore, at present, environmental effects due to noxious 

weeds is minimal, and is therefore considered low. Assuming noxious weed control continues, anticipated 

short term (<10 years) effects resulting from infestation and spread of noxious weeds is expected to 

remain relatively low. 

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives are consistent with Forest-wide standards for rangeland resources and noxious weeds, 

including Forest plan modifications made by the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

None of the alternatives result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 139

Botany 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Biological Evaluation which analyzes the effects or impacts from the proposed 

action and alternatives of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project to plant and lichen 

species that are federally-listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for federal listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and species currently identified as sensitive (FSM 2670.5, 

USDA Forest Service 2011) by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Northwest Region (collectively called 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species). The full Biological Evaluation can be found in appendix G 

which is available for review by request. 

Only sensitive plant and lichen species that are documented or suspected to occur within general 

biophysical area where the project would occur (i.e. the headwaters of the Malheur River watershed) are 

analyzed. Furthermore, only those species which may possibly be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

affected by the proposed actions are considered. Species that are not suspected to occur within the 

analysis area, or are eliminated from consideration due to other factors, are not described and are not 

considered in the detailed effects analysis [as per 40 CFR §1500.4, 40 CFR §1500.1(b)]. However, 

information on these species is available at the Supervisor’s Office of the Malheur National Forest, upon 

request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

There are not threatened, endangered or proposed plant species documented or suspected to occur on the 

Forest. However, forty-seven sensitive plant species listed on the 2008 Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List are documented or suspected to occur in the Malheur National Forest. This Biological 

Evaluation fulfills the applicable standards and guidelines of the Malheur Forest Plan. 

Analysis Methods 

A pre-field analysis (or pre-field review) was used to determine the probability that threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, and/or their respective habitats, are located within or adjacent to the 

project area, and to determine the extent and intensity of previous survey efforts. Information from the 

pre-field review, in conjunction with the project description, was used to determine the need and intensity 

of field surveys and, in part, fulfills the standards and procedures for conducting a biological evaluation 

(FSM 2672.42). 

A complete list of previous and historical surveys for sensitive and rare plants in the project area were 

determined by querying the Forest Service’s Natural Resource Information System for Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species (NRIS-TESP 2012) and by examining historical survey forms 

and maps, NEPA records, and electronic botanical databases.

The following sources of information were used to determine which threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species and their respective habitats, occur or may occur within or near the project area: 

• The Regional Forester’s most current Sensitive Species List, released December 2011 (USDA Forest 

Service 2011); 

• The Forest Service’s Geographic Information System (GIS) corporate database: Natural Resource 

Information System – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant species (NRIS-TESP 2012); 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

140 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• The Malheur National Forest sensitive plant species database and Geographic Information System 

(GIS) layer, and other pertinent GIS mapping layers; 

• Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 

2010); 

• Sensitive Plants of the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006); 

• Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

(Brooks et al. 1991); 

• Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973); 

• Flora of North America (FNA 2007); 

• Moonwort (Botrychium) Workshop handbook (Farrar and Johnson-Groh 2004) and Conservation 

Assessment for 13 Species of Moonworts (Botrychium Swartz Subgenus Botrychium) (Ahlenslager 

and Potash 2007); 

• Field Guide to the Sedges of the Pacific Northwest (Wilson et al. 2008) and Field Guide to 

Intermountain Sedges (Hurd et al. 1998); 

• Species Fact Sheets provided by the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program website 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/] of the Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management’s Oregon and Washington State Offices;

• Available literature, reports, conservation plans, conservation assessments, and species descriptions 

on file at the Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s Office; and 

• Project maps and aerial photographs provided by the Interdisciplinary Team.

More than 46 separate surveys have been conducted in the Summit Logan Valley analysis area, over a 

nine year period (2003-2012). This includes work accomplished by District, Forest, Area, and Regional 

staff, as well as contractors, partners, universities, and numerous volunteers. In total, over 120 individuals 

have participated in the survey efforts; this easily represents over 3,000 personnel-hours of equivalent 

work covering more than 2,000 acres of rare plant habitat. 

Affected Environment

As a result of all of the survey efforts, 14 sites of five different sensitive species have been discovered: 

three sensitive mosses, Helodium blandowii (Blandow's feather moss), Tomentypnum nitens

(tomentypnum moss), and Meesia uliginosa (meesia moss), and two sensitive moonwort ferns 

Botrychium crenulatum (crenulate moonwort) and Botrychium montanum (mountain grape-fern). All of 

these species were found in or near the fen/peatland complex in the Big Field unit, West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture, and Big Creek Riparian pasture of the Logan Valley Allotment. Table 71 lists the 

sensitive species populations, management units, and approximate extent of the population. No sensitive 

species were found in the Lake Creek, McCoy Creek, and Summit Creek Allotments, even though the 

Summit Creek is one of the most intensively surveyed riparian areas on the Forest. 

In addition to the discovery of the fen-dependent sensitive species listed above, qualitative and 

quantitative assessments of their habitats in the fen complex were also conducted. Habitat assessments 

utilized standardized procedures and protocols designed for evaluating and monitoring conditions of fens 

and other groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Weixelman and Cooper 2009, USDA Forest Service 2010, 

2012). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 141

Table 71. Documented sensitive species populations

Sensitive Species Population Location by Unit Extent of Populationa

Botrychium montanum Big Field unit > 2 m2

Botrychium crenulatum Big Field unit > 1 m2

Helodium blandowii

Big Field unit 1.0 acres

West Lake Creek Riparian pasture 0.8 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.5 acres

Meesia uliginosa

Big Field unit 0.1 acres

Big Field unit 0.7 acres

Big Field unit 0.1 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.1 acres

Tomentypnum nitens

Big Field unit 0.3 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.1 acres

Big Creek Riparian pasture 0.3 acres

a - This represents the geographic extent of the population; not all of this area is occupied by the species

The fen complex, which houses the sensitive species populations and habitats, can be described as a broad 

helocrene spring system with a mosaic of peatlands, fen pools, wet and moist meadows, mesic 

shrublands, aspen stands, lodgepole pine swamps, and occasional mixed conifer stands. The fen complex 

and associated wetland systems are primarily dominated by wetland mosses, graminoids, and willow 

species (USDA Forest Service 2009, Rausch 2009, Mellmann-Brown and Rausch 2010). 

The three sensitive moss species occur exclusively on permanently saturated or flooded peatlands. 

Peatlands, or fens, are some of the most sensitive, endangered, and fragile ecosystems in the western 

United States. Damage or substantial degradation to peatland systems should be avoided to prevent loss 

of rare species habitat integrity, among many other reasons (ISSSSP 2012, Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, 

USDA Forest Service 2010, Vitt and Wieder 2008, Weixelman and Cooper 2009; and references cited 

herein). Hydrologic function, peat development, and species composition are some of the general 

components used to evaluate peatland condition. Appendix A, Table 102 of the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization FEIS and addendum B-1 of the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants and 

Lichens of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project describe the existing condition of the 

Logan Valley fen complex as it relates to sensitive plant habitat and ecosystem integrity. 

Twenty-six sensitive species are further analyzed for potential effects (Table 72). These species are either 

documented or are suspected to occur in the project area, and the specific characteristics of the species’ 

habitat, ecology, and/or biology are such that a more detail analysis of potential effects are needed.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

142 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 72. Selected sensitive species habitats, and presence in the area

Sensitive Species

(Common Name) Habitat(s) Presence in the Project 

Area

Carex cordillerana

(cordilleran sedge)

Woodlands and forested lands in the shade of 

conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs; rocky 

slopes, grassy slopes, and stream benches; 

often growing in leaf litter and duff.

Suspected – high probability

Muhlenbergia minutissima

(annual dropseed)

Intermittent and ephemeral streams, sandy or 

gravelly drainages; open, lightly-disturbed 

areas; also on rocky slopes, flats, and old 

roads.

Suspected – low probability 

Trifolium douglasii

(Douglas' clover)

Moist meadows, prairie remnants, vernally wet 

areas, riparian areas along streams. Suspected – low probability

Botrychium ascendens

(upward-lobed moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, openings in 

cold forests, grassy fields, and moist roadsides.

Suspected – moderate

probability

Botrychium hesperium

(western moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian areas, openings and 

edges of forests, grassy slopes, sand dunes, 

snow fields, moist roadsides, and road ditches.

Suspected – high probability

Botrychium lunaria

(common moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian areas, openings and 

edges of cold forests, open fields, and moist 

roadsides.

Suspected – high probability

Botrychium montanum

(mountain grape-fern)

Dark coniferous forests, usually near swamps, 

streams, and springs; wet meadows, saturated 

soils. Often growing in a bed of mosses.

Documented

Botrychium paradoxum

(twin-spiked moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, openings and 

edges of cold coniferous forests, grasslands, 

fallow pastures, forb-dominated meadows, 

moist roadsides, and snowfields.

Suspected – moderate

probability

Botrychium pedunculosum

(stalked moonwort)

Moist meadows, riparian zones, brushy 

secondary-growth habitats along streams and 

roadsides, openings or on edges of cold 

coniferous forest, moist roadsides.

Suspected – moderate

probability

Bryum calobryoides

(beautiful bryum moss)

Rock outcrops, exposed boulder fields, cliffs, 

and soils in montane meadows.

Suspected – moderate

probability

Eleocharis bolanderi

(Bolander's spikerush)

Vernally wet meadows with poorly drained soils, 

moist meadows, intermittent stream margins, 

springs and seeps.

Suspected – high probability

Listera borealis

(northern twayblade)

Springs, seeps, swamps, and cold water 

streams in moist, rich soils of shady coniferous 

forests.

Suspected – high probability

Mimulus evanescens

(disappearing monkeyflower)

Vernally wet sites and fluctuating banks of 

intermittent streams or pools in sagebrush, 

juniper, and ponderosa pine zones. Often in 

sites with sand or heavy gravel.

Suspected – low probability

Phacelia minutissima

(dwarf phacelia)

Moist meadow and seep edges, or on vernally 

wet open meadows and barren slopes. 

Reported to occur with aspen.

Suspected – moderate

probability

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

(schistidium moss)

Intermittent streams, rock outcrops, on wet or 

dry rocks, on soil in crevices of rocks and 

boulders.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Tortula mucronifolia

(mucronleaf tortula moss)

Springs, seeps, riparian forests, aspen stands, 

exposed tree roots, sheltered ledges and 

crevices of rock outcrops and cliffs.

Suspected – moderate 

probability
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 143

Sensitive Species

(Common Name) Habitat(s) Presence in the Project 

Area

Anthelia julacea

(alpine liverwort) 

Peatlands, fens; associated with low ericaceous 

shrubs.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Botrychium crenulatum

(crenulate moonwort)

Peatlands, fens, springs, seeps, marshy areas, 

moist and wet meadows, riparian zones, 

openings in cold forests, and moist roadsides.

Documented

Harpanthus flotovianus

(great mountain flapwort)

Peatlands, fens, on soil covered rocks and 

decaying wood in moist forests.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Helodium blandowii

(Blandow's feather moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, springs, wet meadows, 

and along streams with highly organic soils. Documented

Meesia uliginosa

(meesia moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, springs, wet meadows, 

and other areas saturated with groundwater. Documented

Ophioglossum pusillum

(adder's-tongue)

Open fens and other peatlands, wet meadows, 

springs, seeps, marsh edges, pastures, grassy 

shores, roadside ditches, damp sand, grassy 

swales, pastures, old fields, and floodplain 

woodlands in wet acid soil. 

Suspected – low probability

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

(blunt water moss)

Peatlands, rich fens, pools, and other areas 

saturated with groundwater.

Suspected – moderate 

probability

Splachnum ampullaceum

(small capsule dung moss)

Peatlands or other wetlands on old dung of 

herbivores, or on soil enriched by dung. Suspected – high probability

Tomentypnum nitens

(tomentypnum moss)

Peatlands, fens, springs, wet meadows, and 

other areas saturated with groundwater. Documented

Utricularia minor

(lesser bladderwort)

Open water in peatlands, in low nutrient lakes 

and ponds, beaver ponds, sloughs, marshes, 

mudflats, and other low energy waterways. 

Suspected – moderate 

probabilitya

 

a - reported in the area, but report is not confirmed

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Grazing/Herbivory

Absence of livestock grazing would result in less overall herbivory in the area (although herbivory from 

wildlife would continue) would likely have beneficial consequences for these species.

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation

These species are often recognized as being threatened by livestock grazing therefore the absence of 

livestock grazing could be a beneficial consequence for these species. 

Potential Impacts to Sensitive Peatland Species

Absence of livestock grazing would have beneficial consequences for these species and their associated 

habitats. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

144 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The twenty-six sensitive plant species that may be affected are analyzed for potential effects from the 

action alternatives. These species are either documented or are suspected to occur in the project area and 

are listed and analyzed by three potential impact groups: (1) impacts from grazing and herbivory, (2) 

impacts from trampling and/or defecation, and (3) impacts to peatlands and peatland-dependent species 

from trampling, trailing, herbivory, and defecation. Potential impact group are roughly based on 

groupings of species by preferred habitat, but also takes into consideration the general biology, growth 

habits, and taxonomy of the species. 

Table 73. Direct/indirect effects to sensitive species by alternative

Concern / Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale

1 2, 3, 4

Species where impacts 

from herbivory / grazing 

is a concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI

These three species are 

palatable and have the potential 

to be negatively impacted by 

intensive grazinga

. 

Species where impacts 

from trampling and 

defecation is a concern.

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium montanum

Botrychium paradoxum

Botrychium pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI

These species are very small, 

delicate, and exists in areas 

with high soil moisture. 

Livestock are often 

concentrated in these areas. 

For these species, a single hoof 

print or cow pie can destroy an 

individual plant, and even a 

relatively small amount of hoof 

action and/or defecation can 

eliminate a small population.

Species where impacts 

from trampling, trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in peatlands 

is a concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium crenulatum

Harpanthus flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum pusillum

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

Splachnum ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/BI

Adaptive management 

strategies that benefit these 

species would be implemented 

if detrimental effects are 

occurring and management 

objectives are not met within a 5 

year period (appendix A, Table 

103 and Table 104, and 

addendum B-1 of the Biological 

Evaluation for Sensitive Plants 

and Lichens of the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project). 

BI = Beneficial Impact, NI = No Impact, MDI = May Detrimentally Impact, but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing [40 CFR 

§1508.8, FSM 2672.42(5)]. Species identified in bold font are documented within the project area.

a - Bakker et al. 2010, NatureServe 2012, Wilson et al. 2008
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 145

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Grazing/ Herbivory

Species in this group are those which are known to be palatable to livestock, and are unlikely to be 

affected by any other potential impacts from livestock grazing. This includes the sedge Carex 

cordillerana, the grass Muhlenbergia minutissima, and the clover Trifolium douglasii. Currently, there are 

no known populations in the area. While these three species occur in different habitats, each species is 

palatable to livestock and have the potential to be negatively impacted by grazing (Bakker et al. 2010, 

NatureServe 2012, and Wilson et al. 2008). Continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives 

may detrimentally impact these species, but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing.

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation

This species group includes those species that are susceptible to impacts from trampling or defecation 

from livestock. These plants are all too small and/or devoid of nutritional value to be consumed by 

livestock. This group is comprised of tiny plants that often occur in isolated patches (i.e. individuals are 

less than 3 inches high and occurrences are often less than 1 square foot in total area). These are most 

often found in areas with high levels of soil moisture for all or some of the growing season. Such species 

include many Botrychium species, bryophytes, and other inconspicuous plants. There is one documented 

population of Botrychium montanum; all other species are suspected to occur in the area.

As stated above, these species are very small, delicate, and exists in areas with high soil moisture (e.g. 

springs, intermittent streams, glades, aspen stands, and moist to wet meadows). Livestock are often 

concentrated in these areas. For these species, a single hoof print or cow pie can destroy an individual, 

and even a relatively small amount of hoof action and defecation can eliminate an entire population. 

These species are often recognized as being threatened by livestock grazing (ISSSSP 2012). Conversely, 

continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives may detrimentally impact these species, but 

should not lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

Potential Impacts to Sensitive Peatland Species

Peatlands are unique and important types of wetlands. In the Blue Mountains, peatlands are dependent 

upon a constant supply of groundwater. Groundwater-dependent peatlands are referred to as fens. Fens 

require thousands of years to develop, are hotspots of biodiversity, and cannot be easily restored once 

degraded or destroyed (Rydin and Jeglum 2009; USDA Forest Service 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2012b; Vitt 

and Wieder 2008; Weixelman and Cooper 2009). They often contain a disproportionate amount of rare 

and sensitive plant and animal species (NRIS 2012, Weixelman and Cooper 2009). 

Domestic livestock grazing is often recognized as a potential threat to fen ecosystems (ISSSSP 2012, 

Weixelman and Cooper 2009). The following impacts that are recognized as major contributors to the 

degradation of fens: exposed peat and subsequent peat loss due to livestock trampling, loss of peat 

forming species due to trampling and grazing, alteration of hydrologic regimes due to entrenched 

livestock trails and effluent channels, and introduction of non-native and non-peat-forming species in 

areas with substantial soil disturbance.

The fen complex in the Logan Valley Allotment can be described as a broad helocrene spring system with 

a mosaic of peatlands, fen pools, wet and moist meadows, mesic shrublands, aspen stands, lodgepole pine 

swamps, and occasional mixed conifer stands. The fen and wetland systems are primarily dominated by 

wetland moss, graminoids, and willow species (Rausch 2009 and references in appendix A). Portions of 

the fen complex exist throughout the allotment. 

Four sensitive plant species are documented within the fen complex (Botrychium crenulatum and the 

mosses Helodium blandowii, Meesia uliginosa, and Tomentypnum nitens,), and six other sensitive plants 

are suspected to occur. These species can be impacted by cattle in the same way as described in the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

146 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

section above (Potential Impacts from Trampling and Defecation). Additionally, these species are 

intricately dependent on an intact peatland system. Thus, any negative changes to the water table, peat, or 

species composition of the peatland habitat would cause the loss of these species from the system. To 

address this, a series of management objectives and associated adaptive management strategies have been 

developed. 

Management objectives for peatland habitats and peatland-dependent sensitive species focus on three 

general topics which address the integrity and resiliency of these sensitive ecosystems: hydrologic 

function, peat development, and species distribution and composition. Within five years the following 

management objective shall be met (appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103):

• Exposed or bare peat is less than or equal to 15 percent. 

• Livestock trails are re-vegetating and are diverting less early season flow of water.

• The proportion of peat forming species is equal to or greater than 90 percent. 

• The proportion of obligate wetland plant species is equal to or greater than 90 percent. 

• Non-native and invasive plant species are absent or are not expanding.

• Sensitive plant species populations are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

• Sensitive plant habitats are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

A more detailed description of the management objectives and existing conditions are provided in 

appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103, of this EIS and in addendum B-1 of the Biological Evaluation for 

Sensitive Plants and Lichens of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Failure to meet 

these management objectives within a five year period will trigger an adaptive management strategy. In 

this case, a riparian pasture fence shall be constructed around the fen complex; this is common to all three 

“action” alternatives (appendix A, Table 104). Construction of a riparian pasture would allow better 

control of livestock use in the fen complex, and would provide the option of rest or non-use of the riparian 

pasture(s).

Continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives may detrimentally impact documented 

populations of these species in the short-term, but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

Furthermore, in the long-term (> 5 years), there should be a beneficial impact if either (1) the 

management objectives are met, or (2) adaptive management strategies are enacted.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects to sensitive plant species may include past, present, and foreseeable future 

activities described in appendix C. Possible effects from past activities, such as grazing, timber harvest, 

road construction, fire suppression, and other activities, are unknown and are assumed to be accounted for 

in the current description of existing condition of rare plants. These are difficult to accurately assess as the 

details of the activities and existing condition of sensitive species at the time of the actions were either not 

known or not described. However, since 1990, protection and management of sensitive species has been 

included in analysis and design of all projects. Therefore, present and future projects, and those that have 

occurred in the recent past are not likely to contribute any negative impacts to the sensitive species 

described above. In addition to Forest activities, browsing and herbivory from insects, wild ungulates, and 

other wildlife, or trampling and trailing from wild ungulates, may also possibly contribute to cumulative 

effects on sensitive plant species.

Since 1990, protection and management of sensitive species and their habitats (in the form of design 

criteria or other mitigation) should have been included in the proposals and designs of all projects 

(following forest-wide standards 56, 62, 65, 66, and standards for management areas 3A and 3B in the 

Malheur Forest Plan; and in direction and policy set forth in the FSM 2670). Therefore, present and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 147

foreseeable future projects (other than those related to livestock grazing – addressed in this document), 

and those that have occurred in the recent past, are not likely to contribute any negative impacts to the 

sensitive species described above. 

In addition to Forest Service actions, browsing and herbivory from insects, wild ungulates, and other 

wildlife, or trampling and trailing from wild ungulates, may also possibly contribute to cumulative effects 

on sensitive plant species. However, when considering potential negative effects from native wildlife (and 

Forest Service actions described in appendix C of this EIS), it is difficult to assess any accumulation of 

negative (and/or beneficial) impacts to these species as (1) there generally is a lack of available empirical 

science that specifically reports impacts to the rare plant species addressed in this document, (2) there has 

not been any long-term monitoring or research of the specific rare plant populations that are documented 

in the project area, (3) any of the “may impact” or “beneficial impact” determinations that have been 

made in this document or in the effects analysis of previous action proposals are speculative or are based 

on professional opinion and thus cannot be quantified to an extent where an accurate or tractable 

description of cumulative effects possible.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

This analysis has shown that the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Project is consistent with the Malheur 

Forest Plan, as amended. This analysis also indicates that there may potentially be detrimental impacts 

individuals, populations, and habitats of some sensitive plant species, but that this would not result in the 

loss of population or species viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. Furthermore, with adaptive management strategies in place, there may be beneficial impacts 

to individuals, populations, and habitats of some sensitive plant species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project should not result in an irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment of resources.

Soils

Introduction

For soils, the following sections describe the regulatory framework, affected environment and 

environmental consequences of the alternatives.

Regulatory Framework 

The Malheur Forest Plan and FSM R6 Supplement 2500-98-1 describe all legal and regulatory 

requirements for soil conservation for this EIS. 

Two Forest Plan standards in particular are applicable to this EIS. Forest Wide Standard 127 (page IV-40) 

gives minimum percent effective ground cover levels as follows:

Table 74. Standard 127

Soil Erosion Hazard Minimum Ground Cover, %

Low 30-40 

Medium 40-60

High 60-75

Very High 75-90
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

148 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

If ground cover meets Standard 127, erosion would not be expected. Small amounts of erosion from roads 

are acceptable and similarly small amounts of erosion from small areas of rangeland are acceptable, as 

long as water quality standards are met. 

Forest Wide Standard 126 says detrimental soil conditions (including compaction and puddling which 

decrease infiltration rates and productivity) shall not exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within any 

activity area. For this soil section "activity area" means each allotment. 

Analysis Methods 

In order to check on how commonly current livestock use increases erosion, the project soil scientist 

visited the allotments (except Lake Cr. Allotment), examining selected areas for signs of erosion and 

overland runoff on September 22 and 26, 2008. 

The analysis area for this soil analysis is each allotment. The analysis time period for this soil analysis is 

the period that the management practices are applied.

Affected Environment

Livestock detrimentally compact and puddle soil in areas where they concentrate. Extreme examples are 

the small areas around salting grounds and water troughs. Livestock also concentrate in moist and wet 

meadows, but much less so than around salting grounds and water troughs, so the effects are less. 

However, on forested areas, current cattle impacts on the soil are minor because of the abundant ground 

cover and relatively small amounts of forage. Thus, over the whole activity area of an allotment, livestock 

plus other sources of compaction (such as roads, logging, firewood gathering, and ATVs) cause a 

cumulative amount of compaction and puddling less than the 20 percent limit of forest-wide standard 126. 

This is true even on McCoy Creek and Logan Valley Allotments, which have relatively large percentages 

of moist and wet meadows, as described in the soils report.

On parts of Lake Creek Allotment burnt by the 1990 fires, ground cover has recovered so that soils 

function as forest soils and erosion is close to zero (Table 75). On parts of the Lake Creek Allotment burnt 

by the 2002 High Robert fire, ground cover is nearly recovered, and soil erosion is close to zero (Table 

75, between 1997 and 2004). 

However, compaction and puddling caused by cattle can decrease infiltration capacity enough that it 

increases runoff and erosion. Two types of areas that cattle could detrimentally affect are non-forest 

upland soil, and grassy riparian areas and meadows. 

Erosion effects, of past and ongoing activities listed in appendix C, on non-forest upland soil and grassy 

riparian areas, are described in this paragraph. Concentrated water from roads is eroding some soil, 

especially from shallow soil areas, but this erosion is minor and local. Road prisms produce some 

sediment, but the loss of soil productivity from this erosion is minor, because roads already have been 

removed from the productive land base. Recreational use of ATVs and hiking trails may cause minor, 

localized erosion in grassy riparian areas and meadows, but these effects are minor, because these soils 

have low erosion hazard, and because of the small amount of soil affected. No erosion from ATVs or 

hiking trails was seen during the soil scientist's inspections. Dispersed camping may have compacted and 

puddled a negligible amount of soil. Cumulative loss of soil productivity from these erosion sources 

combined is negligible. Water withdrawals and irrigation has increased the production of some meadows, 

but may have reduced production along some streams. Other past and on-going activities listed in 

appendix C (including timber harvest, stand replacing fire, activities on private land, and meadow 

restoration) have had no effect on non-forest upland soil areas or meadows or grassy riparian areas in the 

allotments.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 149 

On Lake Creek Allotment, soil and vegetation effects from livestock grazing have partially recovered 

during the period of rest. 

Table 75. Ground cover on condition and trend clusters on forested sites

Cluster Year 

Read

Bare Soil 

% 

Rock + Erosion 

Pavement % Moss % Litter + Plant %

C-201, Lake Cr. 

Allotment Burned 1990, 

Erosion Seeded 1990, 

Logged 1991, Tree 

Planted ~ 1992

1991 34 15 0 51

1993 36 12 1 51

1995 27 13 6 64

1997 14 13 8 65

2004 8 5 1 86

2010 5 1 0 94

C-202, Lake Cr. 

Allotment Burned 1990, 

Logged ~ 1991, Trees 

Planted ~ 1992

1991 43 0 1 56

1993 32 4 7 57

1995 20 3 24 53

1997 14 5 27 54

2004 8 7 8 77

2010 4 0 4 92

Logan 11, LO-11, 

Summit Prairie 

Allotment, Stumps in 

1956 & 2004 photos

1956 12 1 0 87

2004 5 0 0 95

Non-Forest Upland Soil

Soil Types

The Malheur Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Carlson 1974) is the best source of information about soils 

at the scale of this project. 

Non-forest upland soils tend to occur in two environments: 1) outwash in Logan Valley, and 2) dry 

environments with shallow, rocky soils. These include soils that support juniper woodland, as well as 

stands of shrubs or herbaceous plants. Gravel and cobble content, both of outwash and shallow soils, 

range from 30 to 80 percent. The outwash soil (soil type 15 in the SRI) has slopes less than 10 percent, 

and it has loam to sandy loam texture, with soil depth greater than 120 inches. The shallow soils, (soil 

types 7, 44, and 46), have slopes between 2 and 70 percent, and they have loam texture, with soil depth 

between 4 to 20 inches. Parent materials for the shallow soils are andesite and basalt, with some 

tuffaceous materials.

Soil type 15 underlies perhaps 80 percent of the Logan Valley and McCoy Creek Allotments. Summit 

Prairie and Lake Creek allotments are mostly forested. The shallow soils are scattered, mostly in the 

southwestern part of Summit Prairie Allotment. Perhaps 5 percent of Summit Prairie Allotment is 

occupied by shallow soil. Shallow soil occupies perhaps 2 percent of Lake Cr. Allotment and 0 percent of 

the other two allotments. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

150 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Soil Erosion on Non-Forest Upland Soils

The USDA Forest Service (1990) noted "Many of the adverse ... grazing impacts occurred before the 

Malheur became a National Forest. Early sheep and cattle grazing was particularly damaging to meadows 

and upland range sites, many of which were compacted and eroded" (p. III-4). Also "early sheep and 

cattle grazing practices have accelerated erosion over a good portion of the range and more open timber 

types" (p. IV-5). The grazing practices were unregulated over-grazing that severely reduced ground cover. 

These generalizations probably apply to the planning area. However, some non-forest soils in the 

planning area show only minor signs of accelerated erosion; either they were never heavily impacted, or 

they have recovered.

Probably some non-forest upland sites in their natural state, before the unregulated grazing, had less 

ground cover than prescribed by Standard 127. The unregulated grazing increased the area that has substandard ground cover. Some non-forest upland soils have not recovered from the historic erosion, and 

still have less ground cover than prescribed by Standard 127. They continue to erode at rates greater than 

prior to the unregulated grazing. In places like these, plant production and resultant ground cover may 

have been decreased for hundreds of years. However, rates of erosion are fairly low in these allotments 

because of the relatively level ground. 

Almost all of the non-forest uplands observed during field visits by the soil scientist show no signs of 

erosion, because they are so flat. If sediment is produced from steeper slopes, most of the sediment 

produced is deposited on flatter areas below, before it reaches a stream. 

Impacts from livestock grazing on non-forest uplands generally are minor under current management. 

Livestock tend to prefer places where water, shade, or better forage is available. However, cattle do 

decrease ground cover where non-forest areas are adjacent to good forage, water, and/or salting ground, 

such as part of the North Fork Unit of McCoy Creek Allotment, and places along lower Summit Creek. 

Areas such as this occupy probably well under 1 percent of any allotment. Burrowing mammals also 

decrease ground cover on some soils. Any sediment that may be produced from areas with decreased 

ground cover probably is filtered out on flat, well vegetated riparian soils before it reaches a stream. 

These observations are similar to other undocumented observations by the soil scientist elsewhere on 

Malheur National Forest. 

In summary, although some areas do not meet the numerical values of standard 127, and cannot meet 

them because of natural conditions or because of erosion a century ago, the intent of the standard is being 

met. The intent is being met because on more than 99 percent of the non-forest uplands erosion is as low 

as possible, and because on the other fraction of a percent impacts from current grazing are localized and 

do not affect water quality. 

Biological Soil Crusts on Non-forest Uplands

It is unknown how much biological soil crust was present on non-forest soils in the planning area before 

unregulated grazing. Crusts were probably less abundant in the planning area than in drier, hotter arid and 

semi-arid areas which have less plant and litter cover and less frequent fires (Belnap et al. 2001, pp. 14, 

42). So it is difficult to know which, if any, reports of biological soil crusts can be extrapolated to the 

Planning Area.

Crusts were probably variable, and covered perhaps between 0 percent and 50 percent of the ground on 

various shallow soil areas. For instance, Kaltenecker et al. (1999) reported between 5 percent and 60 

percent ground cover by moss and lichens in sagebrush communities. On the other hand, on desert sites 

Hansen, Ostler, and Hall (1999) found only 31 to 50 percent of the stands had visible crusts. The planning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 151

area may have had less, because it had more plant and litter cover, and more fires. Despite their probable 

relative scarcity, biological soil crusts probably contributed to erosion control. 

The unregulated grazing decreased the amount of biological soil crusts. Recovery after unregulated 

grazing has not been complete, due to erosion where ground cover was reduced. In addition, in many 

places crusts probably were never abundant. The existing crust is mostly moss. 

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Soil Types

Soils in meadows and riparian areas are highly variable, often changing within a few feet. In riparian 

areas, the parent material has been deposited from adjacent slopes by colluvial transport or from upstream 

by alluvial transport. In some riparian areas, volcanic ash is important. These soils vary from wet to dry, 

and from clayey to sandy. In comparison to upland soils in the area, they are usually less steep, with 

thicker darker, more root-filled topsoil, with more organic matter, with fewer coarse fragments, and often 

deeper. They vary greatly in these and other properties. Most of these soils are not steep; often less than 5

percent slope so the erodibility is low. Some meadows grade into non-forest, shallow soil areas around 

their edges. 

Grassy riparian areas are found along named and several unnamed streams in Logan Valley and McCoy 

Cr. Allotments and are also found along Summit Cr. Meadow soils are found away from streams in 

McCoy Creek and Logan Valley Allotments and Summit Prairie part of Summit Prairie Allotment.

Soil Erosion in Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Conditions in meadows and grassy riparian areas in the project area probably are similar to those in in 

north-eastern Oregon, where Kauffman et al. (2002 p.20) found an average of 84 percent ground cover 

and a minimum of 64 percent ground cover. In a meadow in Logan Valley Allotment, ground cover is 

probably 94 percent (Table 76). On the other hand, cattle do severely decrease ground cover in small 

areas (for instance near salting grounds). The soil scientist's field inspection indicates that some spots in 

dry parts of meadows and riparian areas have ground cover less than 40 percent. However, the soil 

scientist's field inspection indicates that where the soil is moist, even heavily grazed areas often have 90

percent or more ground cover. The high ground cover in moist or wet parts of meadows compensate for 

areas where burrowing mammals or concentrated cattle use decreased ground cover. Meadows and 

riparian areas are usually on level ground so they have low erodibility. In summary, current grazing meets 

Standard 127 on meadows and grassy riparian areas, as indicated by ground cover levels mentioned above 

and low erodibility. 

Table 76. Ground cover on a condition and trend cluster on a meadow

Cluster Year Read Bare Soil % Rock + Erosion 

Pavement % Moss % Litter + Plants % 

Logan 3, LV3

Logan Valley Allotment

1954 28 16 19 37

2003 6 4 30 60

Moss provides some ground cover in some moist meadows. However, this is not usually considered 

"biological soil crust," which is a term used on dry rangelands. 

The minor effects of ongoing livestock use described above have been decreasing, or have disappeared, 

on Lake Creek Allotment.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

152 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Environmental Consequences

The general principle for the following section is that decreased grazing (compared to current grazing) 

would cause decreased effects, and vice versa.

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

Ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts would continue their slow 

recovery on non-forest soils that were degraded by early 20th and late 19th century grazing. In addition 

the small areas near water, good forage, and/or salting ground where current grazing is affecting ground 

cover would start recovering.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

In places where ground cover has been decreased below potential, it would increase above current levels. 

Erosion of soil from outside stream channels would decrease. The decrease would be negligible because 

cattle are causing a negligible amount of soil erosion. Detrimental soil conditions would decrease.

Compaction would decrease back to natural levels within 8 years (Kauffman et al. 2004), as root growth, 

animal burrowing, and soil freezing loosens the soil. 

Cumulative Effects

The areas considered for cumulative effects are each allotment individually.

Effects from past and on-going actions are described in the Affected Environment section. Detrimental 

impacts on areas outside non-forest uplands, meadows and grassy riparian areas would remain at about 

current levels, as recovery from past activities (such as logging) is counter-balanced by impacts from 

future activities.

For future actions, implementation of the Travel Management plan would result in negligible decreases in 

soil erosion, because cross country travel is currently causing negligible erosion. Treatments of invasive 

weeds would comply with laws, regulations, and the Forest Plan. Thus, these treatments would not 

significantly increase erosion or detrimental soil conditions. No other foreseeable future action would take 

place on shallow soils, meadows, or grassy riparian areas, so no additional effects are expected. 

In summary, for every allotment, there would be a negligible decrease in erosion and detrimental soil 

conditions under alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

The parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would not be grazed would continue the small, slow recovery of 

ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts described under alternative 1. 

On the parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would be grazed, conditions would become like the other three 

allotments with slightly reduced ground cover and biological soil crusts and slightly increased erosion and 

detrimental soil conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 153

On the other three allotments, for the small areas near water, good forage, and/or salting ground where 

current grazing has decreased ground cover, existing conditions would be maintained. For the rest of the 

non-forest upland soils ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil crusts would 

continue their slow recovery on soils that were degraded by early 20th and late 19th century grazing. The 

recovery under the action alternatives would probably be slower than under alternative 1. 

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

Parts of the Lake Creek Allotment that would not be grazed would continue the slow recovery of ground 

cover, erosion, and detrimental soil conditions described under alternative 1. On the parts of Lake Creek 

Allotment that would be grazed, conditions would become like the other three allotments with slightly 

reduced ground cover and slightly increased erosion and detrimental soil conditions. 

On the other three allotments, existing soil conditions would be maintained, except as described in the 

next paragraph. Allotments would continue to meet Standard 127. Soil outside stream channels would 

continue to contribute a negligible amount of sediment to stream channels. 

Places where decreased grazing (compared to current grazing) would decrease effects to ground cover, 

erosion, and detrimental soil conditions are as follows:

Logan Valley Allotment:

• West Bosenberg Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture 

• Big Creek Riparian unit

Summit Prairie Allotment:

• Sagehen unit 

• West Summit Recovery unit 

• Bosenberg unit 

• Little Logan unit

In pastures that are being rested for 3-5 years, ground cover may increase during the rest and then 

decrease somewhat when they are grazed. However, ground cover would remain above current levels 

because the grazing would be more closely controlled than at present. Any implementation of adaptive 

management strategies, such as rest or decreasing allowable use levels, would decrease effects a little 

more. 

Cumulative Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils and Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

The areas considered for cumulative effects are each allotment individually. Cumulative effects from past 

and on-going actions are described in the Affected Environment section. Generally, the same effects 

would continue, except as described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section. 

See the Alternative 1, Cumulative Effects section for a discussion of the cumulative effects of the Travel 

Management plan and invasive weeds treatments.

The actions listed in chapter 2, Recent Changes in Current Management section and in appendix C would 

decrease soil impacts in riparian areas and increase them in certain small upland areas. Like existing 

impacts, these increases in upland effects are expected to be minor.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

154 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Because the effects on soil of 1) alternative 2 grazing (including adaptive management), 2) past and 

ongoing actions as shown in the Affected Environment section above, and 3) foreseeable actions are so 

minor, the sum and interaction of these effects on soil would also be minor on all allotments. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

Lake Creek Allotment would continue the small, slow recovery of ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil 

conditions, and biological soil crusts described under alternative 1. 

On the other three allotments, effects on non-forest uplands would be similar to alternative 2. 

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

The Lake Creek Allotment would continue the small, slow recovery of ground cover, erosion, and 

detrimental soil conditions described under alternative 1. 

On the other three allotments, existing soil conditions would be maintained, except as described in the 

next paragraph. Allotments would continue to meet standard 127. Soil outside stream channels would 

continue to contribute a negligible amount of sediment to stream channels.

Places where decreased grazing (compared to current grazing) would decrease effects to ground cover, 

erosion, and detrimental soil conditions are as follows: 

Logan Valley Allotment: 

• West Bosenberg Riparian pasture

• West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Summit Prairie Allotment:

• Sagehen riparian pasture

• Upper and Lower Little Logan riparian pastures 

• West Summit Recovery unit 

• North Summit Riparian pasture 

Any implementation of adaptive management strategies, such as rest or decreasing allowable use levels, 

would decrease effects a little more.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to alternative 2. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

On all four allotments effects would be similar to alternative 2, except the number of un-grazed acres in 

Lake Creek allotment is greater under alternative 4. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 155

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

On all four allotments effects would be similar to alternative 2, except in Summit Prairie Allotment, 

where West Summit Recovery unit and Prairie Riparian pasture would be the only areas with increased 

ground cover and decreased erosion and detrimental soil conditions due to decreased grazing. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to alternative 2. 

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan soil protection standards. Under all alternatives, 

effects of livestock compaction and puddling, on soil erosion would be negligible, in terms of water 

quality and soil quality. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

None of the alternatives result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to soil.

Hydrology and Aquatics

Introduction

This is a summary of the Watershed Specialist Report and Fisheries Biological Evaluation (BE) that 

evaluates the potential effects of livestock grazing on aquatic species and their associated habitat within 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The final specialist report and Fisheries 

Biological Evaluation can be found in appendix G which is available for review by request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

The amended Forest Plan (1990) provides program direction for resource management on the Malheur 

National Forest. Standards and guidelines apply either forest wide or specifically to a Management Area.

Relevant forest-wide standards and guidelines for hydrology and aquatics in this project include: (Forest 

Plan, page IV-32 #61 and page IV-33 #65). Pertinent Management Area 3A standards and guidelines for 

this project include: (Forest Plan, page IV-56 #10, #18; page IV-57 #14; and page IV-58 #19-22 and Table 

IV-4 (note all alternatives would use Strategy C)). 

In 1994 the Forest Plan was amended (Amendment 29) to incorporate the Columbia River Anadromous 

Fish Habitat Management Policy and Implementation Guide (USDA Forest Service 1994). The 

amendment included changes to both Management Areas 3A (inland fish habitat) and 3B (anadromous 

fish habitat). The existing Forest Plan direction would stand; however, if it provided more protection than 

Amendment 29. 

In 1995 the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) provided riparian goals, management objectives, and 

standard and guidelines that amended the Regional Guides and the Malheur Forest Plan. The existing 

Forest Plan direction (including amendment 29) would stand; however, if it provided more protection than 

INFISH. The management objectives and standard and guidelines provide the specific measurements and 

guidance to implement the riparian goals identified in INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995a). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

156 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Executive Order 11990 -- Wetlands

The basic requirement of Executive Order 11990 is that a Federal agency would avoid construction or 

management practices that would adversely affect wetlands unless that agency finds that (1) there is no 

practicable alternative, and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to 

the wetlands. 

Executive Order 11990 directs all Federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands; and preserve and enhance the natural beneficial values of wetlands in the conduct of the 

agency's responsibilities for: 

(1) Acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; 

(2) Providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and 

(3) Conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and 

related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. 

Clean Water Act 

Rivers, streams, and lakes within and downstream of the treatment areas are used for boating, fishing, 

swimming, and other water sports. Additionally, the Forest streams provide habitat and clean water for 

fish and other aquatic biota, each with specific water quality requirements. The Clean Water Act (CWA) 

protects water quality for all of these uses and requires States to set water quality standards to support the 

beneficial uses of water.

The Clean Water Act also requires States to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water bodies 

whose water quality is limited or impaired. For Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

develops water quality standards and lists water quality limited waters. In addition, Region 6 of the Forest 

Service has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Oregon State Department of 

Environmental Quality to acknowledge the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency for 

implementation of the Clean Water Act on National Forest land. In an effort to support the Department of 

Environmental Quality, the Forest conducts a variety of monitoring and inventory programs to determine 

status of meeting state water quality standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements. 

By direction of the Clean Water Act, where water quality is limited, the Department of Environmental 

Quality develops Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans to improve water quality to support the 

beneficial uses of water. For water quality limited streams on National Forest System lands, the USDA 

Forest Service provides information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to support state processes 

to protect and restore water quality. The Malheur River Basin TMDL Plan for stream temperature was 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 2010. With an approved TMDL, 

streams listed for water temperature are removed from the 303(d) list and stream recovery would be 

achieved through the implementation plan specified in the TMDL. 

Oregon’s stream temperature standard is designed to protect cold water fish (salmonids) rearing and 

spawning as the most sensitive beneficial use. Numeric criteria are based on temperatures that protect 

various salmonid life stages. To address stream temperature, effective shade is used as a surrogate 

measure. Effective shade is measured at the stream surface using a Solar Pathfinder. Effective shade is 

defined as the percent reduction of potential daily solar radiation delivered to the water surface. 

The TMDL addresses overgrazing impacts on riparian vegetation disturbance/removal reducing shade and 

increasing solar radiation, providing micro-climate effects that can provide cooler day time temperatures 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 157

(Anderson et al 2007; Chen et al. 1999), and its role in stabilizing the channel characteristics and 

providing a narrower channel that has less surface area exposed to solar radiation. 

The TMDL states that when areas do not meet current effective shade surrogates, then monitoring will 

take place to determine the trend in the vegetative and channel conditions. Management strategies will be 

implemented to ensure the trend is upwards towards desired conditions. This monitoring will take place at 

designated monitoring areas (DMAs) identified in Figure 53 as water temperature monitoring sites. If 

improving trends are compromised by natural disturbances such as flooding, ice jam scouring and 

wildfires, DMAs would still be in compliance with the TMDL. Monitoring of conditions will be reported 

to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (ODEQ) every 5 years. The Malheur National Forest is 

in the process of developing a Water Quality Restoration Plan that will outline how the Forest Service will 

implement the TMDL. Monitoring identified on pages 84-86 will be essential to demonstrate compliance 

with the Clean Water Act. 

The Regulatory Framework has changed based on a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to add 870 waterbodies to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (ODEQ) 2010 303(d) 

list on December 14, 2012. One stream has been added to the 303(d) list in the Project Area. Summit 

Creek is 303(d) listed for parameter biological criteria with a Category 3c status, impairing pollutant 

unknown. This indicator states that waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic 

species without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2013). The EIS identifies monitoring objectives developed specifically for 

Summit Creek for macroinvertebrates (i.e. biological activities) to ensure the trend is positive.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The Endangered Species Act of 1976, as amended, directs each federal agency to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical 

habitat (Section 7). The Endangered Species Act also directs each federal agency to confer or consult with 

the appropriate Secretary on any action, which is likely to jeopardize or affect the continued existence of 

any species or its habitat. Additionally Section 2(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act includes affirmative 

conservation direction, stating “that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve

endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes 

of this act.” 

Bull trout Recovery Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule listing the Columbia River and Klamath River 

populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species 

Act on June 10, 1998 (63 FR31647). 

A bull trout recovery plan was developed in 2006 to delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to 

recover and protect the species. The ultimate goal for recovery of bull trout is to “ensure the long-term 

persistence of self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of bull trout distributed throughout the species’ 

native range so that the species can be delisted” (USFWS 2006). 

The plan outlines objectives and defines actions necessary to achieve the overall goal of bull trout 

recovery. Finally, the plan designates critical habitat and physical and biological features, called Primary 

Constituent Elements (PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of the species that may require special 

management considerations or protection. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

158 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Analysis Methods 

Site visits to the project area to analyze livestock grazing began during 2007 and continued through the 

spring of 2012. Data was collected to determine the existing condition of the vegetative, channel, and fish 

habitat attributes, in conjunction with developing a desired condition. During this process differences 

between existing and desired condition were identified as they related to livestock grazing within specific 

reaches of streams based on vegetative type, channel type, soil type, and slope. Data used in this analysis 

included: Proper Functioning Condition assessment (Elmore 2007), Carex Working Group Report (Carex 

Working Group 2012), USDA Forest Service Region 6 Stream Surveys (USDA Forest Service 1995, 

1998, 1999, 2005, 2013), PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring (MIM) (Burton and Cowley 2010; USDA Forest Service 2011), water temperature data, and 

the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2004). 

Table 77identifies the strengths and weaknesses associated with the data used for this analysis. 

Relevant actions relating to riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, bull trout critical habitat and 

water quality were compared across alternatives for the project area. Specific monitoring indicators that 

are responsive to changes in land management were selected based on issues identified during scoping 

and by the team. It was assumed that all alternatives are consistent with Forest Amendment 29 direction 

and INFISH in relation to recovery of fish habitat and riparian areas. Specific actions occurring within 

each alternative were analyzed for their effects to bull trout critical habitat and existing riparian condition 

as well as their potential for facilitating recovery towards, or achievement of desired conditions outlined 

in appendix A Table 102 and Table 103. For analysis purposes the miles of bull trout critical habitat, miles 

of riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC ) rating (PFC, FAR, FAR UP, FAR DN)9

 were broken 

down by unit and allotment for each alternative and those miles were related to the relevant actions within 

each alternative by allotment and unit. Actions in each alternative were analyzed whether they would 

facilitate recovery of specific riparian areas identified as having issues towards desired conditions or 

maintain the condition if near the desired potential. The rate of recovery for riparian area is dependent on 

the actions proposed and the existing condition of the riparian area. For example, in order for a stream 

with an existing proper functioning condition rating of functional-at risk with a downward trend to move 

toward a rating of functional-at risk with an upward trend or in proper functioning condition relates to the 

time it would take for recovery. Changes in management for areas that are functional-at risk are 

frequently a high priority since these areas often respond quickly or are at the tipping point for being nonfunctional. Once a riparian area is non-functional it usually takes large investments of time and money to 

recover the area (Pritchard et al. 1998). Rates of recovery or improvement were expected to be faster for 

those riparian areas demonstrating a mid seral state or already having suitable vegetative components 

present or channel characteristics for recovery. Riparian areas already at proper functioning condition are 

expected to improve beyond proper functioning condition if the actions facilitate continual improvement 

thus are directly linked to improved bull trout critical habitat, channel characteristics, water quality. 

 

9 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) rating are outlined below: 

PFC – Proper Functioning Condition: Functioning as desired.

FAR – Functional – At Risk: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water or vegetative attribute making 

them susceptible to degradation.

FAR UP – Functional – At Risk – Upward trend: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water or 

vegetative attribute making them susceptible to degradation, but is trending upward.

FAR DN (down) – Functional – At Risk – Downward trend: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water 

or vegetative attribute making them susceptible to degradation, but is trending downward.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 159

Table 77. Data used for the hydrology and aquatics analysis

Type of Study Study What the Data Provides What the Data Does NOT 

Provide

Inventory

Proper Functioning 

Condition

A qualitative assessment by an interdisciplinary team 

that identifies issues, potential and existing condition in 

hydrology, vegetative and soils attributes. This data has 

been collected using a nationally standardized protocol.

Proper functioning condition does provide qualitative 

indicators of existing vegetation and hydrologic function 

which are interconnected to fish habitat and related to 

recovery of riparian areas. 

Proper functioning condition provides a way for 

determining appropriate monitoring sites 

Does not inform fish habitat 

condition quantitatively. It was 

not collected on all of the 

riparian areas present in the 

project area. 

Proper functioning condition is 

not appropriate for monitoring or 

determining long term trend. 

R6 Stream Surveys

Provides site-specific metrics for fish habitat condition. 

This data has been collected using a nationally 

standardized protocol. 

Not collected regularly across 

years because of its intensive 

design for data collection and 

high economic cost. 

Monitoring

Multiple indicator 

monitoring includes 

Implementation 

(end of year) and 

Effectiveness (3-5 

year trend that 

indicates condition)

Provides a random, systematic sampling design to 

collect quantitative metrics for riparian vegetation, 

hydrological and channel complexity indicators. These 

indicators are sensitive to changes in livestock 

management and are used to determine existing 

condition, trend and for establishing management 

objectives. Provides linkages between annual effects 

(herbivory, browsing and bank trampling) on the long 

term condition (stability). This data has been collected 

using a nationally standardized protocol. It has been 

well tested to allow for accurate and repeatable

measurements. 

Not all data was collected with 

an interdisciplinary team. The 

Protocol has been adjusted 

through the development of a 

final product. Bank stability and 

greenline composition are 

indicators that had protocols 

changed and can make 

interpretation of trend difficult. 

Pacfish/Infish 

Biological Opinion 

Strengths are similar to multiple indicator monitoring. 

More discussion of attributes across the Interior 

Columbia Basin has been done in the scientific 

literature. Collects more indicators than multiple 

indicator monitoring, such as bankfull width/depth, bank 

angle and vegetative cross section composition. The 

data is more informative when there are at least three 

visits to a site or monitored across 10 years. 

Weaknesses are similar to 

multiple indicator monitoring. 

The indicators are collected 

using a different protocol than 

multiple indicator monitoring 

and makes comparison difficult 

(i.e. bank stability has longer 

distances between sampled 

areas). Protocols change across 

years. Bankfull width/depth 

protocol has changed for the 

third reading, but not first two. 

Making trend interpretations 

difficult. 

Carex Working 

Group

Provides a linkage for comparing the density and height 

classes of woody shrubs within the Summit Allotment to 

reference conditions in the local area. The survey 

method is repeatable. The survey was quantitative.

Density and height classes were 

not collected for other areas in 

the project area. 

Water 

Temperaturea Provides continuous data annually that helps identify 

water characteristics.

Not collected the same years 

across all sites and may have 

climatic variability. 

a – Data (unpublished) was collected by the USDA Forest Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Burns Paiute Tribe

Appendix A Table 102 was developed to show the existing and desired condition for stream reaches in the 

project area utilizing the proper functioning condition surveys (Elmore 2007), Pacfish/Infish Biological 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

160 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring dataset, Multiple Indicator Monitoring sites (Burton and Cowley 2010; 

USDA Forest Service 2011), and the Carex Working Group Report (Carex Working Group 2012). Within 

the appendix, reaches are broken out by vegetation community potential, existing condition and desired 

condition. Appendix A, Table 103 lists the specific indicators selected for monitoring along with the 

management objective and target time period the response is expected for. Management objectives were 

developed that are site specific using measured data that is attainable and time oriented. The attributes 

identified within a reach that were developed into a management objective had either vegetative or 

channel characteristics that were not in balance with the potential for the site identified. The numeric 

values identified per site were based on reviewing data collected at that site. Monitoring is critical to 

determine if actions specified in the alternatives are facilitating recovery or moving towards desired 

conditions within the project area. One of the assumptions made is that until vegetation recovers channel 

characteristics would not recover. Recovery of channel characteristics is expected to occur rapidly at first 

as the vegetation improves and captures sediment (bank building process). As the vegetation improves 

less sediment is available for deposition and therefore the bank building and channel forming processes 

may slow. Additionally channel forming events are often dependent on 20-year flood events which are 

variable and may occur within the first 5 years, 10 years or not for another 20 years or longer. 

Monitoring included a phased approach where vegetative objectives were primarily monitored 5 years out 

and stream channel objectives related to hydrology, channel complexity, and fish habitat objectives were 

monitored at 10 years. This process was selected based on expected response intervals to changes in 

management. Vegetation is often the first to respond to changes in livestock management, followed by 

channel characteristics, and fish habitat. Normally, the most common return interval, high flow (1-2 

years), is most important for forming channel characteristics such as flood plains. Flows of 5-10 year 

intervals are scour and re-deposit events. Flows of 10-20 year return intervals are largely the ones that 

provide stream and habitat complexity needed by fish. Above these moderately high levels, stream 

channels are often re-set, especially on streams not at proper functioning condition (Elmore 2007). 

Quantitative measurements on several of the parameters such as width:depth ratios or undercut banks are 

not positively sustainable below proper functioning condition, thus lessening their importance for 

monitoring until a rating of proper functioning condition is obtained or vegetation is recovering. It is not 

unusual for streams below proper functioning condition to make a series of recovery/degradation 

progressions that alter important channel characteristics. Therefore, until a rating of proper functioning 

condition is obtained within those reaches not currently at proper functioning condition within the project 

allotments, the quantitative indicators relating to channel characteristics and fish habitat were assumed to 

follow vegetative characteristic recovery and monitoring of these characteristics would happen at longer 

time scales following vegetative recovery. Once the vegetative component of the proper functioning 

condition protocol and desired condition (appendix A Table 102) is obtained channel characteristics and 

fish habitat monitoring would be initiated. 

For the small, generally low-gradient stream systems reviewed during the proper functioning condition 

assessment, vegetation is the key component for long-term maintenance and recovery (Elmore 2007). 

Stream temperatures and the quality of habitat for bull trout are the major limiting factors within the 

Malheur River Watershed which includes the Summit, McCoy, Lake Creek and Logan Valley allotments. 

Primary effects from grazing are related to vegetation removal and hoof action along the banks and areas 

of saturated soils. Deep pools, undercut banks, and riparian hardwood are deficient within the mid/lower 

elevation streams in the project area. Well shaded cover also provides productive terrestrial and aquatic 

macro-invertebrates for an abundant food base. This complexity of cover also reduces stress to individual 

trout allowing for productive growth and reproduction. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 161

The Draft Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) indicated past and ongoing human-induced 

activities have increased stream temperatures, increase sediment delivery, and resulted in the loss of large 

pools. These activities include the creation and management of Warm Springs and Agency dams, forest 

management practices, irrigation withdrawals, livestock grazing, past bull trout harvest, and introduction 

of non-native species (brook trout). 

Analysis Process and Rates of Recovery

The following premise was used to analyze effects of the proposed actions on riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality recovery: Any action to improve proper 

functioning condition (PFC) ratings, especially vegetative characteristics, would also improve fish habitat 

to some degree, within a given stream reach, because of the inter-connectivity of riparian areas and instream hydrological functions for fish habitat. The extent and rate of recovery is dependent on the existing 

condition, the extent of the action, and the intensity of the action within the alternative. It was assumed 

that vegetation would respond more quickly to passive/active restoration and hydrological function would 

follow at a slower rate for the improvement of in-stream fish habitat (appendix A Table 103). Riparian and 

in-stream functionality conditions are consistently in a state of flux and the ratings can vary from year to 

year especially for riparian areas rated below proper functioning condition. Likewise each stream reach 

can be in various stages of recovery or degradation. This can be manifested in the resiliency of the 

streambanks and vegetation along any individual reach (some are more susceptible to impacts than 

others). For example streambanks may be well armored with large cobble or boulders and thus more 

resistant to the actions of overland flow or other actions that may impact streambanks. Additionally, 

riparian areas may be in a more advanced seral state resulting in resiliency to natural disturbances such as 

fire, 20-50 year flood events, or land management actions such as grazing. The likelihood of recovery 

beyond a rating of proper functioning condition also increases within a more advanced seral state coupled 

with the extent and intensity of proposed action. These two factors are correlated with the rate of recovery 

of a riparian area. 

Riparian vegetation, channel characteristics (hydrology), and fish habitat are interrelated and 

interdependent. Because linkages between these attributes, actions that facilitate recovery of one may also 

facilitate recovery of the other and have a cascading effect. This also can manifest itself for actions that 

may impact one or more of the attributes in a negative manner. A dynamic feedback loop exists between 

these attributes. Also, the rate of recovery of these attributes often varies in space and time.

The difference in rates of recovery for riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, and fish habitat were 

analyzed among alternatives and the responsiveness of these attributes to changes in land management 

were used to delineate indicators for monitoring 5 and 10 years out (appendix A Table 103). The desired 

conditions were based on the Malheur Forest Plan as amended by INFISH and Amendment 29. 

Modifications are proposed to Amendment 29 numeric values and INFISH riparian management 

objectives for some specific stream reaches to better reflect conditions that are attainable based on the 

stream type and vegetation potential. Specific data used to support these modifications came from proper 

functioning condition surveys (Elmore 2007), Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring 

dataset, Multiple Indicator Monitoring sites (Burton and Cowley 2010; USDA Forest Service 2011), 

Carex Working Group Report (Carex Working Group 2012), Forest Service R6 Stream Surveys (USDA 

Forest Service 1995, 1998, 1999, 2005, 2013), and the Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). Table 102 in appendix A displays the relationships 

between vegetation community potential, existing condition long-term desired condition, and the data 

sources used. The relationship between recovery of herbaceous and woody vegetation to channel 

characteristics (channel stability) and how they relate to specific standards for aquatic habitat, water 

quality, and livestock forage and are shown in Figure 30. The relationship to proper functioning condition 

ratings is shown at the bottom of the figure. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

162 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 30. Proper functioning condition rating relationship to vegetation, aquatic habitat composition

(channel characteristics), water quality standards and livestock forage

Potential natural condition is the highest ecological status an area can attain given no political, social or 

economic constraints (Pritchard et al. 1998). As a riparian area recovers toward potential natural 

condition, resiliency and resistance to disturbances increases above a minimum rating of proper 

functioning condition. 

Below a rating of proper functioning condition, flexibility for the decision maker decreases as a result of 

the riparian area being functioning at risk and susceptible to impacts related to management actions. 

Within the range between proper functioning condition and desired condition, the decision space, the 

range of flexibility for potential management actions increases. 

Key Assumptions

• Channel characteristics can only improve once the appropriate vegetation has become established and 

is present in sufficient quantity and quality (vigor, diverse age classes).

• Optimal conditions for riparian shrub development and herbaceous vigor occur annually (climate 

conditions). 

• Rates of recovery for riparian areas differ between actions identified in the alternatives based on 

existing conditions. 

• Immediate rest of 3-5 years would facilitate recovery of riparian vegetation at a faster rate than rest of 

3 years out of 10 especially with regards to riparian hardwood development.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 163

• Improvements in riparian condition would facilitate improvement in bull trout critical habitat, 

redband trout habitat and to some degree Columbia spotted frog habitat associated with the lotic, fish 

bearing, and perennial streams in the project area. 

• Streams rated as functional at risk during the functioning condition surveys were more at risk to the 

effects of actions proposed in the alternatives than those at proper functioning condition. 

• The rates of recovery within appendix A Table 103 would occur within the 10 year time frame. 

• Riparian areas rated as at proper functioning condition have the ability to improve beyond a minimum 

rating of proper functioning condition when the appropriate actions are taken and with the appropriate 

vegetation and channel characteristics.

• Indicators related to bull trout critical habitat and fish habitat in general as well as water quality are 

often achieved beyond a rating of proper functioning condition. 

• Development of resilient riparian areas would allow for resumption of grazing within the pastures. 

• Changes in livestock management would result in expression of riparian vegetation within 5 years for 

reaches rated as functional at risk and potential channel characteristics in 10 years. 

• Riparian areas for which the existing condition is related to livestock grazing would improve while 

riparian areas whose existing condition is related to other legacy effects such as roads, railroad 

grades, or logging would not improve to the same extent as those related to livestock grazing by the 

actions proposed in the alternatives. 

• Rates of recovery for riparian areas would be the same or similar for those areas with no livestock 

grazing (alternative 1) compared to those where the appropriate management is proposed. 

Lennox et al. (2009) found that stream channel attributes that improved following restoration of riparian 

vegetation included bankfull width/depth, streambank stability, and woody debris frequency metrics. 

Additionally, water columnar attributes that improved following restoration of vegetation included shade, 

canopy cover, number of pools with project age, maximum pool depth, and mean pool depth. Decreasing 

the bankfull width/depth ratio from vegetation improvement tends to result in deepening, and narrowing 

of the channel as sedimentation on floodplains increases following willow re-establishment (Hupp and 

Osterkamp 1996; Opperman and Meren-lender 2004; Corenblit et al. 2007). Thus, until vegetation 

recovers channel characteristics and criteria associated with bull trout critical habitat and water quality are 

not expected to achieve desired conditions until vegetative criteria is achieved beyond a rating of proper 

functioning condition (Figure 30). 

The analysis consisted of determining whether the action contributes to attaining the goals and objectives 

identified in appendix A Table 102, has a neutral effect, or reduces the likelihood that the goals and 

objective would be achieved within the time frame identified in appendix A Table 103. A certain amount 

of “risk” is associated with actions in the various alternatives and whether the objectives for riparian 

management would be met within the 5 and 10 year period identified in appendix A Table 103. The word 

“risk” refers to uncertainty such as natural events or unforeseen management actions. The less resilient a 

riparian area is, the more risk of set-back associated with actions proposed for it. When riparian 

vegetation and channel characteristics are in balance and composed of resistant vegetation (proper 

functioning condition minimum), the associated risk to riparian areas becomes less and recovery is more 

likely following these events. This is referred to as riparian resiliency. Because of this, alternatives may 

have the same amount of miles of riparian area at risk (less than proper functioning condition) but the 

number of actions, intensity, duration, annual use (endpoint indicator), adaptive management strategy, and 

periods of rest could vary between the alternatives resulting in one alternative being preferable to another 

for attainment of the riparian objectives identified in appendix A Table 102. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

164 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Affected Environment

The Affected Environment section examines the existing and desired vegetative and channel 

characteristics, water quality, and aquatic habitat in the project area. Information on climate, hydrology, 

and channel characteristics was taken from the Malheur Headwaters Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest 

Service 2000) to provide a general background on the project area and its surrounding watershed. 

Background on Malheur Headwaters

The Malheur River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River and 

eventually the Pacific Ocean. Major tributaries (streams) that drain to the Malheur River in the watershed 

include Big Creek, Bosenberg Creek, Conroy Creek, Crooked Creek, Frazier Creek, Lake Creek, Larch 

Creek, McCoy Creek, Summit Creek, Tureman Creek, and Wickiup Creek.

The hydrologic regime of the Blue Mountain Ecological Reporting Unit is characterized as a snow packdominated system. Peak discharge generally occurs from May through June. Generally, base flow in the 

late summer is maintained by groundwater and is relatively unaffected by precipitation, although 

occasional thunderstorms and infrequent showers may cause minor rises in streamflow for short periods 

of time (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). 

Stream Channel Characteristics

Figure 31 illustrates the Rosgen stream classification system used in stream channel characteristics 

discussions throughout this section of the document. The chart is divided into three areas: dominant slope 

range, cross section and plan view. Stream types are given a letter category that describes where it fits in 

these categories. 

• Dominant slope range – This shows stream profiles, which plot typical longitudinal slopes along the 

bankfull water surface. On the left side of the chart, type A and B streams have steep slopes, while in 

the center of the chart, slopes are gentle. On the far right, slopes of G type streams are steeper again. 

• Cross-section view- The water surface is shown in blue at bankfull elevation, and a dashed line at 

two-times bankfull (or the flood prone elevation) is also shown. The ratio of these two lines gives the 

entrenchment of the channel. On the left, the chart begins with a relatively low entrenchment ratio 

which denotes highly entrenched channels. In the center, the entrenchment increases, indicating 

moderate entrenchment. 

• Plan view – This shows the pattern of stream channels from relatively straight channels on the left, 

which become increasingly sinuous and wider channels as you move to the right. Followed by 

threaded and braided channels in the center and then highly sinuous channels, wider channels, and 

relatively narrow channels.

Streams start as high-gradient, first-order channels (Rosgen A or B channels) in the upper headwater 

portions of the watershed, and drop rapidly down to low-gradient third-order streams that bisect the 

meadow complex of Logan Valley (Rosgen E channels). Upper reaches are confined and have gravel 

substrates. Sinuosity is low, and the streams consist predominantly of step-pool reaches (Rosgen B 

channels). Woody debris is common in these upper reaches and provides complexity and habitat in the 

stream ecosystem. Stream reaches in the valley bottoms above Logan Valley have occasional beaver dams 

and associated pond complexes. As stream gradients decrease in the valley bottoms, sinuosity increases 

and floodplain features become wider and more pronounced. In contrast to upland stream reaches, 

channel substrates in valley bottom reaches are generally comprised of a greater proportion of fine 

material. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 165

Figure 31. Rosgen stream channel classification

Bankfull flows occur every year in the spring and generally prevail throughout the period of spring 

snowmelt. Bankfull flow is the dominant process that functions to maintain and shape stream channels in 

the watershed. Mass wasting from some steep, upland slopes and steep drainage sideslopes are 

uncommon channel-forming processes. Humans have also influenced channel-shaping processes and 

altered certain stream reaches with irrigation diversions, ditches in the valley, and road segments that 

cross streams. There are eight known diversion structures in the valley that redirect stream flow to 

approximately 11 miles of irrigation ditches. These features, as well as the absence of beavers, have 

altered the flow route of several of the primary tributaries in the watershed. Sinuous valley bottom 

(Rosgen E) channels have been changed and more closely resemble Rosgen G channels that eventually 

evolve back to C and then E channels.

Water Temperature

303(d) listed streams in the project area include Summit Creek, Big Creek and Lake Creek, all listed in 

1998 (Table 78). 

Table 78. Streams listed as 303(d) in the project area

Stream River Miles Reason for 303 (d) listing

Summit Creek 14.2 miles 64oF salmonid fish reading temperature criteria 

Big Creek 6.1 miles 50oF Bull Trout Salmonid fish spawning and rearing temperature criteria

Lake Creek 11.9 miles 50oF Bull Trout Salmonid fish spawning and rearing temperature criteria

Bosenberg Creek was added to the database in 1998, but the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

provided two years of data and the current Oregon Department of Environmental Quality status is 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

166 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

“attaining” the state standards. A TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) has been developed for the 

Malheur River and has replaced these 303(d) listings. These streams were delisted from 303(d) status by 

the Environmental Protection Agency approving the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010 

plan in March of 2012. 

The biological criteria (OAR 340-041-0028(4) Subsection (f) ) for the project area is expressed through 

the seven day average daily maximum stream temperature (7DADM) may not exceed 53.6°F during times 

and at locations of bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing uses. This criterion applies in the Upper 

Malheur Subbasin, primarily on the Malheur National Forest in the following streams: On Summit Creek, 

Big Creek, Lake Creek, Bosenberg Creek, and all upstream tributaries.

Wildfire History

The following table shows the history of large fires in the project area.

Table 79. History of large wildfires in the project area

Fire name Year

Total 

Fire 

Acres

Lake Ck. 

Allotment

McCoy Ck.

Allotment

Logan Valley 

Allotment

Summit Prairie 

Allotment

Total 

Acres 

Burned

Riparian 

Acres 

Burned

Total 

Acres 

Burned

Riparian 

Acres 

Burned

Total 

Acres 

Burned

Riparian 

Acres 

Burned

Total 

Acres 

Burned

Riparian 

Acres 

Burned

Bosenberg 1958 497 410 62 87 10

Corral Basin 1990 813 753 45 60 11

Sheep Mtn. 1990 2,067 2,067

Snowshoe 1990 7,011 6,410 135 122 68 480 43

Totals 10,388 7,573 242 0 0 122 68 2,694 64

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species (TES)

See the Environmental Consequences section for further discussion on effects determinations for 

threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species.

Columbia River Bull Trout

See discussion under Management Indicator Species. 

Interior Redband Trout (Region 6 Sensitive Species)

The Regional Forester removed redband trout from the sensitive species list in 2011, except in the Oregon 

closed basin. This project is outside of the closed basin, so redband trout are not considered sensitive here. 

They are however, a management indicator species (MIS) and will be discussed under that section of the

document. 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Region 6 Sensitive Species)

Spotted frogs are highly aquatic and are rarely found far from permanent water. They are usually found 

along the grassy margins of low gradient streams, lakes, ponds, springs, and marshes (Bull 2005, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010). 

During winter, spotted frogs burrow into banks adjacent to streams, ponds, and springs. Breeding occurs 

in the spring but varies by elevation. In low elevations breeding occurs between March and April and in 

higher elevations breeding occurs between May and June. Breeding habitat is usually found in shallow 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 167

water in ponds or other quiet waters along streams. Breeding may also occur in flooded areas adjacent to 

streams and ponds. Adults may disperse overland in the spring and summer after breeding (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2010).

Population Status 

In Oregon, Columbia spotted frogs appears to be widely distributed east of the Cascade Mountains (Bull 

2005, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists livestock grazing and introduction of nonnative fish (salmonid and 

bass) as threats to the Great Basin population of Columbia spotted frogs (66 FR 1295). 

Columbia spotted frog status in project area 

The spotted frog is considered present in all subbasins on the Malheur National Forest. Columbia spotted 

frog habitat is highly associated with wet meadows and drainages in the project area. Where wet 

meadows are associated with drainages or standing water they provide potential spotted frog habitat. 

There are four primary wetland types in the project area: freshwater emergent, freshwater forested/shrub, 

riverine and freshwater pond. Table 80 shows the acreages of each wetland type within the grazing 

allotments in the project area. 

Due to the similarity of aquatic habitat requirements for the Columbia spotted frog, redband trout, and 

bull trout, any actions that effect riparian areas containing bull trout and redband trout would have similar 

effects to Columbia spotted frog. 

Table 80. Acres of wetland type within the allotments for the Summit Logan Grazing Project

Allotment Wetland Type Acres Percentage

Lake Creek

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 3.5 7 

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 4 8 

Riverinea 46 86

Total 53.5 3.6

Logan Valley

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 545 63

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 321 37

Riverine 5 0.6

Total 871 60

McCoy Creek

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 181 87

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 24 11

Riverine 3 1.6

Total 208 14

Summit Prairie

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 215 65

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 39 12

Freshwater Pond 0.5 0.1

Riverine 75 23

Total 329.5 23

Project Area Total 1462 3.6

a - Riverine habitats constitute wetlands along a flowing stream 

Percentages that are italicized represent the dominant wetland type within the specific allotment.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

168 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Aquatic species found within the project area that are Malheur National Forest management indicator 

species include threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confuentus), and redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Bull Trout

Bull trout within the Upper Malheur Watershed are part of the Malheur River metapopulation that 

includes populations in the upper Malheur River and the North Fork Malheur River. 

For the Upper Malheur River populations, spawning and rearing is limited to headwater streams within 

the Upper Malheur River. Spawning and rearing habitat was identified in all of McCoy, Lake, Big, 

Meadow Fork Big, Snowshoe, Corral Basin, Bosenberg, and Summit Creeks during the designation of 

critical habitat (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). These streams include all the major drainages except 

for Crooked Creek and the Malheur River. Presently, spawning habitat is minimal in areas below the 

National Forest System road 16 due to limited spawning gravel and high summer and fall stream 

temperatures. 

The populations in the Malheur River and the North Fork Malheur River do not connect with each other 

or other Snake River populations due to impassable Warm Springs Dam on the Malheur River and the 

impassible Agency Dam on the North Fork of the Malheur River. Populations were historically thought to 

use the entire Malheur River where at present use is confined to the upper tributaries. Bull trout have not 

been documented within the Warm Springs Reservoir, which has the potential to provide overwintering 

habitat. Since the Upper Malheur River local population lack connectivity, this population is considered to 

be at risk of genetic drift and failed the distribution criterion in the bull trout recovery plan. The Malheur 

River metapopulation contains less than 1,000 adults and is isolated from other populations. The Meadow 

Fork of Big Creek was the apparent stronghold of this population and has yet to recover from the 2002 

High Roberts fire and consequent 2003 flood event. 

Population Status 

A radio telemetry study of fluvial bull trout in the upper Malheur River and tributaries was conducted by 

the Burns Paiute Tribe beginning in 2000. Bull trout tagged near the confluence of Big Creek and Lake

Creek spawned in the Meadow Fork of Big Creek in 2000. Radio tagged bull trout overwintered 

downstream of Lake Creek subwatershed in the vicinity of Malheur Ford. 

In 1997, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife considered the upper Malheur River subpopulation 

at high risk of extinction. The number of bull trout aged one year and older in the upper Malheur 

subpopulation was estimated as 3,554 + 30 percent (Buchanan et al. 1997).The majority of bull trout were 

found in the area of Big Creek, lower reaches of Snowshoe Creek, and Meadow Fork of Big Creek. The 

maximum length observed in 1993, 1994, and 2003 was 440mm suggesting few fluvial adults were

present. 

Primary spawning areas for the Upper Malheur subpopulation are located in the Meadow Fork, Big 

Creek, Snowshoe Creek, and Lake Creeks. Meadow Fork is the key spawning stream for the local 

population. Bull trout redds have been counted within the Meadow Fork of Big Creek every year since 

2000 with the exception of 2003 in which no redds were observed. The majority of bull trout spawning 

within the project area occurs prior to mid-September. Due to the presence of brook trout, redds are only 

counted as bull trout redds if they are observed prior to mid-September. Redds are assumed to be those of 

brook trout after mid-September. The estimated number of bull trout redds peaked at 89 in 2001 and 

declined to 7 redds in 2003. The decline in the estimated number of redds is most likely due to the 2002 

High-Roberts Fire and the 2003 flash flooding that originated in that area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 169

The following table displays the redd counts in the Upper Malheur watershed and in the primary 

spawning areas.

Table 81. Bull trout redd counts in the Upper Malheur watershed and primary spawning areas

Year

Total Number of 

Redds counted in 

upper Malheur 

watershed

Number of Redds 

counted in 

Meadow Fork

Number of Redds 

counted in 

Snowshoe Creek

Number of Redds 

counted in Lake 

Creek

2008 16 11 2 3 

2209 16 5 2 9 

2010 16 9 

2011 7 2 

Limiting Factors

Stream temperatures and the habitat quality are the major limiting factors to bull trout recovery within the 

Malheur River Watershed. Primary effects from grazing are related to vegetation removal, hoof action 

along the banks, and areas of saturated soils. Though much of the area has improved from historical 

conditions, wide and shallow streambanks are still prevalent, which increases solar radiation and reduces 

the cooling effect of deep pools, undercut banks, and hardwood shade. Well-shaded cover also provides 

productive terrestrial and aquatic macro-invertebrates for an abundant food base. This complexity of 

cover also reduces stress to individual trout allowing for productive growth and reproduction. 

The Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) indicated past and ongoing 

human-induced activities have contributed to increased stream temperatures and sediment delivery, and 

resulted in the loss of large pools. Human-induced activities include the creation and management of 

Warm Springs and Agency dams, forest management practices, irrigation withdrawals, livestock grazing, 

past bull trout harvest, and introduction of non-native species (brook trout). 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule revising designation of critical habitat for 

bull trout on January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2270). 

Columbia Bull trout Recovery Plan

The Columbia River Bull Trout Recovery plan (Recovery Plan) identified the specific recovery criteria 

for the Malheur River population. The following is a summary of the recovery of the Malheur River 

Population as defined in chapter 14 of the recovery plan. The complete plan may be found on the 

following US Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/021129_14.pdf

Recovery Criteria:

1. Bull trout are distributed among two or more local populations in the recovery unit within the 

Malheur River Core Area.

2. Estimated abundance of adult bull trout in the Malheur River Recovery Unit is between 2,000 and 

3,000 individuals between the two local populations.

3. Adult bull trout exhibit a stable or increasing trend for at least two generations at or above the 

recovered abundance level within the Malheur River Core Area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

170 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

4. Specific barriers inhibiting bull trout movement and recovery in the Malheur River Recovery Unit 

have been addressed, assuring opportunities for connectivity among local populations within the core 

area.

Livestock grazing has the potential of effecting strategies 1-3. The Recovery Plan lists over grazing and 

loss of shade as a reason for an increase in mid elevation stream temperatures and decline in bull trout 

populations. Livestock Grazing was considered a significance threat to recovery for the Malheur River 

Recovery Unit. The highest priority for the US Fish and Wildlife Service is that no direct effects occur to 

spawning bull trout or redds after August 15th. 

The Recovery Plan addresses sediment issues identified in the upper Malheur River watershed 

assessment, (e.g., road related sediment in Lake Creek and Bosenberg Creek). Noted was a diversion 

ditch on Lake Creek that diverts flow into a draw where erosion and head-cutting have been occurring on 

the return flow ditch.

The Recovery Plan noted that there was a need to restore shade and canopy, riparian cover, and native 

vegetation in all bull trout spawning, rearing and migration areas. Specifically, Summit Creek, the 

Malheur River downstream of Logan Valley, and Crooked Creek in the Upper Malheur River subbasin 

have suppressed woody vegetation in reaches that need this component to become stable. The Recovery 

Plan recommended reducing grazing impacts in all bull trout spawning areas such as implementing 

measures to reduce livestock impacts to streams, (e.g., fencing, changes in timing and use of riparian 

pastures, off-site watering and salting), to accomplish this task. Lower Lake Creek lower Big Creek, 

Lower Bosenberg Creek, Summit Creek, and lower McCoy Creek are areas that would benefit from shade 

restoration. 

Habitat in the Analysis Area – Rearing Habitat 

Currently, occupied rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout is present in Lake Creek, Big Creek, Meadow 

Fork, and Snowshoe Creek. Potential rearing habitat for juveniles is currently present in McCoy, 

Bosenberg, and Summit Creeks. Stream reaches with daily maximum water temperatures less than 20oC 

were considered to be potential rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout (Dunham, Rieman and Chandler 

2001). Currently, juvenile bull trout occupy about 63 percent of potential habitat in the Upper Malheur 

subpopulation area (Table 82).

Table 82. Miles of potential and occupied habitat for juvenile bull trout in the Upper Malheur subpopulation 

area

Stream Name Documented Use 

Prior to 1990

Miles of Potential 

Juvenile Rearing Habitat

Miles of Occupied Juvenile 

Rearing Habitat

Big Creek Yes 5.8 5.8

Meadow Fork Yes 4.8 4.8

Snowshoe Creek Yes 1.6 1.6

Corral Basin 

Creek Yes 2.7 0.0

Bosenberg Creek Yes 2.6 0.0

Lake Creek Yes 5.0 5.0

McCoy Creek No 1.8 0.0

Summit Creek Yes 3.0 0.0

Crooked Creek Yes 0.0 0.0

Total 27.3 17.2
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 171

Spawning Habitat

There are about 14 miles of bull trout spawning habitat in the subpopulation area. Primary spawning areas 

for the upper Malheur subpopulation are located in Meadow Fork, Big, Snowshoe, and Lake Creeks. 

Highest numbers of suspected bull trout redds are found in Meadow Fork. A bull trout was observed on a 

redd in upper Summit Creek in 2000. 

Table 83. Miles of suspected bull trout spawning habitat in the Upper Malheur subpopulation area

Stream Name Bull Trout Spawning Habitat (Miles)

Big Creek 3.7

Lake Creek 4.5

Meadow Fork 3.4

Snowshoe Creek 1.8

Summit Creek 0.8

Total 14.2

Subadult Rearing Habitat

There is little information currently available on areas used by subadults for rearing during summer 

months in the upper Malheur River and tributaries. However based upon general life history information, 

it is assumed that rearing habitat for fluvial subadult bull trout is present downstream of juvenile rearing 

areas and may extend down to at least the Forest boundary. Winter and spring use of Crooked and Summit 

creeks by subadults is possible. A bull trout 200mm in length, most likely a subadult, was captured in 

Crooked Creek in August of 1998 (L. Schwabe, Burns Paiute Tribe, pers. com.). In 2004, one radiotagged subadult reared throughout the summer in the East Fork of Lake Creek and one in Big Creek 

below Forest System Road 16. 

Adult Winter Holding Habitat

Winter holding habitat for fluvial adults is present in the upper Malheur River downstream of the 

confluence of Lake and Big creeks to at least the Forest boundary. Spring use of Crooked Creek by adult 

bull trout has been documented. A bull trout 356mm in length was captured in Crooked Creek in May of 

1995. Winter and spring use of Summit Creek by adults is also possible. 

Migration Habitat

The Malheur River serves as a migration corridor for the subpopulation. Seasonal thermal barriers occur 

at the lower ends of tributaries and on the Malheur River (Bowers et al. 1993). An apparent thermal 

barrier exists in Lake Creek downstream of national forest lands in Logan Valley that restricts the 

movement of fluvial adults into spawning areas on Lake Creek. This thermal barrier has probably resulted 

in the isolation of the local population of Lake Creek from the rest of the subpopulation. 

Redband Trout 

Redband trout occur in the following streams within the project area Crooked Creek, Lake Creek, Big 

Creek, Bosenberg Creek and Summit Creek. Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and 

habitat. Adult redband trout are generally associated with pool habitats, although various life stages 

require a wide array of habitats for rearing, hiding, feeding, and resting. Pool habitat functions as 

important refugia during low water periods. An increase in sediment lowers spawning success and 

reduces the quantity and quality of pool and interstitial habitat. Other important habitat features include 

healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and large woody debris. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

172 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Spawning occurs during the spring, generally from March to June. Redds tend to be located where 

velocity, depth and bottom configuration induce water flow through the stream substrate, generally in 

gravels at the tailout area of pools. Water temperatures influence emergence of fry, which is typically 

from June through July. 

Redband trout are present in all fish bearing streams in the analysis area. Highest densities are found in 

Crooked Creek. Lower numbers are found in Lake Creek and McCoy Creek where brook trout are the 

dominant salmonid. 

The project area has approximately 45 stream miles of occupied redband habitat. Comparatively, the 

Malheur National Forest contains approximately 840 miles of redband trout habitat (Malheur Forest GIS 

data). The miles of occupied redband trout habitat by allotment, unit and 6th field HUC are displayed 

below (Table 84).

Table 84. Miles of occupied redband trout habitat within the allotment boundaries in the project area for 

Summit Logan

Allotment Unit HUC Miles Percentage

Lake Creek

Bosenberg Bosenberg Creek, 

Upper Big Creek 12.6 69

McCoy Creek Lake Creek

Upper Big Creek 5.8 32

Total 18.4 41

Logan Valley

Big Field Lake Creek 0.2 3

Corral Holding Bosenberg Creek 0.2 3

East Lake Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek 0.3 6 

Lower Field Bosenberg Creek 0.2 3.

North Big Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek 1.8 35

South Big Creek Bosenberg Creek

Upper Big Creek 0.9 18

West Bosenberg Upper Big Creek 0.3 6

West Lake Creek Lake Creek 1.3 25

Total 5.2 11.3

McCoy Creek

Cow Camp Lake Creek 0.6 32

North Fork Upper Big Creek 0.4 24

Starvation Lake Creek 0.8 45

Total 1.8 4.0

Summit Prairie

Crane Rock Summit Creek 1.3 6

Little Logan Summit Creek 5.0 25

North Summit Summit Creek 1.0 5

Sagehen Summit Creek 6.4 32

South Summit Summit Creek 0.01 0.05

Summit Rock Summit Creek 5.9 30

West Summit Summit Creek 0.4 2

Total 20.0 44.0

Grand Total 45.4

Redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the exception that bull trout are 

relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. Therefore the analysis of bull trout

critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed would have the same effects on redband 

trout habitat within the project area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 173

Summary by Allotment

All Allotments

Appendix A Table 102 shows the departure from desired conditions and the existing condition for various 

stream reaches based on vegetative potential and stream channel potential. The recovery timeline for 

these departures is represented in appendix A Table 103 based on vegetation and channel characteristics 

documented to not be in balance by the proper functioning condition surveys (Elmore 2007), 

Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring dataset, Multiple Indicator Monitoring sites 

(Burton and Cowley 2010), Carex Working Group Report (Carex Working Group 2012). Specific 

indicators related to vegetation, channel characteristics and bull trout critical habitat were selected for 

determining recovery or improvement. These indicators were chosen based on their repeatability and 

relationship to other indicators for bull trout critical habitat, as well as ongoing monitoring in these areas, 

and their demonstrated responses to changes in management such as livestock grazing. The following 

descriptions of vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperature and bull trout critical habitat 

describe the existing condition by unit (pasture) for streams within the various allotments. A more 

detailed description as well as the desired condition for stream reaches within the specific units can be

found in appendix A Table 102. 

Lake Creek Allotment

Table 85 lists the major streams located within the Lake Creek Allotment.

Table 85. Streams within the Lake Creek Allotment

Streams within Allotment Stream Length in Miles

Bosenberg Creek 4.4

(unoccupied Bull Trout habitat)

Corral Basin Creek 3.6

Meadow Fork Big Creek 0.5

Big Creek 2.3

Lake Creek 1.8

McCoy Creek 1.6

Total 14.2

About 14.2 miles (41 percent) of the 35 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the project area lies 

within the Lake Creek Allotment. It is split about 60:40 percent between the Bosenberg and McCoy units, 

respectively. Approximately 9.6 miles (67 percent) of the bull trout critical habitat within the Lake Creek 

Allotment is currently unoccupied and 4.7 miles (33 percent) is occupied.

Appendix A Table 102 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Lake Creek allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel potential. The 

recovery timeline for these departures is represented in appendix A Table 103. 

Bosenberg Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads 

Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2004). Findings from the report include: 

• The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (maintenance level) 1-5 and 1-2 

• The risk rating for total road density within 200 feet of perennial and intermittent streams was 

extreme for both maintenance level 1-5 and 1-2 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

174 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated high

Vegetation 

The potential vegetation for the riparian plant community is dominated with a conifer overstory with 

alder, willow and mesic graminoids in open areas (IDT Review 2012). This vegetative community is 

dominated by the landform of the valley bottoms and by soil texture. 

Channel Characteristics

Rosgen B channel types are dominant in the Lake Creek allotment also due to the landforms. The gradient 

of these streams is between 2 and 4 percent slope and there is little floodplain development in these types 

of streams. Rosgen C channel types develop on the downstream extent of the allotment. Gravel substrate 

dominates channel beds. Recent wildfires in the headwaters have introduced large sediment sources that 

the channel is transporting downstream in pulses. Post-fir organic ash and debris have been deposited on 

the streambanks and floodplains downstream of the burnt areas. These stream banks are extremely 

sensitive to disturbance and are vulnerable to over-widening through streambank trampling. 

Water temperatures across Lake Creek allotment likely are compliant with the INFISH criteria for adult 

holding temperatures (59o F), but not INFISH spawning and rearing (48o F) or the TMDL standard 

(53.6oF). Water temperatures for streams within the Lake Creek allotment are displayed in Table 86. 

Water temperatures for Lake Creek, Big Creek, and Summit Creek are summarized in Table 86. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 175

Table 86. Water temperatures for Lake Creek, Big Creek, and Summit Creek

Stream Site Allotment Unit Elevation Years 7DADMa

 (F) 

TMDLb 

7DADM

Standard (F)

INFISH 

Spawning/

Rearing (F)

Adult Holding 

(F) 

Lake Creek

Lake 1 Lake Creek McCoy 5,520 1996-2002, 2004-

2007, 2011 59.3

53.6 48 59

Lake 2 Logan 

Valley W. Lake Creek 5,520 2011 58.2

Lake 3 Private -- 5,060 1996-2000, 2003-

2005, 2007 75.6

Lake 4 Private -- 5,060 1993-1995, 1999-

2001, 2006 73.2

Lake 5 McCoy 

Creek Cow Camp 5,020 2006, 2008-2011 75.0

Big Creek

Big 1 Lake Creek McCoy 5,280 2000-2007, 2010-

2011 56.8

53.6 48 59

Big 2 Logan 

Valley W. Bosenberg 5,082 1996-2001, 2003-2006, 2009-2011 63.8

Summit 

Creek

Summit 1 Summit 

Prairie Summit Rock 5,735

1999, 2001, 2003-

2004, 2006-2007, 

2009-2011

54.8

53.6 48 59

Summit 2 Summit 

Prairie Summit Rock 5,283 1996-2011, 2003-

2006, 2009-2011 66.9

Summit 3 Summit 

Prairie Little Logan 5,190 2004-2007, 2009-2010 72.8

Summit 4 Summit 

Prairie Little Logan 5,160 2010 72.8

Summit 5 Summit 

Prairie Sagehen 5,078 2010 72.5

Summit 6 Summit 

Prairie Sagehen 4,950 2003-2010 76.8

Summit 7 Private -- 4,820 2003-2004, 2007-

2008 78.7

a – 7DADM = seven day average daily maximum stream temperature

b – TMDL = total maximum daily load
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

176 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Lake Creek allotment is a stronghold for bull trout survival in the Upper Malheur Drainage. Much of the 

spawning and rearing takes place in the allotment. Meadow Fork of Big Creek had the highest density of 

redds until the wildfires introduced large amounts of sediment and have reworked the system. 

A fish barrier is present on Bosenberg Creek, inhibiting fish connectivity to cooler water upstream. 

Region 6 (R6) stream survey data suggests bankfull width/depth and large woody debris are meeting 

standards, whereas pool quantity did not. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Table 87 lists the major streams within the allotment.

Table 87. Streams within the Logan Valley Allotment

Streams within Allotment Stream Length in Miles

Big Creek 1.8

Bosenberg Creek 0.2

Lake Creek 0.9

Total 2.9

The Logan Valley Allotment contains about three miles or 9 percent of the 35 miles of bull trout critical 

habitat in the project area. Of this, 2.7 miles (92 percent) of bull trout critical habitat is occupied within 

the Allotment and 0.2 miles (8 percent) is unoccupied. Big Field, East Bosenberg, Flat Field and Front 

Field do not have aquatic habitat or riparian resources identified. A large fen occurs in the Big Field unit. 

Please see the Botany Section for a discussion on these resources.

Appendix A Table 102 shows the departure from desired condition and existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Logan Valley allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel potential. The 

recovery timeline for these departures is represented in appendix A Table 103. 

Big Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis 

(USDA Forest Service 2004). Findings from the report include: 

• The road density risk was moderate for road maintenance level (maintenance level) 1-5 and 1-2 

• The risk rating for total road density within 200 feet of perennial and intermittent streams was 

moderate for both maintenance level1-5 and 1-2 

• The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated moderate 

Lake Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis 

(USDA Forest Service 2004). Findings from the report include: 

• The road density risk was high for road maintenance level 1-5 and moderate for maintenance level 

1-2 

• The risk rating for total road density within 200 feet of perennial and intermittent streams was high 

for both maintenance level 1-5 and 1-2 

• The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated moderate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 177

Big Creek

Vegetation

Three reaches along Big Creek (1.8 miles) was rated as in proper functioning condition in 2007. It 

transitions from a conifer with alder and mesic graminiods upstream to a willow/sedge-rush controlled 

system near the 16 road. The ecological status of the designated monitoring area on Big Creek Reach 3 

was mid seral. The distribution of stabilizing plant communities along Big Creek Reaches 1 and 2 were 

near desired condition (appendix A, Table 102). 

Channel Characteristics

Big Creek has a Rosgen Da5/6 channel type and is a glacial outwash, multiple threaded and highly 

sinuous stream. The stream became braided because of the excessive sediment loads due to historic 

glacial activities. At the designated monitoring area in Reach 3, bank stability is at the long-term desired 

condition and meets the Amendment 29 numeric standard. The channel stability throughout Big Creek is 

largely controlled by the large woody debris that falls into the stream. 

Temperature

Big 2 in the West Bosenberg unit is the only water temperature monitoring site that occurs in the Big 

Creek portion of the Logan Valley Allotment. Big 1 is in the McCoy Creek unit of Lake Creek allotment. 

They are approximately 2.3 miles away from each other. The seven day average daily maximum stream 

temperature was 56.8°F at Big 1 and 63.8°F at Big 2. Big Creek heats up approximately 7°F between sites 

Big 1 and 2. Without a monitoring site in the unit it is difficult to determine if the water temperatures met 

standards. It is likely that water temperatures in the South Big Creek unit met INFISH standards for adult 

holding (59° F), but may exceed INFISH standards for spawning and rearing (48°F) or the TMDL 

standard (53.6° F).

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Bull trout likely use Big Creek for rearing and spawning habitat. 1.8 miles are occupied bull trout critical 

habitat listed for spawning and rearing. 

Bosenberg Creek

Vegetation

Bosenberg Creek flows through Corral Holding and Lower Field units that are separated by private land. 

Corral Holding has approximately 0.1 miles of the north end of the unit contained in a riparian pasture on 

the back side of the corral. This section of stream is a sedge/rush with some willow plant community in 

very good condition and likely at a proper functioning condition rating. Willows appeared in multiple age 

class heights and at an appropriate density of individuals. Approximately 0.02 miles at the bottom of the 

reach are outside of the corral area and appear to be grazed annually with private lands. This area would 

likely be rated functional at risk with an unknown trend. The area lacks adequate vegetative cover and the 

channel looks over-widened with the bankfull width/depth not in balance with its landform setting. Lower 

Field unit is a sedge/rush plant community that is developing into developed community types. 

Channel Characteristics

Bosenberg Creek has a Rosgen E channel type with channel stability controlled by herbaceous plants with 

a very narrow channel width and is highly sinuous. Abundant undercut banks and quality pools were 

observed throughout these two units. However, there are indicators of isolated spots that were historically 

over-widened and slow to recover. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

178 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Temperature

No monitoring sites were available on Bosenberg Creek. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

0.24 miles are unoccupied bull trout critical habitat listed for spawning and rearing. 

Lake Creek

Vegetation

The proper functioning condition assessment (Elmore 2007) identified Lake Creek as a conifer overstory 

with alder, willow and mesic graminiods in the open areas while the lower end of the reach has little or no 

conifer overstory. The ecological status was monitored at the multiple indicator monitoring designated 

monitoring area as early seral with alder (19 percent) / Kentucky bluegrass (8 percent) plant community 

(USDA Forest Service 2011). The young age class of willow and alder hardwoods is low. The effective 

shade averaged 39 percent and did not meet the desired condition of 60-80 percent in mixed shrub and 

conifer plant communities (Carex Working Group 2012). Two PIBO and designated monitoring areas 

occur in the Lake Creek portion of the Logan Valley allotment. A decrease in woody cover along the 

stream bank was the only statistical change observed associated with vegetative attributes. The wetland 

rating across the floodplain slightly improved at PIBO site 1884. 

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek has a Rosgen F4/C4 complex of channel types. The potential channel type that could exist is 

an E4/C4. This reach has legacy disturbances that over-widened the channel form. The poor channel 

shape has resulted in issues in sediment transport through the reach and has decreased the likelihood of a 

typical flood from reaching its floodplain. This yields excessive energy that may make the channel more 

unstable. Stream bank stability (55 percent, USDA Forest Service 2011) was not meeting the 90 percent

desired condition using the multiple indicator monitoring protocol, but did meet the desired conditions 

with 95 percent using PIBO in 2006 and 2011. The multiple indicator monitoring value is probably more 

representative since the sampling interval is closer. 

Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion (PIBO) channel characteristics data from site 1884 indicate numbers of 

pools per mile have increased by two fold, and bank angle and percent undercut banks have improved. 

Residual pool depth has significantly decreased and bankfull width/depth has decreased. 

PIBO site 2037 has less data collected in 2006 to compare 2011 data for trend interpretation. Percent 

stable banks has remained static and is meeting Forest Standards. Bank angle has significantly improved 

and percent undercut banks have improved. 

Temperature

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 2) occurs in the West Lake Creek unit and two monitoring 

sites occur on two channels of Lake Creek (Lake 3 and 4), approximately one mile downstream from 

Lake 2, below the 16 road. Lake 3 is the east channel and Lake 4 is the west channel. Lake 2 is near the 

most upstream extent of the unit. The seven day average daily maximum stream temperature at Lake 2 

was 58.2°F, at Lake 3 it was 75.6°F and at Lake 4 it was 73.2°F. Lake Creek heats up approximately 

17.4°F between sites Lake 2 and 3 and heats up by 15°F from sites Lake 2 and 4. Site 1 met the 59°F 

INFISH standard for adult holding, but exceeded the 53.6°F TMDL standards and 48 ̊F INFISH standard 

for spawning and rearing. The temperature difference from sites Lake 2 to 3 and 4 is because of the 

irrigation withdrawals that occur on private land. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 179

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently one mile of Lake Creek is occupied, spawning and rearing bull trout critical habitat within the 

West Lake Creek Unit. 

McCoy Allotment

Table 88 lists the major streams within the McCoy Allotment.

Table 88. Streams within the McCoy Allotment

Streams within Allotment Stream Length in Miles

Big Creek 0.8

Lake Creek 0.8

Crooked Creek 0.2

Total 1.8

The McCoy Allotment contains 1 mile (3 percent) of the 35 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the 

project area. Lake Creek, Ridge, Dry, and Government Flat do not have aquatic habitat or riparian 

resources identified. 0.02 miles of Big Creek flow through the North Fork unit and have been excluded to 

livestock by an electric fence. This reach is likely at proper functioning condition, but was not assessed. 

Appendix A, Table 102 shows the departure from desired conditions and the existing condition for stream 

reaches within the McCoy Creek allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel potential. 

The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in appendix A, Table 103. See the Logan Valley 

allotment description for information on roads. 

See the Logan Valley allotment description for information on roads. 

Big Creek

Vegetation

This reach is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. An electric fence has been placed along the corridor of 

the riparian area for the past few years. No proper functioning condition assessment was done on this 

reach. It is likely this reach is in a proper functioning condition 

Channel Characteristics

The channel is presently a C/E channel with the assumption that it is moving toward an E type channel. 

Temperature

There are no temperature monitoring sites on Big Creek within the North Fork Unit. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently 0.02 miles of Big Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing bull trout critical habitat within the 

Cow Camp unit. 

Lake Creek

Lake Creek has two reaches that flow through two pastures that are not adjacent. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

180 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Vegetation

Lake Creek has a vegetative potential of sedge, rush, grass, and willows (Elmore 2007). Proper 

functioning condition surveys identified an abundant cover of stabilizing plants along the streambanks of 

this reach. A recent change in livestock management has resulted in numerous increases in number and 

vigor of willow species present on reach 1. 

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek reach 2 has a Rosgen E channel type and reach 1 a Rosgen C channel type that has channel 

stability controlled by vegetative attributes and is sensitive to livestock grazing. The beaver activity in 

reach 2 has created channel complexity that helps retain water and sediment and provide fish habitat 

faster than any other manner. The reach is a series of dams with a low gradient, meandering channel 

between the dams. Reach 1 has narrowed dramatically and is meeting Forest Plan standards for undercut 

banks. 

Temperature

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 5) occurs in the Cow Camp unit and one just upstream of 

the unit on the east channel (Lake 3). The seven day average daily maximum stream temperature was 

75.6°F at Lake 3 and 75.0°F at Lake 5. Lake Creek stays relatively constant as it flows through Lake 

Creek reach 2. Site 5 exceeds INFISH standard and TMDL standards. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

A Region Six (R6) stream survey was conducted on reach 1 of Lake Creek within the Starvation unit in 

1999. Lake Creek reach 1 did not meet the INFISH and Forest Plan amendment 29 criteria for average 

bankfull width/depth of 19.23. It met INFISH and Forest Plan amendment 29 standards for stream bank 

stability with 91 percent. Lake Creek reach 1 measured 85 percent undercut banks and is meeting Forest 

Plan Standards. 

Currently 0.72 miles of Lake Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing bull trout critical habitat within 

the Cow Camp and Starvation units. 

Crooked Creek

Vegetation

Crooked Creek has a sedge/rush with some willows (Elmore 2007). 

Channel Characteristics

Crooked Creek was rated functioning at risk with a downward trend (Elmore 2007). This reach was an 

intermittent Rosgen E4/5 channel type. The potential is a perennial E5 channel type. The bankfull 

width/depth was not in balance and the riparian area is shrinking from eroding stream banks. The stream 

energy is excessive and has downcut below the rooting depths of vegetation present. This is considered 

high risk for additional downcutting and system unraveling (Elmore 2007). 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

R6 stream survey was conducted on reach 1 of Crooked Creek within the McCoy Creek allotment in 

1999. Reach 1 did not meet INFISH and Amendment 29 standards for average bankfull width:depth, pool 

quantity, and large woody debris. Crooked Creek reach 1 did meet INFISH and Amendment 29 standards 

for stream bank stability. 

Currently 0.21 miles of Crooked Creek are unoccupied foraging and migratory bull trout critical habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 181

Summit Prairie Allotment

Summit Creek is the only stream within the Summit Prairie Allotment that has bull trout critical habitat. 

All bull trout critical habitat within the Summit Prairie allotment is considered unoccupied. 14.5 miles (49

percent) of bull trout critical habitat is within the Summit Prairie allotment of the total 35 miles in the 

project area. Crane Rock unit is the only unit that does not have bull trout critical habitat resources. The 

South Summit Unit contains approximately 20 feet of stream access and did not have issues identified 

during proper functioning condition inventories. It is utilized as a livestock watering access point. No 

management options are present other than to provide access to water. Therefore, the South Summit Unit 

will not be analyzed in the proceeding sections. Summit Creek is also the only allotment in the project 

area that is entirely contained in a single subwatershed. 

Appendix A Table 102 shows the departure from desired conditions and the existing condition for stream 

reaches within the Summit Prairie allotment based on vegetative potential and stream channel potential. 

The recovery timeline for these departures is represented in appendix A Table 103. Summit Creek 

subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis (USDA 

Forest Service 2004). Findings from the report include: 

Summit Creek subwatershed risk ratings were developed during the Malheur National Forest Roads 

Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2004). Findings from the report include: 

• The road density risk was high for road maintenance level (maintenance level) 1-5 and 1-2. 

• The risk rating for total road density within 200 feet of perennial and intermittent streams was 

extreme for both maintenance level1-5 and 1-2. 

• The overall watershed risk from the road network was rated high. 

Note: A 1⁄4 mile long buck and pole riparian exclosure will be built in the Little Logan Unit as a reference 

for comparing the vegetative, channel characteristics and complexity indicators.

Table 89. Properly functioning stream reaches on Summit Creek with unit, rating and miles

Reach Unit Rating Miles

Summit Creek 1

Sagehen

FAR NA 0.3

Summit Creek 2 FAR DN 2.4

Summit Creek 2 (exclosure) PFC 0.2

Summit Creek 3 PFC 0.7

Summit Creek 4 FAR UP 1.1

Summit Creek 5 Little Logan FAR UP 5.0

Summit Creek 6 Summit Rock PFC 2.0

Summit Creek 7 North Summit PFC 1.0

Summit Creek 8 Summit Rock PFC 1.7

West Fork Summit Reach 1 West Summit FAR DN 0.4

West Fork Summit Reach 2 Summit Rock FAR DN 0.8

PFC – Proper Functioning Condition: Functioning as desired.

FAR NA – Functional – At Risk: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water or vegetative attribute making them 

susceptible to degradation.

FAR UP – Functional – At Risk – Upward trend: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water or vegetative attribute 

making them susceptible to degradation, but is trending upward.

FAR DN (down) – Functional – At Risk – Downward trend: In a functional condition but has an existing soil, water or vegetative 

attribute making them susceptible to degradation, but is trending downward.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

182 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Riparian exclosures would serve as a reference for determining rates of recovery and movement towards 

desired conditions within appendix A Table 102 and appendix A Table 103. When livestock are managed 

appropriately recovery rates should approximate those within areas where no livestock use is occurring. If 

not adaptive management strategies would be implemented. 

Table 90. Vegetative type on Summit Creek with habitat type and reach

Habitat Type Probable Historic Vegetation Reaches

Constrained rocky reaches Alder-dominated thickets along stream Reaches 1, 3

Broad Valleys with Mesic 

Terraces

Extensive willow-dominated thickets along stream in 

mosaics with grasslands, aspen groves and 

cottonwood groves 

Reaches 2,4,5,7

Wetlands with Lateral or 

Hypothetic Flows 

Sedge meadows (often with willows or alders along 

creek banks) Reach 6

Headwater Reaches Conifer-dominated with scattered alders and shrubs 

along stream Reach 8

Summit Creek

Vegetation

Four major habitat types indicate four likely riparian vegetative communities along Summit Creek as you 

transition from the top of the watershed downward. 

Reaches 1 and 3 are constrained, rocky reaches where alder species are dense. The existing conditions for 

shrub density and stabilizing plant species are very similar to desired conditions (appendix A, Table 102). 

Reaches 2, 4, 5 and 7 are broad valleys where willow cover would be extensive. Currently, these reaches 

have plant cover that is dominated by sedges, rushes, mesic grasses and forbs. The herbaceous plant 

community has been narrowing the channel’s form and developing into sedge/rush plant communities. 

Reaches 4 and 7 are closer to their desired stabilizing plant cover than Reaches 2 and 5. Sites for new 

willow establishment may become limited as the sedge/rush plant community continues to improve. 

Localized areas where scour and aggradation occurs will be likely areas for willow germination. 

However, the willow density levels in these reaches compared to the reference levels suggest there is a 

large departure. The willow species are present, but are being maintained in a 0-3 foot height category and 

are not able to be expressed into a height class that is above ungulate browse lines (approximately 4.5 feet 

for deer, 5 feet for cattle and 7 feet for elk). The lack of shrubs decreases the effective shade that can help 

keep the water temperatures cool. The multiple indicator monitoring site on Reach 2 showed a decrease in 

woody browse use leading to an increase in the number of seedlings and young woody plants from 2004 

to 2010. An exclosure occurs on Reach 2 that has abundant age and height classes of different willow 

species and has beaver activity. 

Reach 6 occurs where a groundwater upwelling or spring emerge into the bottom of the floodplain. This 

reach is dominated by sedge meadows because of the abundance of soil moisture. The existing stabilizing 

plant species and effective shade are very similar to the desired levels (appendix A Table 102). The 

effective shade is largely provided by the channel form and the herbaceous floodplain vegetation. 

Reach 8 occurs in the most upstream extent of Summit Creek and is a headwaters reach. The overstory is 

dominated by conifer species with alders scattered throughout the reach. The existing stabilizing plant 

species and effective shade are very similar to the desired levels (appendix A Table 102).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 183

West Fork of Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2 have potential vegetative communities of sedge/rush/grass 

with some alder. The existing vegetative community is a Kentucky bluegrass community with isolated 

sedges and rushes. Reach 2 has a conifer overstory near the upstream most extent of the reach. 

Channel Characteristics

Reaches 1 and 3 are Rosgen B channel types largely because the landforms produce constrained, rocky 

reaches. Reach 3 has pockets of Rosgen C channel types scattered amongst the B because of localized 

areas where the valley bottom is wider. Rosgen B channel types are commonly inherently stable to

livestock effects because the streambed is armored with cobbles and gravels. 

Summit Creek Reaches 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and West Fork Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2 are broad valleys that 

are low gradient and commonly have highly meandering channels across the valley bottom. All the 

reaches are currently in a Rosgen C channel type with a potential of a Rosgen E channel type in all but 

Reach 4. Being departed to a Rosgen C channel type is typical in livestock grazing areas because of hoof 

action and the loss of vegetative cover to dissipate the stream energy and the channel is over-widened as a 

result. Rosgen E channel types have increased bank storage of water and a tighter channel form to 

maintain water temperatures and not accelerate heating losses. Vertical stability issues in the form of 

headcuts were observed in West Fork Summit Creek Reaches 1 and 2. The multiple indicator monitoring 

designated monitoring area on Reach 2 has statistically improved for bank stability from 2004 to 2010. 

Reach 5 has two PIBO designated monitoring areas that have measured a statistically significant change 

in the bankfull width/depth or channel form between 2001, 2006 and 2011, suggesting sufficient 

vegetation is catching sediment and the banks are building. 

Reach 8 has a Rosgen B channel type similar to Reaches 1 and 3. However, it is a first order stream and 

does not receive the streamflows or sediment supply Reaches 1 and 3 does. Energy is largely dissipated in 

Reach 8 through large rock, down wood and step pool sequences. 

Temperature

Water temperatures are coldest in Reach 8 where they emerge from groundwater and heat up as you 

progress towards the Malheur River. Site 1 is towards the top of Reach 8 with an average seven day 

average daily maximum stream temperature of 54.8°F at Summit 1 heating up to 78.1°F at Summit 2 and 

cooling down to 66.9°F at Summit 3. Summit Creek heats up approximately 23°F between sites Summit 1 

and 2 and cools down by 11°F from sites Summit 2 and 3. Reach 6 has numerous springs that drain into 

the floodplain that cool the water considerably before flowing through Summit 3. Summit Creek heats up 

approximately 6°F between sites Summit 3 and 4 and stays relatively continuous through sites Summit 4 

and 5 in the Little Logan unit. The average seven day average daily max was 72.5°F at Summit 5 and 

78.7°F at Summit 7, heating up approximately 6°F. Site 1 is the only site to meet the INFISH standard for 

adult holding. All sites did not meet the INFISH spawning and rearing or TMDL standard. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Currently 14.5 miles of Summit Creek are unoccupied, spawning and rearing bull trout critical habitat

within the Summit Prairie allotment. 

Currently suitable water temperatures for spawning and rearing within Summit Creek are located within 

the headwaters Reaches 8 and above. Within reach 5 there are some spring and groundwater upwelling. 

Reaches 1 and 2 are located within a ponderosa pine/lodgepole pine/alder system. They are considered 

constrained rocky reaches where large wood plays an important role in forming pools and maintaining 

bull trout habitat. These reaches are the lowest in the Summit Creek system and are the closest in 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

184 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

proximity to the Malheur River. Primary utilization of these reaches by bull trout would be as migratory 

corridors, and possibly over wintering habitat. 

Reaches 3, 4 and 5 are primarily in a meadow system that lacks adequate vegetation for shade (riparian 

hardwoods) and undercut bank formations which would be the primary cover for bull trout within these 

reaches with limited input of lodgepole pine. Additionally, channel incision and widening within these 

reaches and some straightening has occurred which also has reduced the streams capability for forming 

pools, undercut banks, and deposition (bank building). The potential channel characteristics for the 

reaches suggest sinuosity and the ability of the stream to access its floodplain are critical elements for 

recovery of this system. These factors have reduced the potential for Summit Creek in these reaches to 

provide juvenile rearing, spawning, and migratory habitat. 

Reaches 5 and 6 would primarily be used for migratory behavior by transitory bull trout currently because 

of the existing warm stream temperatures. However with improvement in existing condition cold influxes 

within reaches 5 and 6 may provide adequate rearing habitat. The components of quality migratory habitat 

include quality pools that are refugia for migrating fish and the absence of thermal barriers related to 

water temperature. A potential culvert barrier for adults and juvenile bull trout exists within reach 8 of 

Summit Creek which may limit access to cold water thermal refugia for juvenile bull trout. 

Environmental Consequences

The following table (Table 91) displays those threatened, endangered and sensitive species that have 

critical habitat or may occupy or have the potential to occupy habitat within the project or action area. 

Two aquatic species are present or are potentially present in the project are. These included threatened 

bull trout and Columbia spotted frog. Redband trout is considered a sensitive species within the Oregon 

Closed Basin of the Malheur National Forest so this species will only be analyzed as a management 

indicator species. 

Those species identified in Table 91, as well as the management indicator species redband trout, are 

carried forward in the analysis of all proposed alternatives that determine the impacts from the 

alternatives to these species, especially in relation to the amended Forest Plan. Due to the similarity of 

aquatic habitat requirements for the bull trout, redband trout, and Columbia spotted frog, the effects 

analysis for these species are combined for each alternative.

Other threatened, endangered, sensitive and management indicator species considered but not carried 

forward in the analysis include: Mid-Columbia River steelhead, westslope cutthroat, western ridged 

mussel and shortface lanx, appendix A. Populations of threatened Mid-Columbia River steelhead or 

sensitive westslope cutthroat are not found within the Upper Malheur Subbasin. Anadromy stops at the 

Hells Canyon Complex. These two species are Forest Plan management indicator species. 

Habitat for sensitive western ridged mussel is not known to occur in the project area. This species is 

found mainly in low to mid-elevation watersheds (Nedeau et al. 2009). The shortface lanx is a species that 

tends to occupy large streams that are relatively fast-moving, unpolluted, cold and well-oxygenated 

(Neitzel and Frest 1990). Potential habitat for the shortface lanx was not found in the project area. MidColumbia River steelhead, Westslope cutthroat, Western ridged mussel, and shortface lanx were not found 

during 2010 stream surveys. In August and September of 2012, mussel surveys were conducted on 

selected reaches of the Upper John Day River, North Fork Malheur, Little Malheur, and Upper Malheur 

Rivers on Forest lands within the Prairie City Ranger District. The western ridged mussel and shortface 

lanx were not found in selected reaches within the project area during the 2012 surveys (C. Kranich pers. 

comm.). Reaches were sampled within Summit Creek in the Summit Creek Allotment, Lake Creek in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 185

McCoy Creek Allotment, Big Creek in the Logan Valley Allotment, and Lake Creek in the Lake Creek 

Allotment.

Table 91. Threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species

Aquatic Species Statusa Effects Determinationb, c, d

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Columbia River Bull Trout 

Salvelinus confluentus T (MIS) NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE 

Columbia River Bull Trout 

Designated Critical 

Habitat

D NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE 

Columbia spotted frog 

Rana luteiventris S NI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

a - Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

D Designated Critical Habitat 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

b - Effects Determination (threatened and endangered)

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA May Effect, Like to Adversely Affect 

BE Beneficial Effect 

c – Designated Critical Habitat

NE No Effect

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA May Effect, Like to Adversely Affect 

d - Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trent Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss 

of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 

The Mid-Columbia River spring Chinook was also considered but not carried forward in the analysis 

because anadromy stops at the Hells Canyon Complex. Due to the dams spring Chinook can no longer 

navigate the system.

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, grazing would not be authorized within the Summit Prairie, Logan Valley, 

and McCoy allotments and the permit cancelled. Direct effects related to livestock grazing would not 

occur under this alternative resulting in improvements in riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, bull 

trout critical habitat, and water temperatures within the three allotments following removal of livestock 

two years after the permit cancellation. Recovery objectives (appendix A, Table 102) and desired 

condition (appendix A, Table 102) would likely be achieved within the time frames prescribed for many 

of the reaches (appendix A, Table 103) if the existing condition is related to livestock grazing. The rate of 

recovery within this alternative would have the greatest extent of all alternatives for recovery. Riparian 

areas that have concentrated wildlife use would have limited riparian hardwood recovery and thus would 

have a slower recovery than areas where wildlife exclosures are proposed. Improvement in riparian 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

186 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

hardwood condition may be slower than that of areas where exclosures are proposed because of the 

effects related to fencing limiting wildlife use. 

Grazing would continue as permitted under the current permit for two years following notification of 

cancellation of the permit. The effects from another two years of grazing under the current permitted use 

are summarized in chapter 2 alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study (Current 

Management). Reaches of Summit Creek are not expected to improve at a rate sufficient for the desired 

conditions in appendix A, Table 102 under the existing management and therefore the existing condition 

within this area is expected to remain the same for those two years.

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for cumulative effects includes all of the Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit Creek, 

Bosenberg Creek – Malheur River Subwatersheds (to the confluence of Bosenberg and the Malheur 

River) in the Headwaters Malheur River Watershed. All activities in appendix C of the FEIS have been 

considered for their cumulative impacts on riparian habitat and aquatic dependent species. This upstream 

extent for the cumulative effects geographic area was selected because activities that occur upstream of 

the project area up to the drainage divide may be transported by runoff into the project area. The 

downstream extent was selected because most materials flowing out of the project area should deposit 

before leaving the subwatershed. The cumulative effect for past actions has been described in the existing 

condition for this analysis area. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and foreseeable 

activities that may contribute impacts to riparian condition and aquatic species. 

The subwatersheds that contain the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit Creek 

allotments vary in condition depending on the land management designation and the primary activities 

that have occurred within those spaces. The upper portions of Lake Creek and Big Creek are in wilderness 

areas with little human caused effects. Riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat conditions are properly 

functioning in these areas to the extent of natural variability (without human influence). The mid to lower 

portions of these subwatersheds have been affected by a variety of human-caused impacts, but mostly 

grazing, timber harvest, and road development. Private land occurs in about the mid portion of all the 

subwatersheds. Livestock grazing and agriculture are the primary uses of those private lands. 

The No Action alternative would not add any cumulative effects to the existing riparian vegetation, 

channel characteristics and complexity, water temperature and bull trout critical habitat in the project area. 

The current livestock grazing activities on the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit 

Prairie allotments would not occur and areas where current grazing management impact fish and their 

habitat would stop. Grazing access points that result in bank trampling and streamside vegetation removal 

would no longer occur and these areas would improve, leading to improved aquatic and riparian habitat 

conditions. Because no direct or indirect effects would occur, there would be no cumulative effects. The 

No action alternative would result in the greatest extent of recovery of all alternatives when considered 

cumulatively for riparian areas whose existing condition is primarily attributable to livestock grazing. The 

rate of recovery for no livestock grazing including exclosures would be similar to those areas with the 

appropriate livestock management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 187

Table 92. Alternative 1 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition ratings by unit based 

on the actions proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 years PFC in 10 years Desired Condition 

in 10 years

Lake Creek Bosenberg 8.6 >PFCa >>PFCb Y 

McCoy Creek 5.7 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Logan Valley

Corral Holding 0.1 PFC >>PFC Y 

East Lake 

Creek 0.3 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Lower Field 0.1 PFC >PFC Y 

North Big 

Creek 0.7 >PFC >>PFC Y 

South Big 

Creek 0.6 >PFC >>PFC Y 

West 

Bosenberg 0.1 PFC >>PFC Y 

West Lake 

Creek 1.0 PFC >PFC Y 

McCoy Creek

Cow Camp 0.5 >PFC >>PFC Y 

North Fork 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y 

Starvation 0.3 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Starvation 0.2 PFC >PFC Y 

Summit Prairie

Little Logan 5.0 PFC >PFC Y 

North Summit 1.0 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Sagehen

2.8 Nc PFC N 

1.1 PFC >PFC Y 

0.9 >PFC >>PFC Y 

South Summit 0.04 PFC PFC N 

Summit Rock

0.81 N PFC N 

3.7 >PFC >>PFC Y 

1.0 >PFC >>PFC Y 

West Summit 0.4 N PFC N 

a – > : Shows improvements in bull trout critical habitat indicators moving toward PFC

b – >> : Shows continued improvements in bull trout critical habitat indicators near or beyond PFC

c - N: Indicates not at PFC or Desired Condition within defined time period

Table 92 lists the expected proper functioning condition rating by miles for each stream reach within each 

allotment and unit based on the existing condition, the potential for recovery towards or achievement of 

desired conditions (appendix A, Table 102) and the relevant actions proposed in alternative 1. 

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the short 

term. Beneficial Impact (BE) in the long-term.

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the 

short term. Beneficial Impact (BE) in the long-term.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

188 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Columbia Spotted Frog (S): No Impact. 

Columbia spotted frog and redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the 

exception that bull trout are relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. 

Therefore the analysis of bull trout critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed 

would have the same effects on Columbia spotted frog and redband trout habitat within the project area. 

Rationale

Habitat for bull trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water temperatures, 

riparian hardwood suppression, reduction in herbaceous plant vigor and altered stream channels have 

reduced the habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support bull trout. 

Removing livestock grazing within the project area on areas currently in a degraded state (functional-at 

risk) would facilitate the recovery of riparian vegetation and thus improvement in channel characteristics 

and complexity. Shading as a result of improvements in riparian hardwood and herbaceous plant vigor, as 

well as an increase in undercut banks, would result in a reduction in stream temperatures benefitting bull 

trout and bull trout critical habitat in the long term. Impacts related to roads, irrigation, and past timber 

harvest activities would continue to impact recovery in the project area but not cumulatively with 

livestock grazing. 

Management Indicator Species

Bull trout and redband trout are management indicator species chosen to indicate effects of activities on 

populations of non-anadromous riparian species. This alternative will improve conditions for bull trout 

and redband trout in the long term. Therefore, alternative 1 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization will not contribute to a negative trend in viability for bull trout or redband on the Malheur 

National Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives

Livestock Grazing – All Allotments

There are three primary ways in which livestock grazing may affect riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality. The three ways include browse utilization, 

hoof shearing/compaction, and riparian herbaceous plant utilization. An increase in any of these three 

factors and its effect on riparian vegetation and channel characteristics are synthesized below. Likewise a 

decrease in any of these factors would have the opposite effect. The intensity, duration, season of use, and 

periods of rest associated with these effects vary by alternative as well as the standards (endpoint 

indicators) for specific units in each of the alternatives (appendix E). Additionally, the effects of 

increasing any of the three values are also dependent on the existing condition of the riparian area and its 

resiliency to these effects and other disturbances. For example, these general effects would be lessened 

annually or not measureable if a site is at greater than proper functioning condition and the existing 

condition is very close to the desired condition. If a reach is below proper functioning condition and there 

is large departure from desired condition, then the annual effects will be exacerbated. This is because the 

vegetative and channel attributes are not resilient enough to provide channel stability. The general effects 

of the primary actions related to livestock grazing and their effects on riparian hardwoods, channel 

characteristics, and herbaceous plants in riparian areas are listed below.

Stubble height: 

Six inches (typically 4-8 inches based on season of use and similarity to desired conditions); stubble 

height has been widely used as an annual monitoring indicator for adaptive management to evaluate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 189

livestock vegetation use in riparian areas and provides information useful in determining the degree to 

which livestock grazing is influencing the achievement of desired conditions (streams dominated by 

herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation). Stubble height has been identified as being related to the 

physiological health and vigor of individual plants/communities as well as the ability of vegetation to 

protect streambanks and filter sediment during overbank flows, although by itself it is generally not 

sufficient to establish a relationship between grazing and riparian vegetative conditions. Research is 

limited, but the literature generally suggests 4-6 inches of residual stubble height allows for improved 

riparian grazing management and provides for adequate riparian protection. Clary and Leininger (2000) 

conducted studies on stubble height and its ability to improve riparian habitats and to capture and stabilize 

sediment. They concluded that stubble heights of 4-6 inches appear to stabilize the greatest amount of 

sediment. Boyd and Svejcar (2004) found similar results, reporting adequate regrowth occurred on most 

sites tested in Oregon when 4-6 inch stubble height remained. Clary (1999) states that by maintaining 

stubble heights of 4-5.5 inches allowed for streambank recovery. It is acknowledged; however, that in 

some instances 3 inches may provide adequate riparian protection while in other instances 6 to 8 inches 

may be required to limit streambank trampling or to reduce willow browsing. Grazing use indicator 

values are intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired conditions, resiliency of the site 

being monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock use (University of Idaho Stubble 

Height Review Team Report 2004, Clary and Leininger 2000, Clary et al. 1996, Hall and Bryant 1995, 

Clary and Webster 1989). This annual use indicator should be used in combination with long-term 

monitoring of vegetation and stream channel attributes 

Bank alteration: 

Twenty percent (10-30 percent depending on measurement method used and on resiliency of site); like 

stubble height, streambank alteration is another annual or short-term indicator used to evaluate the 

potential effects of livestock grazing in riparian areas, primarily any potential effects to long-term 

streambank stability and channel shape. It is used as a tool to assess the intensity of grazing along 

streambanks and to determine when such intensity may be appropriate or deemed too excessive. It can 

also prove useful in determining the cause-and-effect relationships between livestock grazing and stream 

channel conditions and whether management changes are needed for the following year. Streams are 

naturally dynamic and have the ability to repair a certain amount of annual disturbance each year (the 

amount is variable based upon stream gradient, substrate composition, streambank materials, vegetation 

type and abundance, channel geometry, flow regime, etc.). The literature is not extensive but generally 

suggests 10-30 percent streambank alteration is consistent with providing adequate riparian protection, 

and is intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired conditions, resiliency of the site being 

monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock use (Burton et al. 2011, Heitke et al. 2008, 

Bengeyfield 2006, Cowley 2002, Bengeyfield and Svoboda 1989). Bengeyfield (2006) found that when 

streambank alteration measured 15-20 percent, width to depth ratios showed an improving trend. He also 

noted that the vegetation improvements kept pace with the physical changes. This annual use indicator 

should be used in combination with long-term monitoring of streambank stability and channel geometry. 

In addition, it is worth noting that research is continuing to be conducted on the various ways that can be 

used to monitor for and measure actual streambank alteration (including multiple indicator monitoring, 

which the District is presently using) to account for accuracy of results, reduction of variability among 

observers, and the resources necessary to carry out such measures.

Mean incidence of use on woody species: 

Forty percent (30-50 percent based on season of use and similarity to desired conditions); Woody 

vegetation is an important component of many stream/riparian ecosystems as they provide a strong root 

system, filter sediments, and provide stream shade and habitat diversity. Woody species browse is a shortterm indicator of grazing utilization of woody species. Studies have shown that it is quite difficult to 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

190 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

accurately measure utilization of many riparian woody species, but that a general estimate of overall 

browsing of woody plants is important for determining the success of various grazing management 

prescriptions (detailed rule sets for describing classes of woody species use help with consistency). 

Overall, there is generally a reduction in seed production of woody plants that receive more than 55 

percent utilization, and when heavy and severe utilization levels are sustained over time overall plant 

health, including size and root strength, is reduced. Although the literature is not extensive, it generally 

suggests light to moderate allowable use on woody species (~30-50 percent) in order to maintain or 

improve woody plant communities; and is intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired 

conditions, resiliency of the site being monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock use 

(Winward 2000, Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements – USDI Bureau of Land Management

1996, PACFISH Enclosure B – Recommended Livestock Grazing Guidelines 1995). It has also been 

suggested that a preference change, from grasses and sedges to shrubs, be used as a trigger to manage 

livestock in order to protect sprouts and young woody species (Hall and Bryant 1995). This annual use 

indicator should be used in combination with long-term monitoring indicators of woody species age class 

and greenline composition to help determine the health of woody plant communities. The overall health 

of these plants can be a substantial factor influencing streambank stability, aquatic habitat, as well as 

water quality. Furthermore, this information can assist managers in determining whether management 

actions are making progress towards desired objectives or if adjustments are needed.

The following bulleted items depict the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation and channel 

characteristics when not managed appropriately or when the existing condition is functioning at risk with 

a large departure from desired conditions and lack resiliency to grazing impacts. Riparian areas that are 

closer to desired condition may not demonstrate these responses when managed appropriately and 

sufficient resiliency is present (minimum of proper functioning condition) therefore effects may not be 

measurable annually.

General effects from an increase in browse utilization 

• decrease in riparian hardwood height and density 

• decrease in percent effective shade

• increase of existing water temperature

• decrease in terrestrial insect input

• decrease of wetted floodplain 

General effects from an increase in stream bank hoof shearing/compaction

• decrease in undercut banks

• increase in bankfull width to depth ratio 

• decrease in residual pool depth and quality pools 

• decrease in channel complexity/decrease in greenline to greenline width

• increase in sediment and unstable banks

• contraction of wetted floodplain

General effects from an increase in riparian plant utilization (ava) 

• decrease in terrestrial insect input

• decrease in hydric plant vigor

• contraction of wetted floodplain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 191

• decrease in stable banks

Relationship of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Indicators and Bull Trout Critical Habitat

Effects to bull trout from livestock grazing can be in the form of direct impacts to individual fish or 

indirectly through habitat disturbance. Direct disturbance includes trampling on bull trout redds, resulting 

in injury or death to incubating embryos or alevin; disturbing holding or spawning adults, forcing them to 

alter their behavior and seek cover; or disturbing rearing juveniles, forcing them to alter their behavior 

and seek cover. Bull trout critical habitat designated as occupied within the project area would have 

livestock removed prior to August 15th to prevent direct impacts to spawning adult bull trout and bull 

trout redds. 

Grazing can have a number of detrimental effects on riparian and aquatic habitat which includes reduction 

of herbaceous plant cover and litter, disturbing and compacting soils, reducing water infiltration rates, and 

increasing soil erosion (Belsky et al. 1999). When riparian habitat is negatively affected, the survival and 

growth of listed fish species, sensitive species, and water quality may also be negatively affected. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Shrub Development

Livestock grazing can result in reduced recruitment of riparian shrubs (density), and a reduction in height 

classes as well as age classes. Willows require at least two years of leader growth before being able to set 

seed. When leaders are hedged each year, recruitment does not occur. A large portion of riparian woody 

browse occurs on riparian shrubs less than five feet tall that are accessible to livestock and wildlife. 

Livestock grazing of riparian shrubs in the fall often extenuates the use of woody riparian plants. Shrub 

height can directly affect shade which impacts water temperature. Also shrubs are an important source for 

terrestrial insects which are a source of food for bull trout and other fish species (Saunders and Fausch 

2007). Terrestrial invertebrate prey that come directly from riparian vegetation have been shown to 

account for 50-85 percent of trout diets during summer months (Utz et al. 2007) and provide about 50 

percent of their annual food budget (Kawaguchi and Nakano 2001; Baxter et al. 2005; Sweka and 

Hartman 2008). Browse and herbaceous utilization levels that limit the amount of detrital matter into 

streams may also impact aquatic invertebrates that are dependent on detrital matter (Saunders 2006, 

Saunders and Fausch 2007). Riparian shrub stems provide roughness and resistance to high flows. Their 

root system creates a matrix with herbaceous plants and increases bank stability and holding the channel’s 

shape in a stable form. 

Stabilizing plant cover

Livestock grazing can alter ecological status rating or maintain an early seral state. Hydric species such as 

sedges and rushes are often preferred by livestock. These hydric species contribute to a higher green line 

stability rating and wetland indicator rating. They also often are the first green vegetation immediately 

adjacent to the stream or the greenline. Hydric species also include the first colonizers of eroded banks 

and depositional areas facilitating a reduction in greenline to greenline width followed by channel 

narrowing. Early, mid, and late seral stages differ in their resilience to impacts from grazing and their 

ability to repair damage from one year to the next. Riparian areas that are in an early seral or mid seral 

state are susceptible to yearly high flow events and five year flow events which may result in a reset of 

improving riparian condition. These types of riparian areas are usually rated below proper functioning 

condition. Streams with adequate stabilizing plant cover build banks through deposition of sediment 

during high flows. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

192 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Shade

Livestock grazing can impact shade through a reduction in height of herbaceous cover, decrease in 

bankfull width/depth and decreases in height and density of riparian shrubs. They can also reduce hydric 

vegetation heights by reducing plant vigor. Reduced plant vigor can affect the channel’s shape and 

stability. Riparian shrubs adjacent to the channel can provide microclimate effects that can provide cooler 

day time temperatures (Anderson et al. 2007; Chen et al. 1999). Overhanging sedges and rushes provide 

shade to the stream and hiding cover for fish. In meadow systems with meandering, low gradient stream 

channels, herbaceous vegetation may be the only shade-providing plants. 

Channel Characteristics

The streams that are discussed are largely alluvial. They develop and function through continual 

adjustments from high flows and sediment loads coming in. Livestock grazing can result in changes in 

hydrology and channel complexity by direct bank alteration and a reduction in stabilizing bank cover and 

riparian hardwood shrub density. Bank stability decreases with a reduction in stabilizing bank cover and a 

reduction in riparian plant vigor. Reductions in riparian hardwood density can also decrease bank stability. 

Channels can become over-widened and susceptible to erosional process resulting in channel incision 

when these vegetative components are reduced. Depositional processes can be accelerated facilitating 

pool filling thus reducing residual pool depth and the number of quality pools. Floodplain connectivity is 

reduced when channel incision or over-widening occurs. The effects are manifested in the indicators of 

bankfull width to depth, average bankfull width, and Rosgen channel type. 

Water temperature and Aquatic Species

Water temperature is related to several of the indicators discussed above. Livestock grazing can impact 

shade by reducing overhead cover in the form of riparian hardwood shrub height and densities thus 

increasing solar heating. Floodplain connectivity is related to channel type, geomorphology, and riparian 

vegetation. Hyphoreic exchange (cold ground water) is related to floodplain connectivity, so a reduction 

in riparian vegetation function, maintenance of an over-widened stream channel from livestock bank 

alteration, and reduction in bank stability also affects cold groundwater influence within a stream reach. 

Pool depth and the number of quality pools also interact with stream temperature acting to mediate stream 

temperatures during the summer and winter months (Ebersole et al. 2001). Mediation of winter 

temperatures by deep pools was found to be important for bull trout over wintering (Jakober 1995). 

Winter movement by bull trout was found to be more extensive in mid elevation streams where frequent 

freezing and thawing led to variable surface ice cover and frequent super cooling (Jakober et al. 1998). 

Excessive fine sediment can result in filling of pools within a reach. Current climate model predictions for 

the Pacific Northwest suggest less snowpack followed by more rain on snow events. This suggests more 

freezing/thawing events in mid elevation streams similar to streams in the project area. 

Bull trout critical habitat relates to the indicators discussed above in several ways. The primary elements 

are stream temperature, shade, pool quality, and suitable spawning substrate. All of which vary in 

importance based on life history and stage-migratory, spawning, rearing. These elements are often not 

found within the same locale therefore migratory behavior or the ability to move between the distinct 

habitats based on life stage is critical for continuation of the population and its ability to endure natural or 

anthropogenic disturbances. Temperature may act as a thermal barrier to this type of behavior for bull 

trout. 

Vegetative and Geomorphic Effects from Fencing Riparian Areas

There will be significant improvements in stream channel morphology as the exclosed stream reaches 

become narrower, deeper, and have more pool area. Increased vegetation and reduced bare ground in 

response to fencing is an important factor associated with stream channel geomorphic adjustments. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 193

Establishing vegetation cover will take five years or more to be effective, with geomorphic adjustments 

taking longer. In Eastern Oregon, geomorphology response generally occur within 14 years, although 

older exclosures showed no geomorphic response after 28 years even though riparian vegetation was well 

established and abundant (Magilligan and McDowell 1997).Other variables such as channel constraint, 

stream power, and sediment supply also influence the ability of a stream channel to respond to fencing 

treatment. Generally, the longer the exclosure fences are in place, the greater the channel adjustment to 

desired conditions (Kaufman et al. 2002; Magilligan and McDowell 1997). 

Logan Valley Allotment

Big Creek Field Unit 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing a riparian pasture fence around the fen area may result in 

minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing the design criteria will 

minimize any effects to riparian areas and Columbia spotted frog by avoiding impacts to vegetation and 

creating wheel tracks in wet meadows or riparian areas, timing project implementation when sites and 

access are dry and rehabilitating after implementation to remove visible wheel tracks. The short term 

effects of fence construction are expected to result in long term beneficial effects for the Columbia 

spotted frog within the Big Creek Field unit. 

Corral Holding Unit

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be maintained on 

Bosenberg Creek within the Corral Holding unit. The indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian 

vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperature and bull trout critical habitat would be maintenance 

of the existing condition for the small section downstream of the fenced out riparian area. Inside the 

fenced area, minimal grazing would occur and there would be an improvement in condition. This 

exclosed section is approximately 0.1 miles. The woody browse would further increase the density and 

height classes of riparian shrubs across the entire reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate 

movement towards of improvements in the bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, 

it benefits bull trout critical habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be 

moving towards desired condition within 10 years. This reach would likely maintain proper functioning 

condition and potentially move towards desired conditions in five years.

Flat Field Unit

The direct effects of the unit boundary changes and fence removal and conversion would be no livestock 

use on Big Creek in the Flat Field unit. The indirect effect of no livestock grazing would benefit riparian 

resources, channel characteristics, water temperature and critical habitat. The ground disturbing impacts 

removal of 0.3 miles would not be measurable. Any effects from conversion of 0.3 miles electric fence to 

permanent let down would be minimized through following design criteria. Excluding livestock grazing 

from 0.13 miles of critical habitat on Big Creek in the Flat Field unit would move it towards a rating of 

proper functioning condition or beyond. 

Lower Field Unit

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be maintained on 

Bosenberg Creek within the Lower Field unit. The indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian 

vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperature and bull trout critical habitat would have a 

continued improvement. Bosenberg Creek is on the far east corner of the unit and an irrigated meadow 

produces abundant vegetation and provides livestock water through the grazing season. The permittee 

actively salts in the northwest corner and these management strategies likely are successful for providing 

recovery for Bosenberg Creek. Sedge and rush plant communities would continue to develop dense root 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

194 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

masses and narrow the channel. Improvements in vegetative attributes would improve the bankfull 

width/depth, undercut banks and shade values in the reach. Thus, it benefits bull trout critical habitat. Bull 

trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition within 10 

years. This reach would likely attain proper functioning condition in 5 years. 

West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in a reduction in hoof shearing of 

streambanks, reduction in woody browse use, and an increase in hydric plant vigor within Big Creek. This 

site did not have any data collected on it other than field observations, but was in good condition likely 

rated at proper functioning condition. A photo point would be monitored in this 14 acre unit to ensure 

there’s an increase in shrubs and wetland obligate plant communities. The adaptive management strategy 

is additional rest if sufficient movement towards or achievement of desired conditions (appendix A, Table 

102) has not occurred following the 3-5 years of rest. 

The indirect effects of reducing livestock effects would likely result in an increase in shrub density, height 

and vigor, and an increase in shade. It would also maintain potential channel type (Da5/6) by reducing 

bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would likely move towards 

desired condition (appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool 

depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools. As a result of the increase in residual pool depth, 

number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and 

height, and increase in shade, cooler water temperatures are expected. Effects related to changes in water 

temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to 

channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would 

facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives appendix A Table 102. The use levels 

identified in appendix E for the West Bosenberg unit, resting 3 years out of 10, monitoring (review of 

riparian condition 5 years out of recovery trajectory) as well as the adaptive management strategy 

(additional rest) would ensure movement towards desired conditions following re-initiation of livestock 

grazing.

The 0.13 miles reach is identified at proper functioning condition in 2012 and is expected to improve 

beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within the next 10 years based on the management 

actions within the West Bosenberg Riparian pasture. Any improvement beyond a rating of proper 

functioning condition is directly related to improvements in bull trout critical habitat. Annual use levels 

would facilitate maintenance of or improvement beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within 

the West Bosenberg Riparian pasture. The application of the adaptive management strategy (additional 

rest) for the West Bosenberg riparian if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired conditions 

(appendix A, Table 102) has not been made following 3-5 years of rest would benefit this reach. This 

would ensure that movement towards desired vegetative and channel characteristics are continued. 

McCoy Allotment

Cow Camp Riparian Exclosure 

Livestock grazing would be excluded from Lake Creek Reach 2 because of the Lake Creek Fence and 

Water-Gap and the Lake Creek Willow Gallery Fence. These two fence projects are discussed in chapter

1. Direct effects of herbivory, browsing and bank trampling would be reduced. Indirect effects of riparian 

and channel condition would be improved through the reduction of livestock use. Shade would be 

improved as the herbaceous vegetation becomes established into and decreasing the channel’s width. 

Water temperatures would likely experience less solar radiation. As the vegetation, channel and water 

temperatures improve, fish habitat would also be improved. The active beaver colony would likely 

expand and provide increased groundwater recharge. The beaver activity would also improve channel 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 195

complexity for further improved fish habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian exclosure would 

be moving towards desired condition within 10 years. This reach would likely remain at proper 

functioning condition. 

Starvation Unit 

The Starvation unit (Lake Creek Reach 1 and Crooked Creek Reach 1) would be removed from the 

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

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

Cumulative Effects Common to Action Alternatives

The area considered for cumulative effects includes all of the Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit Creek, 

Bosenberg Creek – Malheur River Subwatersheds (to the confluence of Bosenberg and the Malheur 

River) in the Headwaters Malheur River Watershed. All activities in appendix C of the EIS have been 

considered for their cumulative impacts on riparian habitat and aquatic dependent species. These 

cumulative effects geographical area upstream extent was selected because activities that occur upstream 

of the project area up to the drainage divide may be transported by runoff into the project area. The 

downstream extent was selected because most materials flowing out of the project area should deposit 

before leaving the subwatershed. The cumulative effect for past actions has been described in detail in the 

existing condition for this analysis area. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and 

foreseeable activities that may contribute impacts to riparian condition and aquatic species. 

The subwatersheds that contain the Logan Valley, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek and Summit Creek 

allotments vary in condition depending on the land management designation. The upper portions of Lake 

Creek and Big Creek are in wilderness areas with little human caused effects. Riparian vegetation and 

aquatic habitat conditions are properly functioning in these areas. The mid to lower portions of these 

subwatersheds have been affected by a variety of human-caused impacts, but mostly grazing, timber 

harvest, and road development. Private land occurs in about the mid portion of all the subwatersheds. 

Livestock grazing and agriculture are the primary uses of those private lands. 

Past Activities

Past activities such as legacy livestock grazing and dispersed camping in riparian areas have influenced 

riparian plant communities. Past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, wildland fire, and 

dispersed camping in riparian areas have influenced channel characteristics and complexity. Past actions 

relevant to water temperature and aquatic habitat resources are water withdrawals for irrigation, timber 

harvest, road construction, wildland fire livestock grazing and stocking of nonnative fish. 

Livestock grazing (prior to adoption of the Forest Plan in 1990) likely influenced riparian vegetation in 

the greatest extent and magnitude of all past actions. Legacy livestock grazing has affected plant vigor, 

potential area of wetland obligate communities, density and height classes of riparian shrubs that have 

strongly influenced effective shade and thus water temperatures. These changes have affected the 

recruitment and maintenance of the riparian vegetative attributes. Dispersed camping from recreation uses 

in the project area had minor effects on aquatic and riparian function. There are a few trails that cross 

streams resulting in localized sediment delivery and a few dispersed recreation sites that have disturbed 

riparian vegetation. Legacy livestock grazing has resulted in direct effects to fish species when they 

accessed occupied streams and may have trampled redds, resulting in altering normal behaviors and 

mortalities. It has also resulted in channels with wider bankfull widths that increase solar radiation. 

Legacy effects from browsing on stunted riparian shrubs have decreased the amount of effective shade 

available. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

196 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Forty timber sales have occurred within the project area since 1972 (40 years). These included multiple 

harvest prescriptions see appendix C. Past timber harvest likely resulted in compacted upland soils, 

leading to increased runoff and sediment yield. This can change the patterns of runoff from large areas in 

watersheds by changing vegetation characteristics. INFISH standards and riparian habitat conservation 

area buffers have been applied for timber management since 1995. INFISH limited silvicultural practices 

to those that are needed to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where needed to attain riparian 

management objectives, and that avoid adverse effects on inland native fish. Ongoing and foreseeable 

timber harvests are required to meet the Forest Plan as amendment by Amendment 29 and INFISH. 

Past timber harvesting required an extensive road network throughout most of the project areas. Roads are 

impervious and have changed runoff flow paths and processes. Roads adjacent to the stream likely 

constrain floodplain processes. Constrained roads may have additional stream energy that may erode 

streambanks and reduce bank stability and over widen the bankfull width/depth ratio. Ditch relief culverts 

in moderately steep roads adjacent to the stream are likely connected to the stream, yielding sediment into 

the water course directly. Roads tend to concentrate runoff, resulting in higher peak flows than would 

occur without roads. Fine sediments from road surfaces also enter stream channels at road crossings, 

increasing turbidity, substrate embeddedness and substrate composition. The vast majority of road 

crossings at streams are culverts. Poorly designed culverts can be barriers to juvenile or adult fish 

passage. Since the 1990s, road impacts have been reduced due to past project activities which have 

included road closure and decommissioning. Approximately 8.0 miles of road in riparian habitat 

conservation areas were closed or decommissioned in the last decade allowing some roads to re-vegetate 

and stabilize. 

Past fires have occurred within the last 30 years in the wilderness and headwater portions of Big Creek, 

Summit Creek, and Bosenberg subwatersheds (Upper Malheur watershed) as well as stand replacement 

fires in Upper Big Creek and Lake Creek subwatersheds (Appendix C Cumulative Activities Considered). 

These fires resulted in large sediment plumes into lower downstream sections of stream, reduction in 

overstory and shade and likely warmer stream temperatures than prior to the fires. Recovery of the 

riparian hardwoods and herbaceous component has occurred in these area and the systems are primarily 

controlled by downed large woody debris as a result of the fires. However, recruitment of large woody 

debris would be delayed due to past fires, conifers have yet to reach a height where they provide the shade 

once present, and streambanks have formed, but are composed of erodible organic matter which is highly 

susceptible to impacts from livestock hoof action. The effects of removal of the conifer overstory from 

fire can be expected to recover within 90 years post fire. Recruitment of new large woody debris may take 

even longer depending on natural disturbances such as windfalls or bug kills. Thus these streams would 

be limited in large woody debris for the foreseeable future. These wildfires in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment have affected riparian habitat conservation area categories 2 and 4 within the Summit Rock and 

Little Logan units. 

Water withdrawals for irrigation occur on private lands in the Lake Creek subwatershed. Past, ongoing 

and foreseeable water withdrawals would continue and is managed by the State of Oregon. Water 

temperatures heat up on Lake Creek from site 2 to 3 and 4 increase by 17 and 15 degrees, respectively. 

This water flows through a series of irrigation ditches that warms the water before releasing it back into 

the creek. Two head gates with fish screens have been installed within the last 15 years. 

High Lake above the project area has been stocked with non-native brook trout that now occur in some 

streams. Brook trout are known to compete with native trout for habitat and can interbreed resulting in 

less fit offspring. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were introduced to the Malheur Basin in the early 

1900s. The distribution of brook trout overlaps all areas occupied by bull trout in Lake Creek and most 

areas in Big Creek and its tributaries (Buckman et al. 1992). Hybridization and competitive displacement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 197

is possible due to the presence of brook trout. Hybridization between bull trout and brook trout in the 

subbasin has been documented (Buckman et al. 1992; L. Schwabe, Burns Paiute Tribe, personal 

communication). Brook trout are also a threat to bull trout because of their highly aggressive nature. 

Improvements in riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, water temperatures may improve the 

competitiveness of bull trout within the Malheur basin especially for those populations that exhibit 

migratory behavior and may grow to a larger size than local brook trout. 

Ongoing Activities

Ongoing actions related to improvements in livestock management and riparian conditions are listed in 

appendix C. Ongoing actions in the project area that are expected to improve the condition of riparian and 

aquatic resources include the following. The 0.3 mile West Fork Summit Creek fence and water gap 

would temporarily exclude livestock in the West Summit Recovery Unit on West Fork Summit Reach 1 

until the condition improves. A 0.25 mile buck and pole exclosure and enlargement of willow cages to 20 

foot diameter would improve willow height classes and densities in Summit Creek Reach 5 in the Little 

Logan unit. A 1 mile reconstruction of the Lake Creek unit division fence would improve management of 

livestock. A 0.2 mile fence and water gap that would provide better livestock management on Big Creek 

in the West Bosenberg Riparian pasture. A 0.2 mile fence that would exclude livestock from Lake Creek 

Reach 2, but would provide a 20 foot water gap in the Cow Camp unit. A 2.1 mile fence would fence off 

Lake Creek Reach 3 into the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture. Development of water sources in the 

Sagehen unit should improve the distribution of livestock amongst the unit and would decrease riparian 

vegetation disturbances except in localized areas. West Fork Summit Creek reach 2 would have parallel 

tree felling that should likely allow expression of vegetation and streambanks to heal where livestock do 

not have access to because of a tree acting as a physical barrier. All of these management actions should 

allow better management control of livestock grazing to improve the trend towards the management 

objectives and desired conditions. 

These actions were considered cumulatively in each alternative based on the existing condition (proper 

functioning condition rating), identified issues and the proposed grazing management for each alternative. 

Determinations were made as the whether the actions facilitated movement towards or achievement of 

recovery objectives and desired condition. These ongoing actions are expected to expedite recovery to 

desired conditions in coordination with the proposed actions in each alternative and benefit bull trout 

critical habitat thru improved livestock management and distribution within these units. 

These ongoing actions are common to all alternatives and the effects from these actions have been 

analyzed previously in other NEPA documents. This document considered the effects of these actions 

cumulatively in conjunctions with proposed actions in each of the alternatives within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization FEIS. Cumulatively these actions would have a net benefit to livestock 

management, riparian condition, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality within the project area. 

Foreseeable Activities

Riparian vegetation utilization from proposed activities would not likely add measurably to a downward 

trend in the existing condition of the streams in the project area because of the development of site 

specific use table standards, minimum rest requirements, adaptive management strategy, and changes in 

infrastructure to more effectively manage livestock and development of water sources. Proper functioning 

condition reaches that were identified as functioning at risk with a downward trend in 2007 had their use 

standards adjusted going into the 2008 grazing season. Changes in grazing management in response to 

present or ongoing activities would allow riparian vegetation to improve vigor in reaches that have issues. 

Since past livestock grazing has had an effect on the existing condition of riparian vegetation, it also has 

an effect on the channel characteristics and complexity, water quality and aquatic dependent species. Of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

198 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

primary interest is the bankfull width/depth ratio is typically higher for streams where there is a departure 

in the existing condition from the desired. As a result, sediment transport is negatively influenced and 

residual pool depths and quality pools typically are not in their desired ranges. 

Ongoing and foreseeable timber, road densities, fuels and recreational activities within these 

subwatersheds are expected to meet INFISH riparian management objectives and Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines regarding riparian habitat conservation areas and aquatic dependent species. These 

objectives and standards are designed to allow recovery of aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation towards 

desired conditions. Since impacts to aquatic habitat from the proposed actions are limited to negligible or 

not measureable decreases in overall riparian condition, wetland obligate plant communities, channel 

characteristics, water quality and aquatic habitat. It is unlikely that retarding of riparian condition and its 

relationships to aquatic dependent habitat would result in cumulative effects from timber, fuels and 

recreational management activities. 

The Malheur National Forest is currently in the process of analyzing changes in travel management. It is 

foreseeable that cross country travel would be prohibited across 1,337,770 acres on the Malheur National 

Forest where it is not already prohibited with the exception of cross country travel from designated open 

routes for the sole purpose of dispersed camping when resource damage caused by motor vehicle use can 

be avoided. The distance that cross country travel would be allowed from open routes to existing 

dispersed camp sites would vary by alternative considered in the travel management analysis. Existing 

dispersed sites in a riparian area would also have a setback distance from the stream where motorized 

access would be restricted. Foreseeable changes in travel management would have a beneficial 

cumulative impact to riparian areas in the long term. It is expected that there would be a long-term 

reduction in fine sediment production in the project area as roads are decommissioned and re-vegetated; 

and cross country travel and dispersed camping that are causing resource damage is prohibited. Closing 

roads would result in a decrease in erosion of road surfaces. 

Foreseeable activities of riparian hardwood planting restoration along 1.2 miles of Lake Creek and 2.5 

miles of Big Creek. These actions should improve the density of riparian shrubs towards desired 

conditions in these areas. 

Continual livestock utilization of riparian shrubs and herbaceous plants and bank alteration would have 

some level of cumulative effects with present dispersed recreation activities, water withdrawals and 

livestock grazing both on private and public lands. The level of these cumulative effects with present 

dispersed recreation activities are not likely to reach a point where measureable affects would occur. 

However, water withdrawals and livestock grazing on private lands within the middle of public lands may 

be influencing water temperatures flowing onto the public lands. It is likely that the Cow Camp unit may 

not achieve water quality standards despite Lake Creek being excluded from livestock use because of the 

water withdrawals on private land. Reach 6 of Summit Creek in the Summit Rock unit and Reach 5 in the 

Little Logan show signs of water temperature increases because of water that flows through the private 

lands sections. Utilization standards and adaptive management identified in the Cow Camp, Summit Rock 

and Little Logan units would ensure riparian and channel characteristics are on an upward trend towards 

desired condition on National Forest System Lands. 

The use of utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, active range riding, riparian 

exclusion fences, minimum rest requirements, and the adaptive management strategy would restrict the 

time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas and allow recovery towards riparian objectives. These 

components of the allotment management plans would prevent measurable cumulative effects at the 

stream reach or larger spatial scales. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 199

No detrimental change in aquatic habitat conditions from the proposed grazing regime intensity and 

duration is expected on the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments. The 

cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the 

Malheur Forest Plan EIS.

When past, present and foreseeable activities are considered together, rates of riparian recovery within the 

project area would differ because of the existing condition and rates of recovery for riparian areas within 

the project area. While aquatic habitat is expected to improve simply based on livestock management the 

presence of invasive brook trout may limit the recovery of bull trout within the project area due to 

competition. Riparian vegetation is expected to improve to some extent in all alternatives however 

channel characteristics from legacy impacts related to timber harvest or road construction may impede 

recovery to some degree unrelated to livestock management. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

McCoy Creek and Corral Basin Units 

The direct and indirect effects of authorizing the McCoy Creek and Corral Basin units as a vacant 

allotment would be no grazing on 6.4 miles of critical habitat streams. This would facilitate continual 

improvement and likely improve beyond a minimum rating of proper functioning condition and achieve 

desired conditions for vegetative and channel characteristics within the next 10 years. Riparian hardwood 

densities and heights would continue to increase production of shade. Stabilizing hydric plant species 

would continue to increase in vigor and expand. Bankfull width/depth would continue to narrow creating 

undercut banks and deeper pools. Stream temperatures would likely cool as a result of the improvements 

listed above. These areas are a current stronghold for bull trout in the Upper Malheur River. These areas 

would continue to provide productive habitat. 

McCoy Creek Unit 

The direct and indirect effects of removing 407 acres from McCoy Creek unit and creating 2.5 miles of 

new fence would not affect riparian and aquatic resources. The portions of these units with riparian 

resources and critical habitat were vacant and the authorization from this analysis would keep it pending 

future analysis. The design criteria would minimize ground disturbing effects of compaction and 

trampling or removal of vegetation to water quality and critical habitat and would only apply to the 2.5 

miles of fence.

Logan Valley Allotment 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be maintained at 

current levels to Big Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian pasture with the exception 

that 3 years out of 10 would not have the current levels. 

Indirect effects from authorizing livestock grazing in conjunction with the use levels and improvement 

projects in the unit would slightly improve the shrubs and the channel characteristics, maintain the 

effective shade values and improve the herbaceous plant vigor within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. 

Riparian shrub densities and height may be slightly increased with proposed management. Annual browse 

utilization standards of 30-50 percent with season long rest 3 years out of 10 should allow shrubs 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

200 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

currently less than three feet to be expressed to a height above the reach of livestock in 10 years. Shrubs 

that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the increased density 

of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than 

the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely be improved under this management. The 

condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently in an adequate condition for proper 

functioning condition and would likely improve from the required 3 years out of 10 years rest. This 

condition was assessed with a 4 inch stubble height and since the herbaceous plant community is not the 

largest portion, it is not the driver for stream bank stability. The shrub development/recruitment in 

conjunction with large woody debris provides long term channel stability.

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be maintained at current levels for 7 of 10 

grazing seasons within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. The upstream extent of this unit has an abundant 

amount of large wood that has fallen across the channel and provides protection to the streambanks and 

channel stability. Conifers have also encroached up to the streambanks in other places making it difficult 

for livestock to access the creek. The lower extent is more open from a conifer overstory and has more of 

a developed riparian hardwood plant community. Braided channels exist across the floodplain that 

inherently increase the streambank trampling that occurs as livestock cross Big Creek. Maintaining 

current use levels on shrubs may maintain to slightly improve increases in shrubs and height classes and 

may slightly improve stability on the channel and the bankfull width/depth ratio. The channel may narrow 

as a result of increases in new shrub root masses. It would not likely cause a change in residual pool depth 

and improved pool quality in the 10 years (appendix A, Table 103).

Maintaining or slightly improving the riparian shrubs and channel characteristics would not measurably 

increase effective shade values in the Big Creek Riparian pasture within 10 years (appendix A, Table 

103). These reaches represent all 1.7 miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the 

condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would not likely improve; 

spawning and rearing habitat would likely be maintained in their current condition. 

The creation of the Big Creek Riparian pasture may result 1.7 miles of critical habitat moving towards 

desired vegetation conditions, but not towards the desired channel characteristics within 10 years for 

reaches 1, 2 and 3 of Big Creek. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may 

not likely occur due to the need of having consecutive years of no browse. The adaptive management 

strategy of additional rest or scheduled rest may allow continual movement towards or achievement of 

desired vegetative conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102. The ground disturbing impacts from 

removal of 1.2 miles of fencing would not be measurable. 

Deardorff Unit

The direct effects of removing 395 acres from a portion of the Horse Unit and a portion of the McCoy 

Creek unit of the Lake allotment would not affect riparian and aquatic dependent species because there is 

no critical habitat within the proposed Deardorff unit. The indirect effect of adding this unit would benefit 

livestock management strategies by developing deferment and rest options that provide more frequent rest 

periods in other units in the allotment with riparian resources. The ground disturbing impacts of removal 

of 0.5 miles would not be measurable. Any effects from fence construction of 2.5 miles would be 

minimized through following design criteria. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 201

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the West Lake Creek Riparian pastures in the 

Logan Valley allotment would result in a reduction in hoof shearing of streambanks, reduction in woody 

browse use, and an increase in hydric plant vigor within a functioning at risk stream reach.

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization and increasing hydric 

plant vigor include an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. It would also 

facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential channel type (F4/C4 towards E4) by 

reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pasture would likely move 

towards desired condition (appendix A Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, 

undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Lake Creek reach 3. A result of the increase in 

residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian 

hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to 

changes in improvement of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to 

channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would 

facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives and desired condition. The adaptive 

management strategy of additional rest if it is determined that sufficient recovery has not been achieved 

following rest of 3-5 years would also facilitate recovery of reach 3 within Lake Creek. Reach 3 of Lake 

Creek was rated as functional at risk trending down and in an early seral state. Riparian areas in a mid to 

late seral state are more resilient to the impacts of livestock grazing. Existing annual use levels are not 

sufficient to improve riparian condition within this reach however recovery of the riparian area to a 

mid/late seral stage (with 3-5 or more years of rest) prior to the resumption of grazing may be adequate to 

not retard the attainment of desired conditions. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest if 

movement towards desired condition is not sufficient would facilitate recovery within the West Lake 

Creek Riparian pasture. 

These levels would not retard movement towards proper functioning condition and desired conditions for 

vegetation. The channel characteristics would likely move towards desired condition, but at a slower rate 

because of the current condition. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest within the West 

Lake Creek Riparian pasture would ensure that sufficient resiliency has been achieved within the riparian 

area to maintain an upward trend in recovery towards desired condition. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Bosenberg Unit

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Bosenberg Unit in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment would result in an increase in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks related to 

livestock grazing, increase in woody browse use (browse utilization), and maintenance of herbaceous 

plant vigor (stubble height). There are approximately 4.4 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the 

Bosenberg Unit that are not currently being grazed and would have grazing reinitiated. 

The indirect effects from incorporation of the Bosenberg Unit and rest for 3 out of 10 years would 

alleviate the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, and increase hydric plant vigor 

within reaches 1,2,3,4 and 5 of Summit Creek (Little Logan and Sagehen Units). The Bosenberg Unit is 

currently vacant and contains bull trout critical habitat. The addition of the Bosenberg Unit and 

resumption of grazing would introduce impacts from livestock grazing into areas that have not been 

grazed for twenty- two years and are recovering from the effects of fire. Required riding would maintain 

control of the livestock in the Unit and may minimize the time livestock spend near riparian areas. The 

establishment of a representative designated monitoring area and critical designated monitoring area 

within sensitive riparian areas in Bosenberg Creek may ensure excess bank trampling and shearing does 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

202 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

not occur that is beyond the natural rate of recovery and facilitates a continual upward improvement in 

riparian condition within Bosenberg Creek. 

Indirect effects from an increase in browse utilization (riparian hardwood) within Bosenberg Unit and 

implementation of 3 years rest out of 10 for the Sagehen and Little Logan Units. 

Additional browse utilization would increase within the Bosenberg Unit to levels beyond that of wildlife 

use. Annual use levels for browse would be sufficient to facilitate movement towards or maintenance of 

desired riparian management objectives within Bosenberg Creek. Scheduled rest of 3 years out of 10 

would facilitate continual movement towards or maintenance of riparian management objectives within 

Bosenberg Creek and the Sagehen and Little Logan Units. 

Riparian hardwood densities and height would increase slightly. The percent shade would slightly 

increase as hardwood heights and densities increase. The increase in shade may result in cooler water 

temperatures, increase in terrestrial insect input and an increase in the wetted floodplain. 

Indirect effects from an increase in riparian plant utilization (stubble height) within the Bosenberg Unit 

and scheduled rest of 3 years out of 10 may affect riparian plant vigor and but is expected to continue to 

increase at a rate slower than that of alternative 1 where the Bosenberg Unit remains vacant. Riparian 

plant vigor is expected to increase within the Sagehen and Little Logan Units in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment as a result of the rest for 3 years out of 10 but not to the extent as that of alternative 1 where 

Sagehen and Little Logan Units become vacant. Annual use level would alleviate some of the effects of 

livestock use of forage within the riparian areas but not to the extent as that of No livestock grazing in 

alternative 1. 

Indirect effects from an increase in streambank hoof shearing (bank alteration) within the Bosenberg Unit 

and decrease in hoof shearing within the Sagehen and Little Logan Units in the Summit Prairie Allotment. 

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would increase within the Bosenberg Unit but decrease 

within the Sagehen and Little Logan Units in the Summit Prairie Allotment due to initiation of rest for 3 

years out of 10. Because of the establishment of a reference designated monitoring area and critical 

designated monitoring area as well as initial bank alteration levels of 10 percent and 15 percent within the 

Bosenberg Unit the formation of undercut banks, decrease in bankfull width, increase in residual pool 

depth, and decrease in greenline to greenline width, decrease in sediment that has occurred under vacancy 

is expected to continue to improve and move towards riparian management objects and desired conditions 

identified in appendix A Table 102. 

Five off site water sources and two water gaps are proposed in alternative 2. Of the five off site water 

source developments, three would be stock ponds in the northeast portion of the unit, a headwater spring 

would be developed to a trough 300 feet away from Bosenberg Creek and a water withdrawal site would 

pump water from the creek to a trough approximately 100 feet away from the stream. The water gaps 

would be developed near the 1648 road and Bosenberg Creek. The effects related to the livestock 

developments proposed above for incorporation of the Bosenberg unit are analyzed below. 

Three stock ponds would be constructed in the far northeastern portion of the unit. These stock ponds are 

in the uplands, a considerable distance from critical habitat streams. The direct and indirect effects of 

constructing 3 stock ponds include ground disturbance from heavy machinery and impacts to upland 

vegetation and soil compaction. Water would be stored in the ponds later into the grazing season and may 

improve the distribution of livestock in the unit. This may result in less time livestock spend in riparian 

areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 203

Forest System road 1648 parallels Bosenberg Creek in several areas. The hill side slope from Forest Road 

1648 in relatively steep into Bosenberg Creek. The direct and indirect effects from construction of water 

gaps along 1648 would result in additional sediment input into Bosenberg creek from the existing road 

and removal of existing shade. The stream banks along Bosenberg Creek are relatively soft and composed 

of organic matter deposited following fire. The locations for the water gaps are adjacent to road crossings, 

on already disturbed sites and where access for livestock is ideal. Design criteria within the Aquatic 

Restoration Biological Opinion (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) would be adhered to for construction 

of water gaps and would minimize the effects listed above. Utilizing concentrated water points would 

minimize the ground disturbance from livestock accessing the stream to water in other portions of the 

reach. 

The headwater spring proposed for development is within a highly sensitive area on a hill side because of 

the steep gradient. The dominant vegetation is hydric plant species. Soil composition is primarily organic 

and saturated. The spring has not fully recovered from the effects of past land management actions and 

the fire. Areas adjacent to the spring appear to have sloughed downhill. The direct and indirect effects of 

development of the spring would likely result in additional damage to the soils and vegetation 

surrounding the outlet of the spring. Movement of groundwater into a trough exposed to solar radiation 

may result in increased water temperatures on water returns to Bosenberg Creek. Bosenberg creek is one 

of a few creeks within the Upper Malheur watershed that likely meets bull trout temperature criteria 

(mostly groundwater inputs). Implementing design criteria for the development of the spring outflow 

would minimize the effects listed above. The trough would have a float that would minimize the amount 

of water withdrawn from the spring outlet. The spring would be fenced off and would reduce grazing 

effects to the spring. Wetland obligate vegetation would expand and cold water storage functions from the 

spring would be maximized. 

A water withdrawal location approximately a half mile from the junction of the Forest System road 1648 

and 1649 to a trough located approximately 100 feet away. The direct and indirect effects from the 

removal of water from Bosenberg creek would likely result in less cold water reaching occupied bull trout 

CH within the lower portions of Bosenberg Creek and Big Creek. Implementing design criteria for the 

development of the spring outflow would minimize the effects listed above. The trough would have a 

float that would minimize the amount of water withdrawn from the spring outlet. 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 7 miles of fence within the Bosenberg unit may result in 

minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing the design criteria would 

minimize any effects to riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted frog 

within the project area. The short term effects of fence construction are expected to result in long term 

beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the Sagehen and Little Logan units in the Summit 

Prairie allotment. 

The re-initiation of livestock grazing within the Bosenberg Unit with a scheduled rest of 3 years out of 10, 

establishment of two designated monitoring areas, reduction in bank alteration levels, adaptive 

management strategy of additional rest, and a rider would facilitate continual movement towards desired 

conditions identified within (appendix A, Table 103), but at a slower rate than that of alternative 1 where 

no livestock grazing disturbance occurs. Riparian vegetation within the Bosenberg Unit would continue to 

recover from the historical effects of fire, grazing and road related impacts but not likely achieve desired 

condition within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103) as a result of the slow recovery observed from the 

effects of fire from 22 years ago. Bull trout critical habitat within the Bosenberg Unit would likely not 

achieve desired condition for channel characteristics within the scheduled time frame (appendix A, Table 

103 10 years). Resumption of grazing within the Bosenberg Unit would not retard movements towards or 

achievement of desired condition but would result in a slower rate of recovery than that of alternatives 1 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

204 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

within the Bosenberg Unit where no livestock use occurs. The Bosenberg Unit would likely be rated as 

proper functioning condition or functional at risk trending up. Fish habitat criteria related to bull trout 

critical habitat are often achieved beyond a minimum rating of proper functioning condition for which the 

channel characteristics identified in appendix A, Table 103 are applicable. Bosenberg Creek is one of the 

few streams within the project area that contains water temperatures suitable for all life stages of bull 

trout. The adaptive management strategy of scheduled rest or additional rest if sufficient movement 

towards or maintenance of desired conditions is not achieved within the desired time frames (appendix A, 

Table 103) would ensure that a resilient riparian area develops along Bosenberg Creek and riparian 

management objectives are not retarded to a degree to prevent eventual attainment of desired condition 

and INFISH criteria. 

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Little Logan unit in the Summit Prairie 

allotment would result in a slight decrease in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued 

improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from leaving more residual stubble height, and maintaining 

current riparian hardwoods height classes and densities. 

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be slightly reduced than current levels for the 

next 10 grazing seasons within the Little Logan unit because season long rest would occur for 3 out of 10 

years. The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing for the Little Logan unit include continued 

maintenance of meeting standards for streambank stability. However, the channel is still recovering from 

legacy grazing affects. Herbaceous plant communities expanding towards the channel are transitioning 

from single plants to a dense plant community. This is indicative of a wide channel narrowing and 

capturing soil from runoff events and building banks. This zone of streambank is very tender to livestock 

effects from hoof shearing and hoof shearing may severe roots. PIBO data found the bankfull width/depth 

ratio and bank angles have been on an upward trend and improving. 

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be maintained in their current condition. The current 

condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 4 percent of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems per unit area 

desired. Annual browse utilization standards of 30-50 percent with season long rest 3 years out of 10 

would likely maintain the uncaged riparian shrubs stunted at 2 feet. Utilization values were approximately 

98 percent for the shrubs that were uncaged and available for livestock browse. This indicates that the 

vigor of these shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per year may not occur until the vigor is 

improved. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the 

increased density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and 

livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to be improved under this 

management. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward trend and 

would likely improve from the scheduled rest. This condition was assessed with a 4 inch stubble height. 

Maintaining the riparian shrubs and improving the channel characteristics would not measurably increase 

effective shade values in the Little Logan unit within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). These reaches 

represent 5 miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool 

depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would 

likely be slightly improved in their current condition. 

Authorization of livestock grazing in the Little Logan unit may result in 5 miles of critical habitat moving 

towards proper functioning condition in both 5 and 10 years, maintaining the vegetation existing 

conditions, and move it towards the desired channel characteristics within 10 years. Bull trout critical
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 205

habitat within the riparian pastures would likely move towards, but not likely achieve desired vegetation 

condition within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). This is because Reach 5 was identified as a broad 

valley habitat type that requires a major component of multiple aged riparian shrubs to stabilize 

streambanks, provide shade and cover to fish, and creates a micro climate that reduces water temperatures 

through moderating air temperatures adjacent to the creek. If rest occurs only after exceedances of the 

previous grazing season, the vegetative and channel characteristics may retard or at a minimum maintain 

the current condition. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may not likely 

occur due to the need of having consecutive years of no browse. The adaptive management strategy of 

additional rest or scheduled rest may allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired 

vegetative conditions identified in appendix A Table 102. The ground disturbing impacts from removal of 

0.7 miles of fencing would not affect shade or add measureable sediment contributions to surface waters 

or degrade aquatic habitat. 

The creation of 0.25 mile exclosure on reach 5 of Summit Creek within the Summit Prairie allotment 

would remove the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, and an increase in hydric 

plant vigor within reach 5 (Little Logan unit) of Summit Creek. Movement towards or achievement of 

desired condition is expected to be at the same rate as the No action alternative following removal of 

livestock. The construction of the exclosure fence may deter wildlife use within Summit Creek reach 5 

and therefore recovery would be at a slightly faster rate than that of the alternative 1 (No Action). Reach 5 

of Summit Creek was identified as having the greatest potential for willow recovery of all reaches within 

Summit Creek (Carex Working Group 2012). 

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization, and increasing 

hydric plant vigor include an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, resulting in an increase in shade 

within reach 5 of Summit Creek. It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the 

potential channel type (C4 to E4/5) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within 

the exclosure would likely be moving towards or achieve desired condition (appendix A Table 103 within 

10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the numbers of quality pools within the 

exclosure on Summit Creek reach 5. A result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality 

pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase 

in shade would be cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of 

vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and 

water temperature are expected within 10 years. Removal of grazing within the newly constructed

exclosure would facilitate movements towards/or achievement of desired condition at a rate similar to 

alternative 1 (No Action). Summit Creek reach 5 was rated as functional at risk in 2007 with poor plant 

vigor and less than desirable bank cover of stabilizing plants. Fish habitat related to bull trout critical 

habitat and water quality criteria (temperature) are often achieved beyond a minimum rating of proper 

functioning condition. Removal of grazing would facilitate/expedite movement towards or achievement 

of desired condition within the exclosure on Reach 5 of Summit Creek. 

North Summit Unit 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in maintenance in existing levels of 

hoof shearing on streambanks, maintenance in woody browse use, and a slight improvement in hydric 

plant vigor within Reach 7 of Summit Creek. This site was rated at proper functioning condition in 2007 

with woody shrub use was identified as an issue. The Carex Working Group identified a deficiency in 

shrub density and particularly height classes. None of the shrubs present were greater than 3 feet tall. A 

designated monitoring area exists on Reach 7 to aid in comparing condition in 5 years with the developed 

management objectives. The adaptive management strategy would change allowable use if sufficient 

movement towards or achievement of desired conditions (appendix A, Table 102). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

206 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The indirect effects of maintaining livestock effects would likely result in a maintenance of the existing 

conditions. The streambank stability is within the standard error of meeting the long term desired 

condition and would likely continue to meet the standards. The bankfull/width depth was observed to be 

not in balance during the proper functioning condition assessments. Bankfull width/depth may slightly 

improve because the herbaceous plant community is approximately 84 percent of desired. However, 

shrubs are not above the browsing line and may not be developing the seeds to increase the density 

towards desired conditions. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would likely move 

slightly towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool 

depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools. As a result of the increase in residual pool depth, 

number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, and increase in shade is cooler water 

temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would 

likely be slightly improved within 10 years. The use levels identified in appendix E for the North Summit 

unit, monitoring and the adaptive management strategy (change allowable use) would ensure movement 

towards desired conditions.

The 0.97 miles reach is identified at proper functioning condition in 2007 and is expected to improve 

beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within the next 10 years based on the management 

actions within the North Summit unit. Any improvement beyond a rating of proper functioning condition 

is directly related to improvements in bull trout critical habitat. It is likely that the current annual use 

levels would facilitate limited improvement beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within the 

North Summit unit. This slight improvement is due to the herbaceous plant community alone that is 

currently in a good condition. This herbaceous community would likely tighten the channel characteristics 

slowly over time. However, it is not likely that the riparian shrubs would reach the desired condition 

within the time frame identified in appendix A, Table 103. The adaptive management strategy of changing 

allowable use for the North Summit unit if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired 

conditions (appendix A, Table 102) has not been made would benefit the riparian shrubs in this reach. 

This would ensure that movement towards desired is not impeded by land management actions. 

Sagehen Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Sagehen unit in the Summit Prairie allotment 

would result in a slight decrease in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued 

improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from leaving more residual stubble height, and maintenance in the 

current riparian hardwoods height classes and densities in reach 2 and slightly improve reach 4. There are 

approximately 4.7 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the Sagehen unit and represents 22 percent of 

the bull trout critical habitat found in the Summit Creek Subwatershed. Proper functioning condition 

assessments stratified 4 reaches in Sagehen unit and found 33 percent of Sagehen to be at a proper 

functioning condition rating and 67 percent to be functioning at risk. 

The presence of hoof shearing from livestock use would be slightly reduced than current levels for the 

next 10 grazing seasons within the Sagehen unit because season long rest would occur for 3 out of 10 

years. The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing for the Sagehen unit include a slight improvement 

for streambank stability, primarily in Reaches 2 and 4. These specific reaches also have channel form still 

recovering from legacy grazing effects. These areas are prioritized because Reaches 1 and 3 are 

constrained rocky reaches that are relatively resistant to hoof action. Herbaceous plant communities 

expanding towards the channel are transitioning from single plants to a dense plant community. This is 

indicative of a wide channel narrowing and capturing soil from runoff events and building banks. This 

zone of streambank is very tender to livestock effects from hoof shearing and hoof shearing may severe 

roots. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 207

The herbaceous component in Sagehen would likely be continually improved in plant vigor and 

expansion of plant communities. The 3 years out of 10 years rest would provide a full growing season for 

plants to expand and improve. 

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be maintained in their current condition for Reach 2 

with a slight improvement in Reach 4. The current condition for riparian shrubs is near desired in Reaches 

1 and 3. These are constrained, rocky reaches that are dominated with alders. The current condition of 

riparian shrubs for Reaches 2 and 4 are well below the desired levels. Riparian shrubs in Reaches 2 and 4 

both have 23 percent of desired or approximately 45 stems with 200 stems per unit area. Annual browse 

utilization standards of 30-50 percent with season long rest 3 years out of 10 would likely maintain the 

uncaged riparian shrubs stunted at 2 feet. Utilization values were approximately 98 percent for the shrubs 

that were uncaged and available for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is very 

low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per year may not occur until the vigor is improved. Shrubs that have not 

been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the increased density of shrubs. 

These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs 

that have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Maintaining the riparian shrubs and improving the channel characteristics would not measurably increase 

effective shade values in the Sagehen unit within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). These reaches 

represent 4.7 miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool 

depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely slightly improve; spawning and rearing habitat 

would likely be slightly improved in their current condition for Reaches 2 and 4. Reaches 1 and 3 are in a 

good condition and would improve. 

Authorization of livestock grazing in the Sagehen unit would result in movement towards proper 

functioning condition, maintaining the vegetation existing conditions, and moving it towards the desired 

channel characteristics. Bull trout critical habitat on Reaches 1, 3 and 4 would likely achieve proper 

functioning condition in both 5 and 10 years. Reach 2 would likely move towards functional at risk 

trending up in both 5 and 10 years, but not likely to achieve proper functioning condition because of the 

channel and riparian shrub existing conditions. Reaches 1, 3, and 4 would likely move towards the desired 

vegetation condition within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). Reach 4 is adjacent to the road and would 

allow more efficient management of livestock. Reach 2 would likely maintain its existing vegetation 

condition because of the deficiency in riparian shrub, height classes and channel characteristics. Reaches 

1, 3 and 4 would likely move towards desired channel characteristics. Reach 2 would likely move towards 

desired channel characteristics, but at a slow rate. If rest occurs only after exceedances of the previous 

grazing season, the vegetative and channel characteristics may retard or at a minimum maintain the 

current condition. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may not likely 

occur due to the need of having consecutive years of no browse. The adaptive management strategy of 

additional rest or scheduled rest may allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired 

vegetative conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102. 

Summit Rock Unit

The Summit Rock unit was rated as proper functioning condition in 2007 for reaches 6 and 8 for a total of 

3.5miles. Livestock grazing would occur annually with no season of rest. Annual use levels would include 

the endpoint indicators of 4 inch stubble height, 30-50 percent browse, and 20 percent bank alteration. 

The adaptive management strategy would include changes in annual use levels (appendix E). Reach 6 is 

expected to improve slightly beyond proper functioning condition or maintain a rating of proper 

functioning condition. Annual use levels are sufficient to continue a slight improvement in herbaceous 

vigor. Bank stability would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous plant and woody plants. 

Bank alteration levels are sufficient to maintain the existing condition with a possible increase in bank 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

208 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

stability due to improvements in vegetation. Reach 6 is likely to maintain a rating of proper functioning 

condition and not achieve desired conditions within 10 years. Proper functioning condition is a minimum 

and does not equate to quality fish habitat until a rating beyond proper functioning condition is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected to maintain at proper functioning condition with limited improvement in herbaceous 

vigor, browse utilization, and bank alteration within the lower portion of reach identified in 2007. Without 

rest, sufficient improvement in riparian hardwoods and herbaceous plant vigor is unlikely to occur in 

reach 8 under the current proposed levels of use to achieve desired condition in 10 years. 

Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek had channel incision in the reach. The same annual use levels apply 

to reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek. Improvements in channel characteristics are unlikely to occur 

without an improvement in riparian vegetation. Stream reaches that are functional at risk trending down 

are highly susceptible to impacts from livestock grazing and improvements in herbaceous, hardwood 

cover are easily set back in this condition (resiliency). 

West Fork Summit Recovery Unit 

The creation of 0.85 mile temporary exclosure on West Fork Summit Creek within the Summit Prairie 

allotment would remove the effects of hoof shearing of streambanks, woody browse use, and an increase 

in hydric plant vigor within reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek. Movement towards or achievement of 

desired condition is expected to be at the same rate as the No action alternative. The construction of the 

exclosure fence may limit wildlife use within Reach 2 and therefore recovery would be at a slightly faster 

rate than that of the alternative 1 (No Action). 

The indirect effects of reducing hoof shearing, riparian hardwood browse utilization, and increasing 

hydric plant vigor for the 0.85 mile temporary exclosure would likely result in an increase in herbaceous 

plant communities, resulting in an increase in shade and improvement in channel morphology within 

reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek. It would also facilitate movement towards or maintenance of the 

potential channel type by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pastures would likely achieve desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing 

residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within West Fork Summit Creek 

Reach 1. A result of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull 

width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water 

temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be 

expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected 

within 10 years. Removal of grazing within the newly constructed temporary exclosure would facilitate 

movements towards/or achievement of desired condition at a similar rate to alternative 1 (No Action) for 

the first 5 years. However, following the immediate rest, movement towards desired conditions would 

likely be at a slower rate than alternative 1. West Fork Summit Creek reach 1 was rated as functional at 

risk trending down in 2007 with several headcuts and channel incision. Fish habitat related to bull trout 

critical habitat and water quality criteria (temperature) are often achieved beyond a minimum rating of 

proper functioning condition. Minimum rest requirements of 3-5 years followed by additional rest if 

sufficient movement towards desired condition has not been achieved would facilitate movement towards 

desired condition within Reach 1 of West Fork Summit Creek by increasing the resiliency of the riparian 

vegetation and facilitating advancement in seral state.

Cumulative Effects

When cumulative effects common to alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the proposed actions 

from alternative 2, the result is the fourth fastest rate of recovery or movement towards a proper 

functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and bull trout critical habitat within the 

project area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock management strategy for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 209

alternative 2 that largely includes deferment and 3 years out of 10 years rest for improvement. The 

cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the 

Malheur Forest Plan EIS.

Table 93. Alternative 2 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by unit 

based on the actions proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 

5 Years

PFC in 

10 Years

Desired Condition 

in 10 Years

Lake Creek

Corral Basin 3.59 >PFC >>PFC Y 

McCoy Creek 6.35 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Logan Valley

Big Creek Riparian Pasture 1.67 >PFC >PFC Y 

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y 

Flat Field 0.02 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y 

West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture 0.13 >PFC >>PFC Y 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture 0.95 N PFC N 

McCoy 

Creek Lake Creek Willow Exclosure 0.51 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Summit 

Prairie 

Bosenberg 4.36 PFC PFC N 

Little Logan 5.03 PFC PFC N 

North Summit 0.97 PFC PFC N 

Sagehen

2.43 N N N 

0.32 N N N 

1.10 PFC PFC N 

0.89 PFC PFC N 

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.83 N N N 

3.71 >PFC >PFC Y 

1.00 >PFC >PFC Y 

West Summit Recovery Unit 0.39 N PFC N 

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. 

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. 

Columbia Spotted Frog (S): May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend 

Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.

Columbia spotted frog and redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the 

exception that bull trout are relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. 

Therefore the analysis of bull trout critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed 

would have the same effects on Columbia spotted frog and redband trout habitat within the project area. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

210 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Rationale 

Habitat for bull trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water temperatures, 

riparian hardwood suppression and altered stream channels have reduced the habitat capability of streams 

in the aquatic analysis area to support bull trout. Riparian areas within the project area are deficient in 

riparian hardwoods. Some recovery has occurred from past activities related to livestock grazing and 

timber harvest and natural disturbances such as fire. However many of the stream reaches are early seral 

with sensitive stream banks and or have not achieved a rating of proper functioning condition which is the 

minimum required to withstand flood events. Many of the areas have not achieved a state of resiliency 

and are susceptible to degradation from livestock. The addition of approximately 4.4 miles of bull trout 

critical habitat within the Bosenberg Unit that is currently vacant and development of cold water spring 

sources within the Unit would result in adverse effects to bull trout critical habitat due to the early seral 

state of the riparian area within the Unit that is currently recovering from wildfires in 1990 (Snowshoe, 

Corral Basin, and Sheep) and 2002 High Roberts wildfire. The streambanks are composed of soft organic 

material that is easily sheared and compacted from hoof action. While measures such as a full time rider, 

adaptive management strategy of additional rest, establishment of two designated monitoring areas, bank 

alteration standards of 10 percent and 15 percent would alleviate the possible impacts the sensitivity of 

the riparian area to disturbance and likelihood that cattle would prefer to congregate within the riparian 

area based on forage availability carries a high degree of uncertainty whether these measures will be 

effective. Forage production within this Unit is primarily in the riparian area with the uplands dominated 

by ceanothus and young ponderosa pine. 

Management Indicator Species

Bull trout and redband trout are management indicator species chosen to indicate effects of activities on 

populations of non-anadromous riparian species. 

Bull trout occupy approximately 34.510 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 203 miles of bull trout critical habitat, 108 miles of which are in the 

Malheur River population (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 34.5 miles of habitat within the project area, 

24.6 miles will experience grazing activities while 9.9 miles will not be grazed. The project will impact 

12.1 percent of the suitable habitat across the forest and 22.8 percent of the suitable habitat within the 

Malheur River population. This project impacts suitable habitat across the Forest, therefore, the overall 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a negative trend of habitat (increase in disturbance). 

Alternative 2 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is likely to impact viability of 

bull trout within the Malheur River population. 

Redband trout occupy approximately 45.39 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 840 miles of redband trout habitat (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 45.39 

miles of habitat within the project area, 34.42 miles will experience grazing activities while 9.9 miles will 

not be grazed. Because this project impacts less than 4.1 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest, the 

overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat (increase in 

disturbance). The loss of habitat (increase in disturbance) will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. 

Alternative 2 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is consistent with the Forest 

Plan, and thus continued viability of redband trout is expected on the Malheur National Forest. 

 

10 34.5 total miles of critical habitat in the project area includes West Fork Summit Creek in the Summit Prairie 

Allotment. West Fork Summit Creek is not designated critical habitat by the USFWS, however for this analysis, it 

was considered critical habitat because reports of bull trout observations, suitable habitat, and absence of barriers 

suggest that historically bull trout utilized the stream.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 211

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

McCoy Creek and Bosenberg Units

The Bosenberg unit would not be added within this alternative resulting in no impacts from livestock 

grazing related to bull trout critical habitat and water quality. Construction of approximately 7 miles of 

new fence subdividing the Bosenberg unit would not occur. Water gaps at the two locations where 

National Forest System road 1648 crosses Bosenberg Creek and an unnamed tributary of Big Creek 

would not occur. Three stock ponds in the uplands, a spring development with approximately 300-400 

feet of piping to a trough and an in-stream water withdrawal piped 100 feet to a trough would not occur. 

The effects from these actions analyzed in alternative 2 would not occur. These actions would occur in 

alternative 2 and would not occur in alternatives 1 and 3. Bosenberg creek would continue to recover 

from past disturbances related to fire and historic land management practices and likely achieve recovery 

objectives within 10 years (appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103). 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek unit (407 acres) would not be removed from the Lake Creek 

allotment. This action is unique from alternatives 1 and 2. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased on Big 

Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is because the annual use 

levels are reduced to allow more expression in riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, 

water temperature and bull trout critical habitat would be similar to alternative 2, with the exception of the 

annual use levels would be reduced, there would be no season long rest periods and the adaptive 

management strategies are different. The annual use levels for stubble height would be reduced from 4 to 

7 inches, woody browse from 30-50 to 30 percent use and bank alteration from 20-15 percent. The 

stubble height increase would improve plant vigor. The woody browse would further increase the density 

and height classes of riparian shrubs across the entire reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate 

movement towards of improvements in the bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, 

it benefits bull trout critical habitat. Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock 

use effects would likely improve riparian shrubs more than 3 years out of 10 season long rest. Bull trout 

critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition within 10 years 

(appendix A, Table 103). The adaptive management strategy of a change in allowable use levels would 

allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative and channel characteristic 

conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102. Allowing shrubs to attain a height greater than 5 feet and 

reducing the utilization of shrubs less than 5 feet would allow movement towards a late seral stage. 

Riparian areas that have a balance of early, mid and late seral stages are more resistant to impacts from 

livestock and are more resilient being able to recover from livestock impacts within one year depending 

on the magnitude of disturbance. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

212 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased on Lake 

Creek reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the West Lake Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is because the 

annual use levels are reduced to allow more expression in riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, 

water temperature and bull trout critical habitat would be similar to alternative 2, with the exception of the 

annual use levels would be reduced. The annual use levels for stubble height would be reduced from 6 to 

7 inches, woody browse from 30-50 to 30 percent use and bank alteration from 20 to 15 percent. The 

stubble height increase would improve plant vigor. The woody browse would further increase the density 

and height classes of riparian shrubs across the entire reach. The bank alteration reduction would facilitate 

movement towards of improvements in the bankfull width/depth, undercut banks and shade values. Thus, 

it benefits bull trout critical habitat. Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock 

use effects would likely improve riparian shrubs in combination with 3 years out of 10 season long rest. 

Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition within 

10 years (appendix A, Table 103). The adaptive management strategy of developing additional rest would 

allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative and channel characteristic 

conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102. This reach would likely attain proper functioning 

condition in 5 years. The rate of recovery for alternative 3 would be greater for the West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture than alternative 2. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing with the creation of the two new riparian pastures in 

the Little Logan unit in the Summit Prairie allotment would result in a decrease in hoof shearing (bank 

alteration) of streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from leaving more 

residual stubble height, and improve current riparian hardwoods height classes and densities (browse 

utilization). There are approximately 5 miles of bull trout critical habitat within the Little Logan unit and 

represents 35 percent of the bull trout critical habitat found in the Summit Creek Subwatershed. 

The effects of hoof shearing from livestock use would be removed for 3-5 years and only resume once 

sufficient progress towards desired condition has been made towards desired conditions. Once grazing is 

resumed streambanks would have developed sufficient root systems to recover from bank alterations. 

The indirect effects of removing (3-5 years) and reducing (15 percent) bank alteration hoof shearing for 

the Little Logan unit include continual achievement of standards for streambank stability. The channel is 

still recovering from legacy grazing affects but would likely meet desired conditions (appendix A Table 

103). Herbaceous plant communities would likely expand towards the channel area transitioning from 

single plants to a dense plant community. This is indicative of a wide channel narrowing and capturing 

soil from runoff events and building banks. PIBO data found the bankfull width/depth ratio and bank 

angles have been on an upward trend and improving. Removing the effects of hoof shearing for 3-5 years 

would expedite this process facilitating development of undercut banks. 

Riparian shrub densities and height classes would be improved from their current condition. The current 

condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 4 percent of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems per unit area 

desired. Annual browse utilization standards of 30 percent with season long rest 3 years out of 10 once 

desired conditions have been achieved would likely result in a release of riparian shrubs currently stunted 

at 2 feet. Utilization values were approximately 98 percent for the shrubs that were uncaged and available 

for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 213

per year would likely occur once the vigor has improved. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are 

more likely to develop seed and establish the increased density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs 

are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above 

browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to improve under this management. 

The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward trend and would likely 

improve from the minimum rest requirements and scheduled rest. This condition was assessed with a 4 

inch stubble height. 

Improving the riparian shrubs and channel characteristics would measurably increase effective shade 

values in the Upper and Lower Riparian pasture within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). These reaches 

represent 5 miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool 

depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would 

likely be slightly improved in their current condition. Quality fish habitat related to bull trout is often 

achieved beyond a rating of proper functioning condition. Reach 5 within the Upper and Lower Little 

Logan riparian pastures would like improve beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within 5 

years. 

The creation of the upper and lower Little Logan riparian pastures in the Summit Prairie allotment in 

alternative 3 would likely result in an increase in shrub density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. 

It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential channel type (C towards E) by 

reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would likely move 

towards or achieve desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool 

depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit Creek reach 5. A result of the 

increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in 

riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related 

to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and 

effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 

3-5 years would facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery objectives and desired 

condition and a faster rate than that of alternative 2. The more restrictive use levels identified in appendix 

E for alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of recovery trajectory) would 

ensure movement towards recovery objectives following re-initiation of livestock grazing within the 

upper and lower little Logan riparian pastures. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest 

within the Upper and Lower Little Logan riparian pasture would ensure that adequate recovery has been 

achieved to facilitate continual movement towards desired conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102

and Table 103 and ensure sufficient resiliency has been achieved to resume livestock grazing. 

North Summit Riparian Pasture 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in decrease in existing levels of hoof 

shearing on streambanks, reductions in woody browse use, and an improvement hydric plant vigor within 

Reach 7 of Summit Creek. This site was rated at proper functioning condition in 2007 with woody shrub 

use was identified as an issue. The Carex Working Group identified a deficiency in shrub density and 

particularly height classes. None of the shrubs present were greater than 3 feet tall. A designated 

monitoring area exists on Reach 7 to aid in comparing condition in 5 years with the developed 

management objectives. The adaptive management strategy would change allowable use if sufficient 

movement towards or achievement of desired conditions (appendix A, Table 102). 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 0.8 miles of fence along the boundary of the North Summit 

Riparian pasture may result in minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

214 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

the design criteria would minimize any effects to riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or 

Columbia spotted frog within the project area. The short term effects of fence construction are expected to 

result in long term beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the North Summit Riparian 

pasture. 

The indirect effects related to authorizing livestock grazing and creating the North Summit Riparian 

pasture within the Summit Prairie allotment in alternative 3 would likely result in an increase in shrub 

density, height and vigor, and an increase in shade. The streambank stability would continue to meet 

standards and improve. The bankfull/width depth was observed to be not in balance during the proper 

functioning condition assessments. Bankfull width/depth would improve from the expansion of 

herbaceous and riparian shrub plant communities. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pasture 

would likely move towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing 

residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit Creek reach 7. 

Attributes related to quality fish habitat are often achieved beyond a riparian rating of proper functioning 

condition. The effects of an increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull 

width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water 

temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be 

expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected 

within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would facilitate movements towards or achievement of recovery 

objectives and desired condition and a faster rate than that of alternative 2. The more restrictive use levels 

identified in appendix E for alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of 

recovery trajectory) would ensure movement towards recovery objectives following re-initiation of 

livestock grazing within the North Summit riparian pasture. The adaptive management strategy of 

additional rest within the North Summit riparian pasture would ensure that adequate recovery has been 

achieved to facilitate continual movement towards desired conditions identified in appendix A, Table 102

and Table 103. The annual use levels for the North Summit riparian pasture would be similar to 

alternative 2, with the reduction of woody browse to 30 percent from 30-50 percent. This would likely 

improve the riparian shrubs across the unit with the greatest magnitude. The changes in annual use for 

stubble height, browse, and bank alteration for the West Fork Summit Creek within the Summit Rock 

Unit and reach 6 of Summit Creek (appendix E) would facilitate movement towards or achievement of 

desired conditions outside of the North Summit Riparian pasture.

The 0.97 miles reach is identified at proper functioning condition in 2007 and is expected to improve 

beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within the next 10 years based on the management 

actions within the North Summit unit. Any improvement beyond a rating of proper functioning condition 

is directly related to improvements in bull trout critical habitat. The 3-5 years of immediate rest, 

scheduled rest and allowable use levels would improve both the herbaceous plant community and the 

riparian shrubs. The vegetative and channel characteristic desired condition would likely be met 

(appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103). The adaptive management strategy for the North Summit unit if 

sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired conditions (appendix A, Table 102) has not been 

made would benefit the riparian shrubs in this reach. This would ensure that movement towards desired is 

not impeded by land management actions. 

Sagehen Unit 

The creation of the Sagehen riparian pasture within the Summit Prairie allotment with minimum rest 

requirements of 3-5 years and implementation of the use levels within appendix E once it is determined 

that recovery objectives have been achieved or are moving toward desired conditions would result in a 

reduction in hoof shearing of streambanks, reduction in woody browse use, and an increase in hydric 

plant vigor within Reach 2 of Summit Creek for the Sagehen riparian pastures. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 215

The creation of the Sagehen riparian exclosure would have the same effect as that of the Sagehen riparian 

pasture with the exception that livestock grazing would not be reinitiated within the exclosure and 

recovery rates are expected to be slightly faster than that of the Sagehen riparian pasture towards desired 

condition. 

The direct and indirect effects from the creation of the Sagehen riparian pasture within the Sagehen Unit 

of the Summit Prairie allotment in alternative three would likely result in an increase in shrub density, 

height and vigor, and an increase in shade. It would also facilitate maintenance of the potential channel 

type (C towards E) by reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian 

pasture would likely move towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by 

increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit Creek 

reach 2. Attributes related to quality fish habitat are often achieved beyond a riparian rating of proper 

functioning condition. The effects of an increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease 

in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in shade is 

cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative 

changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and water 

temperature are expected within 10 years. Resting for 3-5 years would facilitate movements towards or 

achievement of recovery objectives and desired condition and a faster rate than that of alternative 2 where 

no rest from livestock is proposed within Reach 2 of Summit Creek. The more restrictive use levels 

identified in appendix E for alternative 3 and monitoring (review of riparian condition 5 years out of 

recovery trajectory) would ensure movement towards recovery objectives following re-initiation of 

livestock grazing within the North Summit riparian pasture. The adaptive management strategy of 

addition rest if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired conditions appendix A, Table 102

has not been made following 3-5 years of rest would facilitate recovery towards a more resilient riparian 

area within the riparian pasture. 

Creation of the Sagehen riparian exclosure would have the same effects as the Sagehen riparian pasture 

with the exception that the rate of recovery within the exclosure is expected be faster than that of the 

riparian pasture due to the absence of livestock grazing (after 3-5 years of rest) and limited wildlife use. 

The additional adaptive management strategy for riparian areas outside of the Sagehen Riparian pasture 

and Sagehen Riparian exclosure for changes in allowable use levels would facilitate recovery and 

movement towards desired riparian condition outside of the riparian pastures not proposed for 3-5 years 

of rest. 

Summit Rock Unit 

Reach 6 is expected to improve beyond proper functioning condition. Annual use levels for stubble height 

increase from an endpoint indicator of 4 inches to 6 inches that would likely result in an improvement in 

herbaceous vigor. Bank stability would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous plant and 

woody plants. Bank alteration levels are sufficient to maintain the existing condition with a likely increase 

in bank stability due to improvements in vegetation. Reach 6 is likely to improve beyond a rating of 

proper functioning condition and achieve desired conditions within 10 years (appendix A, Table 102). 

Proper functioning condition is a minimum and does not equate to quality fish habitat until a rating 

beyond proper functioning condition is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected at a minimum to be maintained at proper functioning condition or improve beyond 

proper functioning condition due to improvement in herbaceous vigor from a reduction in stubble height, 

browse utilization, and bank alteration within the lower portion of reach identified in 2007. Without rest, 

improvement in riparian hardwoods would be limited but herbaceous plant vigor is likely to increase in 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

216 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Reach 8 under the current proposed levels of use and achieve a rating of greater than proper functioning 

condition in 10 years. 

Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek would have higher endpoint indicator for stubble height and lower 

value for bank alteration. These indicators would likely increase herbaceous riparian vigor within reach 2 

and allow healing of destabilized stream banks. A portion of reach 2 is primarily herbaceous and 

development of riparian herbaceous vigor in this reach would result in improvements in bank stability and 

channel characteristic but at a slower rate than if rested entirely from livestock grazing for a period of 

time. 

Table 94. Alternative 3 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by unit 

based on the actions proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 

5 Years

PFC in 

10 Years

Desired 

Condition in 

10 Years

Lake Creek Bosenberg 8.64 >PFC >>PFC Y 

McCoy Creek 5.66 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Logan Valley

Big Creek Riparian Pasture 1.67 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y 

Flat Field 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y 

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y 

West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture 0.13 PFC >>PFC Y 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture 0.95 PFC >PFC Y 

McCoy 

Creek Lake Creek Willow Exclosure 0.51 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Summit 

Prairie 

Little Logan 0.09 PFC PFC N 

Lower Little Logan Riparian Pasture 4.11 PFC >>PFC Y 

North Summit Riparian Pasture 0.97 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Sagehen

0.04 N N N 

0.32 N PFC N 

1.10 PFC PFC N 

0.89 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Sagehen Riparian Exclosure 0.76 >PFC >PFC Y 

Sagehen Riparian Pasture 1.62 PFC >PFC Y 

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.83 N PFC N 

3.71 >PFC >>PFC Y 

1.00 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Upper Little Logan Riparian Pasture 0.83 PFC >>PFC Y 

West Summit Recovery Unit 0.39 PFC >PFC Y 

Cumulative Effects

When cumulative effects common to alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the proposed actions 

from alternative 3, the result is the second fastest rate of recovery or movement towards a proper 

functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and bull trout critical habitat within the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 217

project area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock management strategy for 

alternative 3 that largely includes creation of riparian pastures with minimum rest requirements of 3-5 

years on 11 miles of bull trout critical habitat, adaptive management of additional rest and more 

conservative allowable use levels. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to 

aquatic resources determined in the Malheur Forest Plan EIS.

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the short 

term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the 

short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Columbia Spotted Frog (S): May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend 

Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Beneficial Impact. 

Rationale 

• Habitat for bull trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water 

temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression, reduced herbaceous plant vigor and altered stream 

channels have reduced the habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support bull 

trout. The determination that alternative 3 may affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat but is not 

likely to adversely affect them in the short-term is based on the Lake Creek Allotment remaining 

ungrazed. 

• No miles of occupied bull trout habitat would be grazed during spawning season. Livestock would be 

removed from riparian areas prior to August 15.

• Several riparian pastures will be created on 9.37 miles of bull trout critical habitat on stream reaches 

identified with high water temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression, reduced herbaceous plant 

vigor and altered stream channels. The pastures will immediately be rested for 3-5 years, with an 

adaptive management strategy of additional rest prior to resumption of grazing if objectives are not 

met. After resumption of grazing the pastures will be rested 3 years out of 10. 

• Changes in annual use levels for stubble height, woody browse, and bank alteration would allow more 

expression in riparian vegetation. The change in stubble height will improve plant vigor. The woody 

browse will increase the density and height classes of riparian shrubs. The change in bank alteration 

use will facilitate movement of a narrower channel. 

Cumulatively all the above management actions will allow movement towards improvements in channel 

bankfull width/depth, undercut banks, and shade values therefore improving bull trout critical habitat 

conditions in the project area. 

Columbia spotted frog and redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the 

exception that bull trout are relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. 

Therefore the analysis of bull trout critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed 

would have the same effects on Columbia spotted frog and redband trout habitat within the project area. 

Management Indicator Species

Bull trout and redband trout are management indicator species chosen to indicate effects of activities on 

populations of non-anadromous riparian species. 

Bull trout occupy approximately 34.5 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 203 miles of bull trout critical habitat, 108 miles of which are in the 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

218 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Malheur River population (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 34.5 miles of habitat within the project area, 

19.4 miles will experience grazing varied activities while 15.1 miles will not be grazed. Because this 

project will impact 9.6 percent of the suitable habitat across the Forest and 18 percent of the suitable 

habitat within the Malheur River population, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result 

in a small negative trend of habitat (increase in disturbance) until design criteria are implemented. Of the 

34.5 miles of critical habitat in the project area, 33.3 miles is expected to achieve proper functioning 

condition in 5 years, 34.4 miles is expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 10 years, and 32.1 

miles is expected to achieve desired vegetation and channel conditions in 10 years. Achievements are 

from adjusting the combinations of grazing systems, allowable grazing use levels, pasture rest, pasture 

configurations, livestock numbers and grazing season, and allotment boundary changes. In the long-term, 

the loss of habitat (increase in disturbance) will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. Alternative 3 of 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus 

continued viability of bull trout is expected on the Malheur National Forest. 

Redband trout occupy approximately 45.39 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 840 miles of redband trout habitat (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 45.39 

miles of habitat within the project area, 26.29 miles will experience grazing activities while 18.29 miles 

will not be grazed. Because this project impacts less than 3.1 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest, 

the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat (increase 

in disturbance). The loss of habitat (increase in disturbance) will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. 

Alternative 3 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is consistent with the Forest 

Plan, and thus continued viability of redband trout is expected on the Malheur National Forest. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

The effects to these areas remaining vacant were discussed alternative 2 (for portions other than 

Bosenberg Creek) and alternative 3 (including Bosenberg Creek). 

The southwest corner of the McCoy Creek allotment (407 acres) would be removed from the Lake Creek 

allotment. This would require the construction of 2.5 miles of new fencing. This area may be added to the 

Dollar Basin allotment in the future. A separate environmental analysis would be required to add this area 

to the Dollar Basin allotment. The effects to this action are similar to alternative 2 and are discussed there. 

This is unique to alternatives 2 and 4. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct effects related to hoof shearing, browse utilization, and stubble height would be decreased on Big 

Creek Reaches 1, 2 and 3 within the Big Creek Riparian pasture. This decrease is because the annual use 

levels are reduced and schedule rest would allow more expression in riparian vegetation. 

The direct and indirect positive effects of livestock grazing on the riparian vegetation, channel 

characteristics, water temperature and bull trout critical habitat would be from a combination of actions 

between alternative 2 and 3, with the exception of the annual use levels and season long rest periods. 

Decreasing the intensity of grazing through reducing annual livestock use effects would likely improve 

riparian shrubs in concert with scheduled 3 years out of 10 season long rest. Bull trout critical habitat 

within the riparian pastures would be moving towards desired condition within 10 years (appendix A, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 219

Table 103). The adaptive management strategy of scheduled rest or develop additional rest would allow 

continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative and channel characteristic conditions 

identified in appendix A, Table 102. The rate of recovery for this unit would result in the second fastest 

movement towards desired conditions, behind alternative 1. 

West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture

Direct and indirect effects for the West Lake Creek unit are the same as alternative 3. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Little Logan Unit 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing with the creation of riparian exclosures and cages 

approximately 10 percent of the total length in the Little Logan unit would result in a decrease in hoof 

shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from 

leaving more residual stubble height, and improve current riparian hardwoods height classes and lessor 

for shrub stem densities (browse utilization). There are approximately 5 miles of bull trout critical habitat 

within the Little Logan unit and represents 35 percent of the bull trout critical habitat found in the Summit 

Creek Subwatershed.

The effects of hoof shearing from livestock use would be partially reduced for the next 10 grazing seasons 

because of reduced allowable use standards. The change from 20 percent bank alteration to 15 percent

may not influence the condition of the streambanks because it is already consistent with the standards. 

The larger issue is the riparian shrubs for the Little Logan unit. The range rider may influence the number 

of days the livestock spend out of riparian areas and in the uplands. This would improve the duration of 

time the livestock can spend in the Little Logan unit before the use standards are met. 

Riparian height classes would be improved from their current condition and a slight improvement would 

occur in riparian densities where they become established in riparian exclosures. Recovery of height 

classes and densities of riparian shrubs outside of the riparian exclosures would be slightly improved. The 

current condition for the density of riparian shrubs is 4 percent of desired or 8 stems with 200 stems per 

unit area desired. Building riparian exclosures and cages around stunted riparian shrubs would likely 

result in a release of riparian shrub height classes. Utilization values were approximately 97 percent for 

the shrubs that were uncaged and available for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these 

shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet per year would likely occur once the vigor has improved. 

Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed and establish the increased 

density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be browsed by wildlife and livestock 

than the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line, are caged or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to improve under a 7 inch stubble 

height. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward trend and would 

likely continue to improve with the change in allowable use. 

Slight improvement in the riparian shrubs and improve the channel characteristics would measurably 

increase effective shade values if the riparian exclosures and cages are placed adjacent to the southwest 

side of the streambank in the Little Logan unit within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). These reaches 

represent 5 miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool 

depth, pool quality and bankfull width/depth would likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would 

likely be slightly improved in their current condition. Quality fish habitat related to bull trout is often 

achieved beyond a rating of proper functioning condition. Reach 5 within the Upper and Lower Little 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

220 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan riparian pastures would likely improve beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within 10 

years. 

It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential channel type (C towards E) by 

reducing bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pasture would likely move 

towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, 

undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit Creek reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Attributes 

related to quality fish habitat and the primary constituent elements for bull trout critical habitat are often 

achieved beyond a riparian rating of proper functioning condition. The effects of an increase in residual 

pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood 

density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water 

temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to 

channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years. This would facilitate 

movement towards or achievement of recovery objectives and desired condition at a faster rate than that 

of alternatives 2, and the same rate as alternative 1 within the exclosures but to a greater lesser extent than 

alternative 3. The adaptive management strategy of enlarging exclosures if sufficient movement towards 

or achievement of desired condition has not been met within 5 years for areas outside the exclosures. The 

direct and indirect effects of constructing additional exclosures in the Little Logan unit may result in 

minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing the design criteria will 

minimize any effects to riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted Frog 

within the project area by avoiding impacts to vegetation and creating wheel tracks in wet meadows or 

riparian areas, timing project implementation when sites and access are dry, and rehabilitating after 

implementation to remove visible wheel tracks. The short term effects of fence construction are expected 

to result in long term beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the Little Logan unit.

Prairie Riparian Pasture 

Direct effects related to authorizing the grazing system would result in maintenance in existing levels of 

hoof shearing on streambanks, a slight reduction in woody browse use, and an improvement in the hydric 

plant vigor within Reach 7 of Summit Creek and West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2. West Fork Summit 

Reach 1 would not have any direct effects for immediate 3-5 years or until management objectives have 

been met. Allowable use levels in this alternative would be a general reduction from alternative 2, with an 

increase in the height for stubble height from 4 inches (alternative 2) to 6 inches for the Prairie Riparian 

pasture. The woody browse value is also more conservative than alternative 2, changing from 30-50 

percent to 30 percent use. Bank alteration values are the same across all alternatives. The effects for 

Summit Reach 7 are the same as discussed in the North Summit unit in alternative 2, because of the use 

levels and no minimum rest requirements. This analysis would only discuss direct and indirect effects 

occurring in the West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2. 

The indirect effects of livestock effects for West Fork Summit Reach 1 would be an improvement in vigor 

and expansion of wetland obligate plant communities, improved stream bank stability and ultimately 

better fish habitat. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pastures would likely achieve desired 

condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and 

the number of quality pools within West Fork Summit Creek Reach 1. A result of the increase in residual 

pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood 

density and height, and increase in shade is cooler water temperatures. The vertical stability issues from 

active headcutting may impede improvement until they are addressed through active restoration. Effects 

related to changes in water temperature as a result of vegetative changes would be expected within 5 

years and effects related to channel characteristics and water temperature are expected within 10 years.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 221

The indirect effects of livestock effects for West Fork Summit Reach 2 would result in an improvement to 

the herbaceous plant community and channel characteristics, but maintenance of the existing riparian 

shrub conditions for West Fork Summit Reach 2. The riparian shrub conditions are critical for the 

resource values present in these areas. For example, beaver complexes were evident in the proper 

functioning condition assessments for these reaches, however, it is not likely that this alternative would 

provide the dietary conditions needed to support beaver populations or bull trout overwintering habitat. 

The vertical stability issues from active headcutting may impede improvement until they are addressed 

through active restoration. West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2 were found to be functioning at risk with a 

downward trend. Reaches rated functioning at risk are not stable or resilient to impacts from frequent 

flooding or other land management actions but a minimum rest requirement of 3-5 years would facilitate 

recovery.

West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2 are connected to bull trout critical habitat, but are not on the critical 

habitat list. It has potential for bull trout and field observations have observed bull trout individuals likely 

foraging. These two reaches were evaluated as if they are bull trout critical habitat. 

West Fork Summit Reach 1 would likely move towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 103 within 

10 years) by increasing residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools. As a result 

of the increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, decrease in bankfull width to depth, and 

increase in shade is cooler water temperatures are expected. Effects related to changes in water 

temperature as a result of vegetative and channel changes would likely be expected within 10 years. This 

reach may not likely achieve proper functioning condition in 5 years; however, it would likely meet in 10 

years. The use levels identified in appendix E for the Prairie Riparian pasture and monitoring (review of 

riparian condition 3-5 years out of recovery trajectory) as well as the adaptive management strategy 

(change allowable use) would ensure movement towards desired conditions. West Fork Summit Creek 

Reach 1 would be incorporated into the Prairie riparian pasture and have the same use levels as the Prairie 

Riparian pasture once grazing is resumed. The temporary fence for the West Summit Recovery unit 

(Reach 1) would be removed only after sufficient recovery has been achieved for resilient riparian area 

that is resistant to the impacts of livestock grazing. 

West Fork Summit Reach 2 would likely move towards desired condition (appendix A, Table 102 and 

Table 103 within 5-10 years). An improvement in existing vegetative cover for riparian hardwood and 

herbaceous ground cover would occur, to a greater extant then that of alternative 3 because of the 3-5 

years minimum rest, adaptive management strategy of additional rest, and use levels that are the same as 

alternative 3 once grazing is resumed. Residual pool depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality 

pools are expected to improve under the management proposed in alternative 4. As a result of the 

improvement in residual pool depth, quality pools, bankfull width to depth, and shade change in water 

temperatures are expected for West Fork Summit Creek Reach 2. The use levels identified in appendix E 

for the Prairie Riparian pasture would be applied to Reach 2 of West Fork Summit Creek rated as 

functional at risk trending down. Annual use levels for riparian hardwoods and bank alteration criteria 

along with minimum rest requirement are sufficient to achieve a rating beyond proper functioning 

condition within 10 years and acquire adequate resiliency to support livestock grazing and continually 

improve riparian condition within the West Fork Summit Creek Reach 2. 

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 0.8 miles of fence along the boundary of the North Summit 

Riparian pasture may result in minimal ground disturbance from initial fence construction. Implementing 

the design criteria would minimize any effects to riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or 

Columbia spotted Frog within the project area by avoiding impacts to vegetation and creating wheel 

tracks in wet meadows or riparian areas, timing project implementation when sites and access are dry, and 

rehabilitating after implementation to remove visible wheel tracks. The short term effects of fence 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

222 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

construction are expected to result in long term beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the 

North Summit Riparian pasture. 

Reaches are expected to improve beyond a rating of proper functioning condition within the next 10 years 

based on the management actions within the Prairie Riparian pasture. Any improvement beyond a rating 

of proper functioning condition is directly related to improvements in bull trout critical habitat. It is likely 

that the current annual use levels would facilitate improvement beyond a rating of proper functioning 

condition. This improvement is due to the herbaceous plant community alone that is currently in a good 

condition for Reach 7. This herbaceous community would likely improve the channel characteristics 

slowly over time. However, it is not likely that the riparian shrubs would reach the desired condition 

within the time frame identified in appendix A, Table 103. West Fork Reach 2 needs more ground cover 

and an increase in riparian shrub density and height class diversity. The adaptive management strategy for 

the Prairie Riparian pasture if sufficient progress towards or achievement of desired conditions (appendix

A, Table 102) has not been made would benefit the riparian shrubs in this reach. This would ensure that 

movement towards desired is not impeded by land management actions. 

Sagehen Unit

Livestock grazing management would be authorized and consist of deferment. Small exclosures and cages 

would be constructed along approximately 10 percent of the total length of the Sagehen Unit. Annual use 

levels for the Sagehen Unit would allow 7 inch stubble height, 30 percent woody browse use and 15 

percent bank alteration. Active livestock herding would be required full time while livestock are in the 

Sagehen Unit. The adaptive management strategy includes expansion in the area and number of riparian 

exclosures and/or changing use levels. 

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing with the creation of riparian exclosures and cages 

approximately 10 percent of the total length in the Sagehen Unit would result in a decrease in hoof 

shearing (bank alteration) of streambanks, a continued improvement in herbaceous plant vigor from 

leaving more residual stubble height, and improve current riparian hardwoods height classes and lessor 

for shrub stem densities (browse utilization). There are approximately 4.74 miles of bull trout critical 

habitat within the Sagehen Unit and represents 33 percent of the bull trout critical habitat found in the 

Summit Creek Subwatershed.

The effects of hoof shearing from livestock use would be partially reduced for the next 10 grazing seasons 

because of reduced allowable use standards. The change from 20 percent bank alteration to 15 percent

may influence the bankfull width/depth on all reaches within the unit especially the functioning at risk 

reach (Reach 2). The larger issue is the riparian shrubs for the Sagehen Unit (Reaches 2 and 4). The range 

rider may influence the number of days the livestock spend out of riparian areas and in the uplands. This 

will improve the duration of time the livestock can spend in the Sagehen Unit before the use standards are 

met. 

Riparian height classes would be improved from their current condition and a slight improvement would 

occur in riparian densities where they become established in riparian exclosures. Recovery of height 

classes and densities of riparian shrubs outside of the riparian exclosures would be slightly improved. The 

current condition of the representative reaches 2 and 4 for the density of riparian shrubs are 41 percent

and 25 percent of desired or 81 stems and 49 stems with 200 stems per unit area desired. Building riparian 

exclosures and cages around stunted riparian shrubs would likely result in a release of riparian shrub 

height classes. Utilization values for reaches 2 and 4 were approximately 78 percent and 90 percent for 

the shrubs that were uncaged and available for livestock browse. This indicates that the vigor of these 

shrubs is very low and growth rates of 1.2 feet (Carex Working Group 2012) per year would likely occur 

once the vigor has improved. Shrubs that have not been grazed for 2 years are more likely to develop seed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 223

and establish the increased density of shrubs. These newly established shrubs are more likely to be 

browsed by wildlife and livestock than the shrubs that have been expressed above browse line, are caged 

or are mature. 

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating will likely continue to improve under a 7 inch stubble height. 

The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an upward trend and will likely 

continue to improve with the change in allowable use. 

Slight improvement in the riparian shrubs and improved channel characteristics will measurably increase 

effective shade values if the riparian exclosures and cages are placed adjacent to the southwest side of the 

streambank in the Sagehen Unit within 10 years (appendix A, Table 103). These reaches represent 4.74 

miles of all life stages for bull trout critical habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool depth, pool 

quality and bankfull width/depth will likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat will likely be slightly 

improved in their current condition. Quality fish habitat related to bull trout is often achieved beyond a 

rating of PFC. Reach 3 within the Sagehen Unit will likely improve beyond a rating of proper functioning 

condition within 10 years. 

It would also facilitate movement towards or achievement of the potential channel type (C towards E) by 

reducing the bankfull width to depth. Bull trout critical habitat within the riparian pasture would likely 

move towards desired condition (appendix A Table 103 within 10 years) by increasing residual pool 

depth, undercut banks, and the number of quality pools within Summit Creek reaches 1, 2, and 4. Reach 3 

will likely attain desired condition within 10 years. Attributes related to quality fish habitat and the 

primary constituent elements for bull trout critical habitat are often achieved beyond a riparian rating of 

proper functioning condition. The effects of an increase in residual pool depth, number of quality pools, 

decrease in bankfull width to depth, increase in riparian hardwood density and height, and increase in 

shade is cooler water temperatures. Effects related to changes in water temperature as a result of 

vegetative changes would be expected within 5 years and effects related to channel characteristics and 

water temperature are expected within 10 years. This would facilitate movement towards or achievement 

of recovery objectives and desired condition at a faster rate than that of alternatives 2, and the same rate 

as alternative 1 within the exclosures but to a greater lesser extent than alternative 3. The adaptive 

management strategy of enlarging exclosures if sufficient movement towards or achievement of desired 

condition has not been met within 5 years for areas outside the exclosures. The direct and indirect effects 

of constructing additional exclosures in the Sagehen unit may result in minimal ground disturbance from 

initial fence construction. Implementing the design criteria will minimize any effects to riparian areas, the 

viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted frog within the project area by avoiding impacts 

to vegetation and creating wheel tracks in wet meadows or riparian areas, timing project implementation 

when sites and access are dry, and rehabilitating after implementation to remove visible wheel tracks. The 

short term effects of fence construction are expected to result in long term beneficial effects for bull trout 

critical habitat within the Sagehen unit. 

Summit Rock Unit 

In alternative 4, the West Fork Summit Creek reaches 1 and 2 would be incorporated into the Prairie 

riparian pasture. Reaches 6 and 8 would remain within the Summit rock unit. The Summit Rock unit was 

rated as proper functioning condition in 2007 for reaches 6 and 8 for a total of 3.5 miles. Livestock 

grazing would occur annually with no season of rest. Annual use levels would include the endpoint 

indicators of 6 inch stubble height, 30-50 percent browse, and 15 percent bank alteration. The adaptive 

management strategy would include changes in annual use levels (appendix E). 

Reach 6 is expected to improve slightly beyond proper functioning condition or maintain a rating of 

proper functioning condition. Annual use endpoint indicators are sufficient to facilitate an improvement in 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

224 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

herbaceous vigor. Bank stability would improve as a result of the improvement in herbaceous plant and 

woody plants. Bank alteration levels are 15 percent which is less than alternative 2. Reach 6 is likely at a 

minimum to maintain a rating of proper functioning condition or improve beyond proper functioning 

condition and achieve desired conditions within 10 years (appendix A, Table 102 and Table 103). Proper 

functioning condition is a minimum and does not equate to quality fish habitat until a rating beyond 

proper functioning condition is achieved.

Reach 8 is expected to at a minimum maintain a rating of proper functioning condition or improve beyond 

proper functioning condition because of the improvement in herbaceous vigor, browse utilization, and 

bank alteration within the lower portion of reach identified in 2007. Without rest improvement in riparian 

hardwoods is unlikely to occur. Improvement in herbaceous plant vigor is likely to occur in reach 8 under 

the current proposed levels of use. Thus, a rating of greater than proper functioning condition is likely to 

occur in 10 years. 

Table 95. Alternative 4 summary of expected recovery for proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings by unit 

based on the actions proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 Years PFC in 10 Years Desired Condition 

in 10 Years

Lake Creek Bosenberg 7.95 >PFC >>PFC Y 

McCoy Creek 6.35 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Logan Valley

Big Creek Riparian 

Pasture 1.67 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y 

Flat Field 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y 

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y 

West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture 0.13 PFC >>PFC Y 

West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 0.95 PFC >PFC Y 

McCoy 

Creek

Lake Creek Willow 

Exclosure 0.51 PFC >>PFC Y 

Summit 

Prairie 

Little Logan 5.03 PFC PFC N 

Prairie Riparian 

Pasture 

0.73 PFC >PFC Y 

0.97 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Sagehen

2.43 N PFC N 

0.32 N PFC N 

1.10 PFC PFC N 

0.89 >PFC >>PFC Y 

South Summit 0.04 Water gap

Summit Rock

0.08 N PFC N 

0.01 PFC PFC N 

3.71 >PFC >>PFC Y 

1.00 >PFC >PFC Y 

West Summit 

Recovery Unit 0.39 PFC >PFC Y 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 225

Cumulative Effects

When cumulative effects common to alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the proposed actions 

from alternative 4, the result is the third fastest rate of recovery or movement towards a proper 

functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian areas and bull trout critical habitat within the 

project area. The rate of recovery is because of the fundamental livestock management strategy for 

alternative 4 that largely includes range riders, creation of riparian exclosures and units, adaptive 

management of enlargement of riparian exclosures and changes in allowable use levels with starting 

allowable use levels similar to alternative 3. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated 

effects to aquatic resources determined in the Malheur Forest Plan EIS.

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the short 

term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) in the 

short term. Beneficial Impact (BE) in the long-term.

Columbia Spotted Frog (S): May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend 

Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Beneficial Impact

Rationale 

• Habitat for bull trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water 

temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression, reduced herbaceous plant vigor and altered stream 

channels have reduced the habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support bull 

trout. The determination that alternative 4 may affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat but is not 

likely to adversely affect them in the short-term is based on the Lake Creek Allotment remaining 

ungrazed. 

• No miles of occupied bull trout habitat would be grazed during spawning season. Livestock would be 

removed from riparian areas prior to August 15.

• Riparian pastures on 4.45 miles of bull trout critical habitat on stream reaches identified with high 

water temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression, reduced herbaceous plant vigor and/or altered 

stream channels would receive varying degrees of rest. The Big Creek Riparian Pasture would be 

rested 3 years out of 10 with an adaptive management strategy of additional rest. Prairie Riparian 

Pasture, West Bosenberg Riparian Pasture, and West Lake Creek Riparian Pasture will immediately 

be rested 3-5 years with an adaptive management strategy of additional rest prior to resumption of 

grazing if objectives are not met. After resumption of grazing the pastures will be rested 3 years out of 

10. 

• Changes in annual use levels for stubble height, woody browse, and bank alteration would allow more 

expression in riparian vegetation. The change in stubble height will improve plant vigor. The woody 

browse will increase the density and height classes of riparian shrubs. The change in bank alteration 

use will facilitate movement of a narrower channel. 

• Daily riding by permittee would occur to move livestock away from Summit Creek within the Little 

Logan and Sagehen Units to utilize more of the upland forage and to extend the duration in these 

units before achieving use levels. Construction of cages and small exclosure (20x50 feet) would also 

occur with exclosures totaling approximately 10 percent of the riparian length within reaches 1, 2, 3, 

4, and 5 of Summit Creek. If desired conditions are not being met, adaptive management would allow 

for construction of exclosures around a higher percentage of Summit Creek.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

226 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• Of the 34.5 miles of critical habitat in the project area, 31.7 miles is expected to achieve proper 

functioning condition in 5 years, 34.5 miles is expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 10 

years, and 25.5 miles is expected to achieve desired vegetation and channel conditions in 10 years. 

Cumulatively all the above management actions will allow movement towards improvements in channel 

bankfull width/depth, undercut banks, and shade values therefore improving bull trout critical habitat 

conditions in the project area. 

The effects of alternative 4 are the same as alternative 3 with the exception that changes in allowable use 

levels and a full time rider are the primary drivers as to whether recovery objectives are met within the 

Summit Prairie Allotment and not rest as proposed in alternative 3. Enlargement of small exclosures in 

the Sagehen and Little Logan Units to cover a larger percentage of Summit Creek are the adaptive 

management strategy in alternative 4 for the Summit Prairie Allotment.

Columbia spotted frog and redband trout require the same habitat characteristics as bull trout with the 

exception that bull trout are relatively limited by their requirement for cold stream temperatures. 

Therefore the analysis of bull trout critical habitat and water quality along with the actions proposed 

would have the same effects on Columbia spotted frog and redband habitat within the project area. 

Management Indicator Species

Bull trout and redband trout are Management Indicator Species chosen to indicate effects of activities on 

populations of non-anadromous riparian species. 

Bull trout occupy approximately 34.5 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 203 miles of bull trout critical habitat, 108 miles of which are in the 

Malheur River population (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 34.5 miles of habitat within the project area, 

20.2 miles will experience grazing varied activities while 14.3 miles will not be grazed. Because this 

project will impact 10 percent of the suitable habitat across the Forest and 18.7 percent of the suitable 

habitat within the Malheur River population, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result 

in a small negative trend of habitat (increase in disturbance) until design criteria are implemented. Of the 

34.5 miles of critical habitat in the project area, 31.7 miles is expected to achieve proper functioning 

condition in 5 years, 34.5 miles is expected to achieve proper functioning condition in 10 years, and 25.5 

miles is expected to achieve desired vegetation and channel conditions in 10 years. Achievements are 

from adjusting the combinations of grazing systems, allowable grazing use levels, pasture rest, pasture 

configurations, livestock numbers and grazing season, allotment boundary changes, and range riders. In 

the long-term, the loss of habitat (increase in disturbance) will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. 

Alternative 4 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is consistent with the Forest 

Plan, and thus continued viability of bull trout is expected on the Malheur National Forest. 

Redband trout occupy approximately 45.39 miles of habitat within the project area. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 840 miles of redband trout habitat (Malheur Forest GIS data). Of the 45.39 

miles of habitat within the project area, 26.29 miles will experience grazing activities while 18.29 miles 

will not be grazed. Because this project impacts less than 3.1 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest, 

the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat (increase 

in disturbance). The loss of habitat (increase in disturbance) will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. 

Alternative 4 of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project is consistent with the Forest 

Plan, and thus continued viability of redband trout is expected on the Malheur National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 227

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

Executive Order 11990 says that Federal agencies shall avoid management practices that would adversely 

affect wetlands. Wetlands that occur in the project area would be maintained or expanded in spatial extent 

with improved functionality. Focusing on riparian vegetation and channel condition, it would allow 

increased water storage in the floodplains and is consistent with the Executive Order protecting Wetlands. 

Establishing allowable use levels and the adaptive management actions would prevent adverse effects.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed 

species. Preparation of a biological assessment for initiation of formal Endangered Species Act section 7 

consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to occur prior to signing a Record of 

Decision. Federally listed fish species and their proposed or designated critical habitat in the project area 

subject to consultation include bull trout and their critical habitat. The Malheur National Forest expects to 

receive a Letter of Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding effects to bull trout and 

proposed critical habitat. The completed biological assessment and consultations can be found in the 

project file. 

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) 

Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid adverse effects to floodplains or minimize 

potential harm. Floodplains several to a hundreds of feet wide occur in the project area. The floodplains 

are primarily contained within riparian habitat conservation areas. Management actions would be 

authorized that manage the amount of streambank alteration and herbivory, defer and/or rest livestock use 

that would minimize avoid adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus be consistent with Executive Order 

11988. 

Consistency with the Forest Plan

All alternatives are consistent with management area 3A standards, Amendment 29, and INFISH. 

Modifications for shade and their respective stream reaches are proposed for Amendment 29 numeric 

values as shown in Table 50. The proposed values for shade would be changed from the Amendment 29 

values to the values identified in the TMDL or data collected by the Carex Working Group. The proposed 

shade values by reach are considered to be more site specific and realistic than the value present in 

Amendment 29. They take into consideration more factors that have localized effects on stream shade. 

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act requires that the Forest Service manage for the attainment of water quality criteria 

that provides for the most restrictive beneficial use present on a reach of a stream. The most restrictive 

beneficial use that is present in the project area is bull trout spawning and rearing. Many of the streams 

present in the project area were identified as water quality limiting for water temperature with supporting 

data collected continuously at multiple locations. Big Creek, Lake Creek and Summit Creek were 

identified with 303(d) listings that were followed with the development of a TMDL. The Forest Service is 

responsible for developing a Water Quality Recovery Plan that would demonstrate monitoring, 

management changes based on monitoring and provide for a reporting process to Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality every 5 years. The desired condition table (appendix A, Table 102) identifies the 

desired vegetative communities and used the effective shade curves or empirically collected reference 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

228 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

data to identify what the desired effective shade values should be achieved per reach. The monitoring plan 

(see chapter 2), management objectives (appendix A, Table 103) and adaptive management suite 

(appendix A, Table 104) developed for the Summit Logan Project would provide the management 

framework to ensure that the livestock effects to the project area are not adverse and that these streams are 

continuing on an upward trend towards their desired condition. The allowable use levels (appendix E) and 

the flexibility to adjust these levels would provide for the recovery of the wetland obligate vegetation 

attributes and channel morphology. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The project as described would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the aquatic 

resource. 

Recreation 

Introduction

This analysis describes the environmental consequences of the proposed action and various alternatives 

on recreation resources within the project area. 

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Management Plan 

The National Forest System lands encompassed within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project Area have been inventoried using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system to 

determine what recreation opportunities and settings are available to visitors. The project area falls within 

the Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized 

classes of the ROS. Management direction for recreation as outlined in the Forest Plan is to continue to 

maintain existing ROS settings. The Forest Plan Management areas in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area are discussed below in relation to the ROS class.

• General Forest (MA-1): Manage dispersed recreation for roaded modified conditions. 

• Rangeland (MA-2): Manage for dispersed recreation ranging from semi-primitive to roaded 

modified. 

• Developed Recreation Sites (MA-12): Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing 

interpretation and enhancement of cultural and natural resources. This Management Area includes 

Murray, Huddleston Trailhead/Snopark, Logan Valley Interpretive Site and Big Creek Campgrounds, 

encompassing approximately 8 acres. Prohibit grazing.

• Administrative Sites (MA-19): Provide and maintain sites for facilities necessary for the 

administration of Malheur National Forest lands. This Management Area includes Lake Creek 

Organization Camp, encompasses approximately 27 acres. Graze livestock where capable with 

administrative functions. 

• Wild and Scenic River (MA-22): Commercial livestock grazing is permitted under approved 

management plans which have analyzed compatibility of livestock grazing with other resource values.

Design range improvements to be compatible with the visual objectives.

Analysis Methods 

The analysis area analyzed for recreation impacts includes the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization project area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 229

The Malheur National Forest uses ROS classes to develop management direction for recreation on the 

forest. This analysis uses the ROS classes assigned during Forest Plan development as the basis of this 

assessment.

The source of the recreation information is the Forest GIS data base that was compiled from the 

recreation inventory information and field visits to the project area.

Affected Environment

In 2006 the Malheur National Forest developed a Forest niche, which is a statement of the Forests unique 

role and contribution to recreation offerings in the Pacific Northwest Region. Forest niche conforms to 

direction established by the Forest Plan to prepare a facilities master plan and helps focus the broader 

agency mission to deliver specific experiences and benefits on a particular unit. 

The fundamental basis for identifying the unit niche is to determine and analyze the demand/supply ratio 

for unit recreation sites and the market for the use of those sites. The purpose of the niche is to help 

identify what makes each Forest special and allow us to narrow our focus to the most appropriate 

recreation opportunities so that we can provide quality recreation. Our identified niche is: 

A Traditional Way of Life

A dispersed recreation destination where local communities share traditions and heritage with new 

generations and with visitors. Recreation visitors enjoy the freedom to hunt, drive, camp, and hike 

in a wild place and enjoy the beauty and diversity of forest ecosystems away from major 

population centers.

Recreational use in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area is oriented toward 

enjoyment of the area’s natural and historic resources. People visit the project area to view wildlife and 

birds, to see the spectacular wildflower displays in the spring, to visit the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness to just enjoy the solitude. Other visitors enjoy hunting opportunities in the mountains 

surrounding the valley, camping in the foothills, horseback riding, hiking, and various other outdoor 

activities. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

230 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 32. Recreation opportunities in the project area
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 231

Dispersed Recreation: In addition to dispersed recreation opportunities described above, there are 76 

established dispersed campsites that occur in both General Forest and Rangeland within the project area. 

These campsites offer recreationists a more primitive camping experience than developed campgrounds 

do. These dispersed sites receive low to moderate use which is spread out over a six-month period from 

late May until mid-November. Use is highest during the fall hunting season for both deer and elk. Hunter 

use of dispersed sites varies depending on the number of hunting tags for a unit and the number of “new” 

hunters in the area. Use of off highway vehicles (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. 

Developed Recreation Sites: total about eight acres within the project area including: Murray and Big 

Creek Campgrounds, Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-park, and Logan Valley Interpretive Site. A majority of 

the recreational use of the project area is concentrated around these developed sites. Seasonal use varies 

depending on such things as weather, wildflower bloom, and availability of upland birds and big game, 

with the highest visitation between May and December. The lowest visitation occurs during the winter 

months, when the temperatures drop and access is limited.

Administrative Sites: The project area includes Lake Creek Organization Camp which encompasses 

approximately 27 acres. This camp is privately-operated under a Special Use Permit on National Forest 

lands. A majority of the recreational use of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area 

is concentrated around Murray and Big Creek campgrounds, Lake Creek Organization Camp and 

Huddleston Trailhead and Snopark. Seasonal use varies based on the wildflower bloom in a given year, 

weather, and the availability of upland birds and big game. The highest visitation occurs from May 

through December. The lowest visitation occurs during the winter months, when the temperatures drop 

and access is limited, nevertheless the grazing allotments are not active past mid-October. 

Lake Creek Allotment

Developed Recreation Sites

Murray Campground

Murray Campground is a fee-based campground located in the southwestern portion of the Lake Creek 

Allotment on Forest Service Road 1600 924. Amenities include a vault toilet and six developed 

campsites with fire rings and picnic tables. The campsites can facilitate vehicles with trailers, but has 

limited space for motor homes. 

The campground is in close proximity to Lake Creek, Meadow Fork, and Big Creek trailheads and one of 

the major roads to the high elevation trailheads (Road’s End High Lake Overlook) accessing the 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness. The proximity to Logan Valley and the Wilderness make this a popular 

campground during weekends and hunting seasons. The site is used consistently throughout the summer 

recreation season, but use is highest during big game hunting seasons. 

As a developed recreation facility, livestock are prohibited within the campground but the campground is 

not fenced. Even though the Lake Creek Allotment is not currently active, occasionally livestock from 

nearby active allotments have occasionally entered the campground over the last several years. They are 

probably crossing allotment boundaries in locations where they are either going through or around 

boundary fences. 

Dispersed Sites

There are 30 known dispersed campsites scattered throughout the Lake Creek Allotment. Eight campsites 

are located in Bosenberg, two in Horse Pasture and 20 in McCoy Creek. They are generally located in 

flat areas off main transportation systems and often in riparian areas, near springs or creeks where water 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

232 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

can be accessed. Varying degrees of vegetation and riparian zone damage occur as a result of vehicles, 

sanitation practices and removal of vegetation for fires and other purposes. 

These dispersed campsites are characterized by primitive structures such as self-made toilets, meat poles, 

rock fire rings, and log benches built by campers. Use of Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is often 

associated with dispersed camping. Use of these sites varies throughout the year, with the majority of sites 

showing heaviest use during the fall hunting season and no use during the winter. 

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately 16 miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on Forest Roads 

within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is generally Decemeber 

15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions). 

Bike Trail

Bike trails B-5053, B05045, B-5055 follows on Forest Roads and on Forest Trail 385 for six miles. This 

is a shared route. These trails have low use during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. 

Special Use Permit

A horse group consisting of 100 horses, horse trailers, catering trucks and showers has been issued a 

Special Use Permit, on a year-by-year basis, to use the Horse Pasture unit for a week-long event. Riders 

use the nearby trail system for day rides and bring in weed-free hay for their horses. 

Logan Valley Allotment

Administrative Sites

Lake Creek Organization Camp 

Located on Forest Service Road 1600924. (T16S, R34E, and Section 3). Lake Creek is a private business 

located on Forest Service land. The permitted area is 27 acres and is operated under a Special Use permit. 

The fences have been replaced within the last 3 years and are in good shape all the way around the camp. 

Livestock, including horses, are not allowed within Lake Creek Organization Camp. 

Developed Recreation Sites

Big Creek Campground

Big Creek Campground is located on Forest Service Road 1600 815 along Big Creek and is the most 

popular campground in this area. The fee-campground has 15 camp sites with fire rings, picnic tables, and 

two vault toilets. All 15 campsites are within the Big Creek Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) 

and outside of the active flood plain, with a buck-n-pole barrier fence along Big Creek. 

The campground is enclosed by a barbed wire fence to keep livestock out, although they occasionally 

wander into the campground when fence maintenance is needed. 

Logan Valley Interpretive Site

Logan Valley is located on Forest Service Road 16 (T.16.,R331/2E.,Section 14). Logan Valley is a popular 

site to view wildlife, flowers and Strawberry Mountain in the background. It is a pullout with parking for 

3 vehicles. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 233

Dispersed Sites

The one known dispersed campsite located in the South Big Creek pasture shows little evidence of water 

quality impacts. Dispersed campsites are characterized by primitive structures such as self-made toilets, 

meat poles, rock fire ring, and log benches built by campers. Campsites are concentrated primarily in flat 

areas off main transportation systems where water can be accessed. Many are near springs or creeks. 

Varied degrees of vegetation and riparian zone damage occur throughout the watershed due to vehicles, 

sanitation practices, and removal of vegetation for various purposes. Use of Off Highway Vehicle Use 

(OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping. Recreation use is mostly distributed throughout 

archery, deer and elk seasons and the allotment is not used during the winter season.

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately five miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on Forest 

Roads within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is generally 

Decemeber 15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions) when the allotment is not 

in use. 

Bike Trail

Bike trails B-5053 and B-5054 follows on Forest Roads for 5 miles. This is a shared route. These trails 

have low use during the spring, summer, and fall seasons and are inaccessible during the winter.

McCoy Creek Allotment

Dispersed Sites

There are no known dispersed campsites, bike or snowmobile trails in the allotment. Cows are permitted 

according to Forest Plan Standards and will not be addressed in the effects section. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Dispersed Sites

There are 38 known dispersed campsites scattered throughout the Summit Prairie Allotment. Ten 

campsites are located in Crane Rock, 13 in Little Logan, ten in Sagehen, and four in Summit Rock 

pastures. 

As described under Lake Creek Allotment, above, these dispersed campsites generally occur off main 

roads near water sources and are characterized by self-made amenities and OHV use. The heaviest use 

occurs during hunting season in the fall. 

Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-park

Huddleston Trailhead/Snopark is adjacent to County Road 62 and is within the Wilderness Loop Visual 

Corridor a sensitivity Level 1. Huddleston is a multi-purpose trailhead and sno-park in the winter and a 

trailhead in the other seasons. The site is not fenced immediately around the site. Livestock are entering 

the site. 

Snowmobile Trail

There are approximately 54 miles of Forest Service snowmobile system trails developed on Forest Roads 

within the allotment. Use of these routes during the winter recreational season is generally Decemeber

15th through April 15th (though timing varies with snow conditions) when the allotment is not active. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

234 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Bike Trail

Bike trail B-5053 follows on Forest Road and on Forest Trail 374 for 10 miles. This is a shared route. 

These trails have low use during the spring, summer, and fall seasons and are inaccessible during the 

winter season.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, all grazing would be cancelled and within two years to no livestock 

grazing would occur in the planning area. 

Recreational visits within the Lake Creek, Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie allotments 

would remain at or near current levels. Within two years of implementing Alternative 1, there would be 

far less livestock/recreationist interactions, improving the recreation experience for many people. 

Occasionally, a cow from nearby allotments could go around or through allotment boundary fences into 

the project area, but that would be a rare occurrence. 

There would be no change in the recreation opportunity spectrum. Existing fences and structures would 

likely remain on the landscape serving as barriers to travel in some areas and having similar visual 

impacts to current conditions. 

An indirect effect of eliminating grazing would be growth of vegetation that had previously been grazed 

thus somewhat altering the baseline visual character of the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects

Direct and indirect effects are very minimal with the No Action Alternative. It is likely that cumulative 

impacts would not be discernible from the current condition. 

Alternative 2, 3 and 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

Developed Recreation Sites

Murray Campground

Under both Alternatives 2 and 4 livestock, from a nearby allotment, that periodically enter the 

campground by going around or through an allotment boundary fences would no longer be able to access 

the campground because of new fence construction. Fencing would result in fewer livestock impacts to 

recreationists in the campground, thus reducing visitor complaints regarding the presence of livestock and 

their associated smells and nuisances.

No fence construction would occur in Alternative 3 to block livestock, from a nearby allotment, that 

periodically enter the campground. Livestock presence in the campground would result in user conflicts 

and occasional visitor complaints similar to the current condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 235

Dispersed Sites

No change is anticipated in the diversity of camping styles or use patterns in this area. No change in the 

availability of dispersed camping at the existing 30 dispersed campsite is expected for the typical use in 

spring, summer and fall. 

Snowmobile Trails 

Since snowmobile activities occur when the allotment is inactive, under all of the action alternatives, 

there would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. Approximately 16 miles of existing 

designated snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of groomed and un-groomed conditions. 

Bike Trail 

In Alternatives 2 and 4 up to six miles of bike trail tread could be affected by cattle use in the vicinity of 

the bike trail. Cattle use could widen trails from the existing standard, break down edges of trails where 

there is benched construction, kick out constructed water bars adding to runoff from the trail, and result in 

“new” trails where cattle leave existing bike trail treads. The cattle could also knock down constructed 

trail markers and rub or knock down sign posts. Livestock use of the bike trails also increases the chances 

that recreational users would experience vegetation that was trampled by livestock and dusty areas along 

and adjacent to trails where livestock salting areas are located. 

Under Alternative 3, recreationalists would not encounter livestock, except accidental encounters, on 

approximately six miles of bike trail tread. There would be no anticipated impacts to the bike trail.

Other Recreational Activities

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, about 2.5 miles of fencing construction is proposed. The fence may 

temporarily hinder direct access to the fenced-off steam by recreationists, until alternative routes, either 

around or over the fence, are found. OHV travel may also be hindered by the newly constructed fences. 

The removal of the 1.5 miles of fence would allow recreationalist to move more freely across the 

landscape that had previously been fenced, easily facilitating cross-country travel. 

Alternative 3 would have no effect on other recreational activities in this area. There are no improvements 

or structures proposed. 

Logan Valley Allotment 

Administrative Sites

Lake Creek Organizational Camp

There would be no physical impacts to the Lake Creek Organizational Camp from any of the action 

alternatives. There is a fence surrounding the Lake Creek Organizational Camp limiting impacts of 

livestock grazing activities. The fence is in good condition and has excluded livestock from entering the 

camp. There would be minimal impacts, such as cattle still being seen or heard in the vicinity, of the Lake 

Creek Organizational Camp from either of the action alternatives. 

Developed Recreation Sites

Big Creek Campground 

There would be no impacts to Big Creek Campground under any of the action alternatives. A fence 

would be constructed around the campground and would exclude livestock from the campground, except 

when fence maintenance was needed. However, the presence of livestock outside of the campground and 

their associated smells and sounds would continue which may cause an occasional visitor. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

236 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan Valley Interpretive Site

Under all of action alternative there would be no change in the Logan Valley Interpretive site use patterns.

Dispersed Sites

No change is anticipated in the diversity of camping styles or use patterns in this area. No change in the 

availability of dispersed camping at the existing dispersed campsite is expected for the typical use in 

spring, summer and fall and no, or extremely minor, dispersed camping use occurs during the winter. 

Snowmobile Trail

Under all of the action alternatives the allotments are inactive during the snowmobile season and there 

would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. Approximately five miles of existing designated 

snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of groomed and un-groomed conditions. 

Bike Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives approximately 5 miles of bike trail tread would continue to be affected 

by livestock grazing. Effects to bike trails would be similar to those described above for the Logan Valley 

Allotment.

Special Uses 

Alternative 2 would move the Horse pasture from Lake Creek allotment to Logan Valley allotment. This 

would result in converting the vacant pasture into an actively grazed pasture. This could have a negative 

impact on the horse group that uses the Horse Pasture for a recreation event under a Special Use Permit 

on a year-to-year basis. If cows are pastured during the time of the event, the group may not be able to use 

the area at the same capacity as they have in the past. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no impact to the horse group’s event held in the Horse Pasture. 

Other Recreational Activities

The construction of a riparian fencing in all of the action alternatives may temporarily hinder 

recreationalist ability to have directly access the fenced-off stream until an alternative route, either around 

or over the fence, is found. Other fence construction may also impact OHV travel, restricting travel 

routes. The removal of fences would allow recreationalist to move freely across the landscape, easily 

facilitating cross-country travel in the previously fenced areas. 

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would further impact recreationalist by 

creating barriers to movement with fencing. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

There are no identified recreational use sites in this allotment, so no recreational impacts are anticipated. 

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would not impact recreational resources. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

Dispersed Sites

Under all of the action alternatives there is no change is anticipated in the diversity of camping styles or 

use patterns in this area. No change in the availability of dispersed camping at the existing 38 dispersed 

campsite is expected for the typical use in spring, summer and fall.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 237

Snowmobile Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives, there would be no change in snowmobile access in this area. 

Approximately 54 miles of existing designated snowmobile routes would remain with a mix of groomed 

and un-groomed conditions. 

Bike Trail 

Under all of the action alternatives approximately 10 miles of bike trail tread would be continue to be 

affected by livestock grazing. Effects to bike trails would be similar to those described above for the 

Logan Valley Allotment.

Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-Park 

There would be limited impacts to Huddleston Trailhead/Sno-Park under any of the action alternatives. 

The sno-park is not fenced in; allowing cow’s access to this recreational site. The presence of livestock 

their associated smells, sounds, and nuisances near, in, and around this area could cause occasional visitor 

complaints. 

Other Recreational Activities

The construction of the riparian fencing in Alternatives 3 and 4 may hinder recreationalist ability to have 

direct access to the fenced-off streams. Alternative routes may be made either around or over the fence. 

Other fence construction proposed in all action alternatives could increase the difficulty for recreationalist 

to travel cross-county. Other fence construction may also impact OHV travel, restricting travel routes. 

However, in other areas fence removal proposed all action alternatives, would allow recreationalist to 

move more freely across the landscape, more easily facilitating cross-country travel. 

The construction of the three upland ponds for livestock water in Alternative 2 most likely would not have 

an effect on the recreating public. The development of a spring may be used by the public while 

recreating. 

The construction of the loading ramp with an attached catch pen adjacent to Forest Service Road 1647 in 

all of the action alternatives would not have an effect on the recreating public. 

Adaptive management strategies proposed for this allotment would not further impact recreationists. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project Area lies within the East Beulah, Malheur and 

Murderer’s Creek Big Game Management Units. The area is popular during general big game bow 

seasons and controlled big game hunts. Seasons are in late summer and fall. Livestock are removed from 

the allotment pastures in mid-October, and hence are not present during portions of deer season and all of 

elk rifle season. It is anticipated that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would continue to offer 

hunting opportunities in this area as part of their management of big game and upland birds. General bowhunting, black powder and controlled hunts would have similar seasons and numbers of tags. Bow-hunter 

numbers have increased in recent years and this trend may continue. Hunting in the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization project area is managed and regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Nothing in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization affects the jurisdiction of the State 

of Oregon with respect to wildlife management. Proposed fencing projects involve both removal and 

construction of fences. These fences could have minor impacts on some hunters’ ability to move about 

the landscape in the areas of fence construction.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

238 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Cumulative Effects

All past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in appendix C have been considered for 

their cumulative effects on recreation. Direct and indirect effects on recreation activities in the project 

area are minor. These impacts in combination with past and reasonably foreseeable actions would have 

no measurable impact on recreation within the project area. 

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and Regulations

The project is consistent with the Malheur National Forest Plan, as amended. Proposed activities in each

of these alternatives are allowed and meet the direction contained in the Forest Plan relative to Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum. The area is consistent with the roaded modified and roaded natural ROS classes 

under which the area is to be managed.

The proposed activities would move towards meeting recreation settings and continued grazing would in 

part fit the “Niche” character as identified in the Malheur Recreation Strategy.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The action alternatives would not create any impacts that are anticipated to cause irreversible or 

irretrievable damage to recreation resources. 

Visual Quality 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Visual Quality Report that evaluates the potential effects of livestock grazing on 

the visual quality within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The full specialist 

report is in the project record and is available for review by request. 

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur Forest Plan 

MA 14 Visual Corridors

Approximately 40,265 acres (60 percent) of the project area are identified in the Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 1990) as Management Area 14 – Visual Corridor (Forest Plan, pg. IV-108). 

Road 16, also called the Wilderness Loop, is designated as a Sensitivity Level I Corridor (Figure 33). 

Visual corridors consist of the visible and potentially visible landscapes along major travel routes where 

the traveling public has a high-to-medium sensitivity to the scenery. The goal is to manage corridor 

viewsheds with primary consideration to their scenic quality and the growth of large diameter trees. 

Visual quality objectives of retention, partial retention and modification would be applied while providing 

for other uses and resources. 

Standards 

• Permit livestock grazing in accordance with forest-wide standards (#7, Forest Plan, pg. IV-108). 

• Design both structural and non-structural improvements to meet visual quality objective in Sensitivity 

Level 1 corridors to result in a natural appearing visual condition (#8, Forest Plan, pg. IV-109). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 239

Wild and Scenic River11 (MA-22)

Approximately 15 acres (less than one percent) of the project is identified in the Forest Plan as 

Management Areas 22 – Wild and Scenic River (Forest Plan, pg. IV-135). 

The goal is to protect, enhance and maintain the natural beauty, character, outstanding remarkable values 

and water quality. Preserve the free flowing condition of this wild and scenic river and its’ corridor for 

the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

Standards

• Commercial livestock grazing is permitted under approved management plans which have analyzed 

compatibility of livestock grazing with other resource values. Design range improvements to be 

compatible with the visual objectives. 

Several USDA handbooks have been developed to establish a framework for management of visual 

resources, including, but not limited to: 

• National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1 the Visual Management System 

(Agriculture Handbook 462, USDA Forest Service 1974) and 

• Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management (Agriculture Handbook 701, USDA 

Forest Service 1995). 

The handbooks apply current National Forest Scenery Management methodology in conjunction with 

existing Forest Plan direction. This includes scenery sustainability concepts described in SMS Handbook 

Appendix J-Recommended SMS Refinements. It relies on field studies and photography from inventoried 

sensitive viewpoints and other views of the project area, as well as coordination with project

interdisciplinary team members, and consideration of public preferences for scenic quality. Cumulative 

scenic quality was within the geographic scope of roadways and other viewpoints within and adjacent to 

the project.

The two rating elements used to measure the effects to scenery resources are scenic integrity and scenic 

stability. These two elements evaluate the intensity and duration of effects as well as the degree to which 

the alternatives would affect the stability of scenery attributes over the long term.

Scenic Integrity is the degree to which the scenery is free from visible disturbances that detract from the 

natural and socially valued appearance, including disturbances due to human activities or extreme natural 

events inconsistent with the historic range of variability.

Scenic Stability is the degree to which the valued landscape character and its scenery attributes can be 

sustained through time and ecological progression. Vegetation is usually a dominant scenery attribute and 

the landscape element most vulnerable to change and potential loss. 

 

11 The Forest Plan was amended by the Wild and Scenic Plan Decision for the Malheur River. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

240 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 33. Visually sensitive areas within the project area

Analysis Methods 

This section addresses the effects to Visual Quality of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

proposals. Management activities such as structural and non-structural improvements can affect quality 

scenic integrity; the amount of human-caused deviation by changing the pre-dominant form, color, line, or 

texture in a given viewing area. The existing landscape character is the naturalness of the landscape and 

is the overall visual impression of the physical appearance of the landscape that gives it an identity and 

“sense of place.” The degree of visibility of these activities depends on the combination of certain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 241

elements to the viewer’s such as: slope and aspect of the land; surrounding landscape; and frequency and 

duration of view 

A new scenery element has been developed for use within the USFS Scenery Management System (SMS) 

Scenic Stability (applied in this analysis according to procedures described in the 9/20/06 Draft Appendix 

J of the SMS Handbook #701). 

For the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization area, the existing Scenic Stability analysis focuses 

on the single major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions identified by field 

observation. 

Scenic Stability Level Definitions

• Very High Stability: All dominant scenery and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic character 

are present and are likely to be sustained.

• High Stability: All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are 

likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors 

that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery attributes.

• Moderate Stability: Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and 

are likely to be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline.

• Low Stability: Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are 

likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may seriously 

threaten or have already eliminated the others.

• Very Low Stability: Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are seriously 

threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not likely to be sustained. 

The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained.

These factors have been incorporated into the analysis of effects. Effects to Visual Quality are measured 

in terms of whether the alternatives meet the visual quality level outlined in the Forest Plan. 

The mapped boundaries of the visual foreground and middleground areas were computer generated using 

a “seen area” modeling program from selected viewpoints along County Road 62 and Forest Road 16. 

Field visits were made to visual corridors to determine visual quality objectives based on Forest Plan 

direction. 

Affected Environment

Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor (County Road 62 and Forest Road 16)

Foreground and Middleground

The Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor is the only visual corridor located within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization project area. There are 3,912 acres within the visual foreground and 20,366 acres 

within the visual middleground.

Existing Scenic Stability 

The project area encompasses a dramatic, expansive landscape that is relatively undeveloped. The scenic 

qualities of most landscape settings in Logan Valley are defined by striking natural features such as the 

vast open vistas across the floor valley, backed by stark mountain ridges. Structures from historic and 

present-day ranching operations are integral parts of a pastoral landscape on the valley floor. Seasonal 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

242 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

landscape elements include dramatic spring wildflower blooms in both Logan Valley and Summit Prairie. 

Another important component of the scenic stability of Logan Valley is the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness in the background. There are outstanding opportunities for viewing the mountain and the 

interpretive overlook of the valley for wildlife sightings. 

Existing Scenic Integrity

Scenic Integrity is measured on the Malheur National Forest through Visual Quality Objective levels 

defined by the USFS Visual Management System. Levels and descriptions (as perceived by the public) 

are described in Table 96. 

Table 96. Scenic integrity

Visual Quality Objectives Scenic Integrity as people perceive it

Preservation Unaltered, visually complete or intact

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial Retention Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum Modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably altered

The existing scenic integrity meets the visual quality objective of the Forest Plan. Within the project area 

there are large areas of natural appearing landscapes. Overall, from foreground, middleground and 

background views there is little evidence of human activities. There are existing wire fences, water 

troughs, springs, and livestock within the planning area. The existing condition meets the Forest Plan 

objective of “retention and partial retention” within the foreground, middleground and background area. 

In the project area, the valley and the surrounding mountains represent a landscape with very high scenic 

integrity and quality. Although scenic, the Wilderness Loop along County Road 62 side of the project area 

is more typical of landscapes in other parts of the forest. 

• Level of viewer sensitivity to landscape changes: The highest viewer sensitivity occurs in the 

foreground at popular public use areas such as scenic overlooks, recreation sites, and trail and road 

corridors. The project is within the Wilderness Loop Corridor rated a Sensitivity Level I. The 

remaining area is outside of the viewshed corridor. 

• Distance of an area from points, or corridors, of high viewer sensitivity in the middleground 

and background: Even minor landscape changes are very evident when viewed in the foreground 

zone, but these changes become less evident with distance. The lack of natural topographic and 

vegetative screening makes the Summit Logan valley floor especially sensitive to any developments 

with the remainder of the area moderately sensitive because of additional screening and/or further 

distances from popular use areas. 

• Foreground: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities and uses can be seen, 

but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements 

of form, line, color, and texture in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

• Middleground: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be moderate. Management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 243

activities and uses may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements of the predominant natural features of the landscape. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Removal of cattle from allotments would have no direct effects of scenic resources. Indirectly, there 

would be a change in vegetative growth as a result of removing livestock from these allotments. This 

could cause minor alterations of the existing scenic character in foreground areas.

Cumulative Effects

There are no anticipated cumulative impacts to scenic stability or integrity as a result of removing 

livestock grazing from these allotments. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects for All Action Alternatives

Wilderness Loop Visual Corridor (County Road 62 and National Forest System Road 16)

Foreground and Middleground

Improvements and structures proposed for the various range allotments would vary by alternative. These 

improvements/structures could have minor impacts to visual quality in foreground areas where they may 

be seen from the viewpoints (roads 16 and County Road 62). It is not expected that they would exceed 

visual quality objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. It is unlikely that structures and improvements 

would be noticeable from middleground areas. Therefore scenic quality within the project area is not 

expected to diminish under any of the action alternatives. 

Adaptive management strategies would also vary based on the alternatives however all of the adaptive 

management strategies that are proposed would have no effect on the visual quality of the foreground and 

middleground of the various range allotments. 

Malheur River Wild and Scenic River Corridor

There are no improvements and/or structures proposed within the 15 acres of the project area that is 

located within the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River Corridor. There would be no effect on the 

outstandingly remarkable value of unique scenic character within the Malheur River Wild and Scenic 

River Corridor. The outstandingly remarkable value would continue to be protected; preserving the free 

flowing conditions of the river. 

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives

Effects from the proposed improvements and structure in combination with the past, ongoing, and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities (as listed in Appendix C) are considered when analyzing the 

cumulative effects of the action alternatives. 

In 2011, three Decision Memos were signed authorizing projects within the project area that would 

enhance livestock management by implementing numerous improvements and structures. These projects 

combined with the structures and improvements proposed in the Action Alternatives would have an 

additive but minimal impact on the visual quality in the project area. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

244 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and Regulations

The project is consistent with the Malheur National Forest Plan, as amended. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Action alternatives are not expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible damage to the 

scenic integrity. 

Heritage 

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of livestock activities proposed within the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area on cultural resources. Cultural resources are fragile and 

irreplaceable resources that chronicle the history of people utilizing the forested environment. 

Regulatory Framework 

The legal framework that mandates the Forest to consider the effects of its actions on cultural resources is 

wide-ranging. In this case, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (amended in 

1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation that governs the treatment of cultural resources during 

project planning and implementation. Implementing regulations that clarify and expand upon the National 

Historic Preservation Act include 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 63 

(Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 36 CFR 296 (Protection of 

Archaeological Resources). The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) of the Forest Service, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, signed a 

programmatic agreement regarding the management of cultural resources on National Forest system lands 

in 2004. The 2004 programmatic agreement outlines specific procedures for the identification, evaluation, 

and protection of cultural resources during activities or projects sponsored by the Forest Service. It also 

establishes the process that the State Historic Preservation Office utilizes to review Forest Service 

undertakings for National Historic Preservation Act compliance. The Grazing Allotment Review Strategy 

for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006, 

“Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act” (Goodman 2006), is the 

region’s policy for performing heritage reviews of grazing permit reauthorizations. This policy has also 

been approved by Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 is also a cultural resource management directive as it 

calls for agencies to analyze the effects of their actions on sociocultural elements of the environment. 

Laws such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) also guide Forest Service decision-making as it relates to 

Heritage. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider the 

impacts of their projects on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions. 

The Malheur Forest Plan (1990), as amended, tiers to the previously mentioned laws and corresponding 

Forest Service manual direction as it sets forth resource management goals, objectives, and standards. 

Forest-wide management standards that are pertinent for this cultural resource effects analysis include:

• Conduct a professionally supervised cultural resource survey on National Forest lands to identify 

cultural resource properties. Use sound survey strategies and the Malheur National Forest Cultural 

Resource Inventory Survey Design (Thomas 1991). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 245

• Evaluate the significance of sites by applying the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places.

• Consider the effects of all Forest Service undertakings on cultural resources. Coordinate the 

formulation and evaluation of alternatives with the State cultural resource plan, the State Historic 

Preservation Office and State Archaeologist, other State and Federal agencies, and with traditional 

and religious leaders of Native American Indian groups and tribes with historic ties to the project 

planning area. 

Consultation with Others

Many of the previously described laws, regulations, and directives instruct the Forest Service to consult 

with American Indian tribes, the state, and other interested parties on cultural resource management 

issues. This consultation has been conducted through the NEPA process and under the terms of existing 

agreements with American Indian Tribes. To date, there have been no concerns raised during scoping 

regarding the effects of grazing activities on cultural resources. Documentation of compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act is currently being prepared for referral to the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office in accordance with the 2004 programmatic agreement, and consultation with that 

agency would be completed prior to the publication of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project Final Environmental Analysis.

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

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation. At this point in the consultation process no concerns regarding the effects of the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project proposal on cultural resources have been identified. 

Analysis Methods 

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Planning Area includes all National Forest system lands 

administered by the Prairie City Ranger District that are within the designated boundary established for 

this project. The cultural resources effects analysis, including cumulative effects, would focus on cultural 

properties identified within the project area. The proposed action does not have potential to have indirect 

effects (i.e., visual, auditory, atmospheric) on cultural resources that are distant from the project activities.

Affected Environment

Cultural resource identification efforts in the vicinity of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

project area have focused on three primary types of resources: prehistoric archaeological sites, historic 

archaeological sites, and places that support resources of contemporary tribal interest. Cultural resource 

identification efforts that have been conducted in the four allotments of this project include pedestrian 

cultural resource inventories, literature reviews, and consultation with American Indian tribes and other 

stakeholders that are historically associated with the area. In accordance with the Grazing Allotment 

Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy letter of 

May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act” (Goodman 

2006), 94 sites of a total 129 sites within the grazing allotments were identified to be monitored; 67 were 

visited. 

Archaeological resources are places where human activities have deposited physical remains or 

measurably altered the earth in some manner. Archaeological sites may be prehistoric or historic and are 

considered valuable if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, scientific or scholarly information 

important in prehistory or history. Complete site avoidance is the preferred form of treatment for 

archaeological resources that have the ability, or may have the ability, to yield scientific data (Keyser et 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

246 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

al. 1988). Because of the nature of grazing activities, archaeological resources cannot always be avoided. 

If grazing conflicts with cultural resources are identified, the adverse effects would be mitigated or 

eliminated by amending grazing practices authorized in the permit (Goodman 2006). 

The most frequently encountered archaeological resources in the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization 

project area are scatters of lithic remains that are distributed in variable densities and are related to 

occupations of hunter-gatherers that span over 8,000 years. The prehistoric lithic scatters are largely 

related to hunting and tool finishing. However, several sites are associated with natural obsidian sources 

within the area. Another dominant artifact observed in the project area is the hopper mortar; over 180 

hopper mortar bases have been found in the project area, most of which were found in situ (David 2004). 

Hopper mortars and pestles are stone tools that were used to process root crops, plant products, dried meat 

and fish, and other resources including insects. 

Historic archaeological resources may include foundations or structural ruins, or features such as privy 

pits and trash dumps. Sites with historic archaeological components in the project area are believed to be 

associated with Depression era livestock grazing, the Hines Logging Railroad, early homesteading, 

agriculture, and early Forest Service administrative activities. Portions of corrals, burnt-out log troughs, 

historic ditches predating 1928, historic telephone lines and associated artifacts (ceramic insulators, 

telephone lines), railroad beds and associated artifacts from the Hines logging railroad activities, and 

cabins, including a snow survey cabin located at John Day Summit, have been recorded throughout the 

project area. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)-era buildings are located at the Lake Creek 

Organizational Camp which was an early Forest Service ranger station. 

The National Environmental Policy Act and other authorities require that federal agencies consider the 

impact of their actions on cultural uses of the natural environment such as those practiced by preset-day 

communities of American Indians. Resources of contemporary tribal interest may include traditional 

cultural properties (Parker and King 1998), areas important for the practice of Indian religion, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands, and areas that support cultural uses of the natural environment (i.e., 

subsistence use of plants or animals). Ethnographic sources have identified portions of the Summit Logan 

Grazing project area as important for traditional American Indian land-uses (Couture 1978). 

Historic Land Use

The project area lies near the boundary between two cultural areas. The ethnographic record (Whiting 

1950) indicates that members of the Hu’nipwi’tika (lomatium eaters) band of the Northern Paiute Indians 

were the primary inhabitants of the project area, and that two other Paiute bands visited and utilized the 

areas for subsistence activities. Ethnographic and historic accounts indicate that Sahaptin speaking people 

from the Columbia Plateau also made frequent forays into the region. Parties affiliated with Tenino 

(Warm Springs), Nez Perce, Cayuse, and Umatilla periodically visited the project area to gather roots, 

hunt game, engage in trade, acquire information, and to solidify social ties throughout the ethnographic 

present (Suphan 1974). 

With the headwaters of the Malheur River at the southern end of the planning area, the area became one 

of the major fishing sites for the Burns Paiute. “It represented the scene of a prominent annual economic 

and social event centered on the salmon” (Couture 1996:36). The area was also rich with camas, biscuit 

root, chokecherries, and grasshoppers, which they processed with hopper mortars and stored for winter 

use.

For a brief period (1873 to 1882), the Malheur Indian Reservation encompassed a major portion of the 

project area. In 1873 the Federal Government set aside the reservation comprising of nearly two million 

acres, extending north to Strawberry Mountain, east and west from Castle Rock to the Silvies River, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 247

south to Malheur Lake. It is conceivable that some Paiute continued to use project areas during this time, 

but documentation for this is conspicuously lacking. By the end of the 1940s Indian use of the project 

area was primarily limited to a few families hunting and gathering traditional cultural plants as delicacies 

instead of staples. 

Following the decline of eastern Oregon gold rush in the late 19th century, the principal land use in the 

southern Blue Mountains was livestock grazing. By the late 1860s large herds of cattle, sheep and horses 

were grazing these prairies with no limit being placed on the numbers of livestock. By 1912, more than 

2,000 to 4,500 cattle, 6,000 to 8,000 sheep, and 500 to 1,000 horses grazed in the planning area and 

surrounding vicinity (Mosgrove 1980). Until the early 1900s livestock on the Forest was not managed and 

high stocking levels, stock driveways, and lack of management resulted in degraded upland and riparian 

conditions. 

Grazing practices that started in the 1860s altered the native grasslands in and around the project areas, 

displacing prairie vegetation with annual grasses for livestock forage. For heavily overgrazed areas in the 

project area, non-native grass species were introduced, such as the reseeding project in the project area 

that began in the 1930s. And as early as 1915, historic irrigation ditches were being built in the project 

area by water rights holders with spreader ditches being plowed in the valley through the 1950s. The 

footprint of the ditches is still visible and some are still in use.

In the 1870s the Dalles Military Road was opened connecting Boise to the Dalles by way of Canyon City 

to service the miners and early settlers. A portion of the military road runs through the Summit Prairie 

allotment. Sheep camps and stock driveways were constructed within the planning area to support the 

administration of grazing. 

Commercial logging began on the Forest in the early 1920s when the Malheur put up for sale 890 million 

board feet of timber. The Hines Logging Railroad was constructed from the mill in Seneca to Crane 

Prairie in the eastern portion of the project area to transport the timber. The Bear Creek to Summit Prairie 

section of the railroad system was used to haul timber from the project area between the late 1930s to 

early 1960s. Temporary spurs were constructed along creeks and drainage areas in the project area.

Other historic uses of the project area involved the administration of Forest Service lands and fire 

suppression. A fire lookout was in place by 1920 at Crane Point and the Lake Creek Ranger Station was 

constructed prior to 1909. An historic phone line was constructed between 1909 and 1915 to allow 

communication between the lookouts and Ranger stations in the project area. This telephone system was a 

critical part of the Forest fire suppression system until 1949. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on cultural resources. Alternative 1 

would virtually eliminate the likelihood of livestock disturbance and damage to cultural resources, 

however, as a consequence of no grazing; fuel loads from an increased amount of available forage could 

increase the risk of archaeological sites and their overall physical integrity being affected by wild fires.

Tribal uses would have beneficial consequences under this alternative. The No Action alternative would 

be beneficial to riparian vegetation and therefore beneficial to tribal uses. This alternative would not 

prevent the continuation of traditional practices.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

248 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), 3 and 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Livestock activity in areas where cattle tend to congregate (water sources) with a high likelihood of 

containing buried cultural deposits, such as springs, seeps, and terraces, could expose and cause damage 

to cultural materials. Since the grazing alternatives would not change the intensity of grazing, would 

continue to disperse livestock across the allotments, and would manage use according to the allotment 

management plans, no additional impacts to sites within the project area are expected. 

Two allotments, Logan Valley and Summit Prairie, would gain acreage with all three alternatives, but not 

livestock numbers. Lake Creek Allotment would remain vacant, and McCoy Creek Allotment would 

decrease in size with 23 acres being excluded in a riparian protection exclosure in all alternatives.

Any site-specific range developments identified, such as developing upland ponds, constructing fences 

and the loading ramp/catch pen and construction of a spring development would be mitigated per 

stipulation III A. of the 2004 programmatic agreement. 

New fence construction (electric, barbed-wire, or buck and pole in Lake Creek Allotment (alternatives 2 

and 4) and Summit Prairie Allotment (alternatives 2, 3 and 4) are being proposed along with the 

construction of small willow (buck and pole or wire) exclosures and cages under alternative 4 in the 

Summit Prairie Allotment. The conversion of 0.3 miles of electric fence to a permanent let-down fence is 

also being proposed in the Logan Valley Allotment under alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Fence removal in the 

Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie Allotments is proposed under alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

These activities would have no or minimal effects to heritage resources.

Under all alternatives, permit renewal provides for continued monitoring of grazing practices, 

archaeological review of proposed range projects, and inspections of known or newly identified cultural 

properties in the allotment. The results of this work would trigger adjustments in management practices 

(as appropriate) to ensure that cultural resources are considered. In the event that cultural properties could 

not be avoided or protected, appropriate mitigation measures would be undertaken through consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Office for the affected cultural resource property. Vegetation that has 

been completely utilized by livestock is an indicator of the surface condition and integrity of 

archaeological sites. Where the basal condition of the grasses is intact and protecting the soil integrity, 

cultural materials are not as likely to be disturbed.

Specific direction concerning continued management of existing developments or activities where known 

cultural sites occur and are monitored would be addressed in annual operating plans. 

Although these alternatives would not prevent continuation of traditional practices, impacts to tribal 

traditional use areas would continue at existing levels if the alternatives did not contain the adaptive 

management options. Livestock would continue to have direct impacts to riparian plants such as 

chokecherry, willow and red-osier dogwood that are used by local tribes. Other plants such as camas, 

biscuit-root, bitterroot, onion, current, lomatium, yarrow, sagebrush and juniper would not be impacted 

directly by livestock grazing. 

Under the three action alternatives, proposed improvements and adaptive management strategies have 

been proposed that would benefit cultural plants, both upland and riparian. These adaptive management 

strategies include scheduling rest or additional rest within riparian pastures and recovery units, changing 

the allowable use levels, and installing fences to protect sensitive areas (i.e. fen area and streams). The 

effects of implementing the proposed improvement options/adaptive management strategies to cultural 

resources and tribal traditional use areas for the gathering of cultural plants (i.e. construction of fences) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 249

would be minimal because these site specific projects would be mitigated through requirements of the 

2004 Programmatic Agreement with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. 

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives 

Past and future forest management projects have the potential to impact cultural resources within the 

project area. These projects can cause surface disturbance that affect the integrity of historical structures 

and prehistoric sites. Implementation of the design criteria with all three action alternatives should 

prevent, or at least reduce, impacts that are currently affecting archaeological sites within the allotments. 

However, the cumulative effects of natural elements, logging, road building, grazing, surface collecting 

and/or illegal digging, and natural fuels reduction projects could still be reflected in these sites. 

Typical vegetation management activities, such as timber harvest, thinning, fuels management, and 

vegetation reduction, as well as other activities, such as fence repair, culvert replacement and stock water 

enhancement, would occur over the next ten years. Prior to implementation of any of these projects a 

cultural resource survey and report would have to be completed and would meet the requirements for the 

Section 106 consultation process. All projects are designed to avoid adverse effects to cultural and historic 

properties. Also, potential impacts that cultural properties might incur from foreseeable future actions, 

such as pre-commercial thinning and hazard tree removal would be mitigated per stipulation III A. of the 

2004 Programmatic Agreement. 

Under the No Grazing alternative, grazing would not contribute to the cumulative effects to cultural 

resources taking place in the project area. It is possible that additional effects from wild fire could occur 

when cattle do not annually reduce fine fuels, but if this contributed to a return to historic fire regimes it 

may actually reduce the long term effects on sites.

Impacts to tribal traditional use areas would be cumulative with past and future management of the 

vegetation. Future fuels/vegetation projects would have beneficial impacts to tribal use of the area 

because the proposed activities are usually designed to have beneficial impacts to vegetation in the long

term.

Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and Regulations

Heritage and Tribal interests are regulated by federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in 

identifying, evaluating and protecting heritage resources. All of the alternatives would comply with 

federal laws. The Malheur National Forest Plan tiers to these laws, therefore the proposed action 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards. With the completion of the Heritage inventory under the 

terms of the 2004 programmatic agreement with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, the Grazing 

Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which implements the Regional Forester policy 

letter of May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit Reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act” 

(Goodman 2006), and by providing the interdisciplinary team with appropriate input as per NEPA, all 

relevant laws and regulations have been met. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives 

with respect to cultural resources. Ground disturbing management activities within each allotment would 

avoid all cultural properties that are eligible and potentially eligible (unevaluated) to the National Register 

of Historic Places. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

250 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Social and Economics 

Introduction

This is a summary of the Social and Economic report that provides an overview of the current social and 

economic conditions found in the assessment area to provide the context of the effects analysis that

addresses the purpose and need and the issues discussed in chapter 1. The full social and economic report 

can be found in the project record and is available for review upon request. 

Regulatory Framework 

The Malheur Forest Plan includes forest-wide management goals to:

• Contribute to the social/economic health of communities, which are significantly affected by national 

forest management (IV-3, #42). 

• Provide an economic return to the public. 

• Forest Service policy sets a minimum level of financial analysis for project planning (FSH 1909.17). 

• Contribute to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic 

diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their 

livelihood (FSM 2202.1(4)). 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in 

the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Minimum 

specific management requirements are identified in 36 CFR 219.27, to accomplish goals and objectives 

for the National Forest System. 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires integrated use of the natural and social sciences in all 

planning and decision-making that affects the human environment. The human environment includes the 

natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people to the environment (40 CFR 1508.14). 

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations for NEPA (40CFR 1502.23) addresses non-commodity values, 

stating “For the purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the 

various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis, and should not be, when 

there are qualitative considerations.”

36 CFR 219.3 – National Forest System Land and Management Planning 

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) on Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to identify 

and address agency programs that may have a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. The order directs federal agencies to 

focus attention on the human health and environment effects to ethnic minorities (American Indians, 

Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian and Pacific-Islander Americans), disabled people, and lowincome groups. 

Analysis Methods 

The economic analysis focuses on two key indicators of change by alternative: 1) Forage Available for 

Livestock, 2) Costs of Improvements. 

Affected Environment

Changes in levels of grazing use associated with the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

Management Plan may affect the major social and economic characteristics of the surrounding geographic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 251

area. The affected area or impact zone for the Malheur National Forest consists of Grant, Harney and 

Baker counties in Oregon. Agriculture (particularly forage resource products), manufacturing (particularly 

wood products), and retail trade are important sourcesof employment and income in this region. Grant 

County, for example, has a low level of economic diversity, a high dependence on federal timber and 

forage, and a low resiliency for change. Reliance on timber and forage from federal lands is moderate to 

high in counties in the impact zone (Kohrman 2003). The rate of conversion from wildland range to other 

uses has been less than 1 percent total between 1986 and 2001 (USDA Forest Service & ODF 2004). 

Many communities are closely tied to the forest in both work activities and recreation. The local 

communities within an hour or two drive that are anticipated to be directly or indirectly affected by the 

proposed action, alternatives, and their associated economics include: Prairie City (population 1,080), 

Burns/Hines (4,565), Dayville (140), John Day/Canyon City (2,740), Long Creek (260), Mount Vernon 

(650), Monument (150), Seneca (230), Sumpter (175), and Unity (145). Larger towns and cities two or 

more hours away from John Day include: Baker City (10,160), LaGrande (12,795), Ontario (10,680), 

Bend (52,029), and Pendleton (16,915). The nearest metropolitan areas are the Tri-Cities area of 

Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland in Washington State, and Boise, Idaho. Most of the permittees live in the 

listed local communities. 

Ranching has played a defining role in the establishment of the western United States. Many public land 

permittees consider the ranching way of life vital to maintaining traditional values and their cultural 

heritage. This unique lifestyle had endured and evolved throughout generations. Commitment to 

remaining in the local communities is very strong (USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. 2003). 

Nationally, regionally, and locally, the social values and demands are changing on the national forests. A 

recent national survey has shown there is wide support for management of public lands to provide a 

diversity of uses, including grazing (Shields et al. 2002). However, the same study shows the importance 

to manage forest and grasslands to provide different types of recreational opportunities, including 

preserving the ability to have a “wilderness experience”. The Draft Current Management Situation Report 

for the Blue Mountains orest Plan revision also discusses changing social values (USDA Forest Service 

Revision Team 2004). There is also a growing dichotomy between rural and urban Oregon (Kaylor 2003).

Economics 

Financial institutions and the Internal Revenue Service have recognized the economic value of federal 

grazing permits and long-term permittees have been able to capitalize this permit as part of total ranch 

value for loans and property sales. However, the Forest Service does not recognize the permit as having 

additive financial value to an individual’s property because there is no guarantee that the permit would 

remain with current permittee in perpetuity and that the sale of the property would automatically give the 

permit to the new owner. Therefore the Forest Service recognizes grazing permits as a privilege and not a 

right.

A grazing program on portions of the Malheur National Forest has been around since the establishment of 

the forest as part of the Blue Mountain Forest Reserve in 1906 and as a separate unit in 1908 (Mosgrove 

1980). The cattle ranching business has been an economic mainstay in Grant County along with the forest 

products industry and government jobs.

Recent Forest Service range management practices, policies and procedures require more active 

involvement by the permittees in the form of planning participation, multiple resource management, 

monitoring active livestock management and cost-share of rangeland improvement projects. A special 

report published in 1992 by the Oregon State University Extension Service concluded that: “changes in 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

252 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

federal grazing policies and regulations may have led to relative asset devaluation in the federal land 

dependent sector of the western livestock industry in Eastern Oregon” (Obermiller 1992). 

The same study found that although grazing fees on private land are considerably higher than Forest 

Service land, overall grazing costs are much higher on Forest Service land. The increased expense 

associated with grazing on public land was attributed to: the cost of taking animals on and off of federal 

land, livestock management, maintenance of range improvements and higher death loss (Obermiller 

1992). 

The economics of the grazing program has evolved over time. Currently, stock animals, mainly cattle, 

spend the winter and early spring months on lower elevation private lands where they can be fed stored 

hay. In Grant County, the land is usually located along the John Day River and its tributaries. Most of 

these lands are in the ownership of the permittees. The animals are moved to higher elevation private 

lands and public lands as these lands become range ready in the spring. It is necessary for the cattle to be 

moved off their winter pastures so these private lands can be irrigated for hay production then stored for 

the upcoming winter. 

This system of moving cattle to other pastures in the spring through fall maximizes the use of prime 

agricultural lands for hay production. The longer cattle are kept off these lands, the greater the 

opportunity to produce two or more hay crops. The more herbage produced, the more cattle can be held 

over the winter, and the rancher/permittee is better able to time the selling of their stock to take advantage 

of market prices. Through history the beef market has been very volatile, with great highs and lows in the 

domestic market. 

In the current livestock management systems, most calving is done early. Most of the calves are born 

between October and February. This allows the calves to be born near ranches where they can be watched 

and the birth assisted when necessary by the ranchers thus reducing mortality rates. The calves develop to 

a size by mid-spring to where they can be safely moved to new pasturage and are large enough to be 

protected from most predators. 

Lands within the planning area generally became ready for livestock use in mid-May or early June 

depending on the weather, aspect, and amount of snow pack. The cattle remain until late summer or until 

the end of October depending on when use criteria (triggers) are met or when the permitted grazing 

season ends. Annual adjustments in the timing, intensity or duration of livestock grazing may be 

necessary if resource conditions are not trending towards or achieving objectives. Flexibility is needed to 

address resource concerns. Thus, herd numbers may change up or down, and pastures may be rested in the 

following year. Wildfires and prescribed fires may cause portions of allotments to be rested for a period of

time. Therefore, when mitigating for ecological concerns, there are both direct and indirect economic 

impacts to the permittees and the local economies. Economic impacts would have a social impact to rural 

life styles.

If either the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service were to reduce their role in this grazing 

system, the permittee would need to find other private or public lands to hold their cattle while forage is 

being grown, or they would need to reduce their total livestock numbers. Buying and shipping forage 

from outside sources is not considered economical because of the costs. In many cases, reductions in total 

livestock numbers would also make some family-owned businesses uneconomical. 

Economic strains intensify as operational costs increase without associated increases in the prices 

received for livestock products. The average 300 cow/calf operation in the western United States typically 

yields a two percent investment return. This return is often too low to support a ranching family. Under 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 253

these conditions, many family members must seek employment outside of the ranch to make ends meet 

(Knight et al. 2002). 

Employment

Cattle production and forest products provide a portion of the core employment for Grant and Harney 

counties. Most of the ranches are family run businesses and not corporate owned. In 2006 13 percent of 

the total employment in Grant County was in farm and agricultural services. Local government, retail 

trade, and services employ the most people in Grant and Harney counties (Kohrman 2003). 

Ranchers in Baker, Grant and Harney counties, with federal permits in the analysis area, are highly 

dependent on forage from federally managed lands, compared to other counties in the region. The value 

of cattle reared on forage from federally managed lands represents more than 10 percent of total 

agricultural sales in Baker, Grant and Harney counties (Haynes and Horne 1997). Shifts in permitted use 

of federal grazing allotments change the availability of this forage source. The impact these shifts have on 

the local economy varies according to the adjustments that local ranchers have to make within their 

ranching operation. 

Recreation-based industries, while prevalent elsewhere in the region, have not been a major contributor to 

the local economies. Recent efforts indicate that the volume of business is only enough to supplement 

income, rather than provide a primary source of income (Kohrman 2003). The exception is hunting 

season, which typically draws larger numbers of people into the area. Stores that sell sporting goods 

benefit during this period. Recreation-based employment is seasonal and service-oriented, with wages at 

the lower end of the pay scale (Kohrman 2003). Economic activity based on recreation may have limited 

growth potential for communities in the area (Kline 2001). Seasonal limitations, the dispersed nature of 

recreation within the counties, along with a general lack of large, water-based recreational opportunities, 

does not create the concentrated numbers of recreationists and readily-identifiable recreation destinations 

necessary to support many recreation industries (Kohrman 2003). Recreation based industry had a small 

increase in Grant County between 1990 and 2000 (The Wilderness Society 2004). 

Historically, government employment and expenditures has provided a degree of stability in rural 

communities (Kohrman 2003). With reduced Forest Service budgets and work force, and a switch to 

management emphasis that produces generally lower amounts and value of commodity products, federal 

workforce and program expenditures has not buffered economic downturns as in the past (Oregon 

Department of Employment 2001). This situation, combined with fluctuations in the other base industries, 

has had a significant effect on the economy (Kohrman 2003). 

The communities surrounding the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area have a 

disproportionately high unemployment compared with the Oregon State average of 9.6 percent. 

Unemployment in Baker County for January 2012 was 12.8 percent, Grant County – 17.5 percent, and 

Harney County – 15.9 percent. (From Northwest Area Foundation (NAF) Website/ 

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org) 

Average Wages

Average annual pay per job provides an indication of the wage contribution of jobs in the analysis area. 

Average income for the affected counties is below the national and state averages: United States $45,000, 

Oregon $43,500, Baker County $31,700, Grant County $32,500, Harney County $31,700. (Northwest 

Area Foundation Website) Wages in Grant and Harney counties are lower, primarily due to lower wage 

rates per hour and a larger number of part-time jobs, compared to the state as a whole (Kohrman 2003).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

254 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Economics 

Alternative 1 would eliminate authorized livestock use within the planning area, thus possibly affecting 

the economic viability of the associated permittees' operations (magnitude) depending on the minimum 

number of AUMs necessary for the permittees to remain in business. 

Eliminating cattle from the allotments could affect the economic viability of the livestock operations for 

the permittees due to the cumulative costs associated with securing additional range or buying 

supplemental feed to accommodate herd sizes consistent with current permitted numbers, fencing and 

establishing water on the additional range, increased trucking costs, and labor costs associated with 

moving cattle. The intensity of the effects would depend upon the available options for the permittee; 

access and availability of private land, availability of forage and the costs associated with those options. 

Additionally, the intensity of the effects would also depend of the size of their total operations, debt 

structure, business goals and objectives and the market for cattle. 

Alternative 1 would prohibit approximately 680 cow/calf pair from the current AUMS (3,945). The three 

term grazing permits associated with this allotment would be cancelled. Permittees may choose to graze 

the displaced livestock on their own properties if there was a large enough land base or they may have to 

find an alternative source for pasture lands. In Grant, Harney and Baker Counties, available pasture for 

grazing is limited to dispersed blocks of pasture at approximately $10 to $20 per head month with 

availability depending on the season. Based on the lack of the summer rangeland and the overall shortage 

within the zone of influence (Grant, Harney and Baker Counties), operational costs would dramatically 

increase for the permittees. Costs associated with transportation and travel would increase operational 

costs. 

The permittee may attempt to maintain their current livestock herds even if they lose their permit to graze 

livestock within the planning area. This may result in adverse environmental effects on adjacent privately 

owned lands. Or the permittee may choose to reduce the heard size which may adversely affect the 

permittee operations. 

If selected, alternative 1 would result in abandonment of all infrastructures in place. The investments 

made to date into internal pasture fences, allotment boundary fences, spring developments and other 

structures owned by the government would be lost. If subsequent decision is made to retain any of these 

improvements, funding would need to be secured for their maintenance or adjacent permittees would be 

reassigned maintenance responsibility. Assigning maintenance responsibility to adjacent permittee would 

in turn increase their operational costs. 

However, alternative 1 would eliminate all permittee costs associated with the allotment. In addition, a 

fair market appraisal of improvements may be necessary to determine appropriate compensation for 

investments made on the allotments by the current permittees. The magnitude of the direct effects of this 

alternative is considered to be the three ranching operations currently holding permits for the allotments 

under consideration and the Government.

No grazing fees would be collected from domestic livestock grazing in the project area under alternative

1, therefore the Malheur National Forest would not receive this portion of the grazing fees collected 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 255

annually, for on the ground range improvements (range betterment funds). Neither would they be needed. 

These funds would not be available to assist the local economy by purchase of materials for construction 

of improvements locally or hire local seasonal workers to complete projects on the Forest.

Employment 

Grazing reductions (AUMs) could affect employment and income in several ways: (1) direct effects 

attributable to employment associated with the ranches, (2) indirect effects attributable to industries that 

supply materials, equipment, and services to the ranches, and (3) induced effects attributable to personal 

spending by the ranch owners, employees, families, and related industries (direct, indirect, and induced 

effects as defined above constitute the magnitude or area of the effect). A reduction of this magnitude in 

the number of authorized Animal Unit Months (AUMs) would be expected to affect the associated 

ranches' capacity as these grazing permits may provide for 50 to 100 percent of the ranches' summer 

forage.

Selection of this alternative would have an adverse effect upon the permittees and their employees. All 

these livestock operations are family businesses, with the exception of one. As many as 6 families (permit 

holders and employees) would potentially be affected by this alternative. This translates to the alternative 

affecting approximately 18 people. Permit holders would struggle to find comparable grazing 

opportunities within the proximity to their home ranches, due to the high demand and high cost for 

grazing lands in Grant, Harney and Baker counties.

Average Wages

This alternative would have no impact on the average wages for zone of influence. 

Cumulative Effects

If alternative 1, No Grazing, were selected there would be a cumulative economic and social effect. As the 

Malheur National Forest and other national forests in the Pacific Northwest Region (Oregon and 

Washington) prepare more allotment management plans, it is anticipated the overall amount of cattle 

utilizing National Forest System lands may be reduced. As family ranching becomes less profitable, the 

number of people employed in and enjoying this life-style would decline locally, regionally, and 

nationally, potentially creating a social minority group. 

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, in a 2003 speech (USDA Forest Service, 2003), stated his concern 

with ending grazing (a proposal most similar to Alternative 1) on public lands: “...Without the access to 

seasonal grazing on national forest or other federal lands, the viability of many ranching operations in the 

West would be seriously in doubt. An end result would be the selling off of many of the privately-owned 

base ranch properties adjacent to public lands. What typically happens next is the land is subdividied into 

ranchettes and valuable open space and wildlife habitat is lost...”

As agricultural lands are lost to development, communities bear higher costs. Privately owned and 

managed agricultural land generates more in local tax revenues than it costs in services. Carefully 

examining local budgets in cost of community services (COCS) studies shows that nationwide farm, 

forest and open lands more than pay for the municipal services they require, while taxes on residential 

uses consistently fail to cover costs (Freegood, AFT, 2002). 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

All cost estimates were derived from personal conversations and past experience with Gary Delaney, 

Jason Kerberg, Shannon Britt, Cindy Kranich, and Bubba Lindley. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

256 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment 

• Lake Creek Allotment boundary fence change requires 2.5 miles of fence construction at $27,000.00 

per mile for a total of $67,500.00. 

• Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $67,500 

Logan Valley Allotment 

• Removal of 2.3 miles of fence (@ $3,000/mile) $6,900. 

• Construction 2.5 miles of fence (@ $27,000/mile) per mile for total $67,500

• Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $74,400. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

• Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000. 

• Total cost for this allotment under this alternative is $3,000.

Summit Prairie Allotment

• Removal of .7 miles of fence at $2,100. 

• Construction 7 miles of fence (to include Bosenberg) at $27,000 per mile for a total of $189,000. 

• Upland water sources (springs and troughs) 4 at $7,000 each for a total of $28,000. 

• 1 catchpen and loading ramp @ $5,000. 

Total cost for structural improvements on this allotment under this alternative is $224,100. 

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of alternative 2 would be 

$593,100. 

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and should be 

considered as common to the action alternatives, however annual maintenance costs would increase with 

the addition of structural improvements. Implementation costs associated with structural improvements 

and livestock management are increasing. Operational costs are increasing. Depending on the year, 

permittees may need to increase their active livestock management efforts and distribution techniques in 

order to meet utilization standards. 

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected annually, 

for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements would be purchased 

locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the Forest, assisting the local 

economy. 

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic health of 

communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

The entire allotment would remain vacant with no authorized grazing and no change in the allotment 

boundary. There would be no new costs associated with this alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 257

Logan Valley Allotment 

• Removal of 1.5 miles of fence at $3,000.00 per mile for a total of $4,500.00. 

• Construction of .3 miles of fence $8,100. 

• Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $12,600. 

McCoy Creek Allotment

• Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000. 

• Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $3,000. 

Summit Prairie Allotment

• Creation of riparian pastures in the existing Little Logan Pasture would require 7.3 miles of fence (@ 

$27,000/miles) for a total of $197,100. 

• Removal of .7 miles of fence to absorb a portion of Logan Valley Allotment (@ $3,000/ mile) for a 

total of $2,100. 

• Creation of an exclosure and riparian pasture in existing Sagehen Pasture would require 4 miles of 

fence, a cost of $108,000.00. 

• Creation of riparian pasture in North Summit would require construction of .8 miles of fence for 

$21,600. 

• 1 catchpen and loading ramp for $5,000. 

Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $333,800. 

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of alternative 3 would be 

$349,400. 

Implementation costs associated with the construction of structural improvements for more intense 

livestock management are increasing. Operational costs (livestock management) may see a decrease if the 

improvements alone are effective in their purpose. 

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and should be 

considered as common to the action alternative, however annual maintenance costs would increase with 

the addition of structural improvements.

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected annually, 

for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements would be purchased 

locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the Forest, assisting the local 

economy. 

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic health of 

communities which are considerably affected by National Forest management.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lake Creek Allotment

• Lake Creek allotment boundary fence change requires 2.5 miles of fence construction at $27,000 per 

mile for a total of $67,500. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

258 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Logan Valley Allotment 

• Removal of 1.5 miles of fence at $3,000 per mile for a total of $4,500. 

• Construction of 2.8 miles of fence for $75,600. 

• Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $80,100 

McCoy Creek Allotment

• Removal of 1 mile of fence at $3,000. 

• Total cost for this allotment and this alternative is $3,000.

Summit Prairie Allotment

• New Prairie Riparian fence construction for 3.1 miles for $83,700. 

• Removal of .7 miles of fence at $3,000 per mile for a total of $2,100. 

• 1 catchpen and loading ramp for $5,000. 

• Construction of combination buck & pole and wire cages along portions (10 percent) of Summit 

Creek (1.2 mi @27,000 x 2) $64,800. 

Total cost for this allotment under this alternative is $155,600 

The total cost associated with structural improvements with the implementation of alternative 4 would be 

$306,200 

Routine maintenance and deferred replacement costs are not factored into this analysis and should be 

considered as common to the action alternatives, however annual maintenance costs would increase with 

the addition of structural improvements. Implementation costs associated with the construction of 

structural improvements for more efficient livestock management are increasing. Operational costs would 

increase with daily riding requirement. 

The Malheur National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected annually, 

for on the ground range improvements. Materials for construction of improvements would be purchased 

locally and local seasonal workers are hired to complete projects on the Forest, assisting the local 

economy. 

This alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives to contribute to the social and economic health of 

communities which are significantly affected by National Forest management.

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Recent Forest Service range management practices, policies and procedures require more active 

involvement by the permittees in the form of planning participation, multiple resource management, 

monitoring, active livestock management and cost-share of rangeland improvement projects. A special 

report published in 1992 by the Oregon State University Extension Service concluded that: “changes in 

federal grazing policies and regulations may have led to relative asset devaluation in the federal land 

dependent sector of the western livestock industry in Eastern Oregon” (Obermiller 1992). 

All the action alternatives would add to the permittee cost of doing business, including implementation 

and operational. Fences and other improvements from the 2011 signed Decision Memo’s (see chapter 1 

for further detail) would further contribute to costs. Cumulatively this could affect the viability of the 

permittees’ operations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 259

These alternatives could have some minimal cumulative effects on social and economic resources. It is 

difficult to project what the cumulative effects would be since it is unknown how the permittees would 

adjust to the new requirements.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

The population of the area is predominately white (96 percent Grant County, 92 percent Harney County). 

The region is sparsely populated, and contains low populations of minorities (4 percent of the Grant 

County population, 8 percent of Harney County). The largest component in this group is Native 

American. The primary American Indian tribes involved are the Burns Paiute, Umatilla, and Warm 

Springs. The Warm Springs has purchased lands adjacent the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area. Virtually the entire Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area 

falls within the ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. Under the terms of the 

Treaty of 1855, the Confederated Tribes reserve the rights to hunt, fish, gather plant crops, and pasture 

livestock within these ceded lands. These reserved treaty rights are important in the maintenance of 

traditional economic strategies (Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon).

Poverty rates provide some indication of the percentage of the population in surrounding communities 

with low-incomes. Poverty rates for both Grant and Harney counties are 16 percent and 14 percent

respectively. The Oregon statewide average rate of persons living below poverty is 13 percent (Northwest 

Area Foundation http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=14&FIPS=41023).

Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the timber, mining, 

ranching, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is unavailable. Some firms 

contracted by the Forest Service for reforestation work have traditionally hired Hispanic workers that 

comprise a migratory workforce in the area. Asian and Pacific Islanders uses of the area include 

commercial mushroom harvesting and developed camping associated with this activity. Some contracts 

are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration, although overall contract amounts to these 

groups has declined since 1998 (Kohrman 2003). 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Selection of any alternative is not anticipated to result in adverse or disproportionate effect upon, nor 

displacement of minorities, or increases in taxes that would constitute an economic hardship. There would 

be no negative effects on public health. 

Wildlife

Introduction

This is a summary of the biological evaluation and wildlife specialist report that evaluates the potential 

effects of livestock grazing on wildlife species and their associated habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The full biological evaluation and wildlife specialist report are on 

file in the project record and are available for review by request. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

260 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Regulatory Framework 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of 

all native and desirable non-native wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered 

species populations (36CFR219.19).

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystem upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with US 

Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of listed species. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act established an international framework for the protection and conversation 

of migratory birds. This Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations to “pursue, hunt, take, 

capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any mean whatever, receive for 

shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird...”. 

Malheur Forest Plan 

The principle policy document relevant to wildlife management on the Forest is the amended 1990 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to as the Forest Plan for the 

remainder of this section. The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for management of wildlife 

species and habitats. Standards and guidelines are presented at the Forest level (Forest Plan, pp. IV-26 to 

IV-33) or Management Area level (Forest Plan pp. IV-50, IV-53, IV-56 to IV-57, IV-105 to IV-107, and 

IV-108). 

Additional management direction is provided for conservation of migratory landbirds. This direction is 

consolidated in the Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan and further developed through the Partners in 

Flight Program. The Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) identifies priority bird 

species and habitats for the Blue Mountains in Oregon. 

Analysis Methods 

Effects on wildlife species and habitat were assessed for the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project area, focusing on implementation of actions described within each alternative, as well as effects of 

adaptive management. Some wildlife habitats require a detailed analysis and discussion to determine 

potential effects on a particular species. Other habitats may either not be impacted or are impacted at a 

level which does not influence the species or their occurrence.

Effects were analyzed within the context of the project area (40,279 acres), unless otherwise noted. For 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) primary cavity excavators the effects boundary was expanded to 

include adjacent subwatersheds in order to discuss nearby post-fire habitat. For wide-ranging carnivores 

such as the gray wolf and wolverine, the effects boundary was expanded to include discussion of remote 

habitat such as the Strawberry Mountain and Monument Rock Wilderness areas, the Vinegar Hill-Indian 

Rock Scenic Area and several roadless areas on the Forest. Cumulative effects were analyzed with respect 

to past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities listed in appendix C. 

Species presence/absence determinations were based on habitat presence, review of recorded wildlife 

sightings in District and Forest wildlife databases, the National Resources Information System (NRIS) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 261

Wildlife database, non-Forest Service databases, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

reports, as well as notes, maps, and summary reports of wildlife observations made during field 

reconnaissance for several smaller projects in the area in 2011, with some follow-up visits early spring 

2012. 

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, December 2011, was used to identify the threatened, 

endangered and sensitive wildlife species discussed in this document. Conservation status, trends, and 

source habitats for these and other species were obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information 

Center “Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon” (October 2010), NatureServe Explorer 

(accessed 2012), US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (2008), and viability 

assessments for the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service, draft 2011).

Elk management objectives and estimated population levels were obtained from Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife offices in Hines and John Day, Oregon. 

Old growth habitat was determined using the Forest’s old growth GIS map layer, and management 

activity layers. Existing vegetation and aspen habitat was determined using the Forest’s existing 

vegetation and hardwood GIS map layer. 

Landbirds, including neotropical migratory birds, were analyzed based on priority habitats identified in 

the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight, Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan 

(Altman 2000). Species lists of birds seen or heard in Logan Valley were obtained from District records as 

well as local birding groups (Grant County Bird Club). 

The duration of effects on the wildlife resource is described according to the following terms and 

definitions: 

• Immediate – Approximately one growing season or several months or less

• Short-term – 0 to 5 years 

• Mid-term – 5 to 25 years 

• Long-term – 25+ years 

Rather than addressing all wildlife species, the Forest Plan focuses on three categories of wildlife: 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, management indicator species, and featured species. In 

addition, interest has been raised for landbirds including neotropical migratory birds. Categories and 

wildlife species are summarized below:

• Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species: This analysis uses the December 2011 Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List. 

• Management Indicator Species: Rocky Mountain elk represent a big game species. American 

(pine) marten, pileated woodpecker, and northern three-toed woodpecker represent old growth 

habitats. Primary cavity excavators (most woodpeckers) represent dead wood habitat. Effects to 

management indicator species are discussed in the big game habitat, old growth forest, and 

primary cavity excavator sections respectively.

• Featured Species: The featured species associated with the project area are northern goshawk, 

blue grouse, osprey, and pronghorn antelope. Effects are discussed in the featured species section. 

Upland sandpiper and sage grouse are both sensitive and featured species, and are addressed in 

the threatened, endangered and sensitive species section. In addition, due to their influence on 

riparian habitat, beaver will also be discussed.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

262 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

• Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds: These species and associated habitats are 

discussed in the landbirds including neotropical migratory birds section. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Table 97 describes the threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species that have suitable habitat 

within or near the project area. There is no suitable habitat present for American peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus anatum), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), Wallowa rosy finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis 

wallowa), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), or bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). These species will 

not be discussed. 

There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx in the affected subwatersheds. Based 

on the National Lynx Survey, the Malheur National Forest falls under the designation of “Unoccupied 

Mapped Lynx Habitat” (US Fish and Wildlife Service Memo, 2006). Consequently, there is No Effect 

(NE) to Canada lynx. The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy applies to occupied lynx habitat. 

Compliance with section 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act is not required for lynx on national 

forests determined to be unoccupied by lynx (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Consequently, there is 

No Effect (NE) to Canada Lynx. 

Table 97. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species summary 

Terrestrial Species Status Species 

Occurrence

Effects Determinationa, b

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Canada Lynx

Lynx canadensis T HN/N NE NE NE NE

Gray Wolf 

Canis lupus

East of Hwy 395, Rocky Mtn. 

DPSc 

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle

Hailaeetus leucocephalus S HD/S NI NI NI NI

American Peregrine Falcon

Falco perigrinus anatum S HN/N NI NI NI NI

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus S, C HD/S NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus 

phaios

S, C HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Silver-bordered Fritillary

Boloria selene S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa Rosy Finch 

Leucosticte tephrocotis wallowa S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Bobolink

Dolichonyx oryzivorus S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland Sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda S HD/D NI NI NI NI
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 263

Terrestrial Species Status Species 

Occurrence

Effects Determinationa, b

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Tricolored Blackbird

Agelaius tricolor S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Lewis’s Woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

White-headed Woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid Bat 

Antrozous pallidus S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed Myotis 

Myotis thysanodes S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's Hairstreak 

Callophrys johnsoni S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Columbia Clubtail Gomphus 

lynnae S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia Spotted Frog

Rana luteiventris S HD/D See Aquatic 

Section MIIH MIIH MIIH

a - See Environmental Consequences section for further discussion on effects determination for threatened, endangered and 

sensitive wildlife species.

b - Status 

T Federally Threatened 

S Sensitive species for Regional Forester’s list 

C Candidate species under the Endangered Species Act

Occurrence 

HD Habitat Documented or suspected within project area or near enough to be impacted by project activities 

HN Habitat Not within the project area or affected by its activities 

D Species Documented in general vicinity of project activities

S Species Suspected in general vicinity of project activities 

N Species Not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities 

Effects Determination 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

NE No Effect 

Sensitive Species 

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federally Listing or Cause a Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species 

BI Beneficial Impact 

c – DPS = distinct population segment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

264 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Threatened, 

Endangered and Sensitive Species

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

All Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic livestock would be 

eliminated. Lack of competition for forage from cattle could be beneficial for big game species. Because 

there would be no direct or indirect effects from management activities to threatened, endangered and 

sensitive wildlife species or their habitat, there would be no additive cumulative effects. 

Determination 

Due to the nature of the No Action alternative, there would be No Impact (NI), to threatened, endangered 

or sensitive wildlife species or their habitat.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Gray Wolf (Sensitive Species) 

Gray wolves are highly adaptable, wide-ranging carnivores that utilize a variety of habitats. They prefer 

remote areas where sufficient prey resources and low levels of human activity are present. High road 

densities and corresponding human activity may deter use of an area by wolves (Thurber et al. 1994). The 

Strawberry Mountain and Monument Rock Wilderness areas, Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area, and 

several roadless areas on the Forest would best meet these remote and relatively disturbance free 

requirements preferred by gray wolves. 

The availability of prey is the most important habitat indicator for this species; survival of the young and 

population growth depends on the availability of food during the rearing season (Jordan et al. 1967 in 

Verts and Carraway 1998). In Oregon, gray wolves feed extensively upon large ungulates, including 

Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Seasonally, rodents, such as voles, field mice, and ground squirrels 

are also important prey sources. The location and distribution of prey often directly influences daily and 

seasonal movements of gray wolves. 

The greatest threat to individual gray wolves and packs is human-caused mortality and disturbance. 

The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was listed as endangered on June 4, 1973, and a recovery plan 

was released in 1987. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service established a distinct population 

segment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, which 

encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all 

of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

Wolves in the eastern third of Oregon are part of the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population 

segment, which was delisted as of May 5, 2011. Because this population is no longer on the federal 

Endangered Species List (Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 87, May 5, 2011), the Regional Forester has 

designated it a regional sensitive species. 

Wolves throughout Oregon remain protected by the state Endangered Species Act (Oregon Endangered 

Species Act). Wolves west of Hwy 395 (outside of the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 265

segment) also remain protected by the federal Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is the lead management agency for wolves that occur west of these state highways.

Historically, wolves occupied all habitats of the Malheur National Forest (Wisdom et al. 2000). In 1999, a 

radio-collared wolf from Idaho was confirmed near the Middle Fork John Day River, on the Malheur 

National Forest. This animal was recaptured and returned to Idaho. In 2008, Oregon’s first wolf pack was 

documented on the Umatilla National Forest. As of February, 2013, Oregon’s wolf count is 46 wolves, 

including six packs (all breeding pairs). The six Oregon packs are, in order: Imnaha, Wenaha, Walla 

Walla, Snake, Umatilla, and Minam. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/wolf_program_updates.asp 

Two unconfirmed sightings of single animals in the Logan Valley and along Summit Creek are recorded 

for the Prairie City Ranger District. Two radio-collared individuals made their way south through Grant 

County in 2011. While individual wolves or tracks of large canids have been sighted, there are currently 

no known packs or denning pairs documented for the Malheur National Forest. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Gray Wolf 

Wolves are limited by prey availability and are threatened by negative interactions with humans. 

Generally, land management activities are compatible with wolf protection and recovery, especially 

actions that maintain ungulate populations. Elk populations on the Malheur National Forest are stable; 

within the project area, elk populations are at or slightly above management objectives set by Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010). 

Due to the project’s proximity to Forest System road 16, Lake Creek Youth Camp, Big Creek and Murray 

Campgrounds, Burns Paiute Tribe work center, as well as winter snowmobile and cross-country ski 

activities, it is unlikely that wolves would use the project area for home range, denning, or rendezvous 

sites. The area is easily accessed and regularly used by local residents, recreationists, and hunters during 

spring, summer, and fall months; and to a lesser extent during winter months. The project area may be 

used by animals as dispersal habitat.

Communication with US Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that because of the variety and range of 

habitat used by gray wolves, “they (US Fish and Wildlife Service) do not consider any of our forest 

management activities to have any negative impacts on wolves” (Reames, forest biologist, personal 

communication 2012, 2013). If and when a dens site and reproducing animals are documents, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service would require a buffer around such sites. 

Distribution of large game may shift, depending on areas used by cattle in any given year. However, prey 

species such as elk are not limiting, and are not expected to decline as a result of the alternatives 

proposed. Actions including adaptive management strategies aimed at improving riparian conditions 

would benefit big game in the long run. 

Determination – Gray Wolf

No wolf populations currently occupy the Malheur National Forest. No denning or rendezvous sites have 

been identified on the Malheur National Forest. There is an abundance of prey available for gray wolves 

on the Forest. Prey distribution may be influenced, depending on the alternative chosen for 

implementation, however, big game populations are not expected to decline. Wolves would be able to 

avoid any activities occurring within the allotments. 

Consequently, there would be No Impact (NI) to gray wolves or their habitat as a result of the proposed 

actions.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

266 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Cumulative Effects – Gray Wolf 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on gray wolves. 

Vehicle traffic, hunting, firewood cutting, camping and snowmobiling are expected to continue. 

Snowmobile routes are used during the winter months. Consequently human disturbance in parts of the 

area continues year round, limiting the area’s capacity to provide remote and undisturbed habitat preferred 

by gray wolves. 

Currently off-road vehicle travel is allowed; off-highway vehicle use has the potential to disturb wildlife 

and reduce security for elk and deer, prey species of gray wolves, as well as dispersing gray wolves. 

The Malheur National Forest is in the process of analyzing changes in its travel management plan. It is 

foreseeable that cross country travel would be prohibited on the Malheur National Forest (where it is not 

already prohibited), with the exception of accessing dispersed camping sites from open roads. Foreseeable 

changes in travel management would have a beneficial cumulative impact to big game (wolf prey species) 

in the long term, providing increased security and reducing disturbance. Open road densities would still 

likely limit the area as remote wolf habitat. 

Fire suppression, beginning in the 1950s, eliminated or reduced most fires occurring within the drier 

forest types, and allowed for ingrowth of more shade tolerant conifer species. Overstocking in some 

stands has shaded out forage and shrub species. However, commercial and precommercial thinning 

activities have also occurred in the area, reducing overstocked stands. Thinning for meadow restoration 

(ongoing) and recent prescribed burning in the Merit Project area have potential to improve meadow 

habitat, and improve understory forage. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

prey populations that gray wolves depend on, or gray wolves themselves. 

Bald Eagle (Sensitive Species)

In Oregon, bald eagles generally nest near coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams that support an 

adequate food supply. Nest trees are mature or old-growth trees, with a large and open branch structure 

that can support a nest that may ultimately weigh in excess of 1,000 pounds (US Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007). Fish and waterfowl make up the majority of their diet. During the winter, bald eagles feed 

on carrion and crippled or dead waterfowl (Csuti et al. 1997). They shelter at winter roost sites, utilizing 

large trees with open branching patterns in the crown. The birds show a preference for the largest trees or 

snags in roosting areas (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). 

The bald eagle is managed under the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1986). Bald eagles were removed from the threatened and endangered species list on August 8, 

2007. However, they are still protected, particularly during nesting, by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Major threats to bald eagles continue to be environmental contaminants (especially lead shot or bullet 

fragments), excessive disturbance by humans, and illegal shooting (NatureServe 2010). 

The district records incidental sightings of bald eagles within the project area. No known roosts or nests 

are documented at this time. Best habitat for roosting and nesting occurs in vicinity of the Malheur River.

An adult bald eagle was observed in the Malheur River Corridor south of the project area in 2012. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 267

Direct and Indirect Effects – Bald Eagle 

Roosting or nest habitat for bald eagles would not be affected by levels of cattle grazing proposed in any 

of the alternatives. Should an occupied bald eagle nest be discovered during layout or construction of 

fences or water developments, design elements to avoid disturbance to nesting birds would be 

implemented. Prey species would not be negatively impacted. In the long term, actions including adaptive 

management strategies resulting in improvements in riparian habitat would result in beneficial impacts for 

fish species, prey for bald eagles.

Determination – Bald Eagle

The determination of effects for bald eagles and their habitat is No Impact (NI). 

Cumulative Effects – Bald Eagle 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on bald eagles and potential habitat. Past activities such as timber 

harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined to create the current 

condition in the analysis area. The combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

project with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be 

expected to adversely affect populations or viability of bald eagles within the project area or at the Forest 

level. 

California Wolverine (Sensitive, Candidate Species)

The wolverine is strongly associated with remote, high elevation alpine and coniferous forest habitats. 

They depend on “deep persistent snow cover for successful denning, and they concentrate their yearround activities in areas that maintain deep snow cover into spring and cool temperatures throughout 

summer” (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). In addition to persistent snow pack, the presence of 

avalanche chutes, boulder fields, and large piles of down logs are also important habitat features 

associated with denning and food caching. 

Wolverines are wide ranging carnivores and are known to travel long distances. These movements are 

based largely on the acquisition of food, primarily carrion. Home ranges may vary from approximately 40 

to 350 square miles in size, depending upon abundance and distribution of prey or food sources, as well as 

gender and age of individuals (Banci 1994 in US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Although areas of high 

road density, human developments, and activity may be avoided, current wolverine distribution is more 

likely influenced by the availability of high alpine, persistent snow habitat requirements described above 

(McKelvey et al. 2011). 

On December 14, 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that wolverines in the contiguous 

United States constitute a distinct population segment and that addition to the lists of endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants was warranted. At the time, listing was precluded by higher priority actions; 

wolverines were added to the candidate species list (NatureServe 2011). As of February 4, 2013, the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to list the distinct population segment of the North American 

wolverine as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23. 

2013). 

Based on current information, the primary threat to wolverines within the contiguous 48 states would be 

habitat loss due to increasing temperatures and reduced late spring snowpack as a result of climate change

(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Wolverines exhibit low reproductive rates, high juvenile mortality, 

and are slow to reach sexual maturity (Peterson 1997, in NatureServe 2011). Indirectly, as habitat shrinks 

and small populations potentially become more isolated, inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity may also 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

268 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

threaten the North American wolverine distinct population segment (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

Human-caused mortality due to trapping, whether legal (Montana) or incidental (if animals are 

inadvertently trapped in sets designed for other species) would be detrimental, by removing additional 

animals from already low density populations. 

Historically, wolverines have been documented on the Malheur National Forest. Winter snow track 

surveys for American marten and wolverine have been conducted periodically across the district. Several 

reliable sightings, as well as a partial carcass of a juvenile wolverine found in the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness in 1992, indicate that this species is, or has been, present on the Malheur National Forest. 

Suitable snow conditions and denning habitat are located primarily within the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness, north of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project, in cold dry and cool moist 

subalpine fir-dominated habitats. In 1997, winter helicopter surveys conducted by the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife documented a potential den site and probable wolverine tracks in the Strawberry 

Mountain Wilderness and tracks were observed in the Monument Rock Wilderness. Other areas 

potentially providing suitable habitat include the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic area, Dixie Butte and 

Dry Cabin Wildlife Emphasis Areas, and Shaketable, McClellan Mountain, and Aldrich Mountain 

Roadless Areas.

In southern portions of the wolverine’s range, animals “remain at high elevations throughout the year, 

avoiding lower elevation habitats with xeric conditions” (Copeland et al. 2010). At lower elevations, 

habitat suitability declines due to warmer and drier biophysical environment, and human-related 

disturbance associated with roads, recreational use, and past timber harvest. 

Although wolverines would not be expected to regularly use the project area due to environmental and 

human-caused factors, suitable dispersal habitat may exist as animals move between higher elevation 

areas (listed above) and in search of food. District records document one incidental wolverine sighting in 

the Lake Creek Allotment near upper reaches of Bosenberg Creek.

Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service considers animals in Oregon as dispersing individuals, not 

contributing as “source” populations (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

Direct and Indirect Effects – California Wolverine

Suitable denning habitat for wolverines does not exist within the project area. Wolverine year-round use 

would be expected at higher elevations defined by deep persistent spring snow and cool summer 

temperatures (Copeland et al. 2010). This type of habitat is present in the Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness. Habitat suitability for wolverine declines with the drier warmer conditions found at lower 

elevations. Animals may move through the project area, using it as dispersal habitat or while searching for 

food. The project’s proximity to National Forest System road 16, Lake Creek Youth Camp, Big Creek and 

Murray Campgrounds, Burns Paiute Tribe work center, as well as winter snowmobile and cross-country 

ski activities may limit some potential use by wolverines. Given the home range of individual wolverines, 

animals could detour to avoid areas frequented by people or activity. In addition, “wolverines are not 

thought to be dependent on specific vegetation or habitat features that might be manipulated by land 

management activities, nor is there evidence to suggest that land management activities are a threat to the 

conservation of the species”( US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

Distribution of large game may shift, depending on areas used by cattle in any given year; however prey 

species such as elk are not limiting, and are not expected to decline as a result of the alternatives 

proposed. Use levels aimed at improving riparian conditions, would benefit big game in the long run. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 269

Determination – California Wolverine 

No denning habitat for wolverine exists within the project area (alpine to subalpine habitat comprises less 

than one percent of the total project acres). Animals may transit through the project area, either dispersing 

or in search of food. Cattle grazing would not impact such movement. Existing human activity within the 

project area is relatively high during the spring, summer, and fall months, possibly deterring wolverine 

use. Individual wolverines could detour to avoid areas frequented by people or activity. Prey species 

would not be a limiting factor. 

Because of limited potential use of the area by wolverines, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are 

anticipated from the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The determination would be 

No Impact (NI) for wolverine populations and habitat as a result of the proposed action. 

Cumulative Effects – California Wolverine 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on wolverines. Vehicle traffic along roads, campers, hikers, 

hunters, firewood cutting, and other human activities would be the greatest deterrent for wolverine use of 

the area. However, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to 

adversely affect wolverines utilizing the area as dispersal habitat.

Greater Sage-Grouse (Sensitive, Candidate Species) 

Greater sage-grouse are obligate residents of sagebrush-grassland or juniper-sagebrush-grassland plant 

communities. Optimum habitat during nesting and brood-rearing consists of a healthy sagebrush 

community including species such as; Artemesia tridentata tridentata, A. tridentata vaseyana, A. 

tridentata wyomingensis, and A. arbuscula) with a strong herbaceous understory of native grasses and 

forbs (Hagen 2005). 

Sage-grouse breed on sites called leks (strutting grounds) and the same lek areas are generally used 

annually. While most sage-grouse nests are found under sagebrush within four miles of the lek, dispersal 

distances of hens are variable and they have been recorded up to 12 miles from the lek (Hagen 2005). 

Habitat quality may be a factor determining dispersal of hens. Chick diets include forbs and invertebrates 

(Drut et al. 1994). The best brood-rearing habitat provides a wide variety of plants and resulting diversity 

of insects which provide important food for chicks. 

Sagebrush habitat in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area is fragmented and 

exists on slightly higher and drier ground surrounded by wetter meadows. Known dispersal patterns of 

greater sage-grouse hens and broods are unknown; one incidental sighting of sage-grouse has been 

documented in District records. The Burns Paiute Tribe has also documented incidental sightings of sagegrouse on their property south of National Forest System road 16 (Burns Paiute Tribe Biologists, personal 

communication 2012). There are no known or historic leks recorded for Logan Valley. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Greater Sage-Grouse

No documented leks of greater sage-grouse males, hens, or hens with broods have been recorded within 

the project area. Incidental sightings of sage-grouse have occurred in the fall, in the vicinity of Flat Field, 

within the Logan Valley allotment. This area may have some of the higher potential for sage grouse use, 

given its lack of conifer encroachment and open grass and sagebrush habitat.

Impacts to greater sage-grouse would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of animals. 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service states, “The effects of grazing on sage-grouse habitat vary widely with 

timing and intensity of use...Light to moderate levels of grazing can have a positive or neutral impact on 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

270 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

sage-grouse habitat, meaning this land use can be compatible with healthy sage-grouse habitat” (Species 

Fact Sheet, US Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed August 2013). 

Anticipated use by sage-grouse would be from May through October, Logan Valley is covered by snow 

during the winter. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be 

impacted by cattle in a given grazing season. In the event that nesting does occur in Logan Valley, early 

season grazing has the highest potential for nest trampling. Grazing may also reduce forbs used by young 

birds, although improvements in riparian areas would provide these types of food plants, especially in late 

summer as upland pastures dry out. 

Water developments would be placed to limit impact to native vegetation. Wildlife escape ramps are 

required for any trough or tank installation, to allow smaller mammals or birds using these water sources 

a way of escaping the trough if they fall in (see Design Elements, Chapter 2). 

Monitoring for upland sandpipers in within the Big Field or Flat Field pastures would allow for 

concurrent monitoring of greater sage-grouse in years when either of those pastures was scheduled for 

early season use. If an existing or newly established lek is discovered, the timing and location of cattle 

turnout and trailing would be evaluated to avoid concentrations of cattle in the vicinity of the lek. Nesting 

may occur at variable distances from the lek. Once eggs are hatched, young sage-grouse are mobile and 

would more readily avoid cattle or other large ungulates.

Monitoring use levels for upland vegetation as well as riparian vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, reduced numbers in cattle or 

additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit grassland habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife “Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon.” (Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, updated April 2011) provides conservation guidelines for grazing including adaptive 

management strategies similar to those proposed above. 

Determination – Greater Sage-Grouse

Because there is potential for some direct impacts to sage-grouse habitat within the project area, the 

proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a 

trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Cumulative Effects – Greater Sage-Grouse

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse or their habitat. 

Cumulatively, unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century may have impacted shrub, grass, and 

forb composition within potential greater sage-grouse habitat in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project. Introduction of non-native grasses, introduction of invasive weedy species, 

changes to habitat due to agricultural development and conversion of sagebrush to hayfields and pastures, 

fire suppression and resulting succession of lodgepole pine in some areas may have also impacted greater 

sage-grouse habitat within the project area. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, habitat 

has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives would continue an 

upward trend in riparian and upland habitat. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of greater sage-grouse on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 271

Silver-bordered Fritillary (Sensitive Species) 

While populations of this butterfly are widely distributed across northern and montane regions of North 

America, the silver-bordered fritillary tends to be localized and endemic in the Pacific Northwest. Two 

primary colonies occur in Oregon; one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco National Forest and one in 

the Strawberry Mountains on the Malheur National Forest (Miller and Hammond 2007). Habitat for this 

species consists of open wet meadows, bogs, and marshes. Caterpillar host plants consist of violets, 

including pioneer violet (Viola glabella) and northern bog violet (V. nephrophylla). Adult nectar plants are 

composite flowers including goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia spp.). 

Emergence and flight of adults begins in June through July, with a second generation flight occurring late 

summer and fall during August through September (Miller and Hammond 2007). 

The silver-bordered fritillary is dependent upon the maintenance of wet meadow habitat and its associated 

food plants. Downcutting of creeks and subsequent draining and drying out of meadow habitat, loss of 

native plant species due to overgrazing or trampling by domestic cattle, and invasion of non-native 

grasses and other weedy species remain the dominant threats to habitat. 

Wet meadow habitat comprises approximately three percent of the project area, and occurs within Logan 

Valley in vicinity of the fen, as well as riparian meadows associated with all of the major drainages in the 

project area. The food and nectar plants required by the caterpillar and butterfly occur within the project 

area. No formal surveys for the butterfly were conducted in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area, but potential habitat was noted. 

The silver-bordered fritillary was added to the Malheur National Forest sensitive species list in 2008.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Silver-bordered Fritillary

Impacts to silver-bordered fritillary caterpillars or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of animals within pastures containing preferred meadow habitat. Grazing may impact 

butterfly eggs, young, or food plants. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential 

habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season. 

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as: reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit meadow habitat. 

Determination - Silver-bordered Fritillary

Silver-bordered fritillary has not been documented within the project area. However, because caterpillar 

and butterfly food plants and meadow habitat exist within all of the allotments, there is potential for 

impacts to habitat from cattle utilizing vegetation. Not all habitats would be impacted concurrently 

throughout the project area, providing areas where food plants would persist for this butterfly and its 

larvae. The proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects - Silver-bordered Fritillary

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on silver-bordered fritillary or its habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted meadow habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, habitat has 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

272 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives would continue an upward 

trend in meadow habitat. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of silver-bordered fritillary on the Forest.

Bobolink (Sensitive Species) 

Bobolinks summer in eastern Oregon grasslands and meadows. They are ground nesters, utilizing moist 

meadows composed of grasses, sedges, and forbs. Willows, cow parsnip, and fence stays are used for 

song perches (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). The birds generally nest in loose colonies. Threats to bobolink 

populations include changes in land use that impact nesting territories, and capture of wintering birds in 

South America, to be sold as pets (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 

Bobolink have been documented in vicinity of John Day and Prairie City, Oregon and in Bear Valley and 

Silvies Valley (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). They are often associated with agricultural lands, and to a 

lesser extent wetlands and meadow habitat (Hutto, in Marzluff and Sallabanks, 1998). Although no 

District sightings of bobolink are documented within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project, potential habitat does exist in the wet meadows found in Logan Valley and Summit Prairie, and 

larger riparian meadows found within all of the allotments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Bobolink

Impacts to bobolink or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of animals 

within pastures containing preferred meadow habitat. Early season grazing may have the greatest impact 

to bobolink by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing and increasing the exposure of 

nests. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by 

cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as: reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit meadow habitat.

Determination - Bobolink 

Bobolink have not been documented within the project area. However, because meadow or grassland 

habitat exists within all of the allotments, there is potential for direct impacts from cattle grazing. 

However, not all habitat would be impacted concurrently throughout the project area, providing nesting 

and foraging habitat for bobolink. The proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat 

(MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

Cumulative Effects - Bobolink 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on bobolinks or their habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted meadow habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, habitat has 

improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives would continue an upward 

trend in meadow habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 273

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of bobolink on the Forest. 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Sensitive species) 

Although grasshopper sparrows occur broadly across North America, local populations are small and 

erratic. In Oregon, the birds are considered very local breeders and rare migrants. They occur in scattered 

“colonies” along the unforested northern slopes of the Blue Mountains and elsewhere (Marshall 2003, 

2006). Habitat consists of drier grassland or bunchgrass prairies with scattered shrubs. A domed nest, 

concealed by vegetation, is built on the ground. Males sing from elevated perches, such as a flower stalk 

or fencepost, before diving back into the grasses (Marshall 2003, 2006). 

Significant population declines have occurred in North America due to loss, degradation, and 

incompatible management of grassland habitat (NatureServe 2012).

Although no district sightings of grasshopper sparrow are documented within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project, potential habitat does exist in drier grassland and sagebrush habitat found 

in Logan Valley.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Grasshopper Sparrow

Impacts to grasshopper sparrow or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

animals within pastures containing preferred grassland habitat. Early season grazing may have the 

greatest impact to grasshopper sparrow by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing 

and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential 

habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reducing time in any given pasture, or reducing numbers of 

cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use, would all benefit grassland habitat. 

Determination – Grasshopper Sparrow

Grasshopper sparrows have not been documented within the project area. However, because meadow or 

grassland habitat exists within all of the allotments, there is potential for direct impacts to habitat from 

cattle grazing. However, not all habitat would be impacted concurrently throughout the project area, 

providing nesting and foraging habitat for grasshopper sparrow. The proposed alternatives May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects – Grasshopper Sparrow

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on grasshopper sparrows or their habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing management, habitat has 

improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives would continue an upward 

trend in grassland habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

274 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of grasshopper sparrow on the Forest. 

Upland Sandpiper (Sensitive Species) 

In the Blue Mountains, upland sandpiper habitat is composed of large flat or gently rolling expanses of 

grassland in mountain valleys, open uplands adjacent to small creek drainages, and wet to dry meadows 

(Akenson and Schommer 1992). Nesting habitat exists in native prairie, dry meadows, pastures, and 

domestic hayfields (Nature Serve 2012). Upland sandpipers arrive in breeding areas in late April to early 

May (Logan Valley), with nesting and egg lying occurring mostly in May and June. The chicks are 

precocial and leave the nest within a day of hatching; family groups remain together until the postbreeding migration (Nature Serve 2012). 

Major threats to upland sandpipers and their breeding habitat include habitat loss or fragmentation 

(changes in agricultural practices, forest succession, etc.), predation, and possibly direct trampling of 

nests and overgrazing by livestock (Nature Serve 2012). Lodgepole succession in meadow habitat has 

occurred in vicinity of the historic nesting and use areas north of FS road 16. The District has conducted 

thinning and handpiling in select areas to restore meadow habitat in this area. 

Upland sandpipers were initially documented in Logan Valley and Bear Valley in 1931 (Jewett 1931 cited 

in Scoville 1991). Surveys for these two areas were conducted, beginning in 1977, and occurred 

throughout the 1980s through 1998. Nesting pairs and individual sightings were recorded for both 

locations (Herman et al. 1985, 1987; Scoville 1990, 1991; Prairie City Ranger District records). 

At one point, Logan Valley was the second largest concentration of upland sandpipers in the state, Bear 

Valley being the largest, although numbers of birds observed have been limited in both areas. The last 

District sighting of upland sandpipers in Logan Valley was in 1997. However, monitoring since 1998 has 

been sporadic. No recent sightings of upland sandpipers have been documented for Logan Valley. 

This lack of consistent survey effort has made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding current 

occupancy by upland sandpipers, and consequently to determine effects of management activities. 

Historic nest areas in both Bear Valley and Logan Valley consist of pasture or grassland areas, with 

scattered patches of low-growing sagebrush. This is consistent with Marshall’s description: Breeding 

areas in [eastern] Oregon are associated with mainly dry meadows ... that lie at elevations of around 

5,000 feet. These meadows have some common characteristics in that they are surrounded by coniferous 

timber, have low areas that contain surface water during the spring, but in general are dominated by 

perennial grasses that appear to be sustained in part by high water tables or subsurface irrigation. Lowgrowing sagebrush (Artemesia arbuscula) typically surrounds such meadows or is mixed with the grasses 

(Marshall 1988). 

Grazing has occurred historically as well as currently in both areas. In Bear Valley, nest areas are 

associated with pastures grazed by cattle, with upland sandpipers observed feeding in adjacent mowed 

hayfields (Tom Hunt, personal communication). Herman et al. were complimentary to land owners in 

Bear and Logan Valley by stating “much of the private and public land used by upland sandpipers is 

grazed conservatively, with the clear intention of preserving overall productivity” (Marshall 1988). Sue 

Burton (Prairie City Ranger District, Range Management) stated that current grazing practices in Logan 

Valley are consistent with this statement (Burton, personal communication 2013). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 275

Direct and Indirect Effects – Upland Sandpiper

Impacts to upland sandpipers or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

animals within grassland or meadow habitat. Early season grazing may have the greatest impact to upland 

sandpipers by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing and increasing the exposure of 

nests. “In grazed pastures cattle should optimally be restricted from nesting fields during the egg-laying 

and incubation periods” (NatureServe 2011). In Logan Valley, this has typically been late May, June, into 

mid-July (Akenson 1993). Because upland sandpipers show a degree of nest site fidelity, monitoring of 

the historic nesting and use areas within Big Field and Flat Field would be required for any early season 

(prior to August 1) grazing proposed for these two pastures (See Design Elements). To avoid impacting 

habitat north and south of National Forest System road 16, both of these pastures would not be grazed at 

the same time (See Design Elements).

In addition, monitoring use levels and assessing impact to meadow habitat and native vegetation would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement. Monitoring requirements and 5 and 10 year 

Management Objectives are found in chapter 2 and appendix A (Table 103) respectively. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time spent in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of 

cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude cattle use would all benefit meadow habitat. The adaptive 

strategy that includes fencing of the fen within the Big Field pasture, could impact upland sandpiper 

nesting habitat by concentrating cattle in vicinity of historic nest areas. Because upland sandpipers exhibit 

nest site fidelity, maintaining historically used areas is important. To avoid impacting these upland 

sandpiper nesting areas, the location of the fence would be determined by the district wildlife biologist 

working with the forest botanist, and range specialist.

Determination – Upland Sandpiper

No recent sightings of upland sandpiper have been documented within the project area. Because of the 

very low numbers of birds that may potentially be present in Logan Valley, any impact to a nest by 

trampling, or increased predation by crows or coyotes due to nest exposure as a result of grazing would be 

detrimental to the Forest population. Because young birds are precocial and mobile once hatched, later 

season light to moderate grazing would have minimal impacts to upland sandpipers or their young 

(NatureServe 2012). 

Because upland sandpipers show strong site fidelity to their nesting areas (Nature Serve 2012), Design 

Elements requiring monitoring for the birds within known historic nesting/use areas of upland sandpipers 

would occur prior to any early season grazing of Big Field. If the upland sandpipers are documented 

during surveys, cattle turnout into these fields would be postponed until later in the season. Early season 

grazing of both Big Field and Flat Field at the same time would not occur, providing nesting habitat in 

one pasture or the other. This is consistent with management recommendations from Dechant et al. 1999, 

Houston et al. 2011, and NatureServe 2012. 

Should monitoring of the fen indicate a need for protection via fencing, layout of any fence would be 

determined by consulting with the district wildlife biologist, in order to avoid concentrating cattle near 

historic upland sandpiper nesting areas.

Late season grazing (after August 1) of Big Field would result in No Impact (NI) to upland sandpipers as 

the birds readily move and would avoid cattle. If no upland sandpipers are documented during May and 

June monitoring, early season grazing of Big Field would also result in No Impact (NI) to upland 

sandpiper populations. Monitoring would be required for any early season turnout and grazing of Big 

Field (see Design Elements and Monitoring, chapter 2). If upland sandpipers are documented during these 

surveys, turnout would be postponed in order to allow nesting and incubation of upland sandpipers to 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

276 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

occur without risk of trampling or disturbance. Foraging habitat is available in several pastures within 

Logan Valley. 

Cumulative Effects – Upland Sandpiper

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on upland sandpiper or its habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and meadow habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time and with changes in grazing 

management, this habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in meadow habitat. Ongoing thinning and proposed future 

burning projects would also have the potential for restoring meadow and grassland habitat important for 

upland sandpipers. Design elements associated with the proposed activities within historic sandpiper use 

areas would require fall burning and timing for thinning operations to eliminate disturbance to breeding 

and nesting upland sandpipers. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of upland sandpipers. 

Lewis’s Woodpecker (Sensitive Species) 

Lewis’s woodpecker breeds from southwestern Canada and Montana, south to central California, 

Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. It winters from northern Oregon south to northern Mexico and west 

Texas. In Oregon, Lewis’s woodpecker breeds along the east slope of the Cascades, within the Blue 

Mountains, and within riparian areas across eastern Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 

Lewis's woodpecker inhabits primarily open forest and woodlands; it is distinguished from other 

woodpecker species by its unique flycatching behavior and distinctive plumage (Marshall et al. 2003, 

2006). 

This species is considered a weak excavator and seldom excavates its own nest cavity; instead it relies on 

cavities created by other woodpeckers (Bock 1970). Lewis’s woodpeckers also use natural cavities, or 

will excavate their own in very soft snags (Draft Forest Plan Revision 2011). Home ranges are 2.5 to 15 

acres in size (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). In burned areas, ponderosa pine snags greater than 16 inches 

dbh are chosen for nesting. Similar diameter cottonwood snags in riparian areas are selected (Galen 

1989). 

Nesting habitat consists of three distinct types in eastern Oregon: riparian areas with large cottonwoods, 

open canopied old forest in ponderosa pine, or burned old forest in ponderosa pine (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Woodpecker abundance is typically higher in post-fire habitat (Draft Forest Plan Revision 2011). North of 

the project area, the 10,022 acre Snowshoe, Corral, Basin, and Sheep fires burned in 1990; portions of 

these fires were salvage logged. A few remaining snags still stand, although most have fallen. The 9,917 

High Robert fire burned in 2002. This fire may still provide some snag habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers. 

Lacking cottonwoods in Logan Valley, aspen stands with larger diameter trees and aspen snags have been 

used by Lewis’s woodpeckers for nest habitat. Nesting Lewis’s woodpeckers have been documented in at 

least two aspen stands within the vicinity of the fen in Logan Valley. Five adult birds (two pairs and one 

single adult) were observed mid-May in and around a patch of larger aspen snags on the south perimeter 

of the fen in 2012. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 277

Habitat assessments and viability outcomes for Lewis’s woodpecker have been developed for the Blue 

Mountain Forest Plan Revision (Draft Forest Plan Revision 2011). While habitat historically was broadly 

distributed and in high abundance, current habitat is patchily distributed or isolated and in low abundance. 

Lewis’s woodpecker was added to Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list in 2008. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Lewis’s Woodpecker

Within open ponderosa pine, or post fire habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker 

would not be affected by cattle grazing or associated activities. 

Cattle grazing within aspen stands continues to impact recruitment of sapling and young aspen that would 

allow stands to persist as older mature trees die. While mature trees currently exist in many stands, over 

time there would be a reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags, due to this lack of replacement. 

Other factors impacting aspen stands include conifer encroachment and browsing by wildlife.

Determination – Lewis’s Woodpecker

Cattle grazing would not impact snag habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers within conifer stands. However, 

cattle grazing has the potential to adversely affect the recruitment of young aspen in stands where old 

mature trees are dying and falling to the ground. In the mid- to long-term, a loss of aspen habitat, 

especially larger diameter trees and snags, may reduce nesting habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker. Ongoing 

restoration projects including conifer removal within aspen stands, and protection for aspen in this area 

would lessen this impact. 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects – Lewis’s Woodpecker

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to include postfire habitat. All of the activities in appendix C have been considered for their cumulative effects on 

Lewis’s woodpecker.

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all impacted 

the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. The High Roberts 

Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, may 

currently provide nesting habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers. Prescribed underburning in the Merit Timber 

Sale area may also provide some post-fire habitat. Cattle grazing would not cumulatively impact existing 

snag habitat within green or burned conifer stands. 

Large diameter aspen and snags within the project area also provide some Lewis’s woodpecker nesting 

and foraging habitat. Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, 

continues to degrade aspen stands and in the mid- to long-term may result in loss of habitat for Lewis’s 

woodpecker. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, and would persist in the shortto mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size replacement trees, some small stands may die 

out. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which include conifer removal and protection) are expected 

to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued longterm impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to lessen these 

impacts (See Monitoring, chapter 2). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

278 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is foreseeable that 

the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan would prohibit cross country travel on the Malheur 

National Forest with the exception of travel from designated open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is 

expected that with the implementation of the Access Travel Management Plan there would be reduced 

access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter snags. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of Lewis’s woodpecker on the Forest. 

White-headed Woodpecker (Sensitive species) 

White-headed woodpeckers are considered a resident from the southern interior British Columbia, though 

central Washington, northern Idaho, east and southwest Oregon, through the Sierras to southern 

California. In Oregon they are found along the east slope Cascades and within the Ochoco, Blue and 

Warner Mountains. They are rare west of the Cascades, and are found in the Siskiyou Mountains and 

Umpqua River basin (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006, Wahl et al. 2005). 

The white-headed woodpecker occurs mainly in open ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests dominated 

by ponderosa pine (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). This species relies heavily upon the seeds from ponderosa 

pine cones for its foraging needs as well as insects gleaned off ponderosa pine and mixed conifer trees.

Large ponderosa pine snags, mean diameters ranging from 25 to 31 inches, are utilized for nesting 

(Frenzel 1995 in Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). Nest cavities are relatively low to the ground, and can fail as 

a result of predation from small mammals. Home range sizes are quite variable, ranging from 165 to 

1,099 acres (mean of 257 acres in contiguous habitat, mean of 793 acres in fragmented habitat)(Dixon 

1995). 

Habitat degradation and loss of large diameter ponderosa pine stands continue to be the greatest threats to 

white-headed woodpeckers. Habitat for white-headed woodpeckers in Oregon and Washington is 

probably less than 10 percent of what existed prior to European-American settlement (Henjum et al. 1994, 

in Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). Historically, white-headed woodpeckers were well distributed throughout 

the Blue Mountains. 

White-headed woodpeckers have been documented in Logan Valley at Big Creek Campground, Lake 

Creek Youth Camp, and south of Summit Prairie. One nest cavity was observed in a live aspen tree at 

Lake Creek Youth Camp (Kranich, personal observation). 

White-headed woodpeckers were added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List in 2008. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – White-headed Woodpecker 

Within open ponderosa pine, or post-fire habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for white-headed 

woodpeckers would not be affected by cattle grazing or associated activities. Cattle and wildlife use of 

shrub species in the understory of ponderosa pine may impact hiding cover and foraging habitat for small 

mammals, reducing potential predation of white-headed woodpecker nests. 

While not considered typical, large diameter aspen snags within the project area may provide some whiteheaded woodpecker nesting habitat. Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild 

ungulates, continues to degrade aspen stands and in the mid- to long-term may result in some loss of 

habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, and 

would persist in the short- to mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size replacement trees, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 279

some small stands may die out. Ongoing aspen restoration projects have protected some aspen within the 

project area by fencing or slash barriers.

Determination – White-headed Woodpecker

Cattle grazing and the associated activities from all alternatives would not impact snag habitat for whiteheaded woodpeckers within ponderosa pine stands, or foraging habitat associated with open large 

ponderosa pine, or mixed conifer stands where ponderosa pine is dominant. 

Cattle grazing has the potential to adversely affect the recruitment of young aspen in stands where old 

mature trees are dying and falling to the ground. Although not used to the extent that other woodpeckers 

use aspen stands, white-headed woodpeckers have been observed using aspen snags as nest sites 

(Kranich, personal observation). In the mid- to long-term, a loss of aspen habitat, especially larger 

diameter trees and snags, may reduce some potential nesting habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. 

Ongoing restoration projects including conifer removal and protection for aspen in this area would lessen 

this impact.

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects – White-headed Woodpecker

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to include postfire habitat. All of the activities in appendix C have been considered for their cumulative effects on whiteheaded woodpeckers. 

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all impacted 

the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. The High Roberts 

Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, may 

currently provide nesting habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Prescribed underburning in the Merit 

Timber Sale area may also provide some post-fire habitat. Cattle grazing would not cumulatively impact 

existing snag habitat within green or burned ponderosa pine stands. 

Conifer encroachment, along with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, continues to degrade aspen 

stands and in the mid- to long-term may result in an incidental loss of nesting habitat for white-headed 

woodpeckers. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, and would persist in the 

short- to mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size replacement trees, some small stands 

may die out. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which include conifer removal and protection) are expected 

to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued longterm impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to lessen these 

impacts (See Monitoring, chapter 2). 

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is foreseeable that 

the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan would prohibit cross country travel on the Malheur 

National Forest with the exception of travel from designated open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is 

expected that with the implementation of the Access Travel Management Plan there would be reduced 

access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter snags.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of white-headed woodpecker on the Forest. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

280 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Sensitive species) 

Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs from south central British Columbia to northern Baja California, and 

from the Pacific Coast east through Montana, portions of South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas, and into Mexico. In Oregon, these bats have been collected throughout most of the 

state except in parts of the Blue Mountains Province, and in the western part of the Basin and Range 

Province (Verts and Carraway 1998). 

Roost habitat includes caves, mines, hollow trees, and man-made structures (Woodruff and Ferguson 

2005). Snags and large trees may be important roosts for this species, although maternity colonies and 

winter hibernacula are usually associated with caves, mines, or buildings (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). 

In eastern Oregon, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forest, and riparian-wetland habitat is used by 

Townsend’s big-eared bats. Insects are generally captured in the air, the bats forage in and around foliage 

at mid and upper canopy levels. 

Threats include disturbance or destruction of roost sites, loss or degradation of water sources and foraging 

areas, and exposure to pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

Townsend’s big-eared bats are documented for the Malheur National Forest. Although no bat surveys 

were conducted, cliff, rock crevice, large tree and snag, and foraging habitat occur within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock crevices, snags, old buildings, caves) are expected from cattle 

grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance may be impacted by grazing 

of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and duration of grazing. Use levels and 

move triggers that result in improvements to riparian vegetation would benefit diversity and abundance of 

insect prey species and ultimately bat species. Improvements and increases in riparian vegetation resulting 

in beaver re-colonization of stream reaches, and resulting beaver ponds, would also increase riparian 

vegetation diversity, and alter insect prey diversity and abundance (Keinath 2004). Although aspen stands 

would continue to exist in the short to mid-term, continued impact of ungulate grazing on aspen stands, as 

well as conifer shading, may result in loss of smaller stands, and reduced diversity of habitat, impacting 

insect prey species used by Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian vegetation as well as aspen habitat would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would benefit foraging habitat. Depending on placement, 

barb-wire fencing in riparian areas may negatively impact individual bats if animals become impaled on 

wire. Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be visible to bats and birds to allow animals to avoid 

wires. Pond construction or spring developments may provide water sources for bats. Design elements 

require wildlife escape ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small mammals, bats and birds (See 

Design Elements, chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, trampling, muddy water and manure may 

make ponds less palatable or useful for bats as drinking sources late season.

Determination - Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

No surveys for Townsend’s big-eared bat have occurred within the project area, however potential roost 

and foraging habitat does exist. Surveys for bat species have been conducted on Emigrant Creek Ranger 

District as part of the Oregon Bat Grid project. Acoustic surveys using Pettersen Bat Detectors and 

recording devices and mist netting for identification and determination of reproductive status, collecting 

genetic and bat call information, were part of the study. Acoustic surveys have also been conducted on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 281

Blue Mountain and Prairie City Ranger Districts, associated with mine closures, bat gate installations, and 

vegetation and fuels reduction projects (Soda Bear and Elk 16). Improvements to riparian vegetation 

would benefit Townsend’s big-eared bat prey species. Lack of sapling recruitment within aspen stands 

continues to be an adverse impact from ungulate grazing. Conifer shading and competition with aspen 

compounds this problem. Depending on placement, wire fencing has potential to impale bats, directly 

impacting individuals. Direct impacts from fences could be minimized by making fences more visible 

(see Design Elements, chapter 2). 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects - Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on Townsend’s big-eared bat or their habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in meadow and riparian habitat. As a result, diversity and abundance of 

insect prey species for Townsend’s big-eared bat would be maintained, or expected to improve. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which include conifer removal and protection) are expected 

to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued longterm impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to lessen these 

impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Forest. 

Pallid Bat (Sensitive species) 

The pallid bat occurs from southern British Columbia through the Pacific states to northern Mexico,and 

east through portions of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, 

and Texas. In Oregon, pallid bats occur in the drier interior valleys from Lane-Benton county line south, 

and throughout eastern Oregon, except for the most northeast portion of the Blue Mountains (Verts and 

Carraway 1998). Records are documented for Grant County (Verts and Carraway 1998). Pallid bats are 

documented using the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument near Goose Rock and the castle-like 

palisade formations near Clarno (Rodhouse, personal communication, 2012). 

Habitat for pallid bats in Oregon includes drier shrub/steppe habitat and grasslands, often near rocky 

outcrops and water. Open ponderosa pine forest that includes cliff habitat is also used (Ferguson and 

Azerrad 2004, NatureServe 2012). Roosts include rock crevices, buildings, under bridges, under rock 

overhangs. Rock piles, hollow trees, and cavities in ponderosa pine are also used (Verts and Carraway 

1998). Pallid bats forage for arthropods and insects off the ground, their diet composed of beetles, moths, 

crickets, scorpions, centipedes, as well as an occasional lizard or small rodent (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Although no bat surveys were conducted, rock outcrops, cliff habitat, sagebrush, juniper woodland, and 

grassland foraging habitat occur within the project area.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

282 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects – Pallid Bat 

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock outcrops, rock crevices, hollow trees, old buildings) are expected 

from cattle grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance may be impacted 

by grazing of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and duration of grazing. Use 

levels and move triggers that maintain adequate cover and diversity of plant species would provide for the 

prey species required by pallid bats. Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to upland vegetation 

would be critical for determining trends in habitat.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

would benefit foraging habitat. Depending on placement, barb-wire fencing in vicinity of rock outcrops 

and potential roost areas may negatively impact individual bats if animals become impaled on wire. 

Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be visible to bats and birds to allow animals to avoid 

wires. Pond construction or spring developments may provide water sources for bats. Design elements 

require wildlife escape ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small mammals, bats and birds (See 

Design Elements, chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, trampling, muddy water, manure may make 

ponds less palatable or useful for bats as drinking sources late season.

Determination – Pallid Bat

No surveys for pallid bat have occurred within the project area, however roost and foraging habitat does 

exist. Use levels and move triggers to retain adequate upland vegetation for other wildlife would also 

benefit prey species that pallid bats depend on. Depending on placement, barb-wire fencing has potential 

to impale bats, directly impacting individuals. Direct impacts from fences could be minimized by making 

fences more visible (see Design Elements, chapter 2). 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects – Pallid Bat

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on pallid bats or their habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland as well as riparian habitat within 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, diversity and abundance of 

insect prey species for pallid bat would be expected to be maintained or improved. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of pallid bats on the Forest. 

Fringed Myotis (Sensitive species) 

Fringed myotis occurs from south central British Columbia to northern Baja California, and east through 

southeast Idaho and portions of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas. In Oregon, 

these small bats occur in the Coast Range from Jackson to Clatsop counties and in northeastern Oregon. A 

museum specimen is recorded from Grant County (Verts and Carraway 1998). Although their range is 

large, fringed myotis are rare and patchily distributed within this range (Keinath 2004).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 283

Roost habitat includes caves, mines, cliffs, buildings, and snags. Suitable tree roosting habitat contains 

late successional ponderosa pine with high density clusters of snags in early to medium stages of decay 

(Keinath 2004). Foraging habitat includes a heterogeneous mix of conifer forest, including ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir, and shrubland/grassland, with ample water sources and an abundance of insect prey 

(Keinath 2004). Threats include disturbance or destruction of roost sites, loss or degradation of water 

sources and foraging areas, and exposure to pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

Fringed myotis are documented for the Malheur National Forest. Although no bat surveys were 

conducted, cliff, snag, and foraging habitat occur within the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fringed Myotis 

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock crevices, snags, old buildings, caves) are expected from cattle 

grazing. However, foraging habitat and insect prey diversity and abundance may be impacted by grazing 

of vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would depend on location and duration of grazing. Use levels and 

move triggers that result in improvements to riparian vegetation would benefit diversity and abundance of 

insect prey species and ultimately bat species. Improvements and increases in riparian vegetation resulting 

in beaver re-colonization of stream reaches, and resulting beaver ponds, would also increase riparian 

vegetation diversity, and alter insect prey diversity and abundance (Keinath 2004). Although aspen stands 

continue to exist in the short to mid-term, continued impact of ungulate grazing on aspen stands, as well 

as conifer shading, may result in loss of smaller stands, and reduced diversity of habitat, impacting insect 

prey species.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian vegetation as well as aspen habitat would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would benefit foraging habitat. Depending on placement, 

barb-wire fencing in riparian areas may negatively impact individual bats if animals become impaled on 

wire. Stream crossings of fences in particular need to be visible to bats and birds to allow animals to avoid 

wires. Pond construction or spring developments may provide water sources for bats. Design elements 

require wildlife escape ramps placed in troughs to avoid trapping small mammals, bats and birds (see 

Design Elements, chapter 2). Depending on number of cattle, trampling, muddy water, manure may make 

ponds less palatable or useful for bats as drinking sources late season.

Determination – Fringed Myotis

No surveys for fringed myotis have occurred within the project area, however roost and foraging habitat 

does exist. Improvements to riparian vegetation would benefit fringed myotis prey species. Lack of 

sapling recruitment within aspen stands continues to be an adverse impact from ungulate grazing. Conifer 

shading and competition compounds this problem. Depending on placement, wire fencing has potential to 

impale bats, directly impacting individuals. Direct impacts from fences could be minimized by making 

fences more visible (see Design Elements, chapter 2). 

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Cumulative Effects – Fringed Myotis

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on fringed myotis or their habitat.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

284 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, diversity and abundance of 

insect prey species for fringed myotis would be expected to improve. 

Ongoing and past aspen restoration projects (which include conifer removal and protection) are expected 

to hold a percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued longterm impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to lessen these 

impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of fringed myotis on the Forest. 

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly (Sensitive species) 

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly has been found from southwestern British Columbia, south through 

Washington, Oregon, and western Idaho to central California. Scattered sightings in Oregon occur in the 

Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Blue Mountains, and Wallowas. 

Habitat is associated with dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) found within old growth, and late 

successional second growth coniferous forest. Younger forests where dwarf mistletoe is present also 

support butterfly populations (Huff 2011). 

Butterflies spend the majority of their time in the top of the forest canopy, so are infrequently seen.

Larvae feed on all exposed plant parts of dwarf mistletoe, and can be found on host leaves April through 

October. Adults feed on nectar of flowers from numerous genera including Actostophylos, Ceanothus, 

Cornus, Fragaria, Rorrippa, and Spraguea, etc. In northern parts of the range, or at higher altitudes, 

adults fly from late May through mid-July. At lower elevations, adults fly from mid-May to early 

September, with peaks occurring in May and August (Pyle 2002 in Huff 2011). 

Threats include loss of habitat from logging or fire, widespread use of BTK bacterium (as applied in 

large-scale aerial treatments to control other forest pests such as spruce budworm), and some herbicides 

applied to flowering plants that support adult butterflies. 

The Johnson’s hairstreak was added to the Malheur National Forest Sensitive Species list in 2011.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

No documented occurrences of Johnson’s hairstreak have been recorded within the project area; however, 

suitable habitat does exist. Dwarf mistletoe supporting caterpillar larvae occurs within mixed conifer 

stands found within and adjacent to the allotments. Nectar plants used by adult butterflies are generally 

widespread and common. Many, such as ceanothus, are not usually impacted by cattle grazing. 

Determination – Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Because dwarf mistletoe supporting Johnson’s hairstreak larvae would not be impacted by cattle grazing, 

and because nectar plants used by adults are common, found throughout the project area, and often not 

utilized by cattle, there would be No Impact (NI) to Johnson’s hairstreak populations or habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 285

Cumulative Effects – Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level and adjacent subwatersheds (post-fire habitat 

containing ceanothus). All of the activities listed in appendix C were considered for their cumulative 

effects on Johnson’s hairstreak and potential habitat. Past activities such as timber harvest, road 

construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined to create the current condition in the 

analysis area. The combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project with the 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely 

affect populations or viability of Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly within the project area or at the Forest 

level. 

Columbia Clubtail (Sensitive species) 

The Columbia clubtail is a medium sized black and yellow clubtail dragonfly. Habitat is found along 

sandy to rocky, slow-flowing rivers. Columbia clubtail eggs are broadcast in the water. Once hatched, 

clubtail larvae burrow in and overwinter in mud along the banks. Larval habitat (river) is most crucial.

Adults forage mid-June through mid-August among riparian shrubs (Scheuering 2006). 

Currently, only five populations of the Columbia clubtail are known within Oregon and Washington: one 

on the Yakima River in Benton County, Washington, one on the Owyhee River in Malheur County, 

Oregon, and three on the John Day River system in Grant County, Oregon. Habitats for each of these river 

systems vary, there is potential for this dragonfly to occur over a range of river systems, including Idaho. 

However, none have been found elsewhere in the region as yet (Abbott 2007, in NatureServe 2012). 

Threats to this dragonfly include heavy amounts of siltation, agricultural runoff, or introduced predatory 

fish. The Columbia clubtail was added to the Malheur National Forest Sensitive Species list in 2011.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Columbia Clubtail

No documented occurrences of Columbia clubtail have been recorded within the project area. However, 

habitat suitable for Columbia clubtail may exist along the Malheur River within the Logan Valley 

Allotment. Impacts to this dragonfly or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of animals within pastures containing riparian habitat. Because of variations in dates of 

turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season. 

Use levels and move triggers scheduled for all allotments within their respective riparian habitat 

conservation areas are designed to restore riparian vegetation and shrub habitat, improving habitat for 

Columbia clubtails.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to riparian habitat and native vegetation would be critical for 

determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would benefit riparian habitat.

Determination – Columbia Clubtail

Columbia clubtail dragonflies have not been documented within the project area. However, because 

potential habitat may exist along the Malheur River within the project area, there is potential for some 

direct impacts from cattle utilizing vegetation. Not all habitat would be impacted concurrently within the 

project area. The proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

286 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Cumulative Effects – Columbia Clubtail

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on Columbia clubtail or its habitat. 

Cumulatively, unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, riparian habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all 

alternatives would continue an upward trend in bank stability, shrub recruitment, and herbaceous 

vegetation important for Columbia clubtail.

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of Columbia clubtail dragonflies. 

Management Indicator Species 

The National Forest Management Act directs National Forests to designate management indicator species 

and the Forest Service Manual Direction 2621.1 defines the criteria for selection of management indicator 

species. Management activities on the Forest that would affect management indicator species populations 

and habitat, would also affect populations of other species with similar habitat needs. 

The Malheur Forest Plan identifies twelve (12) management indicator species. In order to appropriately 

analyze potential project impacts to management indicator species, three habitat types were selected. Big 

game habitat, old growth habitat, and primary excavator habitat (standing dead and downed wood) are 

discussed.

Table 98 describes the 12 management indicator species selected for the Malheur National Forest. The 

table also includes associated habitat requirements and whether habitat occurs within the project area.

Table 98. Management indicator species summary (Malheur National Forest)

MIS Species Representing Habitat Requirements Habitat Present in Analysis 

Area

Elk 

Commonly 

hunted Biggame Species

Forested Mountains and 

meadows with grasses and forbs

Yes, including known calving 

area within Logan Valley fen and 

vicinity

American 

(Pine) Marten Old Growth

Mature, mesic coniferous forests, 

with high structural diversity in the 

under story

Higher elevation mixed conifer 

stands: designated old growth 

stands, replacement old growth 

stands, late and old structure on 

Lake Creek and Big Creek.

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Extensive areas of dense 

coniferous forests with tall closed 

canopy, high basal area and 

large diameter snags

Yes, mixed conifer stands, 

drainages, designated old growth 

stands, replacement old growth 

stands, late and old structure on 

Lake Creek and Big Creek.

Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Higher elevation (above 4,500ft) 

lodgepole pine and mixed conifer 

forests with a lodgepole 

component

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat within 

the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 287

MIS Species Representing Habitat Requirements Habitat Present in Analysis 

Area

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open forests and nests in large 

snags in cavities created by other 

cavity nesters or in very soft 

snags

Yes, have been documented 

nesting in aspen within the 

project area.

Red-naped 

Sapsuckera

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian habitats 

consisting of a mixture of grasses 

shrubs and hard woods

Yes, associated with aspen 

stands

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags

and Down 

Wood

Mature higher-elevation 

coniferous forests for nesting and 

feeding

Yes, associated with aspen 

stands, associated with larger 

conifer.

Downy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian habitats 

consisting of a mixture of grasses 

shrubs and hard woods

Yes, Big Creek, Lake Creek, 

portions of Summit Creek provide 

the most suitable habitat, as well 

as aspen habitat in riparian areas

Hairy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that prefer 

large trees Yes

White-headed 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open ponderosa pine forests with 

large trees and snags in large 

patches

Yes, dry forest, large tree and 

open-canopied habitat. 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Forests with dead, insect-infested 

trees associated with large-scale 

disturbances such as fire or wind 

throw

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat within 

the project area.

Northern 

Flicker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that prefer 

large trees stands near meadows Yes

a - Red-naped sapsuckers represent the east version of red-breasted and yellow-bellied sap suckers originally listed in the Forest 

Plan

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Management Indicator 

Species

Big Game Habitat (Elk) 

Rocky Mountain elk were selected as a Management Indicator Species for the Malheur National Forest 

due to their economic and social value, and their response to changes in forest cover, forage quality, and 

road densities. Elk are grazers, primarily eating grasses. Lesser amounts of forbs and woody plants are 

also consumed. Elk are vulnerable to disturbance, displacement, and hunting pressure. High-quality 

habitat for elk provides effective escape and hiding cover. 

Elk as well as mule deer are widely distributed across the District, Forest and the Blue Mountain Region.

Both species occur throughout the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. The large 

grassland/meadow habitat within Logan Valley and the fen area are an important calving and fawning 

area for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope in May and June. Elk and deer use a mosaic of cover and 

forage habitat found within the project area. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

288 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

All four allotments within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project are classified as 

summer range. Portions of the project area are utilized as migration corridors to lower elevation winter 

range (Jackle, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication, 2012). 

Big Game Populations

Big game management on the Malheur National Forest is a cooperative effort between the Forest Service 

and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Forest Service manages habitat while Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife manages big game populations. The project area occurs within the 

Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units. 

Total elk population estimates may vary; animals are highly mobile, and may move back and forth across 

boundaries between hunt units (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011). However, for both of 

these units, trends indicate that elk populations have remained at or slightly above management objectives 

for the last several years. Conversely, mule deer populations have remained below management 

objectives (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011). 

The Murderer’s Creek Big Game Management Unit consists of approximately 1,150 square miles 

(736,002 acres) with a management objective of 1,700 elk. The Malheur River Big Game Management 

Unit consists of approximately 2,954 square miles (1,890,567 acres) with a management objective of 

1,500 elk. 

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project allows summer pasture for approximately 680 

cow/calf pairs (1,360 animals) within the 40,279 acre project area (Burton 2012). 

Bull to cow ratios are influenced by a number of factors including numbers of hunters, length of hunting 

seasons, lack of hiding cover, high open road densities, and others (Schommer and Johnson 2003). As 

bull/cow ratios decline below 10 bulls/100 cows, breeding dynamics within a herd also change, and there 

can be a corresponding reduction in cow/calf ratios (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). Both 

units have met or exceeded this threshold of bull to cow ratios for most years since 2000. 

Calf recruitment represents the number of sub-adult animals added to the population each year. 

Recruitment levels are expressed as the number of calves per 100 cows. The average number of calves 

needed to sustain an elk population ranges from between 20 to 40 calves per 100 cows, depending on the 

annual adult mortality. Both units have generally been within this range. 

Although elk population estimates have been at or above management objectives, animals are not always 

well distributed. Within the Murderer’s Creek Big Game Management Unit, current trend has been a 

continued movement of animals off Forest lands and onto private lands. Wildlife biologists with the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife attribute this poor distribution to open road densities, increased 

hunting pressure, cougar predation, and reduced forage. 

Forage 

Forage consists of woody and non-woody plants that are available to livestock or wildlife as a food 

source. While forage is not considered a limiting factor in summer range (all of the project area), 

competition between elk and cattle for forage resources may occur in both riparian and upland areas. 

High value foraging areas for elk include wet meadow habitat in Logan Valley, and riparian meadows 

along streams. Creeks within the project area have wetland habitat comprised of sedges, willow and alder 

plant communities, however, many sections of these systems have downcut channels, limited riparian 

shrub communities, and reduced floodplains. Hardwood shrubs in some cases have been eradicated by 

grazing, shaded out by conifers, or a combination of both. Growing conditions for forage plants are less 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 289

favorable on some sites compared to historical conditions. This is in part a result of fire suppression, 

which has allowed conifers to increase in density and size, thus shading out understory grass and shrubs. 

Also, fire no longer acts as a rejuvenating agent, which invigorates many shrub and grass species. 

Fawning/Calving Habitat 

Optimum calving and fawning habitat includes a combination of thermal cover, hiding cover, and quality 

forage located in close proximity to water (Thomas 1979). Habitat is provided primarily within riparian 

areas where high quality succulent vegetation and water are readily available. Hardwood shrubs, thickets 

of conifer saplings and seedlings, and down logs provide security and hiding cover. Typically calving and 

fawning habitat is located where slopes are gentle – usually less than 15 percent – or located on bench 

areas within steep topography (Thomas 1979). The fen and surrounding meadow habitat in Logan Valley 

provide known calving and fawning habitat within the project area. Meadow habitat along Summit Creek 

and lower Bosenberg Creek also provide calving and fawning habitat. 

Hardwood vegetation is lacking on several stream reaches and could be increased (Carex Working Group 

2012). The presence of roads in riparian areas may reduce the effectiveness of calving and fawning 

habitat, not only because roads convert habitat to non-habitat, but also because road traffic during the 

spring and early summer impacts security and may disturb animals and their young. 

Security

Elk in particular are vulnerable to human disturbance. Roads open to motorized traffic allow people easy 

access to big game habitat. Motor vehicles and associated human activities can stress big game animals, 

causing them to avoid use of available habitat and expend energy unnecessarily. Research has 

demonstrated elk avoid areas near open roads; animal showed lower use of areas within 1⁄2 mile of roads.

This may lead to poor distribution of animals and use of quality habitat (Wisdom et al. 2005). Open road 

access reduces deer and elk escapement during hunting seasons as well as other times of the year, and 

facilitates legal or illegal taking of game animals. In the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project, open road density and disturbance may influence elk distribution within portions of the 

allotments.

Although individual habitat component such as open road densities do not always meet standards, it 

appear that existing conditions support elk populations at management objectives for both Big Game 

Management Units. Mule deer populations remain below management objectives.

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Big Game Habitat (Elk)

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic livestock would be 

eliminated. Lack of displacement or competition for forage from cattle, especially in meadow and riparian 

systems, could be beneficial for big game species. Competition between cattle and big game in and 

around water sources, both developed and undeveloped, would be eliminated. If interior fences are not 

removed, lack of maintenance of those fences could be detrimental if loose wire resulted in entrapped or 

injured animals. 

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects from management activities to big game species or 

their habitat, there would be no additive cumulative effects.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

290 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 

Big Game Habitat (Elk)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forage

While forage is not considered a limiting factor in summer range (all of the project area), competition 

between elk and cattle for forage resources has the potential to occur in both riparian and upland areas. 

Cattle have grass-dominated diets but would consume forbs and shrubs if grass species have cured and 

thus provide less available protein and other nutrients by late summer. Likewise, elk, who normally avoid 

areas of cattle use during spring and early summer, may change this pattern and completely overlap with 

cattle in prime use areas late season, when upland forage species are dry and less palatable (Coe et al. 

2005). 

In several studies at the Starkey Experimental Station near La Grande, Oregon, it was shown that elk 

avoid cattle during the spring and summer. When cattle are moved into an area, elk move to higher 

elevations and steeper ground. Because optimum forage may exist within riparian and large wet meadows 

within the project area, elk may be negatively impacted by this displacement (Coe et al. 2005).

Forage and subsequent nutritional effects may have a substantial impact on individual animal 

performance. While fitness of elk and mule deer may not be affected during the summer, their ability to 

survive severe winters and reproduce may be negatively affected by poor summer nutrition (Cook et al. 

2004). 

Currently elk may move into the vacant Lake Creek Allotment when cattle are moved into the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area. Patterns of distribution are not known, however, and the 

various configurations of use, non-use, deferred use make it difficult to predict how elk may react to each 

of the alternatives proposed. 

Impacting a larger landbase (alternatives 2 and 4) may displace elk to higher elevations and less optimum 

forage; however, improving overall conditions for upland and riparian habitat within all of the allotments 

would benefit big game as well as cattle. Reducing the landbase for the McCoy Creek Allotment (all 

alternatives) would require monitoring to promptly move cattle, based on use and move triggers, to allow 

adequate residual forage for wildlife at the end of the grazing season. 

If recovery objects are not met within the defined timeframes (see appendix A, Table 104) for any 

allotment, adaptive strategies may be implemented further reducing cattle numbers, or season of use, or 

excluding additional riparian acres from grazing resulting in beneficial impacts to habitat and ultimately 

big game forage.

Aspen within riparian areas may benefit from use levels and move triggers, or riparian fencing, designed 

to improve all riparian hardwood species. Aspen is a favorite browse species. Aspen located in upland 

areas, or in vicinity of the fen, continue to be negatively impacted by conifer succession, and overgrazing 

by both domestic and wild ungulates. Mature aspen trees continue to decline and regeneration of saplingsized replacement trees is low to non-existent. Several of the smaller, older and more decadent 

unprotected sites may die out within the next few years. This has occurred on other areas of the forest 

(personal observation, Kranich 2012). 

Aspen restoration in the Merit Timber Sale, and as part of the Logan Valley Meadow and Aspen 

Restoration project have positively impacted several aspen within the project area, by protecting stands 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 291

with fencing, and within the Logan Valley project, by removing competing conifers. Additional conifer 

removal is needed within aspen stands fenced within the Merit Timber Sale project. 

Fawning/Calving Habitat

Restoration and expansion of wet meadow habitat; whether within vicinity of the fen in Logan Valley, or 

riparian meadows along major stream reaches; within all of the allotments would improve potential 

calving and fawning habitat. Displacement of elk or mule deer by cattle could negatively impact adults 

and their young. However, the overlap of cattle and big game during the calving/fawning season is 

generally the last two weeks of June and does not occur in May or early June, allowing big game to take 

advantage of these meadow systems during that time. Antelope fawns were seen in Logan Valley in early 

June 2012. The first observation of a mule deer fawn was mid-June 2012. No reports of elk fawns were 

obtained within the project area during this time, although animals with young were observed in adjacent 

subwatersheds, mid-June (Oregon Hunter Association Volunteers, personal communication 2012). 

Security

Existing road densities would remain the same within the project area for all alternatives. Consequently 

there would be no overall impact or change in security from the existing condition. Improvement and 

expansion of riparian habitat may provide additional potential forage and calving/fawning areas for big 

game, but disturbance from vehicle traffic may limit its effective use by elk and other wildlife. Mule deer 

are less disturbed by roads and consequently may benefit as riparian conditions improve. 

Fences, water developments

While fences are generally easily negotiated by big game species, they can negatively impact animal 

movement during late season snow, when poorly placed on hillsides, or when animals are panicked by 

predators or humans. Spooked herds of elk may tear completely through a fence rather than go over it. 

Antelope panicked along roadways may hit a fence multiple times before finally locating a hole to 

squeeze through (Kranich, personal observation). Pregnant elk or deer may not navigate fences well. 

Poorly placed fences mid-slope, or near the top of cut-banks have the ability to entrap animals at any 

time. Poorly maintained fences and loose wire also become hazards for big game animals (Paige 2008).

Fences impact non-game wildlife; bats, song birds, and flying squirrels can become impaled on barbs. 

Raptors, in particular owls, can fly into fences while pursuing prey species (Paige 2008). Although likely 

incidental, these interactions have potential to cripple or kill individual animals.

To reduce the impact of fences to big game, Design Elements are in place requiring a smooth bottom wire 

at least 16 inches above the ground to facilitate fawn movement, with a maximum top wire height of 42 

inches, and spacing of 10 inches between the top and next lower wire to reduce the potential of back legs 

being caught when animals jump the fence. Properly maintained fences also minimize the possibility of 

animals becoming caught in loose or tangled wires. Let-down fences used in areas of heavy snow-pack 

benefit wildlife because they are laid flat on the ground during the non-grazing season, removing the 

barrier to movement by big game and non-game species. Several other modifications to fences that reduce 

impacts to wildlife are illustrated in “A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build 

Fence with Wildlife in Mind” (Paige 2008).

Water developments in the form of troughs or stock ponds provide additional water for big game and nongame wildlife use. Elk may use these developments early spring or late season, but generally avoid them 

when cattle are present. Evaporation and lowered water tables of late summer, trampling, and manure 

make some ponds less useable by wildlife. Generally, lack of vegetation makes these ponds less attractive 

to amphibian species as breeding sites. However, Pacific chorus frog egg masses were seen in May 2012 

in existing ponds in the Sage Hen unit. Tadpoles and young frogs can generally maneuver to avoid cattle 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

292 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

at stock ponds (Bull et al. 2001). However, early season turnout of livestock, when amphibian eggs are 

present and anchored to twigs and vegetation within 15 to 20 inches of the pond edge, may result in 

trampling of egg masses by cattle. No Columbia spotted frogs or egg masses were observed in any of the 

existing stock ponds. 

Troughs are required to have wildlife escape ramps to avoid drowning small mammals and birds. Springs 

providing water to troughs would have sufficient flow to maintain the existing riparian vegetation on site 

(see Design Elements, chapter 2). Pond clean-out or resealing would need to occur late season to avoid 

impacting amphibian egg masses, or tadpoles. 

Cumulative Effects – Big Game Habitat (Elk)

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level as well as the areas encompassed by the 

Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units. All of the activities listed in 

appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on big game (elk) and potential habitat. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

Past historic grazing practices heavily impacted big game habitat within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project. Changes in livestock management have improved habitat conditions over 

time. Ongoing CE projects within the project area (Logan Valley Aspen and Meadow Restoration project 

and previous underburning within the Merit Timber sale projects) in addition to the proposed alternatives 

are designed to further restore existing aspen meadow and riparian habitat important for big game, and 

would provide sufficient forage to support both wild and domestic ungulate use within the project area. 

The Malheur National Forest has analyzed changes in its travel management plan. It is foreseeable that 

cross country travel would be prohibited on the Malheur National Forest (where it is not already 

prohibited), with the exception of accessing dispersed camping sites from open roads. This may increase 

security for elk and allow access to forage habitat not previously utilized because of disturbance from 

cross-country vehicle travel. 

Conclusion – Big Game Habitat (Elk) 

The Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units are sufficiently large to provide 

for existing populations of big game. Elk populations have remained stable, meeting or exceeding Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife management objectives. Elk distribution may shift depending on various 

configurations of the allotments and where cattle are grazing at any given time and place within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. However, the proposed alternatives would not 

be expected to affect elk population numbers or viability at the Forest level. 

Old Growth Habitat 

The following terms for old growth are used throughout this section. These terms are defined in Wildlife 

definition of terms section. 

• Late and Old structure (LOS) – A term used in Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 

#2 (Interim Wildlife Standard) that refers to the structural stages where large trees are common. In 

this document old growth and mature forest are sometimes used as surrogate terms.

• Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) – Forest plan management area 13 which is comprised of mature trees 

(150 years or older) provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature forest conditions and 

provides for ecosystem diversity. These areas are equally distributed across the Forest. Wildlife 

species dependent on these lands include pileated woodpecker and American (pine) marten.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 293

• Replacement Old Growth (ROG) – Part of Forest Plan management area 13. These areas serve as 

replacements for dedicated old growth in the case of catastrophic damage or deterioration of 

dedicated old growth. Replacement old growth areas are to be located within 1⁄4 mile of the dedicated 

areas and are one-half the size of corresponding dedicated old growth units. 

Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth Areas

Forest Plan Management Area 13 (MA-13) provides for the management of old growth through a network 

of dedicated and replacement old growth areas (Forest Plan, page IV105-107). Each dedicated old growth 

and replacement old growth area is specifically managed for one or two management indicator species: 

pileated woodpecker or American (pine) marten (Forest Plan, page IV-32). Replacement old growth areas

are established to counter possible catastrophic loss or deterioration of the dedicated old growth. 

Replacement areas may not have all the characteristics of old growth at the present time, but are to be 

managed to achieve those characteristics in the future so that when a dedicated old growth area no longer 

meets the needed habitat requirements, the replacement old growth can take its place.

In addition, Forest-wide Standard 59 (Forest Plan, page IV-31) directs Forest managers to delineate areas 

of old growth lodgepole pine for three-toed woodpeckers. While these old growth lodgepole areas are 

specifically managed for three-toed woodpeckers, they are not considered part of the MA-13 network. 

The Forest Plan directs that pileated woodpecker dedicated old growth areas are to be at least 300 acres of 

mature and old growth habitat. Replacement old growth areas are intended to be half the size of the 

dedicated old growth areas, approximately 150 acres. In addition, 300 acres are managed as a pileated 

woodpecker feeding area; the replacement old growth and feeding area are permitted to overlap. Pileated 

woodpecker dedicated old growth areas were delineated Forest-wide to provide an even distribution of 

habitat areas, one dedicated old growth area every 12,000 acres, or approximately 5 miles apart. 

The Forest Plan directs that American marten dedicated old growth areas are to be 160 acres and 

replacement old growth areas are to be 80 acres. American marten dedicated old growth areas were 

delineated every 4,000 to 5,000 acres, or approximately 3 miles apart. 

To maintain an even distribution of old growth across the Forest, dedicated old growth and replacement 

old growth areas were designated in all biophysical environments or forest types. Attempts were made to 

identify some of the best habitat available, while maintaining the old growth grid system. 

By providing old growth habitat for these species, it is assumed that habitat for old-growth obligate 

species would be provided as well. Management requirements were derived from the US Forest Service 

1986 Minimum Management Requirements. 

Pileated Woodpecker – Old growth Management Indicator Species

The pileated woodpecker is a wide-spread resident in forested areas of Oregon and Washington, including 

the Blue Mountains. It is absent from higher and lower elevations due to lack of large trees for nesting, 

roosting, and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 

Pileated woodpeckers prefer mature and old growth forests with at least 60 percent canopy cover (Bull 

and Holthausen 1993). They also use younger forests that have scattered large dead trees (Bull and 

Jackson, 1995, Bull et al. 2007). This species relies heavily on snags and downed wood material for 

foraging, and large hollow trees for roosting (Bull 1982, Wisdom et al. 2000). Nest cavities are typically 

excavated in older, large broken top ponderosa pine and western larch snags (Bull 1987). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

294 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Foraging habitat is commonly found in mixed conifer and grand fir forest types. Pileated woodpeckers 

forage by excavating insects (mostly carpenter ants) from larger (over 20 inch) snags and down logs over 

25 inches) in the summer and scaling bark of larger live trees for insects in the winter. 

Home range for a breeding pair has been identified by different sources as ranging from 300 acres 

(Thomas 1979) to 1,000 acres (Bull and Holthausen 1993). Single birds may use larger home ranges, 

from 500 to 3,600 acres in size. 

Although source habitat for pileated woodpeckers has increased from historic levels, large snags for 

nesting may still be limiting. Threats include loss of habitat and declines in densities of large snags and 

large hollow trees (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

American Marten (Pine Marten) – Old growth Management Indicator Species

Martens prefer mature old growth forest with a well-developed multi-storied canopy. Cover and prey 

species largely determine American marten distribution and abundance. 

Snags and downed woody material are important for winter and summer dens, resting sites, and cover for 

prey species. Martens show a strong avoidance of open areas, possibly for predator avoidance (Hawley 

and Newbry 1957). Open, dry forest types and those that lack structure near the ground are used very little 

(Buskirk and Powell 1994). Movement and dispersal over the landscape are maintained by providing 

corridors with consistent overhead cover (Ruggerio et al. 1994). Home range for a breeding pair has been 

identified ranging from 160 acres (Campbell 1979) to 1,400 acres (Freel 1991). 

Trends in source habitat were evaluated for American marten in the Malheur Fire Learning Network area 

(Wales, 2009). Overall there has been a decline in forests with trees greater than or equal to 20 inch dbh 

and canopy closures greater than 60 percent in the higher elevation forests. 

Loss of source habitat and trapping are continued threats to American marten. 

American Three-Toed Woodpecker – Old growth Management Indicator Species

Source habitats for three-toed woodpeckers are old forests of lodgepole pine, grand fir-white fir, 

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. The three-toed woodpecker prefers stands where lodgepole pine is 

either dominant or co-dominant, and uses mostly trees 9 inches dbh and greater for both nesting and 

foraging (Bull 1980, Goggans 1986). They are attracted to areas with high concentrations of beetles, such 

as habitats created by stand replacing fires or blowdown. Home range size for three-toed woodpeckers is 

estimated at 130-750 acres. 

Threats to three-toed woodpeckers include removal of fire-killed or insect-infested trees, altered 

frequency of stand-replacing fires, and decline in availability of medium to large snags infected with heart 

rot (Wisdom et al. 2000, NatureServe 2011). 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Old-growth Habitat Management Indicator Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic livestock would be 

eliminated. Current dedicated old growth, replacement old growth, and pileated woodpecker feeding areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 295

would be maintained. Increased growth of riparian shrubs, herbaceous cover, and aspen stands could 

benefit small mammal species preyed upon by American marten.

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to old growth habitat, and the management indicator 

species associated with this habitat, there would be no additive cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 

Old-growth Habitat Management Indicator Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to old growth habitat and associated management indicator 

species pileated woodpecker, American marten, and three-toed woodpecker. Because of overstory 

shading, existing dedicated old growth provides limited understory forage for livestock. Large or 

extensive down logs can impede cattle movement and access. Grazing would not alter the character of 

such habitat. Changes in allotment boundaries would not change dedicated old growth, replacement old 

growth, or pileated woodpecker feeding area acres or boundaries. Fence construction, water 

developments, riders would not be expected to impact these habitats. 

Because proposed allowable use levels and move triggers are designed to improve riparian vegetation in 

the mid- to long-term, improvements in habitat for American marten prey species may occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on old growth management indicator species and habitat. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, grazing, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current condition in the analysis area. 

There are little to no impacts expected for old growth habitat from cattle grazing within the project area. 

Consequently, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project with the 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely 

affect populations or viability of pileated woodpecker, American marten, or three-toed woodpecker. 

Conclusion 

The Forest’s network of dedicated old growth and replacement old growth would continue to maintain 

habitat for pileated woodpecker, American marten and three-toed woodpeckers. No loss of viability for 

populations of these old growth management indicator species would be expected from implementation of 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. 

Primary Cavity Excavators 

Primary cavity excavators (most woodpeckers) depend on standing and downed wood for foraging, 

nesting, and roosting. These species create cavities in dead and live trees. Secondary cavity users 

(mountain bluebirds, wrens, chickadees, nuthatches, small owls, flying squirrels, bats, and many others) 

depend on and use cavities excavated by these woodpecker species for their nesting and reproductive 

needs. In forest environments, approximately 93 wildlife species utilize snags, and about 86 wildlife 

species utilize down wood for all or parts of their life cycle (Rose et al. 2001). 

The Forest Plan identifies 11 primary cavity excavators as management indicator species for the 

availability and quality of dead and defective wood habitat: black-backed woodpecker, three-toed 

woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

296 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and red-naped sapsucker (formerly listed in 

the Forest Plan as the red-breasted sapsucker and yellow-bellied sapsucker). Red-naped sapsuckers are 

used as the management indicator species for east-side forest habitats.

For details of conservation status, distribution, habitat, population trend and threats for: 

• Pileated Woodpecker - see Old Growth Habitat section beginning on page 292

• Three-toed Woodpecker – see Old Growth Habitat section beginning on page 292

• White-headed Woodpecker – see Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species section 

beginning on page 262

• Lewis’s Woodpecker – see Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species section 

beginning on page 262

Descriptions of the remaining primary cavity excavators are displayed below: 

In Oregon, black-backed woodpeckers occur at high elevations west of the Cascades, and from the east 

slope of the Cascades through the Blue, Ochoco, and Warner Mountains (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 

The black-backed woodpecker forages at slightly lower elevations and in a broader range of mixed 

conifer types compared to the three-toed woodpecker, although the two species overlap (Marshall et al. 

2003, 2006). Both species are similar in size, appearance, and forage almost solely on bark beetle larvae.

Both species are associated with mature and over mature stand structures.

Home ranges for black-backed woodpeckers increase as time since a fire event increases; home ranges 

vary from 285 acres upwards to over 1,000 acres (Dudley 2005, Dudley and Saab 2007). In green forests 

during beetle outbreaks, home ranges can be 178 to 810 acres in size (Goggans et al. 1988). 

Suitable habitat for black-backed woodpeckers is tied to existing levels of diseased and decaying trees 

with heart rot for nesting and roosting, as well as decaying substrate to provide a prey base for woodboring insects (Goggans et al. 1987). For black-backed woodpeckers, threats include removal of firekilled or insect-infested trees, altered frequency of stand-replacing fires, and decline in availability of 

medium to large snags infected with heart rot (Wisdom et al. 2000, NatureServe 2011). In Oregon, the 

liquidation of old growth lodgepole pine due to its infestation with the mountain pine beetle may reduce 

or eliminate habitat for this species (NatureServe 2011). 

Williamson's Sapsucker – Primary Cavity Excavators 

Williamson’s sapsuckers occur along the east slope of Cascades to the Rocky Mountains, from southern 

British Columbia south into Mexico. In Oregon Williamson’s sapsucker occurs along the east slope 

Cascades, and in the Blue and Warner Mountains (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006, Wahl et al. 2005). 

In northeastern Oregon Bull et al. (1986) described this species as occurring in mature and old-growth 

mixed conifer forests at 3,500 - 6,500 feet elevations. Nesting occurs in both live and dead tree species 

comprised mainly of ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. Snags are a critical 

component of breeding habitat (Bull et al. 1980). On Starkey Experimental Forest 86 nest trees averaged 

27 inches dbh (Bull et al. 1986). Home range for a breeding pair is approximately 2.5-15 acres (Johnson 

and O’Neil 2001). 

Foraging consists of feeding at sapwells of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and gleaning insects from the 

bark of trunks and limbs (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 297

Threats include reduction in late-seral forest habitat, and reduction in numbers of large snags used for 

nesting (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

The global short term trend for Williamson’s sapsuckers is listed as stable (NatureServe 2011). Breeding 

Bird Surveys for 1968 through 2004 for Oregon indicate a slightly declining trend, although reliability 

rating (yellow) is not optimal due to low numbers recorded in the counts (Sauer et.al 2008). Williamson’s 

sapsucker has been documented within the project area. 

Red-naped Sapsucker – Primary Cavity Excavators 

Red-naped sapsuckers breed in the Rocky Mountains west to the crest of the cascades and the Sierras, 

from southern Canada to Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. In Oregon they are widespread east of 

the Cascades (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006, Wahl et al. 2005). 

This species is described as inhabiting riparian habitats, especially aspen, as well as pine forests (Marshall 

et al. 2003, 2006). This species uses riparian willow communities for foraging (Csuti 1997). Nest trees are 

most commonly aspen with heart rot, but ponderosa pine was also selected (DeGraaf 1991). Less than 1 

pair per 100 acres was noted in northeast Oregon (Marshall et al. 1993). 

The global short term trend for red-naped sapsuckers is listed as stable. Breeding Bird Surveys for 1968 

through 2004 for Oregon indicate a downward trend, although reliability rating (red) is not optimal due to 

low numbers recorded in the counts, as well as low sample routes (Sauer et.al 2008). 

Red-naped sapsuckers were observed drumming within the fen in Logan Valley, spring 2012. 

Hairy Woodpecker – Primary Cavity Excavators 

This medium-sized woodpecker is a resident in forests throughout Oregon, with the exception of juniper 

(Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). It is more common in older forests, but readily uses burned areas and forest 

edges for foraging (Csuti 1997). In northeastern Oregon, nesting occurs primarily in ponderosa pine 10-20 

inches dbh, mean nest tree dbh was 17 inches (Bull et al. 1986). Grand fir is not selected, but other 

species may be used (Bull et al. 1986). Hairy woodpeckers feed primarily in ponderosa pine stands, and 

will use grand fir stand types as well. Live and dead trees greater than 10 inches dbh are foraging habitat 

for this species. 

The global short term trend for hairy woodpeckers is listed as stable (NatureServe 2011). Breeding Bird 

Surveys for 1968 through 2004 for Oregon indicate no significant changes in population trend, with a 

reliability rating of blue, indicating moderate precision, and indicating moderate abundance on routes 

(Sauer et.al 2008). 

Observations of hairy-woodpeckers have occurred within project area. 

Downy Woodpecker – Primary Cavity Excavators 

Preferred habitat for this small woodpecker includes cottonwood and aspen stands and riparian areas, but 

they will use coniferous-deciduous and sometimes coniferous forests. Territories are 5-9 acres. Nesting 

occurs in trees and snags greater than 8 inches dbh at heights over 15 feet (Marshall et al. 2003, 2006). 

They forage by a variety of means such as pecking and flaking bark for insects, gleaning leaves, and 

flycatching (Csuti 1997). Potential habitat for this species is currently found in existing riparian areas and 

aspen stands within the planning area. Threats to habitat include riparian degradation, and loss of 

hardwood species to encroaching conifers. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

298 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Breeding bird surveys for 1968 through 2004 for Oregon indicate no significant changes in population 

trend, although reliability rating (yellow) is not optimal due to low numbers recorded in the counts (Sauer 

et.al 2008). 

Downy woodpeckers have been documented within the project area. 

Northern Flicker – Primary Cavity Excavators 

Northern flickers are a common resident across both Oregon and Washington (Marshall et al. 2003, 

2006). Northern flickers use a wide variety of plant communities and successional stages. They prefer 

open habitats, and are commonly found foraging on the ground in open woodlands, meadows, fields and 

regeneration harvest areas (DeGaaf et al. 1991 and Csuti 1997). Thomas et al. (1979) report this species 

using all forest successional stages for foraging and young forest (40-79 years) to old growth (160+ years) 

for reproduction. Limited reproductive use of earlier stages is due to the absence of snags that this species 

requires for nesting. Nesting occurs in open areas in snags with some decay. Marshall (2003) noted 71 

percent of nest trees had broken tops. Average nest tree diameter was 22 inches dbh and nest hole heights 

averaged 49 feet. 

Northern flickers have been documented in the project area.

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Primary Cavity Excavators (Management Indicator Species) 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to understory vegetation from domestic livestock would be eliminated. 

Conifer shading and wildlife use of aspen stands would continue. Impact to existing aspen stands would 

depend on stand vigor, and extent of conifer succession, and extent of wildlife browsing. Some species of 

woodpecker could be negatively impacted if aspen continued to decline. 

However, since there would be no activities occurring with this alternative, there would be no direct or 

indirect, or cumulative effects to the primary cavity excavators or their habitat. 

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 

Primary Cavity Excavators (Management Indicator Species) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Current Forest Plan direction, as amended, is to maintain snag and down log levels at 100 percent of the 

potential population of all woodpecker species that exist on the Forest. This means that availability of 

snags and down logs would not limit the numbers of woodpeckers that could live in an area. 

Cattle grazing would have little to no impact to snag and down wood habitat in ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine, or mixed conifer stands. Grazing would not alter the character of such habitat. Consequently, for 

woodpeckers utilizing these habitats for nesting or foraging, the proposed alternatives would have little to 

no impact. Fence clearing and construction, or placement of water developments may impact snag or 

down wood habitat. Avoiding snags during layout would minimize these impacts (see Design Elements).

Use levels and move triggers designed to improve riparian shrub recruitment and growth would benefit 

woodpecker species dependent on that habitat (primarily downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 299

Aspen stands found within riparian areas, or protected by proposed exclosures or riparian pastures, would 

also receive some measure of protection and monitoring. 

However, unprotected aspen stands may continue decline. Conifer shading and competition, along with 

grazing pressure from cattle as well as wildlife are adversely impacting these stands. Currently aspen 

snags and large mature aspen exist within the project area, but as these stands continue to age, lack of 

replacement trees would result in a reduction and eventual loss of aspen stands in the long-term. This 

would directly impact downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers, species which use aspen stands 

extensively for nesting and foraging. Other primary cavity excavators using aspen habitat include Lewis’s 

and white-headed woodpeckers, Williamson’s sapsucker, northern flicker, and hairy woodpecker. 

Secondary cavity nesters would be impacted by loss of aspen stands. Approximately 71 bird species have 

been recorded within these stands (Cobb 1997 in Swanson et al. 2010). Aspen restoration projects (Logan 

Valley Meadow and Aspen Restoration project, and Merit Timber sale project) have protected some aspen 

within the project area by removing conifers, and fencing or creating slash barriers around the stands. The 

Logan Valley project is ongoing. Several aspen stands have received some measure of conifer removal or 

protection and would maintain aspen within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

The area considered for cumulative effects is the project area and adjacent subwatersheds to include postfire habitat. All of the activities in appendix C have been considered for their cumulative effects on 

primary cavity excavators.

Past timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, wildfire, and firewood cutting have all impacted 

the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable snag habitat within the project area. The High Roberts 

Fire, which burned in 2002, just north Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, may 

currently provide nesting habitat for several primary cavity excavators. Prescribed underburning in the 

Merit Timber Sale area may also provide some post-fire habitat. Cattle grazing would not add 

cumulatively to existing snag habitat within green or burned conifer stands. 

Large diameter aspen and snags within the project area also provide nesting and foraging habitat for 

woodpeckers, specifically downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers. Conifer encroachment, along 

with grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, continues to degrade aspen stands and in the long-term may 

result in loss of habitat for these species. Larger aspen stands within the project area are more resilient, 

and would persist in the short- to mid-term. Without successful recruitment of sapling size replacement 

trees, some small stands may die out. Ongoing aspen restoration projects have protected some aspen 

within the project area by fencing or slash barriers.

In the short-term, public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. It is foreseeable that 

the Malheur Forest Access Travel Management Plan would prohibit cross country travel on the Malheur 

National Forest with the exception of travel from designated open roads to dispersed camp areas. It is 

expected that with the implementation of the Access Travel Management Plan there would be reduced 

access for firewood cutting and improved retention of large diameter snags. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of primary cavity excavators on the Forest. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

300 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Conclusion 

While there may be impacts to individuals or habitat, populations of primary cavity excavators and other 

species associated with dead wood habitats within conifer stands would be expected to be maintained at 

the Forest level. 

Nesting habitat associated with aspen stands (live trees as well as snags) may continue to be adversely 

impacted in the long term, possibly impacting individual downy woodpeckers or red-naped sapsuckers, 

and other woodpeckers. Retention of aspen by fencing or creating slash barriers as part of ongoing and 

future restoration projects would maintain a level of aspen stands within the project area. 

Featured Species 

Featured species are those identified in the Malheur Forest Plan as wildlife species of high public interest 

or demand. The Forest Plan (IV-30 and IV-31) provides direction (standards 50-55) for the protection of 

habitat for these species.

Table 99 lists the seven featured species currently on the Malheur National Forest. The table also includes 

what their habitat requirements are and whether or not their habitat occurs in or near the project area. 

There is no potential effect to bighorn sheep or their habitat from the proposed action. This species will 

not be discussed further. Sage grouse and upland sandpiper, both sensitive species, are addressed in the 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species section.

In addition to featured species listed within the Malheur Forest Plan, American beaver are discussed, in 

response to public interest and comments generated by the proposed action. 

Table 99. Featured species habitat

Featured Species Habitat Requirements Habitat Present In or near Analysis 

Area

Northern Goshawk

Mature, multi-storied ponderosa pine 

stands, or mixed conifer stands that are 

dominated by ponderosa pine

Yes, documented within or near vicinity of 

the project area

Blue Grouse Clumps of mistletoe infected Douglas-fir 

on tops or upper slopes of ridges Yes, upper elevations within project area

Sage Grouse Open sagebrush plains from 4,000-9,000 

ft. in elevation.

Yes, incidental observations, Logan 

Valley. See TES section.

Osprey

Large dead trees suitable for nesting 

(30”dbh greater than60’ in height) 

adjacent to or near large rivers or lakes

Yes, active nests documented on Big 

Creek in Logan Valley, and near Summit 

Prairie 

Pronghorn 

Antelope

Open grasslands, with low sagebrush 

being an important component

Yes, animals use area in vicinity of fen as 

fawning area; also observed along 

Summit Creek

California Bighorn 

Sheep

Alpine-desert grasslands associated with 

mountains, cliffs, foot-hills, and river 

canyons

No, the project area does not fall with 

suitable habitat for Bighorn sheep

Upland Sandpiper Large open montane meadows and 

grasslands 

Yes, potential habitat; historically nested 

in project area. See TES section.

American Beavera Lower gradient perennial streams with 

riparian vegetation Yes, present in several stream reaches

a - American beaver are discussed, in response to public interest and comments generated by the proposed action
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 301

Affected Environment Featured Species

Northern Goshawk 

The northern goshawk uses a complex mosaic of landscape conditions to meet its life history 

requirements for nesting, post-fledging, and foraging (Reynolds et al. 1992). Preferred nesting areas 

include mature, unlogged, or lightly managed forested habitats with closed canopies (often greater than 60 

percent); northerly exposures, gentle slopes, and are often close to water (Reynolds et al. 1992). Canopy 

closure provides security from avian predators; security from human disturbance is also a factor in nest 

site selection.

Post-fledging areas include the nest stand, alternate nest sites, and a surrounding area used by adults and 

developing young after they leave the nest, and prior to natal dispersal (Reynolds et al. 1992). Structurally 

complex late-successional forest provides the most suitable habitat for post-fledging areas in eastern 

Oregon. 

Northern goshawks are accipiters, i.e. woodland hawks. Their morphology (short, rounded wings and 

relatively long tails) and behavior are adapted for maneuvering and hunting in moderately dense, mature 

forests (Beier and Drennan 1997). Small openings and forest edge are also important for the birds, 

providing a diversity of habitats that support northern goshawk prey animals (Reynolds et al. 1992). 

Several historic nests documented in the late 1980s and early 1990s are recorded in District records.

While no recent surveys have been conducted, northern goshawk have been documented within the 

project area.

Blue Grouse 

Blue grouse prefer coniferous forests dominated by Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir, with a 

mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs near edges and openings. These habitats occur at mid-elevations 

and in subalpine areas, usually associated with openings and rocky areas.

Young blue grouse eat insects, while adults depend on herbaceous material, particularly needles and buds 

of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine during the winter. Dense coniferous thickets of small trees, stumps, and 

down logs are used by blue grouse for resting and escape cover. Large conifers with dense foliage are 

used for roosting. Blue grouse home range size is between one and five acres. 

Blue grouse winter in open coniferous habitats at higher elevations than those that they inhabit in the 

summer. The Forest Plan standard for the protection of grouse habitat (Forest Plan IV-30, standard #50) 

states that projects should “Maintain grouse winter roost habitat.” Blue grouse use large mistletoe infected 

Douglas-fir trees, generally located within the upper 1/3 of slopes, as winter roosts. 

Mixed conifer stands that include Douglas-fir are found within higher elevations within the project area.

The upper reaches of Lake Creek, Big Creek and Summit Creek contain mixed conifer stands and riparian 

habitat that would support blue grouse. 

Osprey 

Osprey build nests in large old growth trees with dead tops, or in the tops of large snags, usually in 

vicinity of large streams, rivers or lakes with adequate fish populations. 

Two known osprey nests are documented within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

area. These occur in vicinity of Big Creek in Logan Valley, and south and east of Summit Prairie. Both 

nests were occupied; incubating females were observed on nests, spring 2012. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

302 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Pronghorn Antelope 

Pronghorn antelope occur primarily in grasslands and open shrub-grasslands with gently rolling 

topography. In Oregon, habitat includes sagebrush steppe, as well as areas occupied by widely spaced 

juniper or ponderosa pine. Water is essential, animals are seldom found far from available sources.

Described as “dainty foragers”, pronghorns browse on shrubs and a variety of forbs. During fawning, 

females often isolate themselves just prior to giving birth. Young are usually born during the third week in 

May (Verts and Carraway 1998), although this may vary slightly by location. 

Pronghorns are numerous in Logan Valley; estimated herd size may range from 40 to 50 animals (Torland, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 2012). Sightings of animals along the 

lower reaches of Bosenberg Creek, in meadow habitat in vicinity of Summit Creek, and using existing 

stockponds in the Sage Hen unit are also recorded. These sightings have been small groups of animals, up 

to 20 in number, as well as lone animals, likely females, during the spring fawning period. While 

considered a big game species, there are no specific management objectives for antelope populations 

(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011). In 2012, four very young antelope fawns were recorded 

with a group of adults in early June, north of National Forest System road 16 near the fen in the Big Field 

pasture.

American Beaver 

Historically, beaver once occupied riparian and wetland habitat throughout North America. Population 

estimates range from 60 to 400 million prior to European settlement (Baker 2003). Despite this 

abundance, populations were decimated during the 1700s and 1800s by fur trappers. Settlement and 

unregulated livestock grazing in the mid to late 1800s in these newly beaver-free riparian areas resulted in 

severe loss of native vegetation, resulting in accelerated erosion and severe downcutting in many areas 

(Baker 2003). 

Beaver occupation and activity within Logan Valley and the headwaters of the Malheur River is also 

believed to have been high. This is supported by documentation in the historic literature for this region of 

the Blue Mountains, as well as through tribal oral histories of the Malheur River Basin (Wenick et al. 

2002). Similar impacts of trapping and loss of habitat from high stocking rates and overgrazing by 

domestic livestock beginning in the 1860s reduced their numbers within the project area (Wenick et al. 

2002). 

Beaver exist on Lake Creek and Big Creek within Logan Valley. Freshly peeled sticks were noted at both 

sites, May 2012 (Kranich, personal observation). Three beaver dams were noted in the Summit Creek 

exclosure during plot monitoring by the Carex Working Group in 2011. Small felled conifers and fresh 

cuttings were noted during a visit to the exclosure during May 2012. Older beaver activity (greater than 

two years old) was noted along Summit Creek in reaches 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Carex Working Group 2012). 

District records also note occupation of various portions of Summit Creek, Bosenberg Creek, Big, and 

Lake Creek over the years since the mid-1990s. 

Environmental Consequences – Featured Species

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic livestock would be 

eliminated. Depending on wildlife browse and use, the potential for riparian recovery could be faster with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 303

this alternative. Lack of competition for forage from cattle could be beneficial for featured species such as 

pronghorn antelope and beaver. Re-establishment of beaver along more stream reaches within the project 

area could accelerate riparian recovery (see discussion below). Improvements in riparian habitat may 

benefit foraging for blue grouse, as well as improve the prey base of small mammals for northern 

goshawk, or fish abundance for osprey. 

Since there would be no activities occurring with this alternative there would be no direct or indirect, or 

cumulative effects to featured species or their habitat. 

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Impacts to featured species or habitat would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

animals within pastures containing riparian habitat. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all 

areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season. Use levels and move 

triggers scheduled for all allotments within their respective riparian habitat conservation areas are 

designed to restore riparian vegetation and shrub habitat. 

There would be no impacts to goshawk nesting habitat, osprey nesting habitat (snags), or blue grouse 

winter roosts. Impacts for these species would stem from impacts to their respective prey base or foraging 

areas. Improvements in riparian shrub density and age classes, as well as herbaceous cover, would 

improve habitat for small mammals, birds (northern goshawk prey), fisheries (osprey prey), or blue 

grouse foraging areas.

Cattle grazing may displace female pronghorns. Because turn-out dates would be in mid- June or later, 

this would not impact newly born fawns. Most antelope have had their young by June. Because these 

animals are mobile, they may simply move to other areas along the forest edge to avoid competition and 

disturbance. Pond construction or spring development may provide water sources for pronghorn. 

Depending on number of cattle trampling, mudding water and manure may make ponds less palatable as 

drinking sources late season. 

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to upland, meadow habitat, riparian habitat and native 

vegetation would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement. 

Adaptive management strategies such as reduced time in any given pasture, or reduced numbers of cattle, 

as well as additional fencing to exclude use would benefit riparian habitat.

During project operations (fence maintenance, new fence or catch-pen construction, water developments) 

a degree of disturbance and displacement of wildlife are likely. 

Goshawks are highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. Seasonal restrictions on 

activities occurring within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nests have been regularly used to reduce impacts to nesting 

birds. If a new northern goshawk nest were discovered during fence or water development layout, these 

timing and distance restrictions would be implemented (See Design Elements, chapter 2). 

There may be some incidental loss of smaller snags during layout and construction of proposed fences, 

catch pen, or water developments. Any layout design should avoid impacting large snags potentially used 

by osprey, particularly if within 1/2 mile of the Malheur River, Summit Creek, Big Creek or Lake Creek, 

or in vicinity of known nests (Forest Plan #54, IV-31). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

304 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

In addition, the District wildlife biologist would be contacted if new raptor nests or roost trees are 

discovered during project layout of fences or water developments. Appropriate buffers and timing 

restrictions would be implemented (See Design Elements, chapter 2).

Timing restrictions limiting motorized vehicle use in calving and fawning areas would minimize 

disturbance to antelope using meadow and open ponderosa pine areas within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project area. Fences may impact pronghorn antelope. Fence designs with minimum 

lower wire height and smooth bottom wire would help facilitate antelope movement (See Design 

Elements, chapter 2).

Beaver

Grazing management that allows for recovery of herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods could 

increase the expansion of beaver within the project area. Even if riparian hardwoods are not fully 

reestablished, beaver may expand their range by using herbaceous vegetation for summer forage, and 

conifers and other materials for dam construction (Kranich, personal observation). 

Beaver dams have the potential to raise water tables, store water for late season flow, trap sediment, 

reduce channel erosion, enhance and expand establishment and production of aquatic herbaceous 

vegetation, as well as expand willow and other riparian hardwoods at the edges or along suitable substrate 

within these saturated wetlands (Baker and Hill 2003, Carex Working Group 2012). Saturated soils often 

deter cattle and wild ungulates, providing some protection for riparian hardwoods within these sites. Even 

when dams deteriorate or fail, either due to flood events, or loss of beaver by predation, trapping, or 

movement to other areas, downstream deposition of material from behind the dams may provide sites for 

willow and other riparian hardwood establishment (Hall 2005, Demmer and Beschta 2008). 

Increased abundance and diversity of herbaceous as well as riparian hardwood species could increase 

overall species richness of insect populations, as well as that of small mammal, bird, and bat species. 

Once beaver become established in an area, grazing management may become more critical. Beaver cut 

willows at the base, which stimulates suckering and growth, while tip browsing by both wild and 

domestic animals can arrest growth (Kindschy 1985). Heavy browsing by ungulates, in addition to 

riparian hardwood use by beaver, can be detrimental for shrub recovery (Baker and Hill 2003). However, 

beaver currently exist on both Lake Creek and Big Creek within Logan Valley, and their activities appear 

to be compatible with some level of cattle grazing. Willows and other hardwoods are present in both 

areas. 

Alder and willow within the exclosure on Summit Creek also appear to be healthy. This exclosure has 

existed since the 1980’s and photo points have documented shrub development since the area was fenced 

(District Range Photo points, 1986 to 2010). Elk and deer are able to negotiate the fence to access this 

exclosure, the fence only restricts cattle access. Freshly cut lodgepole pine and peeled sticks from beaver 

activity were noted in the exclosure in May 2012 (Kranich, personal observation). 

Cumulative Effects 

The area considered for cumulative effects to featured species and their habitat is the project area. All of 

the activities in appendix C have been considered for their cumulative effects on these species. Past 

activities, actions, and events in the analysis area have contributed to create the existing condition in the 

project area.

Past historic grazing practices heavily impacted big game habitat within the Summit Logan Valley 

Grazing Authorization Project. Changes in livestock management have improved habitat conditions over 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 305

time. Livestock grazing is expected to continue. Livestock turned out later in the spring are not expected 

to conflict with antelope fawning periods. Forest plan grazing standards are established to provide 

sufficient forage to support both wildlife and domestic ungulates. Improvements to riparian habitat would 

benefit all of the above featured species, either directly; or indirectly by improving forage for their prey 

species. Upland water developments may provide sources of water for big game depending on season of 

use, number of cattle and their impacts to the water source. 

Past commercial harvest and thinning, fire suppression, wildfire, and personal use firewood cutting have 

affected the quality and quantity of large nest tree habitat, snag habitat, and winter roost habitat. There 

may be some incidental loss of smaller snags during layout and construction of proposed fences, catch 

pen, or water developments. Design elements are in place to limit losses of larger snags. 

Conclusion

Cumulatively, and with design elements in place, any impacts to featured species or their habitat from the 

action alternatives is expected to be minimal. Although individual animals may be disturbed, any of the 

above activities would not be expected to adversely impact featured species populations. 

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds

Neotropical migratory birds breed in temperate North America and spend the winter primarily south of 

the United States-Mexico border. Of the 225 neotropical migrants that are known to occur in the western 

hemisphere, about 102 are known to breed in Oregon and about 82 are known to breed on the Malheur 

National Forest. They include a large group of species, including many raptors, cavity excavators, 

warblers and other songbirds, with diverse habitat needs spanning nearly all plant community types and 

successional stages. Long-term population data on many of these birds indicate downward population 

trends although not all species populations are declining (Sharp 1996, Saab and Rich 1997, Altman 2000, 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Habitat loss is considered the primary factor in decline of neotropical 

migratory birds. 

In 2000, the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight published its Northern Rocky Mountains 

Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000, also referred to as the Bird Conservation Plan). The Bird 

Conservation Plan provides conservation recommendations for the various species of landbirds that 

occupy the Oregon and Washington portions of the Interior Columbia Basin. The Bird Conservation Plan 

identified the following priority habitats for landbird conservation: old-growth dry forest, old-growth 

moist forest, riparian woodland and shrubland, and unique habitats including alpine and subalpine forests, 

shrub-steppe, montane meadow and aspen habitats. The Bird Conservation Plan also identified burned old 

forest as a limited habitat due to fire suppression. 

Table 100 lists priority habitats within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area 

which could be affected by project implementation. The table describes habitat type, habitat features, and 

associated focal species. Existing condition and effects discussions will focus on changes to priority 

habitats rather than the individual species that use these habitats. Alpine, subalpine, mesic mixed conifer 

old growth and post-fire habitats are either not in the project area, or are not affected by this project. 

Short-term, mid-term and long-term definitions are defined at the beginning of the wildlife specialist 

report. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

306 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 100. Neotropical migratory birds – priority habitat features and associated focal landbirds species 

within project area

Habitat Type Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal Species Potential Grazing 

Effects

Dry Forest Old 

Forest

Large patches of old forest with large trees and 

snags

White-headed

woodpecker

No impacts for 

conifer habitat 

impacts, associated 

with aspen habitat

Old forest with interspersion of grassy 

openings and dense thickets Flammulated Owl Yes

Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow Yes

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker

No impacts to 

conifer habitat, 

impacts associated 

with aspen habitat

Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Old 

Forest

Large snags Vaux’s swift No

Overstory canopy closure Townsend’s warbler No

Structurally diverse; multi-layered Varied thrush No

Dense shrub layer in forest openings and 

understory McGillivray’s warbler Yes

Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher No

Montane 

Meadow Wet or dry open tracts of short grasslands Upland sandpiper

No impacts for 

upland sandpiper, 

timing of cattle 

turnout will vary 

depending on 

presence of birds

See Design 

Elements,

Shrub Steppe Juniper, sage brush with small openings Vesper sparrow Yes

Riparian Shrub Willow/alder shrub patches Willow flycatcher Yes

Aspen Aspen stands Red-naped sapsucker Yes

Many of the avian species/habitats identified in the Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan 

are also addressed in the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008). BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, encompasses the Blue Mountains. Table 101

lists species status as present or absent from the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, 

and where each species is addressed in this report.

The following sections describe the existing conditions of priority habitats in the analysis area.

Cumulative effects have been analyzed in respect to past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities listed 

in Appendix C. Effects for Neotropical Migratory Birds and Landbird species were analyzed within the 

context of the Project Area and adjacent subwatersheds.

The District has not conducted official neotropical migratory bird surveys in all habitat types within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. Informal bird surveys have been conducted by 

Grant County Bird Club volunteers in vicinity of the fen, and during past upland sandpiper surveys. These 

species lists, as well as District records were reviewed for this project. During a period from 1991 through 

2012, approximately 105 bird species have been documented within Logan Valley, within the project area. 

This diversity of species is reflective of the diversity of habitat available in this area of the project, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 307

including grassland, shrub-steppe, aspen, fen/wetland, riparian, and both ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer forest habitat.

Table 101. BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, USFS birds of conservation concern – 2008 

Species Presence / Absence Present & Absent Species and Reasoning

Bald Eagle Present See TES section

Swainson’s Hawk Suspected See landbird discussion

Ferruginous Hawk Absent Outside range of project area

Peregrine Falcon Nesting Habitat Absent No suitable nesting habitat in project area, one incidental 

sighting of bird flying over area is recorded

Upland Sandpiper Historically Present TES section, historically present, current status unknown

Long-Billed Curlew Present See landbird discussion

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Present Documented infrequently in Logan Valley, see landbird 

discussion

Flammulated Owl Present See landbird discussion

Black Swift Absent Outside range of project area

Lewis’ Woodpecker Present See TES section

Williamson’s Sapsucker Present MIS - primary cavity excavator discussion, see landbird 

discussion 

White-Headed 

Woodpecker Present See TES section

Olive-sided Flycatcher Present See landbird discussion

Willow Flycatcher Suspected See landbird discussion

Loggerhead Shrike Suspected See landbird discussion

Sage Thrasher Absent Outside range of project area

Brewer’s Sparrow Present See landbird discussion

Sage Sparrow Absent Outside range of project area

McCown’s Longspur Absent Outside range of project area

Black Rosy-Finch Absent Outside range of project area

Cassin’s Finch Present See landbird discussion

In addition, the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas (Adamus et al. 2001) includes observations for this area. 

Much of the data for the Breeding Bird Atlas for the Malheur National Forest was obtained from local 

biologists and ornithologists. Most neotropical migratory bird species that are expected in the project area 

were recorded within the atlas’ hexagons for the area. There is a high confidence level that most species 

discussed in this report are currently present in the area.

Affected Environment

Dry Forest Old Growth Habitat and Dependent Species 

The Conservation Strategy (Altman 2000) identifies four habitat components of the dry forest types that 

are important to landbirds: Large patches of old forest with large trees and snags, old forest with patches 

of regenerating pines, old forest with grassy openings and dense thickets of small trees, and burned 

habitats (see Table 100). Large-scale declines in old forest with large trees and snags have raised concern 

for such species as the white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl, chipping sparrow, white-breasted 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

308 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

nuthatch, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson’s sapsucker, and Lewis’s woodpecker. Habitat loss has resulted in 

population declines and range retractions for these species (Altman 2000), this habitat loss is generally the 

result of past harvest activity and fire suppression. 

Post-fire habitat for species such as the Lewis’s woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker occurs north 

of the Project area. Recent underburning within the Merit Timber Sale area may also be providing small 

patches of burned forest habitat. See the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species section for 

discussion. 

Mesic Mixed Conifer Old Forest and Dependent Species

The mesic mixed conifer habitats refer to the cooler, moister mixed conifer habitats that occur at higher 

elevations, wetter sites, northerly aspects, and in areas where soils are mesic and well developed. These 

forests are generally dominated by the true fir species (grand and white fir), with Douglas-fir, western 

larch, and occasional ponderosa pine scattered within these stands. 

This habitat is described as structurally diverse, multi-layered with overstory canopy closure and large 

snags. Upper portions of Lake Creek and Big Creek within the project area are comprised of these habitat 

components. Alder-dominated shrub habitat within forested openings occurs. Because of dense overstory 

and shading, there is little available forage for cattle in the understory and generally would not be 

impacted by grazing animals. Exceptions to this would be shrub dominated openings where some 

understory vegetation was available as forage.

Montane Meadow

Montane meadow habitat suitable for upland sandpipers occurs primarily within Logan Valley and 

Summit Prairie within the project area. Smaller meadow habitat occurs along several drainages within the 

project area as well. Conservation issues include overgrazing and recreational off road vehicle use 

(Altman 2000). Private land interspersed with National Forest System land occurs within both areas. 

Livestock grazing occurs on some of these private lands. The Burns Paiute Tribe owns and manages 

property in Logan Valley (Wenick et al. 2002). 

Upland sandpipers were documented historically within Logan Valley and Bear Valley (west of the 

project area). Effects to upland sandpiper are discussed in the threatened, endangered and sensitive 

wildlife species section. Montane meadow habitat within the project area supports a wide diversity of 

other landbirds. Long-billed curlews are documented nesting within Logan Valley.

Shrub-steppe Habitats

Non-forested acres, including shrub-steppe habitats of dry woodlands, shrublands and grasslands 

comprise approximately 11 percent of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. 

These shrub-steppe habitats include scab flats, meadows, and fringe areas transitioning from ponderosa 

pine to larger grassland openings into Logan Valley and Summit Prairie. 

Small openings are also scattered throughout the forested areas, and can include both grasslands and 

shrublands. Shrub species include sagebrush as well as mountain mahogany and bitterbrush; these areas 

provide additional habitat for landbird species that use dry shrub-steppe habitats. Species that use these 

habitats include vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, lark sparrow, and long-billed curlew. 

Livestock grazing, fire suppression and road construction have impacted habitat quality. Conifer 

encroachment into these openings may have reduced the extent of these habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 309

Riparian Shrublands

Riparian shrub habitats are typified by the presence of hardwood shrub species, along with associated 

wetland herbaceous species. Water is an important component of these habitats, whether it is in the form 

of standing wetlands, spring and seeps, or flowing water (rivers and streams). Although these habitats 

generally comprise only a small portion of the landscape, they usually have a disproportionately high 

level of avian diversity and density when compared to surrounding upland habitats. 

Within the project area, riparian woodlands and shrublands are generally associated with perennial rivers 

and streams such as the Malheur River, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek, Big Creek, Bosenberg Creek, Summit 

Creek and portions of surrounding tributaries. Intermittent streams also support riparian vegetation, as 

streams run at least part of the year, beyond normal run-off events. 

Vegetation along streams in the project area is variable. Most streams have a patchy distribution of forest 

and non-forest, open vegetation types along their length. Willow and alder thickets historically dominated 

some stream reaches. Today, willow and alder densities and age classes are well below historic levels 

along some streams within the project area (Carex Working Group 2012). 

As a result, riparian conditions have likely affected such landbird species as Lewis’s woodpecker, rednaped sapsucker, downy woodpecker, red-eyed vireo, olive-sided flycatcher, veery, willow flycatcher, 

ash-throated flycatcher, tree swallow, house wren, Swainson’s thrush, calliope hummingbird, song 

sparrow, spotted towhee, western wood pewee, warbling vireo, American redstart, orange-crowned 

warbler, and mountain chickadee. Landbird species that could benefit from improvements in riparian 

habitat include almost every bird species residing or migrating through Oregon. 

Aspen 

Stands of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) represent an uncommon and unique habitat type in the 

Blue Mountains. As one of few broadleaf deciduous trees in a landscape dominated by conifers and 

shrub-steppe habitat, aspen provide diverse and valuable forage, cover, and nesting habitat for a number 

of wildlife species, including neotropical migratory birds. Point count surveys conducted by Lynda Cobb 

of Grant County Bird Club (1997) detected 71 bird species in 34 aspen stands of the Malheur National 

Forest. In riparian areas, aspen provide shade, streambank stability, and nutrients from leaf fall into 

streams (Swanson et al. 2010).

Historically aspen stands within the Blue Mountains have never been as abundant as in other areas of the 

west. On the Malheur National Forest, most stands are small, usually averaging less than one acre 

(Swanson et al. 2010). This low abundance and small patch size can increase the potential loss of these 

stands from conifer succession and herbivory. Both wild ungulates and domestic cattle impact aspen 

stands; however, livestock grazing represents an adverse effect that was historically absent prior to the 

arrival of Europeans to this area (Swanson et al. 2010). Fire suppression resulting in competing conifers 

that gain ground within aspen stands compounds the problem. Some land managers believe that 50% or 

more of remaining aspen clones may be lost in the next 20 years if active measures are not taken 

(Swanson et al. 2010).

There are approximately 380 acres of aspen stands currently within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project (Harris, GIS 2013). Some stands have been protected by fencing, and have 

responded with increased sucker growth and production. Most continue to be impacted by grazing by 

cattle, deer, and elk, and by conifer encroachment. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

310 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 34. Aspen stands within the project area. Mature trees are present, but replacement saplings and 

suckers are missing. Aspen snags and down aspen logs are abundant in some stands.

Although the Lake Creek allotment has been vacant, visits to several aspen stands early spring 2012 

showed browsing by wildlife was still arresting aspen regeneration. Old cow manure was also observed, 

so some unauthorized cattle use of this allotment is occurring, impacting aspen regeneration.

Numerous wildlife species depend on and benefit from healthy aspen stands within forested landscapes. 

Primary species to benefit from aspen would be red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers, northern flicker, 

tree swallow, house wren, northern pygmy owl, western screech owl, and mountain bluebird (Altman 

2000). In addition, Lewis’s woodpeckers were documented nesting within aspen stands in the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project, 2010 and 2012. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Landbird including Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing would occur on 

any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs from domestic livestock would be 

eliminated. 

Habitats and associated species that would benefit from no grazing include riparian shrub, steppe 

shrubland, montane meadow, and aspen. Habitats and associated species less impacted by the No Action 

alternative include dry forest old growth and mesic mixed conifer. 

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to neotropical migratory birds, landbirds, or their habitat, as 

a result of No Action, there would be no additive cumulative effects. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 311

Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 

Landbird including Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Dry Forest Old Growth Habitat and Dependent Species and Mesic Mixed Conifer Old Forest and 

Dependent Species

Depending on canopy cover and overstory shading, dry forest old growth and mesic mixed conifer old 

forest habitat may have less available forage, or less palatable forage, and consequently may be less 

impacted by cattle grazing. Depending on season of use, some ground nesting birds within this habitat 

could be impacted by trampling or loss of cover and exposure of nests. Early season grazing would have 

the greatest impact. Not all areas of potential habitat would be affected by cattle in a given grazing 

season.

Montane Meadow, Shrub Steppe Habitats

Impacts to montane meadow or shrub steppe habitats would depend on timing of cattle grazing, and 

concentration of livestock within these pastures. Early season grazing may have the greatest impact to 

ground nesting birds by cattle trampling eggs, or by reducing cover through grazing and increasing the 

exposure of nests. Because of variations in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be 

impacted by cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to native vegetation with these grassland, meadow, and shrub 

steppe habitats would be critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reducing time in any given pasture, or reducing numbers of 

cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit these habitats.

Primary species to benefit from montane meadow include savannah sparrow, long-billed curlew, Wilson’s 

phalarope, Wilson’s snipe (common snipe), and sandhill crane (Altman 2000). All of these species have 

been documented in the project area.

Primary species to benefit from shrub steppe habitat include vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, lark 

sparrow and long-billed curlew (Altman 2000). All of these species have been documented in the project 

area.

Riparian Shrublands

Impacts to riparian shrublands would also depend on timing of cattle grazing, and concentration of 

livestock within these pastures. Use levels and move triggers designed to improve riparian conditions for 

fisheries would also improve these areas for neotropical migratory birds. 

Early season grazing may have the greatest impact to ground nesting birds by cattle trampling eggs, or by 

reducing cover through grazing and increasing the exposure of nests. Because of variations in dates of 

turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a given grazing season.

Monitoring use levels and assessing impact to native vegetation within these riparian habitats would be 

critical for determining trends in habitat improvement.

Adaptive management strategies such as reducing time in any given pasture, or reducing numbers of 

cattle, as well as additional fencing to exclude use would all benefit these habitats.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

312 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Fences, especially those in riparian areas, may impact non-game wildlife; bats, song birds, and flying 

squirrels can become impaled on barbs. Raptors, in particular owls, can fly into fences while pursuing 

prey species (Paige 2008). Although likely incidental, these interactions have potential to cripple or kill 

individual animals.

Properly maintained fences minimize the possibility of animals becoming caught in loose or tangled 

wires. Let-down fences used in areas of heavy snow-pack benefit wildlife because they are laid flat on the 

ground during the non-grazing season, removing the barrier. Several other modifications to fences that 

reduce impacts to wildlife are illustrated in “A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to 

Build Fence with Wildlife in Mind” (Paige 2008). Water developments such as troughs are required to 

have wildlife escape ramps installed to prevent drowning of small mammals or birds.

Aspen

Where aspen occur within riparian areas, use levels and move triggers designed to improve riparian shrub 

recruitment and growth may also provide a level of protection and monitoring for those stands. 

However, unprotected aspen stands may continue decline. Conifer shading and competition, along with 

grazing pressure from cattle as well as wildlife are adversely impacting these stands. Currently aspen 

snags and large mature aspen exist within the project area. As these stands continue to age, lack of 

saplings as replacements for older trees would result in a reduction and eventual loss of aspen stands in 

the long-term. This would directly impact downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers, species which 

use aspen stands extensively for nesting and foraging. Other primary cavity excavators using aspen 

habitat include Lewis’s and white-headed woodpeckers, Williamson’s sapsucker, northern flicker, and 

hairy woodpecker. Numerous secondary cavity nesters as well as small mammals and bats would be 

impacted by loss of aspen stands. 

Aspen restoration projects (Logan Valley Meadow and Aspen Restoration project, and Merit Timber sale 

project) have protected some aspen within the project area by removing conifers, and fencing or creating 

slash barriers around the stands. The Logan Valley project is ongoing. Stands that have received some 

measure of conifer removal or protection would maintain aspen within the project area. Monitoring would 

determine if appropriate use levels by cattle are allowing aspen suckers to develop to the sapling stage 

(See Monitoring, chapter 2).

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Landbird Habitats 

During project implementation (cattle off-loading, cattle grazing, fence maintenance, fence construction, 

water development construction) a degree of disturbance and displacement of wildlife is likely. 

Disturbance and displacement of wildlife depends on the season of the year and the tolerance of the 

species and individuals. Overall, disturbance from activities would be limited in time and place, and 

therefore, would not be expected to impact populations of species at the landscape level. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Landbird Habitats

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in appendix C were 

considered for their cumulative effects on neotropical migratory birds or their habitat. 

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century impacted grassland and riparian habitat within the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. Over time, and with changes in grazing 

management, habitat has improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives 

would continue an upward trend in grassland and riparian habitat. As a result, diversity and abundance of 

prey species for neotropical migratory birds and landbirds would be expected to improve. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 313

Ongoing aspen restoration (which includes conifer removal and protection) is expected to hold a 

percentage of aspen stands on the landscape. Monitoring is needed to assess the continued long-term 

impact of grazing on aspen habitat and to implement effective management strategies to lessen these 

impacts. 

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations of neotropical migratory birds and landbirds on the Forest. 

Conclusion 

Overall, while there may some impacts to individuals or habitat, the proposed actions are not expected to 

adversely impact neotropical migratory bird species and landbird populations at the Forest level.

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

A Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report has been prepared and evaluates the potential 

effects of livestock grazing on wildlife species and their associated habitat within the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Endangered Species 

Act. The proposed action would be expected to have No Effect (NE) to threatened Canada lynx and No 

Impact (NI) to the sensitive gray wolf, bald eagle, California wolverine, and Johnson’s hairstreak 

butterfly. . Late season grazing would have No Impact (NI) to upland sandpipers. No early season 

grazing would occur in historic nest areas for upland sandpipers if birds are present. 

The proposed action May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH) of sensitive greater sage-grouse, 

silver-bordered fritillary, bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, fringed myotis, Columbia clubtail dragonfly, and Columbia spotted 

frog, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.

Old Growth Habitat (MIS)

Management Area 13 – Old Growth – The goals of this management area are to provide “suitable” habitat 

for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities. 

Within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area, the acres mapped as MA-13 would 

stay the same.

Connectivity

For all alternatives, existing connectivity is expected to remain the same.

Summer Range Cover 

For all alternatives, summer range cover is expected to remain the same.

Snags and Down Logs

For all alternatives, snags and down logs are not targeted for removal. Cattle grazing would not impact 

these structures. Overall snag and down log quantities are expected to stay about the same, with only 

incidental impacts to this habitat from clearing right-of-way for new fence construction, or water 

developments. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

314 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Featured Species

Goshawk

If nest sites are active, management activities would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the nest sites from 

April 1 to September 30 to avoid disturbing goshawks during the breeding season. 

Blue Grouse

For blue grouse, the action alternatives are not expected to impact winter roost habitat. 

Osprey

The action alternatives include design elements to maintain osprey nest trees and snags on the landscape 

and minimize disturbance to nesting birds. These measures meet Forest Plan direction.

Pronghorn Antelope

Design elements including timing restrictions in fawning areas and fence designs to facilitate antelope 

movement, would minimize disturbance to antelope using meadow and open ponderosa pine areas within 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. These measures meet Forest Plan direction. 

Landbirds

The Proposed Action is consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Executive Order 13186. The Proposed Action was designed under current Forest Service policy for 

landbirds. The Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) were reviewed for 

effects disclosure. The Proposed Action alternative was designed to protect or enhance priority habitats 

for landbird species, including neotropical migratory species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The project as described would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the wildlife 

resource. The project moves habitat conditions towards the historic condition. Therefore there are no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments.

Climate Change 

Regulatory Framework

The Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change, states, “[t]he Forest Service 

will need to build consideration of climate change into virtually all aspects of agency operations including 

consideration of life cycle analysis of activities” (p. 11 under POLICY – Integrate climate change, as 

appropriate, into Forest Service policies, program guidance, and communications ... heading). In 

addition, many of the recommendations included within appendix 1 of the cited document would be 

addressed under a greenhouse gas NEPA effects analysis for proposed actions.

Forest Service Chief’s January 16, 2008 letter of direction transmitting the January 13, 2009, Climate 

Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, applies general NEPA direction and regulation to 

the consideration of the appropriateness and degree of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions 

analysis for a given project. This guidance frames climate change analysis by discussing the answers to 

two fundamental challenges: how our management may influence climate change mainly through 

incremental changes to global pools of greenhouse gases and how climate change may affect our forests 

and grasslands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 315

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Under alternative 1 (No Action), livestock grazing would no longer occur within the project area and 

there would be an evolution of resource conditions as biophysical processes would continue to occur. The 

scope and degree of effect of not grazing livestock in the project area on greenhouse gas emissions would 

be minor relative to the amount of lands being grazed on the Malheur Forest, Grant County, the State of 

Oregon as a whole, and the Western United States.

With no grazing the biophysical processes associated with the emission of greenhouse gas emissions 

related to livestock production tied to the project area would be altered. There would no longer be 

livestock authorized to graze within the project area that would be producing CH4 as a result of enteric 

fermentation. The redistribution of carbon across the landscape would cease. Overall a similar or reduced 

level of carbon sequestration and soil carbon build up would be expected within the project area.

However, since management practices which maintain or move plant associations to “good” condition 

appear to be consistent with maintaining the soil organic pool (Henderson, Ellert and Naeth 2004; Brown 

and Thorpe 2008; Sharrow 2008); improvement of vegetative conditions in riparian areas that are 

currently not at the desired condition (see Hydrology and Aquatics section) should increase in their 

efficacy as carbon sinks. 

Under this alternative the “disposition” of the displaced livestock that have been grazing within the 

project area would ultimately determine the actual effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Unless these cattle 

were slaughtered or otherwise perished they would continue to produce CH4 as a result of enteric 

fermentation. Many scenarios for the disposition of these displaced livestock would be expected to 

produce more net greenhouse gas emissions than have been produced in the past. Three scenarios where 

this would be expected to be the case include: 

1. Livestock are raised in containment: Under this scenario (most unlikely for a cow/calf operation) 

livestock would be raised in a feedlot like environment. Under this scenario the production of both 

CH4 and NO2 associated with manure anaerobic decomposition would be expected to be increased 

dramatically while CH4 associated with ruminant digestion would be expected to be reduced due to a 

higher quality of feed. 

2. Livestock are moved to private rangeland: Under this scenario finding unallocated rangeland is 

unlikely therefore increased stocking on currently allocated rangeland would be expected. There is 

potential for rangeland degradation associated with increased stocking rates that would result in a 

reduced ability to capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

3. Livestock are moved to private irrigated land: Under this scenario finding unallocated irrigated 

pasture is unlikely so increasing stocking on currently allocated irrigated pasture would be expected.

In order to avoid degradation of the irrigated pasture it would be expected that increased inputs of 

fertilizer and water would be utilized. In this case the potential for the production of CH4 and NO2 is 

dramatically increased although capture and sequestration of atmospheric carbon is also increased.

Alternative 2, 3, & 4

The Effects of Grazing on Soil Carbon and Green House Gas Emissions (GHG)

“Agriculture and forestry practices may either contribute to or remove greenhouse gasses from the 

atmosphere. Agriculture and forestry have affected greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere through 

cultivation and fertilization of soils, production of ruminant livestock, management of livestock manure, 

land use conversions, and fuel consumption. The primary greenhouse gas sources for agriculture are N2O 

emissions from cropped and grazed soils, CH4 emissions from ruminant livestock production and rice 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

316 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

cultivation, and CH4 and N2O emissions from managed livestock waste. The management of cropped, 

grazed, and forestland has helped offset greenhouse gas emissions by promoting the biological uptake of 

CO2 through the incorporation of carbon into biomass, wood products, and soils. ...In the U.S., 

agriculture accounted for close to 7 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions (7,260 Tg CO2 eq., 

teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents) in 2005 (EPA 2013). ...After accounting for C sequestration 

related to forestry, agricultural and forested lands in the U.S. were estimated to be a net sink of 306 Tg 

CO2 eq. ... Livestock production is responsible for ... about 22 percent (of the agricultural greenhouse 

gas emissions) from enteric fermentation, 10 percent from managed waste, and 18 percent from grazed 

lands. It should be noted that the estimates ... are for emissions only, and do not account for C storage in 

agricultural soils and forests” (USDA Global Change Program 2008). 

“Grazing lands are estimated to contain 10 to 30 percent of the world’s soil organic carbon” (Schuman, 

Janzen and Herrick 2002). While some studies have found limited to large reductions in soil carbon and 

increases in CO2 flux associated with grazing (Haferkamp and Macneil 2004, Welker et al. 2004). Studies 

involving modeling and remotely sensed data indicate that proper grazing can improve ecosystem 

production as measured by soil carbon storage (Li, Liu and Tan 2007; Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007; 

Reeder et al. 2004; Schuman, Janzen and Herrick 2002). Additional studies similarly conclude that certain 

levels of grazing may even increase carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007; Derner, Boutton and 

Briske 2006; Derner et al. 2005; LeCain et al. 2002; Ganjegunte et al. 2005; Manley et al. 1995; Reeder et 

al. 2004; Schuman, Janzen and Herrick 2002). Complementing these findings, several studies indicate 

that light to moderate levels of grazing have no overall effect on total carbon sequestration (Hellquist et 

al. 2007; Ingram et al. 2007; Derner, Boutton and Briske 2006; Stavi et al. 2008; Owensby, Ham and 

Auen 2006; Shrestha and Stahl 2008; Ingram et al. 2008). In fact, intensive rotational grazing appears to 

be a viable option for greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration credits (Bosch, Stephenson, 

Groover and Hutchins 2008; Stenguer, Brown and Thorpe 2008; Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2006; Li, Liu and Tan 2007; Ingram et al. 2008; Conant and Paustian 2000; Stenguer, Brown and Thorpe 

2008; Streater 2009; Sharrow 2008). 

Initially these findings seem inconsistent with the dual observations that desertification results in a net 

loss of C to the atmosphere and, the rate of desertification has been estimated to be higher for grazing 

land than for other land uses globally (Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007, Asner et al. 2004). However, these 

observations need to be considered in the context that conversion of land use from cropping to grazing 

increases carbon sequestration (Conant and Paustian 2000; Derner et al. 2005; Sharrow 2008; US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005; Schuman, Janzen and Herrick 2002). 

It can safely be asserted that there is tremendous variability in carbon storage and its response to grazing 

across different land types (Derner, Boutton and Briske 2006; Henderson, Ellert and Naeth 2004). The 

Northern Great Plains appears to have small potential as a carbon sink (Haferkamp and Macneil 2004).

Alternately local research indicates that ungrazed sagebrush steppe sites were CO2 sinks during the period 

they were measured (Svejcar et al.2008). Management practices which maintain or move plant 

associations to “good” condition appear to be consistent with maintaining the soil organic pool 

(Henderson, Ellert and Naeth 2004; Brown and Thorpe 2008; Sharrow 2008). 

Grazing results in redistribution of carbon on the landscape (Stavi et al. 2008). It has been noted that 

livestock waste management represents a potential long-term soil carbon gain (Fellman et al. 2008). Free 

ranging livestock deposit manure across the landscape resulting in aerobic decomposition. Aerobic 

decomposition of manure generates considerably less methane than does decomposition associated with 

stockpiling strategies employed in more concentrated livestock production strategies (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 2005). This “in-effect” land application of manure also results in a buildup of soil 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 317

carbon that decomposes much more slowly than occurs when composting (Natural Resource 

Conservation Service 2007). 

The Effects Relative to Green House Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would authorize livestock grazing on areas ranging from 30,000 to 35,000 acres 

in the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie grazing allotments on the Malheur National 

Forest (See FEIS Chapter 2 for specific acre by alternative). Slightly different levels of livestock grazing 

in riparian areas would be expected to occur within the project area with each alternative. A project of this 

magnitude would have such minimal effects to greenhouse gasses that its impact on global climate change 

would be infinitesimal. Therefore, at the global scale, the proposed action’s direct and indirect 

contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct 

and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on 

greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. 

“[U]ncertainty about climate projections are much greater at the local and regional scales important to 

land managers, because uncertainties amplify as data and model output are downscaled. ... changes in 

annual precipitation, ... have higher uncertainties associated with them. ... Ecological response to climate 

related changes is highly likely to be more difficult than climate to model accurately at local scales. ... 

Uncertainty does not imply a complete lack of understanding of the future. Managing in the face of 

uncertainty will best involve a suite of approaches, including planning analyses that incorporate modeling 

with uncertainty, and short-term and long-term strategies that focus on enhancing ecosystem resistance 

and resilience, as well as actions taken that help ecosystems and resources move in synchrony with the 

ongoing changes that result as climates and environments vary. ... Flexibility to address the inherent 

uncertainty about local effects of climate change could be achieved through enhancing the resiliency of 

forests ... Efforts to address existing stressors would address current management needs, and potentially 

reduce the future interactions of these stressors with climate change” (U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program 2008). 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meet the Agency’s mission and the described purpose and need for this project 

while enhancing the resilience and adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate 

change (USDA 2008). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 incorporate an adaptive management approach that 

provides flexibility to address inherent uncertainty associated with the local effects of climate change.

Although we know an ecosystem’s sensitivity to grazing pressure and threshold for degradation changes 

with bioclimatic setting, resulting in lower sustainability in very dry and very humid ecosystems (Asner et 

al. 2004), the future bioclimatic setting within the project area is highly uncertain. It is very likely that as 

future average temperatures increase, snow pack will be reduced, snow melt, run-off and peak flows will 

occur earlier in the year. In addition, with increased atmospheric carbon, primary production is expected 

to increase particularly on semi-arid rangelands (Derner et al. 2005). It has been hypothesized that grazed 

areas resulting in a lower soil water holding capacity and lower temperature sensitivity of soil respiration 

might release less CO2 to the atmosphere through soil respiration under future precipitation and 

temperature scenarios (Shiping Chen et al. 2008). 

Other Laws, Regulations and Policies 

National Historic Preservation, Treaty Rights, Executive Order 12875, 

Executive Order 13287 and American Antiquities Act of 1906

See Heritage under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

318 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898

See Social and Economic Effects Section under Consistency with Direction and Regulations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

See Wildlife Effects Section under Consistency with Direction and Regulations.

Clean Water Act

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations. 

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations. 

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

See Hydrology and Aquatics effects under Consistency with Direction and Regulations. 

Endangered Species Act

See Wildlife, Hydrology and Aquatics, and Botany Sections. 

National Forest management Act (NFMA)

The analysis and proposed activities are consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan

was developed and amended per guidance from NFMA.

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

The four alternatives considered in detail meet the intent of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. They 

ensure that recreation, fish and wildlife, water, timber resources are available for current and future 

generations, however only the three action alternatives ensure that grazing resources are available for both 

current and future generations in the project area. 

Municipal Watersheds

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the Summit Logan Analysis area.

Consumers, Civil rights, Women, and Minorities

Consumers, the civil rights of individuals and groups, including minorities and women, and the rights of 

American Indians identified by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 would not be 

adversely affected by implementation of any alternative under consideration. Indirect effects on these 

groups my result from job opportunities created or maintained by authorizing grazing on allotments and 

pastures in the projected area with alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Such employment opportunities would not be 

provided with implementation of alternative 1 (No Grazing). 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

There would be no unavoidable adverse effects to resources with implementation of the grazing 

alternatives under consideration. Implementation of alternative 1 (No Grazing) would have an adverse 

economic effect upon permittees and their employees. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 319

Chapter 4. Preparation, Consultation and Distribution

List of Preparers 

Name Expertise Years Education

Shannon Britt Rangeland Vegetation & 

Invasive Species 24 years Bachelor of Science, Rangeland Resource Management

Joseph Rausch Botany/Ecology 11 years Doctor of Philosophy, Botany

Robert “Hersh” McNeil Soil Science 22 years Doctor of Philosophy, Forestry 

Bob Hassmiller Hydrology 5 years Bachelor of Science, Resource 

Conservation

Dan Armichardy Fisheries 6 years Masters of Science, Biology 

(emphasis on Fish Migration)

Amanda Kunzman Fisheries

Shannon Winegar Recreation & Visual Quality 27 years Bachelor of Nursing 

Mary Robertson Archaeology 20 years Masters of Science (emphasis 

on Archaeology)

Susan Burton Social & Economics 30 years Bachelor of Science, Rangeland 

Management 

Cindy Kranich Wildlife Biology 29 years Bachelor of Science, Wildlife 

Biology

Ryan Falk Environmental Coordinator 28 years Bachelor of Science, Forest 

Management

Kristin Whisennand Writer/Editor 20 years

Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 

Bachelor of Science, Natural 

Resource Management Planning

Anita Leach Environmental Coordinator 28 years Bachelor of Science, Forestry

Consultation and Coordination 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, tribes, Federal, state and local agencies, and nonforest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement:

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation 

Burns Paiute Tribe 

Others

National Riparian Service Team

Carex Working Group

Federal, State and Local Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), John Day 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Grant County Court 

Scoping Responses

Linda Driskill 

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project 

Oregon Wild 

Oregon Natural Desert Association

Draft EIS Comments

Linda Driskill - Grant County Conservationists

Allison O’Brien – US DOI – Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance

Karen Coulter - Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project

Alan Jacobs

Jim Jacobs

Christin Reichgott – US EPA
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

320 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Individuals

Alan & Judy Jacobs

Anthony & Katherine Joyce

B. Sachau

Bill Wilcox

Bob Wanker

C.G. Spies

Carlon McBroom

Dale Stennett

Dan Becker

Dan E. Hooker

Dan Maymar

Dan Rodgers

Dannis L. Brown

Darrell Hopper

Darwin Dunten

David D. Thompson

Dennis and Virginia Knowles

Diana Burril

Dianne B. Mathisen

Dick Artley

Donald A. and Laura K. Dryer

Doug Emmel

Erik Fisher

Everett Hills

Gary Ervin

Gerald Sagert

Geraldine F. Joyce

Gordon Atkins

Greg Maben

Greg Smith

Harley, Sherri and Levon Allen

Henry & Sue Blagden

Ivan Nance

Jack G. Smith

James and Elia Shepherd

James Dovenberg

Jeff & Sherri Hussey

Jeff Ritter

Jennifer Fairbother

Jerry Holland

Jim and Cheryl Drinkwater

Jim Haight

Jim Jacobs

Joanne Bigman

Joe & Joyce McKay

John and Judy Ahmann

John and Linda Bastian

John D. George

John Temple

Jon and Margarita White

Jon and Tara Woodworth

Justin Jacobs

Kenneth R. and Cecelia Brooks

L.J. Baucum

Larry Lassen

Lee Brown

Lee Palmer

Leland F. McGirr Jr.

Louis J. Borelli

M. Greg Smith

Marc and Polly O’Toole

Mark & Wendy Joyce

Matt Carter

Matt Carter

Michael D. Lynse

Michael Riggs

Michael Rossi

Miriam J. St. Clair

Monty & Shelly Siddoway

Monty Crum

Norman and DeeAnn Miller

Pamela Hidebrand

Pat & Lauri Joyce

Penny Black

Pete McElligott

R.J. Mc Ewen

Richard N. Ross

Rick and Ronda Henslee

Robert C. Lindsey

Rod Harris

Ron and Jolene Burnette

Ron Greb

Stephen Finlayson

Susan Jane Brown

Tim and Cynthia Purdy

Tyler Bothers; Wesley L. Tyler

Walt Gentis

Wayne and Michele Smith

Wayne and Susan Evans 

Organizations, Industry and Local Agencies

Actin Ranch Inc.

Baker County Planning Department

Blue Moutain Biodiversity Project; Karen Coulter

Blue Mt. Angus, LLC

Boardman Chip Co. Inc.;Ed Tarnasky

Carter Patton

Cascadia Wildlands Project; John Laughlin

Center for Tribal Water Advocacy: Harold Shepard

Columbia Helicopters Inc.; Max Merlich

Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission

Columbia Vista Corporation; Fred Schatz

Colvin Cattle Company

Continental Resource Solutions

D.R. Johnson Lumber; Gerald Keck

Dakom Logging Inc.; Dan Komning

Darrel Holliday Ranch, Inc.

Dash W Bar Ranch LLC

Dayville Grazing Association

Defenders of Wildlife; Rick Brown

Dunton Ranch

E & M Kimberling Ranch LLC; Michael Kimberling

Elliott Livestock Company, Inc.; Keith Elliott

Elmwood Ranches, Inc.

Emmel Borthers Ranch

Ernst Construction; Robert Ernst

G.I. Ranch Corporation

Gander Ranches LLC

Gant County ESD; Antony Lanni

Government Publication; Hilary Reinert

Grant Count Conservationists; Linda Driskill

Harney Soil & Conservation

Holland Family Trust; Beth Upshaw

Holliday Land & Livestock, Inc.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 321

Hotchkiss Company, Inc.; Mark and Susan 

Doverspike

Imnaha Grange; Vadna Norton

Inshallah Ranch, Inc.

Iron Triangle LLC; Jim Berry

IS Wireless Group

IZ Ranch LLC; Richard Nelson

J & J Logging; Jack L. Shaffer

J.C. Oliver, Inc.

JM Coombs LLC

John Day Basin Office

John Day, Snake Resource Advisory Committee

John Dorelli Family Ranches

Juniper Group Sierra Club: Oregon Eastside Forest 

Committee

Juniper Group, Sierra Club; c/o Environmental Center

KLE Enterprises; Ken Evans

L.S. & D. Logging Inc.; Lee Wilson

Laxy H Land and Cattle Company

League of Wilderness Defenders, Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project: Karen Coulter

Libnan Enterprises; R. William Skinner

Livingston Ranch; Sharon Livingston

Lobas M.C. Inc.; Billy Toman

Malheur Lumber Company; Walt Gentis

Malheur Timber Operators

Moore and Heuckman; Tim Heuckman

Moore and Hueckman; James Moore

Morgrass Grazing Association; Jim McElligott

North Powder Lumber Co.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides: 

Caroline Cox

Northwest Environmental Defense Center; Peter M. 

Lacy

O’Rorke Logging Inc.; Jay Ward

OHA – Grant County Chapter

Oregon Chapter Sierra Club

Oregon Natural Desert Association: Kristin Ruether

Oregon Natural Desert Association; Dave Becker

Oregon Sportsmen; Marion Crow

Oregon State Snowmoble Assn.; Howard Gieger

Oregon Wild; Chandra LeGue

Oregon Wild; Doug Heiken 

Oregon Wild; Tim Lillebo

P. W. Cow Company, Inc.

Pacific Legal Foundation; Emma T. Suarez

Parametrix, Inc.

Prairie Wood Products; Dan Bishop

Randy Scott Logging; Randy Scott

Rangeland Consultation Service

Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation; Phillip H. Turrell

Rocky Bluff Ranch; Herb Peterson

Roger O. and Meredith L. Ediger Trust

S Bar S Ranches, Inc.; Don Moss

Silver Creek Ranches, LLC

Snow Mountain Ranch LLC

Southworth Brothers, Inc.; Jack Southworth

Swaggart Enterprises Inc.; Nancy Swaggart

T.G. Cattle Company LLC; Theodore & Sandra Brown

The Nature Conservancy

Three Valley Ranch LLC

Thunderbolt; Roy & Evelyn Cates

Trini-D LLC; Chris Bravos

Van Grazing Coop.; John Sword

Vaughan Ranches Inc.; Jack E Johns

Vencor; David Vernam

W. Irene Keerins/Bonham Keerins Trust

Whelan Realty and Eng. Inc.; Pat Whelan

Wilburn Ranches, Inc.; Rich Wilburn

Local Officials

Grant County Court: Judge Scott Meyers

Grant County Court; Mark Webb

Grant County Forest Commission; Dave Traylor

Grant County Forest Commission; Mike Smith

Grant County Forest Commission; Tad Houpt

Grant County Rd. Dept. Road Supervisor

Grant County Soil and Water Conservation District: 

Jason Kehrberg

Harney County Court: Judge Steve Grasty

Harney County Watershed Council

State Agencies

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Kevin 

Blakely

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Ryan 

Torland

Tribal Contacts

Burns Paiute Tribe: Honorable Diane Teeman

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation: Honorable Les Minthorn

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla; Rick George

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs: Honorable 

Ron Suppah

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs: Honorable 

Stanley “Buck” Smith

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; Bobby Brunoe

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; Sally Bird

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; Scott Turo

Federal Agencies

Acquisitions and Serials Branch National Agriculture 

Library

Bureau of Land Management

Chief of Naval Operations (N45) Energy and 

Environmental Readiness Division

Deputy Director APHIS PPD/EAD

Director, NEPA Policy and Compliance, Department 

of Energy

Director, Planning and Review Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

Habitat Conservation Division, NOAA Fisheries 

Service NW Region

Northwest Power Planning Council

US Coast Guard, Commandant CG-47, Department 

of Homeland Security

US EPA, Region 10, EIS Review Coordinator

US Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA Forest Service, S&PF; Steve Bush

USDA Forest Service, Walla Walla Ranger District; 

District Ranger

Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 323

References Cited

Abt, S.R. 1994. Sediment deposition and entrapment in vegetated streambeds. 

Adamus, P.R., K. Larsen, G. Gillson, and C.R. Miller. 2001. Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas. Oregon Field 

Ornithologist, P.O. Box 10373, Eugene, OR 97440. CD-ROM.

Ahlenslager, K., and L. Potash. 2007. Conservation Assessment for 13 Species of Moonworts 

(Botrychium Swartz Subgenus Botrychium). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 

Akenson, H. A. 1993. Upland Sandpiper Habitat Use and Breeding Biology at Logan Valley and Marley 

Creek, Oregon. Progress Report. Unpublished report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

12 pp. 

Akenson, H. A. and T. Schommer. 1992. Upland sandpiper survey protocol for the Blue Mountains of 

Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, 

Oregon. 34 pp. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern 

Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy and Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight 

[Available online at 

http://community.gorge.net/natres/pif/con_plans/north_rocky/north_rocky_page1.htm 

Anderson P.D., Larson D.J., Chan S.S. 2007. Riparian buffer and density management influences on 

microclimate of you headwater forests of Western Oregon. Forest Science 53(2):254-269 

Asner, G., J. Elmore, L.Olander, R. Martin, and T. Harris. 2004. Grazing Systems, Ecosystem Responses, 

and Global Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2004.29: 261-299. 

Baker, B. W. and E. P. Hill. 2003. Beaver (Castor Canadensis). Pages 288-310 in G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. 

Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, editors. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, 

and Conservation. Second Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 

USA.

Bakker, J.D., F. Rudebusch, M.M. Moore. 2010. Effects of long-term livestock grazing and habitat on 

understory vegetation. Western North American Naturalist 70: 334-344. 

Barbe, G.Douglas. 1991. Characteristics of Noxious Weeds and their Ecological Impact. Oregon 

Interagency Noxious Weed Symposium Proceedings, December 1991. 

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, and W. C. Saunders. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate 

prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50:201-220. 

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest Structure and Prey Abundance in Foraging Areas of Northern 

Goshawks. Ecological Applications 7: 564-571. 

Belnap, J.; Kaltenecker, J.H.; Rosentreter, R.; Williams, J.; Leonard, S.; & Eldridge, D. 2001. Biological 

Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management, Printed Materials Distribution Center, BC-650-B, Box 25047, Denver, CO 80225-

0047. (www.soilcrust.org/crust.pdf) 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

324 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Belksy, A.J., A. Matzke and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431. 

Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal, 1997. “Effect of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils of 

upland forests on the Interior West”. Conservation Biology 11:314-327. 

Belsky, Joy A., J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. Oregon 

Natural Desert Association. Portland, OR. 2000. 

Bengeyfield, P. 2006. Managing cows with streams in mind. Rangelands 29(1):3-6. 

Bengeyfield, P. and D. Svoboda.1989 .Determining allowable use levels for livestock movement in 

riparian areas. Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources.

Bock, C. D. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University 

of California, Berkeley Publications in Zoology 92:1-100 

Borman, Michael M. 2004. “Forest Stand Dynamics and Livestock Grazing in Historical Context; 

Conservation Biology. 

Bosch, D., K. Stephenson, G. Groover, and B. Huthins. 2008. Farm returns to carbon credit creation with 

intensive rotational grazing. 11 October 2008. <http://www.jswconline.org/content/63/2/91> 

Bowers, W., P. Dupee’, M.L. Hanson, and R. Perkins. 1993. Bull Trout population summary Malheur 

River Basin. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. 

Boyd, C.S, and T.J. Svejcar. 2004. Regrowth and production of herbaceous riparian vegetation following 

defoliation. Journal of Range Management. 57:448-454. 

Bradford, D., F. Reed, R. Baird LeValley, C. Cambell, S. Kossler. 2002. Livestock Grazing on the 

National Forests-Why continue to do it? Rangelands V. 24, No.2. Pp 2-11, Moffitt, Christine M. 

2000 

Broadhead, Wade H. 1999 Cattle, Control, and Conservation. CRM Online, Vol. 22, No. 9. 

http://crm.cr.nps.gov/issue.cfm?volume=22&number-09. 

Brooks, P.J., K. Urban, E. Yates, C.G. Johnson. 1991. Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, 

and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. R6-WAW-TP-027-91, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

Brown, J., J. Thorpe. 2008. Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to Uncertainty. 

Rangelands June 2008, 3-6. 

Bryant LD, 1982. Livestock Response to Riparian Zone Exclusion. Journal of Range Management 35(6), 

780-785. 

Bryant LD, 1985. Livestock Management in Riparian Zones. p. 285-289. In: Johnson, RR; Ziebell, CD; 

Patton, DR; F Folliott, PF; Hamre, RH [tech. coord.1. Riparian ecosystems and their 

management: Reconciling conflicting uses. 16-18 April 1985. Tucson, AZ. USDA Forest Service. 

General Technical Report RM-120. 

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull trout. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 325

Buckhouse, John C., Robert W. Knight, and Jon M. Skovlin. 1979. Some erosional and water quality 

responses to selected animal grazing practices in northeastern Oregon. In Proc. of the Oregon 

Academy of Science-Volume XV, p. 13-22. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Buckhouse, John C., Jon M. Skovlin, end Robert W. Knight. 1981. Streambank erosion and ungulate 

grazing relationships. J. Range Manage. 34:339-340Buckman, R.C., W.E. Hosford, P.A. Dupee. 

1992. Malheur River bull trout investigations. Pages 45-57 in P.J. Howell and D.V. Buchanan, 

editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society

Budeau, David. 2013. Personal Communication. Upland Game Bird Coordinator, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. 

Bull, Evelyn L. 1987. Ecology of the Pileated Woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 51:472-481. 

Bull, Evelyn L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-640. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 46p. 

Bull, Evelyn L.; and J.A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Birds of North 

America no. 148: 1-24. 

Bull, Evelyn L., and R.S. Holthausen. 1992. Habitat Use and Management of Pileated Woodpeckers in 

Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345. 

Bull, Evelyn L., Asa D. Twombly, and Thomas M. Quigley. 1980. Perpetuating snags in managed mixed 

conifer forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. p. 325- 336. In Management of western forests 

and grasslands for nongame birds. Workshop Proceedings. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-86. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 

Bull, Evelyn L.; Deal, Jerry W.; Hohmann, Janet E. 2001. Avian and amphibian use of fenced and 

unfenced stock ponds in northeastern Oregon forests. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-539. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon 9 pages 

Bull, Evelyn L., Nicole Neilsen-Pincus, Barbara C. Wales, and Jane L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of 

disturbance vents on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management 243:320-329. 

Bull, Evelyn L., S. R. Peterson, J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Res. Note. PNW-444. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 p.

Burkhardt J.W., 1997. Grazing Utilization Limits: An Ineffective Management Tool 

Burton, Sue. 2012. Personal Communication. Range Specialist, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur 

National Forest. Prairie City, Oregon.

Burton, Sue. 2013. Personal Communication. Range Specialist, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur 

National Forest. Prairie City, Oregon. 

Burton, T.A and Cowley E.R. 2010. Multiple Indicator Monitoring Report for: Prairie City Ranger 

District
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

326 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator 

monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. 

BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp. 

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283–296 

in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables, and 

fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 

Campbell, Thomas M., III. 1979. Short-term effects of timber harvests on Pine Marten Ecology. Fort 

Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. M. S. Thesis. 71 pp. 

Carex Working Group. 2012. Summit Creek Ecological Inventory. Final unpublished report submitted to 

USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. USDA FS Agreement #11-CS11060404-016. 32 p. 

Carlson, G. 1974. Malheur National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. John Day, OR. 

Chaney, E., W. Elmore and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. Produced 

for EPA by Northwest Resource Information Center. Inc., Eagle, Idaho. 44pp. 

Chaney, E., W. Elmore and W. S. Platts. 1993. Managing Change: Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian 

Areas. Produced for EPA by Northwest Resource Information Center. Inc., Eagle, Idaho. 44pp. 

Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow TR, Naiman RJ, Brosfske KD, Mroz GD, Brookshire BL, Franklin JF. 1999. 

Microclimate in Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Ecology. BioScience 49(4):288-297. 

Chen, S., G. Lin, J. Huang, and M. He. 2008. Responses to soil respiration to stimulated precipitation 

pulses in semiarid steppe under different grazing regimes. Journal of Plant Ecology September 

2008: 1-10. 

Chew, M.K. 1991 Bank Balance: Managing Colorado’s Riparian Areas. Colorado State University 

Cooperative Extension Bulletin 553b, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Chimner, R.A. and D.J. Cooper. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in Rocky Mountain fens. Wetlands 

22: 100-110. 

Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows. J. Range 

Management 48, 18-25 

Clary, W. P. 1996. Riparian Plant Regrowth-Maybe Not as Much as You Think!

Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. Journal of Range 

Management 52(3):218-227. 

Clary, W.P. and Kinney J., 2002. Streambank and Vegetation Response to Simulated Cattle Grazing. 

Clary, W.P and C. I. Thorton. and S.R. Abt. 1996. Riparian stubble height and recovery of degraded 

streambanks. Rangelands. 18(4). 4p.

Clary, W.P and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. Journal 

of Range Management. 53 (6): 563-573. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 327

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. 

General Technical Report INT-263. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian grazing guidelines for the Intermountain Region. 

Rangelands. 12(4):209-212. 

Cobb, L. 1997. Diurnal Breeding Birds in Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Communities on the Malheur 

National Forest, 1997. A summary report to the Malheur National Forest. Prairie City, OR. Grant 

County Bird Club. 22 p. in Swanson, D. K., C. L. Schmitt, D. M. Shirley, V. Erickson, K. J. 

Schuetz, M. L. Tatum, D. C. Powell. 2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and 

Management in the Blue Mountains. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-806. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 117 pages. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. United States Government Printing Office. 

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, K. M. Stewart, and J. G. Kie. 2005. Spatial and Temporal Interactions of Elk, 

Mule Deer, and Cattle. In Wisdom, M. J. technical editor, The Starkey Project: A Synthesis of 

Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer. Reprinted from the Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence, Kansas. 

USA

Conant, R., Paustian, K. 2000. The Effects of Grazing Management on Soil Carbon (Carbon 

Sequestration). Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University. 

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. L. Erwin. 2004. 

Effects of Summer-Autumn Nutrition and Parturition Date on Reproduction and Survival of Elk. 

Wildlife Monograph 155:1-61. 

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. 

Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M. K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. L. Copeland, R. E. Yates, I. 

Kojola, and R. May. 2010. The Bioclimatic Envelope of the Wolverine (Gulo gulo): Do Climatic 

Constraints limit its Geographic Distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology 88: 233-246 (2010). 

Corenblit, D. E. Tabacchi, J. Steiger, and A. M. Gurnell 2007. Reciprocal interactions and adjustments 

between fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: a review of complementary 

approaches Earth Science Reviews 84:56-86 

Coulloudon, B. et al. 1999. Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Technical Reference 1734-4, Bureau of Land 

Management. Denver, Colorado. 

Couture, Marilyn. 1978 Recent and Contemporary Foraging Practices of Harney Valley Pauite. M.A. 

Thesis, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 

Couture, Marilyn. 1996 Ethnographic Survey of the Burns Paiute, Volume I. Report on file at the Malheur 

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, John Day, OR. 

Cowley, E.R. 2002. Guidelines for establishing allowable levels of streambank alteration. Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office. March. 12 p. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

328 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Crowe, E.A. and Clausnitzer, R.R. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Tech. Pap. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 299 p. 

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas 

of Oregon Wildlife, Distribution, Habitat and Natural History. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

David, Robert. 2004 Logan Valley Spring Development CRIS MNF646-04/166. Report on file at Malheur 

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, John Day, OR. 

Davis, J.W. 1982. Livestock and riparian habitat management -- why not? In: Western proceedings, 62nd 

annual conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 19-22 July 1982. 

Las Vegas, NV.

Davis, R. J. 2010. Johnson’s hairstreak surveys in Oregon and Washington (2009). Unpublished report. 

On file with Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). USDA Forest 

Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Available Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Grasshopper 

Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 28 pages. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Bobolink. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/bobo/bobo.htm 

Dechant, J. A., M.F. Dinkins, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, B.D. Parkin, and B.R. Euliss. 1999 

(revised 2002). Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Upland Sandpiper. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. 34 pages.

DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and 

rangeland birds of the United States natural history and habitat use. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/forest/index.htm. (Version 03NOV98). 

Demmer, Rick, and R. L. Beschta. 2008. Recent History (1988-2004) of Beaver Dams along Bridge 

Creek in Central Oregon. Northwest Science, 82 (4): 309-318. 

Derner, J., G.Schuman, M. Jawson, S. Shafer, J. Morgan, H. Polley, G. Runion, S. Prior, H. Torbert, H. 

Rogers, J. Bunce, L. Ziska, J. White, A. Franzleubbers, J.Reeder, R. Venterea, and L. Harper. 

2005. USDA-ARS Global Change Research on Rangelands and Pasturelands. Rangelands 

October 2005: 36-42. 

Derner, J., T. Boutton, and D. Briske. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the North American 

Great Plains. Plant and Soil Journal 280:77-90. 

DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Risk analysis of various weed control methods. Proc. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant 

Counc. Symp. 3:34–39. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 329

Dixon, Rita D. 1995. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. M.S. Thesis, 

University of Idaho, Moscow. 148 pp. 

Drut, M., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Technical Note: Diets and Food Selection of Sage Grouse 

Chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:90-93 

Dudley, J. G. and V. A. Saab. 2007. Home range size of black-backed woodpeckers in burned forests of 

southwestern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 67(4), 593-600. 

Dudley, Jonathan G. 2005. Home range size and foraging habitat of black-backed woodpeckers. MS 

Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID. 88 pp. 

 Duff, D.A. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. p. 129-142. In: J.W. 

Menke (ed.). Proc. of the Workshop on Livestock and Wildlife-Fisheries Relationships in the 

Great Basin. Univ. of Calif. Div. of Agr. Sci, Berkeley, Calif.

Dunham, Jason B.; Rieman, Bruce; Chandler, Gwyenne 2001. Development of field- based models of 

suitable thermal regimes for interior Columbia Basin salmonids. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Final Report RMRS-00-IA11222014-527. 79p. 

Ebersole, J. L., W. J. Liss, and C. A. Frissel 2001. Relationship between stream temperature, thermal 

refugia and rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams in the 

northwestern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10:1-10 

Elmore, Wayne. 2007. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Report, USFA Contract 

#AG04KKC050019 for the Malheur National Forest. Full Stream Consulting 

Erickson, M.L. 1906. Report Blue Mountain Forest Reserve (E). USDA Forest Service.

Farrar D. and C. Johnson-Groh. 2004. Moonwort (Botrychium) Workshop Handbook, with Special 

Emphasis on the ESA Candidate, Slender Moonwort (Botrychium lineare). US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Sawtooth National Forest. 

Fellman, J., E. Franz, C. Crenshaw, D. Elston. 2008. Global estimates of soil carbon sequestration via 

livestock waste: a STELLA simulation. Environmental Development and Sustainability DOI 

10.1007/s10668-008-9157-0. 

Ferguson, H. and J. M. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid Bat – Antrozous pallidus. Volume V: Mammals. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, USA. 

Findholt, S. L., B. K. Johnson, D. Damiran, T. Delcurto, and J. G. Kie. 2005. Diet Composition, Dry 

Matter Intake, and Diet Overlap of Mule Deer, Elk, and Cattle. In Wisdom, M. J. technical editor, 

The Starkey Project: A Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer. Reprinted from the 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Alliance 

Communication Group, Lawrence, Kansas. USA 

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and J. Haggarty. 1979 Trampling as an Agent in the Formation of Edge Damage: An 

Experiment in Lithic Technology. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 13, 208-214. 

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2007. Flora of North America, Volumes 1-28 

(published). Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

330 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Freegood, Julia. 2002. “Cost of Community Services Studies: Making the Case for Conservation.” 

American Farmland Trust, Washington, 2002, pg. i. 

Freel, M. 1991. A Literature Review for Management of the Marten and the Fisher in California: 

Unpublished Document, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

Frenzel, R.W. 2004. Nest-site occupancy, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed 

woodpeckers in the Oregon Cascade Mountains in 2004. Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service, 

Portland, OR. Unpubl. Rept. 35 pp. 

Galen, C. 1989. A preliminary assessment of the status of the Lewis' woodpecker in Wasco County, 

Oregon. Tech. Rep. 88-3-01. Oregon Dep. Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Program. 22 p. 

Ganjegunte, G., G. Vance, C. Preston. G. Schuman, L. Ingram, P. Stahl, and J. Welker. 2005. Soil Organic 

Carbon Composition in a Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie: Effects of Grazing. Soil Science Society 

of America 69:1746-1756. 

Goggans, Rebecca. 1986. A Preliminary Assessment of the Ecology of Three-Toed Woodpeckers During 

A Breeding Season, East Slope Cascade Mountain Range, Oregon. Nongame Project Number 86-

3-05, ODFW. 

Goggans, Rebecca, R. D. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1987. Habitat use by Three-toed and Black-backed 

Woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Unpublished Report, ODWF, Nongame 

Project Number 87-3-02. 

Goggans, Rebecca, R. D. Dixon, L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Rpt. 87-3-02. Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR. 49 pp. 

Goodman, Linda. 2006 Grazing Allotment Review Strategy for Section 106 Compliance, which 

implements the Regional Forester policy letter of May 19, 2006, “Grazing Permit Reauthorization 

and National Historic Preservation Act”. MS on file at Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, John Day, Oregon. 

Grinder, Dave, D. Harris, E. Boshell, J. Bayer, J. Staats, S. Robertson, D. Kary, P. Summers, J. Stenten, 

M. Jacklin, M. Molyneux, R. Rine, 1995. A Comprehensive Literature Review of the Effects of 

Livestock Grazing on Natural Resources. USDA Forest Service. Dixie National Forest.

Haferkamp, M., M. Macneil. 2004. Grazing Effects on Carbon Dynamics in the Northern Mixed-Grass 

Prairie. 2004. Environmental Management 33(1):S462-474. 

Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, 

Oregon. USA.

Hagen, C. A. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bend, 

Oregon. 

Hall, Fredrick C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, R6 Area Guide Volume 3-1. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 331

Hall, Frederick C. 2005. Emigrant Creek Cattle Allotment: Lessons from 30 Years of Photomonitoring. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-639. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 37 pages. 

Hall, Frederick C. and Larry Bryant. 1995. Herbaceous Stubble Height as a Warning of Impending Cattle 

Damage to Riparian Areas. US Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-362. 10pgs. 

Hansen, D.J.; Ostler, W.K; & Hall, D.B. 1999. The transition from Mohave Desert to Great Basin Desert 

on the Nevada Test Site. Proc. RMRS-P-11, pp.148-158. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. 

Research Sta., Ogden, UT 

Harrelson, Cheryl C., C.L. Rawlins, & John P. Potyondy, 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an 

illustrated guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, 61p. 

Hawley, V.D. and F.E. Newbry. 1957. Marten Home Ranges and Fluctuations in Montana. Journal of 

Mammalogy 38: 174-184. 

Haynes, R.W.; Horne, A. L. 1997. An assessment of economic conditions in the Interior Columbia River 

basin. Report to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (not paged)

Heitke, J.D., R.C. Henderson, B.B. Roper, and E.K. Archer. 2008. Evaluating livestock grazing use with 

streambank alteration protocols: Challenges and solutions. Rangeland Ecology and Management 

61:647-655. 

Heitschmkdt R., Sanders K.D., Smith E. L., Laycock W. A., Rasmussen G.A., Skinner Q.D., Hall F.C., 

Lindenmuth R., Van Tassell L.W., Richardson J.W., Fletcher R.R., Borden G.W., Harris T.R., 

Taylor D.T., Moline B.R., and Krueger W.C., 1998. Stubble Height and Utilization 

Measurements: Uses and Misuses.

Hellquist, C., E.W., Hamilton III, M. Thorne, D. Frank, 2007. The influence of simulated grazing on 

carbon exchange processes and microbial communities in Yellowstone National Park grasslands. 

Poster presented as part of the Ecological Restoration Association / Society of Ecological 

Restoration Joint Meeting, San Jose, California, 5-10 August 2007.

Henderson, D., B. Ellert, and A. Naeth. 2004. Grazing and soil carbon along a gradient of Alberta 

rangelands. Journal of Range Management 57(4):402-410. 

Henjum et al. 1994. Interim Protection for Late Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds: National 

Forests East Of The Cascades Crest, Oregon and Washington In: Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, 

and A.L. Contreras (editors). 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis, OR. 768pp. 

Herman, S. G., J. W. Scoville, and S. G. Waltcher. 1985. The upland sandpiper in Bear Valley and Logan 

Valley, Grant County, Oregon. Unpubl. Rep. 24 pp. 

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle, WA.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

332 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Hoffman Black, S., and L. Lauvray. 2005. Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly (Callophrys johnsoni) Species 

Fact Sheet. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) webpage. USDA

Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Available Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Holechek, J.L: Vavra, M; Skovlin, J. 1982. Cattle diet and daily grains on a mountain riparian meadow in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 35(6), 745-747. 

Holechek, J.L; Berry, T.J; Vavra, M. 1987. Grazing system influences on cattle performance on maintain 

range. Journal of Range Management 40(I), 55-59. 

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range Management: Principles and Practices. 

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 

Hook P. B. 2003. Sediment Retention in Rangeland Riparian buffer. 

Horne, Stephen and Janine McFarland. 1993 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Cultural Resources. USDA 

Forest Service Heritage Resources Program, Los Padres National Forest, Santa Barbara, CA.

Houston, C. S., C. R. Jackson, and D. E Bowen, Jr. 2011. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/580 Accessed 

03/11/2013. 

Hupp, C., and W. Osterkamp. 1996. Riparian Vegetation and fluvial geomorphology processes. 

Geomorphology 14:277-295 

Hurd, E.G., N.L. Shaw, J. Mastrogiuseppe,L.C. Smithman, and S. Goodrich. 1998. Field Guide to 

Intermountain Sedges. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-10, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Hutto, R. L. 1998. Using landbirds as an indicator species group. Pp. 75-92 in Marzluff, J. M., and R. 

Sallabanks (eds.), Avian conservation: Research and Management. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 

Ingram, L., P. Stahl, G. Schuman, J. Buyer, G. Vance, G. Ganjegunte, J. Welker, J. Derner. 2007. Grazing 

Impacts on Soil Carbon and Microbial Communities in a Mixed-Grass Ecosystem. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal 72(4):939-948. 

Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 2012. Species conservation documents 

and fact sheets [http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/], accessed March 2012. USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Region and USDI Bureau of Land Management Washington and 

Oregon. 

IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use 

Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0 

IPCC 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate 

Change 2007, Synthesis Report, section 2, Causes of Change, 2007. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 

3 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html 

Jackle, Greg. 2012. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. John Day, Oregon. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 333

Jakober, M. J. 1995. Autumn and winter movement and habitat use of resident bull trout and westslope 

cutthroat trout in Montana. Master’s thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman.

Jakober, Michael J., Thomas E. McMahon, Russell F. Thurow & Christopher G. Clancy. 1998. Role of 

Stream Ice on Fall and Winter Movements and Habitat Use by Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout in 

Montana Headwater Streams, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127:2, 223-235 

Janzen, Daniel H. 1984. Dispersal of Small Seeds by Big Herbivores: Foliage is the Fruit. The American 

Naturalist 123.3 (1984) : 338-353. 

Johnson, C.G., Jr. Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. R6-

ERW-TP-036-92. Baker City, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, WallowaWhitman National Forest. 207 p. 

Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Swanson, D.K. 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains: a guide for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 641. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 119 p. 

Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kaltenecker, J.H.; Wicklow-Howard, M.C.; & Rosentreter, R. 1999. Biological soil crusts in three 

sagebrush communities recovering from a century of livestock trampling. Proc. RMRS-P-11, 

pp.222-226. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Research Sta., Ogden, UT

Karhu, R. 2004 (revised). Fencing Guidelines for Wildlife. Habitat Extension Services, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department. Habitat Extension Bulletin No. 53. 12 pages. 

Kauffman, J.B.; Bayley, P.; Li, H.; McDowell, P.; & Beschta, R.L. 2002. Final Report, Research/Evaluate 

Restoration of NE Oregon Streams: Effects of livestock exclosures (corridor fencing) on riparian 

vegetation, stream geomorphic features, and fish populations. Report submitted from Oregon 

State Univ. and Univ. of Oregon to Bonneville Power Administration in fulfillment of contract 

nos. 000 00 122 & 000 00 121-00001; project nos. 2000-051-00 & 2000-051-01 

Kauffman, J.B; Thorpe, A.S.; Brookshire, E.N.J. 2004. Livestock exclusion and belowground ecosystem 

responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:1671-1679. 

Kawaguchi, Y., and S. Nakano. 2001. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to the annual resource 

budget for salmonids in forest and grassland reaches of a headwater stream. Freshwater Biology 

46:303-316. 

Kaylor, C. 2003. Urban and rural: The economy of the two Oregons. Oregon Employment Department 

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [accessed June 2012] 

Keyser, James D., Thomas L. Burge, and Dorothy M. Fleming. 1988 Management Strategy For Treatment 

of Lithic Scatter Sites. Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 7. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

334 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Kindschy, R. R. 1985. Response of Red Willow to Beaver Use in Southeastern Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 49(1):26-28. 

Kline, Jeffrey D. 2001. Tourism and Natural Resource Management: A General Overview of Research 

and Issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-506. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.19 p. 

Knapp, A.K; T. R. Seastedt, 1986. Detritus Accumulation Limits Productivity of Tallgrass Prairie.

BioScience, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 662-668. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1310387 

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 1996, Livestock grazing, golden trout, and streams in the Golden Trout 

Wilderness, California: Impacts and management implications. North Amer. 3. Fish. Manage. 

16:805-820. 

Knight RL. Gilgert WC. Marston E. Ranching West of the 100th Meridian: Culture, Ecology, and 

Economics. 2002. Washington, DC: Island Pr. 196p. 

Kohrman, Elaine B. 2003. Recovery Efforts 2002 Fires-Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Social 

and Economic Conditions. John Day, Oregon: USDA, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in Stream Channel Adjustment to Livestock Exclosure, White Mountains, 

California. Restoration Ecology, Dec. 1993, p. 226 - 230. 

Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of Cattle Grazing Systems on Willow Dominated Plant 

Associations in Central Oregon. Symposium on Ecology and Managment of Riparian Shrubs 

Communities, Sun Valley, ID, May 29-31, 1991. p.111-119. 

Kranich, Cynthia. 2013. Personal communication on February 22, 2013 regarding freshwater mussel 

surveys conducted in 2012 on selected reaches of the Upper John Day River, North Fork Malheur, 

Little Malheur, and Upper Malheur River Basins with Cynthia Kranich. Blue Mountain Ranger 

District Wildlife Biologist.

Kranich, Cynthia. 2012. Wildlife Biologist, Malheur National Forest. John Day, Oregon 

Krueger, W. C. 1983. Cattle grazing in managed forests. In: Forestland grazing symposium: 1983 

February 23-25; Spokane, WA 14 p. 

Lacey J., Wallander, R. and Olson-Rutz, K. 1992. Recovery, Germinability, and Viability of Leafy Spurge 

(Euphorbia esula) Seeds Ingested by Sheep and Goats. Weed Technology 6: pg. 599-602. 

Larkins, Autumn. 2013. Personal Communication. Asst. District Wildlife Biologist. Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. 

LeCain, D., J. Morgan, G. Schuman, J. Reeder, and R. Hart. 2002. Carbon exchange and species 

composition of grazed pastures and exclosures in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado. Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment 93: 421-435. 

Lennox, S., M., David J. Lewis, Randall D. Jackson, John Harper, Stephanie Larson, and Kenneth W. 

Tate. 2009. Development of Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat in Restored Riparian Sites of 

California’s North Coast Rangelands 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 335

Li, Z., S. Liu, Z. Tan. 2007. Spatially Explicit Modeling of Grazing Effects on Soil Organic Carbon 

Change in the Green River Basin, Wyoming. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, 

abstract #B23C-1508. 

Logsdon, Robert L.1976 Flake Damage and Dispersion Produced by Cattle: A Report of a Field 

Experiment. Unpublished Paper, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western 

Washington State College.

Lucas, Richard W., T.T. Baker, M.K. Wood, C.D. Allison, 2004. Riparian vegetation response to different 

intensities and seasons of grazing

Magilligan, FJ and PF McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustment following the elimination of cattle 

grazing. JAWRA, 33(4): 867 – 878. 

Manley, J. G. Schuman, J. Reeder, R. Hart. 1995. Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to 

grazing. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 50:294-297. 

Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1995. Riparian Community Type Classification for Humboldt and 

Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada and Eastern California. USDA Forest Service Intermountain 

Region R4-Ecol-95-01 

Marshall, D.B. 1988. Petition to list the upland sandpiper as a threatened species in Oregon. Unpublished 

report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 40 pp.

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (editors). 2003, 2006. Birds of Oregon: a general 

reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768pp. 

Marzluff, J. M., and R. Sallabanks. Eds. 1998. Avian Conservation: Research and Management. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Masters, Robert A., R.L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and Practices for Managing Rangeland Invasive Plants. 

Journal of Range Management, Vol. 54, No. 5 (Sep., 2001), pp. 502-517. 

McKelvey, K.S., J.P. Copeland, M.K. Schwartz, J.S. Littell, K B. Aubry, J.R. Squires, S.A. Parks, M.M. 

Elsner, and G.S. Mauger. 2011. Climate Change Predicted to Shift Wolverine Distributions, 

Connectivity, and Dispersal Corridors. Ecological Applications 21:2882-2897. 

Mellen-McLean, Kim. 2011. MIS information sheets: American Marten; Pileated Woodpecker; Cavity 

Nesters. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

Mellmann-Brown, S., and J.H. Rausch. 2010. Inventory and Monitoring Report of the Logan Valley Fen 

Complex, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. Implementation of the Inventory 

and Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol 

for Springs and Groundwater Dependent Wetlands. USDA Forest Service. 

Miller, J. C., and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of Pacific Northwest Forests and 

Woodlands: Rare, Endangered, and Management-Sensitive Species. Forest Health Technology 

Enterprise Team. FHTET-2006-07. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 234 p. 

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands, fourth edition. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New 

Jersey.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

336 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Montana Field Guide: Fringed Myotis – Myotis thysanodes. Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC01090.aspx 

Montana Field Guide: Pallid Bat – Antrozous pallidus. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC10010.aspx 

Montana Field Guide: Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii. Montana Natural Heritage 

Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Retrieved June, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC08010.aspx 

Mosgrove, Jerry L. 1980. The Malheur National Forest: An Ethnographic History. USDA, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 

Mosley F., Cook P., Griffis A., and O’Laughlin 1997. Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian 

Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best Management Practices Policy.

Nakano, Shigeru, and M. Murakami. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence between 

terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2001 January 2; 98 (1) 166-170. 

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 2008. 

Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Project. 2004. National Visitor Use Monitoring Project. Final Pub June 

2004 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Project. January 2009. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2007. Manure Chemistry – Nitrogen, Phosphorus, & Carbon. 

Manure Management Technology Development Team East National Technology Support Center. 

Manure Management Information Sheet, Number 7. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006. Grazing and Grassland Management Can Improve Air 

Quality Through Carbon Sequestration. NRCS Grazing and Carbon Sequestration Fact Sheet 1, 

NRCS Pennsylvania August 2006. 

Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). 2012. Database for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Plant (TESP) species. USDA Forest Service. Queried January 2012, J.H. Rausch. 

NatureServe. 2010, 2011, 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life {web application}. 

Accessed several species. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed: June 5, 2012 ). 

Nedeau, Ethan J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific 

Northwest, 2nd edition. The Xerces Society. Portland, OR. 

Neitzel,Duane and Terrence J. Frest, 1990. Survey of Columbia River Basin Streams for Columbia 

Pebblesnail and Shortface Lanx. Fisheries 15(2). 1990: pp. 2-3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 337

Norman H. Steggell, Malheur National Forest June 1985 revised 1988 Cultural Resource Management: A 

Handbook. 

Northwest Area Foundation website: 

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?IndicatorID=14&FIPS=41023 

Obermiller, F.W. 1992. Special Report 903. Costs Incurred by Permittees in Grazing Cattle on Public and 

Private Rangelands and Pastures in Eastern Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service. 

Pp.9-17. 

Olson, R.W., Jr., E.G. Schreiner, and L. Parker. 1991. Management of exotic plants in Olympic National 

Opperman, J. J., and A. M Merenlender. 2004. The effectiveness of riparian restoration for improving 

instream fish habitat in four hardwood dominated California streams. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 24:822-834 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2010. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of 

Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 105 pp. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2013. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2013. Salem, 

OR. 2013. 

Oregon Department of Employment. 2001. Eastern Oregon Labor Trends. Salem, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2010. John Day River Basin Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). November 2010. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Malheur River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). September 2010. State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2013. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

February 2003 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/PDFs/Elk%20Planfinal.PDF 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status Report. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Division. 3406 Cherry Avenue N.E. Salem, OR. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/. Accessed March 12, 2012. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005; updated 2010. Oregon Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan. 189 pp. Portland, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Bull Trout Spawning Survey Report 2008. 21 p. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010, 2011, 2012. Personal communication with biologists R. 

Torland, G. Jackle, John Day, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Bull Trout Spawning Survey Report 2009. 23 p. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Bull Trout Spawning Survey Report 2010. 21 p. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Bull Trout Spawning Survey Report 2011. 19 p. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

338 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Oregon Hunter Association. 2012. Oregon Hunter Association volunteers, personal communication. 

Capital Chapter, Salem Oregon.

Osborn, Alan, Susan Vetter, Ralph Hartley, Laurie Walsh and Hesslyn Brown. 1987 Impacts of Domestic 

Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. 

Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 20. 

Owensby, C., J. Ham, and L. Auen. 2006. Fluxes of CO2 from grazed and ungrazed tallgrass prairie. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:111-127. 

Paige, C. 2008. A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence with Wildlife in 

Mind. Landowner/Wildlife Resource Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, 

Montana. 44 pages. 

Park. DATE. In-house report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, National Register of 

Historic Places, Washington D.C.

Patterson, L. and D.J. Cooper. 2007. The use of hydrologic and ecological indicators for restoration of 

drainage ditches and water diversions in a mountain fen, Cascade Range, California. Wetlands 27: 

290-304. 

Pearce, R.A. 1998. a. Sediment filtration in a montane riparian zone under simulated rainfall. 

Pearce, R.A. 1998. b. Sediment movement through riparian vegetation under simulated rainfall and 

overland flow. 

Pengilly, L. 2007. Cow/Calf Operations and Greenhouse Gases. Section 4: Manure Management. Alberta 

Agriculture and Food Ag-Info Centre. 

Petersen, S. 1997. Status of the wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta - Alberta 

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 2. 17 pp. 

Platts, W.S. 1984. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies within riparian –stream systems. P. 67-74. 

In: Bedell,TE [ed.j. Proceedings of 1984 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 

Range watersheds, riparian zones and economics: Interrelationships in management and use. 25-

27 January 1984. Pendleton, OR. Oregon State University Corvallis, OR. 

Platts,W.S. 1984. Determining and evaluating riparian-stream enhancement needs and fish response. 

p.181-190. In: Hassler,TJ fed.]. Pacific Northwest stream habitat management workshop. 10-12 

October 1984. Arcata, CA. Humboldt State University. 

Platts,W.S. 1984. Progress in range riparian-stream research at the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. p.78-84. In: Proceedings of the Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society. 8-9 February 1984. Logan, UT. 

Platts, W.S. and R.F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of Grazing on Wetlands and Riparian Habitat. In: 

Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management, National Research Council/National 

Academy of Sciences: 1105-1117. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 339

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leopnard, B. Mitchell, and J. 

Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management TR 1737-15. A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition Under the Supporting Sciences for Lotic Areas. National Business Center, 

BC-650B, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, Colorado. 

Pritchard, D., W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, and C. Noble. 1999. 

Riparian Area Management – A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Technical Reference 1737-16. USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Denver, CO. 109 p.

Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide. 1991. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Columbia Basins. US Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service , Pacific Northwest Research Station (Portland, OR) 1991 

Quigley, Thomas M., S.J. Arbelbide (technical editors). 1997. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Volume II, pages784-785. 

Raish, C., A.M. McSweeney. 2003. Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching on the 

Espanola and the Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests: A Pilot 

Study. USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-113. Pp 1. 

Rausch, Joseph H. 2009. Background information on the Logan Valley Fen Complex, and Comments and 

concerns regarding the Logan Valley Fen / Wetland Complex. Unpublished reports submitted to 

the Prairie City District Ranger.

Rausch, Joseph H. 2012. Addendum to Summit Creek Ecological Inventory: Synthesis and Summary of 

Findings. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. 

Reames, Clark. 2012, 2013. Personal Communication. Forest Wildlife Biologist, Malheur National 

Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

Reeder, J., G. Schuman, J. Morgan, D. LeCain, R. Hart. 2004. Impact of grazing management strategies 

on carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangeland, USA. Presented at the Proceedings of the XIX 

International Grassland Congress, 2001. 

Reid, Kenneth C., John A. Draper and Peter E,. Wigand. 1989 Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of the 

Silvies Plateau, Harney Basin, Southwestern Oregon. Pullman, WA: Center for Northwestern 

Anthropology, Washington State University.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. 

Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the 

Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech, Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp. 

Roberson, Emily. 1996 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Soils and Recommendations for Management. 

California Native Plant Society. http://www.cnps.org/archives/letters/soils.pdf

Rodhouse, T. J. 2012. Personal Communication. Ecologist, Upper Columbia Basin Inventory & 

Monitoring Network. USDI, National Park Service, John Day, Oregon. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

340 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Roney, John. 1977 Livestock and Lithics: The Effects of Trampling on a Lithic Scatter. Winnemucca 

District, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Rose, C.L., Marcot, B.G., Mellen, T.K., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K.L., Lindley, D.L., and B. Schreiber. 

2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for Habitat Management, 

Chapter 24, in Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson, DH, and TA 

O’Neil. 2001. OSU Press). 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for 

Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western 

United States. GTR RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 

Rydin, H and Jeglum, J. 2009. The biology of Peatlands. Oxford University Press 

Saab, V.A., and T.D. Rich. 1997. Large Scale Conservation Assessment for Neotropical Migratory Land 

Birds in the Interior Columbia River Basin. GTR PNW-GTR-399, USDA Forest Service, PNW 

Station, Portland, OR, (Quigley, T.M., ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project: Scientific Assessment).

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 

Saunders, W. C. 2006. Improved grazing management increases terrestrial invertebrate inputs that feed 

trout in Wyoming rangeland streams. M.S. Thesis. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation 

Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Saunders, W. C., and K. D. Fausch. 2007. Improved Grazing Management Increases Terrestrial 

Invertebrate Inputs that Feed Trout in Wyoming Rangeland Streams. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 136:1216-1230. 

Scheuering, E. 2006. Columbia Clubtail Dragonfly (Gomphus lynnae) Species Fact Sheet. Interagency 

Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) webpage. USDA Forest Service/USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Available Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Schommer, T. and B. Johnson. 2003. Analysis of Elk Statistics 1965-2001. Wallowa, Wenaha-Snake, and 

Umatilla-Whitman Provinces. 

Schuman, G., H. Janzen, and J. Herrick. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration 

by rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116:391-396. 

Schwabe, L. Burns Piaute Tribe, personal communication 

Scoville, J. W. 1990. Status of upland sandpipers in Oregon. LaGrande: Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 1990. Nongame Wildlife Proj. No. 87-5-01. 31 pp. 

Scoville, J.W. 1991. 1991 Census of upland sandpipers of Grant, Umatilla, and Union countiew, Oregon. 

LaGrande: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1991. Nongame Wildlife Proj. No. 91-4-05. 

14pp. 

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Avian Population Trends in the Pacific Northwest. Bird Populations 3:26-45. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 341

Sharrow, S. 2008. Trading Carbon Sequestion and Carbon Credits. Department of Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. The Grazier, December 2008 2-7. 

Sheley, Roger L. 1994. The Identification, Distribution, Impacts, Biology and Management of Noxious 

Rangeland Weeds, October, 1994. Sponsored by the USDA-Eastside Ecosystem Management 

Project. 

Sheley, Roger L., B.E. Olson, and L.L. Larson. 1997. Effect of weed seed rate and grass defoliation level 

on diffuse knapweed. Journal of Range Management 50: 39-43. 

Sheley, Roger L., J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. OSU Press, 

Corvallis, OR 1999. 

Sheley, Roger L., M. Manoukian, G. Marks. 2002. Preventing Noxious Weed Invasion. Montana State 

University Extension Service. MT199517 AG 8/2002. 

Shields, D. J., I. M. Martin, W. E. Martin, and M. A. Haefele. 2002. Survey results of the American 

public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and grasslands: A technical 

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-95, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Shrestha G., P. Stahl. 2008. Carbon accumulation and storage in semi-arid sagebrush steppe: Effects of 

long-term grazing exclusion. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 125(2008): 173-181. 

Skinner, Q.D. 1998. Stubble height and function of riparian communities. In: Stubble Height and 

Utilization Measurements: Uses and Misuses. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State 

University. Station Bulletin 682. 72 p. 

Skovlin, Jon M. 1984. Impacts of Grazing on Wetlands and Riparian Habitat: A Review of Our 

Knowledge. In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management, National Research 

Council/National Academy of Sciences: 1001-1103. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 

Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, S. Barker, W. Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, S. Williams, and J. 

Dyess. 2007. Principle of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Rangelands, The 

University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Tucson, Arizona.

Stagliano, David M., George M. Stephens, and William R. Bosworth 2007. Aquatic Invertebrate Species 

of Concern on USFS Northern Region Lands. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Northern 

Region By: Montana Natural Heritage Program Natural Resource Information System Montana 

State Library and Idaho Conservation Data Center Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Stavi, I., E. Ungar, H. Lavee, and P. Sarah. 2008. Grazing-induced spatial variability of soil bulk density 

and content of moisture, organic carbon and calcium carbonate in semi-arid rangeland. Cantena 

75(3):288-296. 

Steinfeld, H., T. Wassenaar. 2007. The Role of Livestock Production in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles. 

Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:271-94 

Stenguer, J., J. Brown, J. Thorpe. 2008. Contributing to the Mitigation of Climate Change Using 

Rangeland Management. Rangelands June 2008, 7-11.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

342 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Streater, S. 2009. “Climate Change: Interest grows in use of ranchland in fight against warming” 

Environment and Energy Daily, E&E Publishing LLC. 8 January 2009. <http:// 

http://www.eenews.net/ll/2009/01/08/> 

Suphan, Robert J. 1974 Ethnological Report on the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse Indians. In Oregon 

Indians II, pp. 88-182. Garland, New York and London. 

Svejar, T., R. Angell, J.Bradford, W. Dugus, W. Emmerick, A. Frank, T. Gilmanov, M. Haferkamp, D. 

Johnson, H. Mayeux, P. Meilnick, J. Morgan, N. Saliendra, G. Shuman, P. Sims, and K. Snyder. 

2008. Carbon Fluxes on North American Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 

62(5): 465-473. 

Swanson, D. K., C. L. Schmitt, D. M. Shirley, V. Erickson, K. J. Schuetz, M. L. Tatum, D. C. Powell. 

2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and Management in the Blue Mountains. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-806. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 117 pages. 

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2008. Contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to yearly brook trout prey 

consumption and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:224-235. 

Taylor, D.A.R; M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Water for Wildlife. A Handbook for Ranchers and Range Managers. 

Bat Conservation International. 17 pages. 

(see Coulloudon, 1999) Thomas, J.W., Tech. Ed. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest of the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Ag. Handbook No. 553, USDA, in cooperation with: 

Wildlife Management Institute, USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Thomas, Suzanne. 1991 Malheur National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan. USDA, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day, Oregon.

Thompson, T.L., Deputy Chief Letter to: Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF 

Director, and WO Staff. Subject: Grazing Allotment National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Analysis. May 6, 2004. 

Thurber, J. M., R. O. Peterson, T. D. Drummer and S. A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray Wolf Response to 

Refuge Boundaries and Roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), 

pp. 61-68 

Trimble, Stanley W. and Alexandra C. Mendel. 1995 The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent – A Critical 

Review. Geomorphology 13, 233-253. 

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/floodplain_ecology/pdf%20files/papers/Trible%20&%20Mendel_199

5.pdf 

University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team. 2004. University of Idaho stubble height study report. 

University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. 26 pp. 

US Climate Change Science Program, Subcommittee on Global Change Research. 2008. Preliminary 

Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, Final Report, 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. 

US Climate Change Technology Program. 2005. Technology Options for the Near and Long Term, 

3.2.1.4. Grazing Management. Page 3.2-7 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 343

US Congress 1855: Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Treaty and Treaty with the Tribes of Middle 

Oregon

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and 

Agriculture. Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J) EPA 430-R-05-006. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990-2011. EPA 430-R-13-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Chapter6-Agriculture.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 160 pp. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 1. Portland, OR. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. Pg. V. In: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. Pg. 41. In: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Chapter 1, Introduction. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. 119-120. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Bull Trout Core Are Templates (Complete Core Area by Core Area 

Analysis). Compiled by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter 14 – Malheur River Management 

Unit. Primary Editors: Wade Fredenberg and Jeff Chan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, 

OR. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/References/BTTemplatesFinal.pdf. Accessed 

03/13/2012. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Memorandum. Subject: Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement with 

the Forest Service. August 31, 2006. Portland, Oregon. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Memo, National Lynx Survey, designation of “Unoccupied Mapped 

Lynx Habitat. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5160663.pdf 

(accessed August 2013).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Letter of concurrence for grazing activities on the Bear, Camp Creek, 

Deardorff, Dollar Basin/Star Glade, Flag Prairie, Hot Springs, Logan Valley Lower Middle Fork, 

McCoy Creek, North Fork, Ott Rail Creek, Spring Creek, Summit Prairie, and Upper Middle 

Fork Allotments (TAILS: 13420-2007-I-0098). USFWS La Grande Field Office. La Grande, OR. 

May 14, 2007. 58 pp. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 23 pp. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. July 9 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing 

the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 130. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

344 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>] 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull Trout 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species Fact Sheet, Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris). U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Portland, OR. Accessed 01 Mar 

2010. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/ColumbiaSpottedFrog/default.asp 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised Designation 

of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 50 CFR 17, Rules and Regulations, Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010. 

Fed. Reg. 75:2270-2431. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Rana 

luteiventris (Columbia Spotted Frog). 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. May 5 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Reissuance 

of final rule to identify the northern Rocky Mountain population of Gray Wolf as a distinct 

population segment and to revise the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register, 

Vol. 76, No. 87. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Species Fact Sheet, Greater sage grouse. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR. Accessed August 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/GreaterSageGrouse/

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status 

for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the 

Contiguous United States; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23: 7863-7890. Feb. 4, 

2013. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities 

in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II). 

[FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090. Draft with final by July 2013. Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service. 2006. Recovery Outline. Contiguous United 

States Distinct Population of the Canada Lynx. USFWS Montana Field Office. Helena, Montana. 

21 pgs. 

USDA Agricultural Research Station. Impact of Livestock Grazing on Carbon and Nitrogen Balance of a 

Short-grass Steppe. 1999. 11 October 2008. 

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_USDA.ARS.CGPRS.SGSgraz.html 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, page 69). 

USDA Forest Service. 1984. Range Analysis and Management Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 

2209. Region 6 #584 Amendment 3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 345

USDA Forest Service. 1988. FEIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation, and the associated 

Mediated Agreement, Nov 1988. 

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Record of Decision for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation 

(1988 ROD) and the 1989 Mediated Agreement. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fifty Years of Change on the Range. Malheur National Forest, John Day, 

Oregon R6-Mal-035-89. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. The Guide for Conducting Vegetation Management Projects in the Pacific 

Northwest Region (R6 Guide to Vegetation Management Projects) 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Malheur Wild and Scenic River Plan

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains, Charles G. Johnson 

Jr., Roderick R. Clausnitzer. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact and Forest Plan 

Amendment [29] for Incorporation of the Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Malheur National Forest Land and 

resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur National 

Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Agricultural Handbook Number 701, Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for 

Scenery Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Regional Foresters Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2. Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Decision Notice and FONSI for Inland Native Fish Strategy: Interim 

strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, 

Western Montana and portions of Nevada (INFISH).

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. PACFISH –Enclosure B. Recommended Livestock Grazing Guidelines 

(Rev. 7/31/95) Attached to Letter dated August 14, 1995 from Gordon Haugen, Columbia River 

Basin/PACFISH Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and 

Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Regional Foresters Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2. Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995 Summit Creek Stream Habitat Survey 1995. U.S. Forest Service, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day OR.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

346 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

USDA, Forest Service 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, Oregon: Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Mid-Montane Westland Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Elizabeth A. Crowe and Roderick R. Clausnitzer. R6-NRECOL-TP-22-97. 

USDA Forest Service, 1998. Bosenberg Creek Stream Habitat Survey 1998. U.S. Forest Service, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day OR. 

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Lake Creek Stream Habitat Survey 1998. U.S. Forest Service, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Malheur Headwaters Watershed Analysis. Malheur National Forest, John 

Day, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Roads - A Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical 

Report GTR-509. May 2001. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Post Fire Interim Grazing Guidelines, Malheur National Forest. Unpublished 

Report. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. December 2, 2003. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Draft Current Management Situation Report for the Blue Mountains Forest 

Plan, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report. Malheur National Forest, 

John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Bunchgrass Plant Communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountain: A Guide 

for Mangers. Charles G. Johnson Jr. and David K. Swanson. General Technical Report PNWGTF-641. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Invasive Plant Program.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing 

Invasive Plants, Record of Decision, October 2005

USDA Forest Service. 2005. McCoy Creek Stream Habitat Survey 2005. U.S. Forest Service, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day OR.

USDA. Forest Service. 2006. Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement Amendment to Forest Supervisors: 

Okanogan-Wenatchee, Coleville, Umatilla, Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman national Forests.

Internal letter, June 20, 2006. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines, October 16, 2006 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sensitive Plants of the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 347

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis January 13, 

2008. Accessed 29 January 2009. <http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/nepaguidance.pdf> 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change 

Version 1.0. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), version 2.0 at FS-NITC, 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP) and Invasive Species Applications, training 

workbook. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Chief’s January 16, 2009 letter of direction transmitting the 

January 13, 2009, Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment of the Logan Valley Fen between 

Lake Creek Road and Big Creek Campground Road (Big Field Unit). Prairie City Ranger 

District.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 2010 Implementation Monitoring for PACFISH/INFISH and the 1998 

Biological Opinions for Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. Adapted from an annual Regional 

Direction Letter, September 2010 (five enclosures). Region 6, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Inventory and Monitoring Report of the Logan Valley Fen Complex, Prairie 

City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. Implementation of the Inventory and Monitoring 

Protocols for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol for Springs and 

Groundwater Dependent Wetlands. USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) Model Application and 

Assessment Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, PNW 

Research Lab, La Grande, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Inventory and Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level 1 Inventory Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent Wetlands. 

Draft.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Inventory and Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level 2 Sampling Protocol for Springs and Groundwater Dependent Wetlands. 

Draft.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Multiple Indicator Monitoring conducted at Designated Monitoring Areas 

(DMAs) between 2004-2011. 

USDA Forest Service, 2011. PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas.

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region (Region 4), Logan, Utah. (individual PIBO data is 

unpublished) 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. American Marten (Martes americana) Model Application and Assessment of 

Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, PNW Research Lab, 

La Grande, Oregon. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

348 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2011. DRAFT Viability assessments for the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest 

Region, USDA Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: American Marten (Martes americana) Prepared by 

Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Prepared 

by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, 

Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. MIS Information Sheet: Primary Cavity Excavators. Prepared by Kim 

Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Model Application and 

Assessment of Results. Prepared by B. Wales. Draft Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, PNW 

Research Lab, La Grande, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Regional Forester’s transmittal letter to Forest Supervisors; Update of the 

Pacific Northwest Regional Forester's Special Status Species List; File Code 2670; December 9, 

2011. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level I Inventory Field Guide, 

Inventory Methods for Assessment and Planning. General Technical Report WO-86a, March 

2012. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level II Inventory Field Guide, 

Inventory Methods for Project Design and Analysis. General Technical Report WO-86b, March 

2012. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. National Resource Information System (NRIS) Aquatic database. Pacific 

Northwest Region, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. FSM 2670: Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant 

Habitat Management: Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. 

USDA Forest Service and Oregon Department of Forestry, 2004. Forests, Farms & People: Land Use 

Change on Non-Federal Land in Eastern Oregon 1975-2001. USDA Forest Service Forest 

Inventory and Analysis Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon Department of 

Forestry. 

USDA Global Change Program. 2008. U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-

2005. 14 January 2009. 

<http://www.usda.gov/oce/global_change/AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm> 

USDA. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide 

USDI Bureau of Land Management and Cooperative Extension Service, USDA Forest Service, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service. 1996. Revised 1997 and 1999. Sampling Vegetation Attributes.

Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4, National Business Center. Denver, CO, 159 p. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 349

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, 1994. Rangeland Reform Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington DC. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and 

Riparian Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin Version 5.0. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 1996. Utilization Studies and Residual 

Measurements. Interagency Technical Reference BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993, “Riparian Area Management Process for Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition.” Technical Reference 1737-9. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring 

(MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. 

BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737+REV. Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, CO. 155 pp. 

Utz, R. M., B. C. Ratcliffe, B. T. Moore, and K. J. Hartman. 2007. Disproportionate relative importance 

of a terrestrial beetle family (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) as a prey source for central Appalachian 

brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:177-184. 

Verts, B.J. and L. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkley, 

CA. 668 pp. 

Vitt, D.H., and R.K. Wieder. 2008. The structure and function of bryophyte-dominated peatlands. In 

Bryophyte Biology, second edition (B. Goffinet and A.J. Shaw, eds.), Cambridge University 

Press, New York.

Wagner, J.A., R.E. Delmas, and J.A. Young. 2001. 30 years of medusahead: return to fly blown-flat. 

Rangelands 23:6-9 

Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of Washington: status and distribution. 

Corvallis, OR, U.S.A Oregon State Univ. Press. 436 pp. 

Wales, B. C. 2009. Evaluation of the current amounts and projected departure for selected focal species in 

the Malheur Fire Learning Network area. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, 

OR. 

Wall, William. 2009. USDA Forest Service Stream Surveys. 

Weixelman, D.A., and D.C. Zamudio. 2001. Determining Ecological Status of Sierra Nevada Mountain 

Meadows Using Plant Frequency and Soil Characteristics. In: Faber, P.M. (ed.) 2003. California 

Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplain Management, Ecology and Restoration. 2001 

Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, 

Sacramento, CA.

Weixelman, D.A., and D.J. Cooper. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas in the 

Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California. USDA Forest Service R5-TP-028. 

52p. 

Welker, J., J. Fahnestock, K. Povirk, C. Bilbrough, and R. Piper. 2004. Alpine Grassland CO2 Exchange 

and Nitrogen Cycling: Grazing History Effects, Medicine Bow Range, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arctic, 

Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36(1):11-20. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

350 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Wenick, J., D. Gonzalez, B. Coahran, A. First Raised III. 2002. Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Plan. 

Burns Paiute Tribe Fish and Wildlife Department. Report for United States Department of Energy, 

Bonneville Power Administration. Burns, Oregon. 37 pages. 

Whiting, Beatrice B. 1950. Paiute Sorcery. New York: Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology #15. 

Whitson, Tom D; Burrill, Larry C; Dewey, Steven A; Cudney, David W; Nelson, B.E.; Lee, Richard D.; 

Parker, Robert. 1992. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science, Revised 1992. 

Wilson, B.L., R. Brainerd, D. Lytjen, B. Newhouse, and N. Otting. 2008. Field Guide to the Sedges of the 

Pacific Northwest. University of Oregon Press. Corvallis, OR. 

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-46. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. 49 pp. 

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. Hann, T. D. Rich, 

M. M. Rolland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates 

of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. Gen. 

Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-485 (CD-ROM, Draft Version, March 2000). USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, 2005. The Starkey Project: a Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and 

Mule Deer. Alliance Communications Group. Lawrence, Kansas, USA 

Woodruff, K., and H. Ferguson, H. 2005. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii. Volume 

V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, USA.

Workman, J. P. and J. F. Hooper. 1968. Preliminary economic evaluation of cattle distribution practices on 

mountain rangelands. J. Range Manage. 21:301-304. 

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. 

Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Wesfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: 

Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 

1737. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 105 pp. 

XiuZhi, M., W. YanFen, W. ShiPing, W. JinZhi, L.ChangSheng. 2005. Impacts of grazing on soil carbon 

fractions in the grasslands of Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica 

29(4):569-576. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 351

Glossary

A:

Access – The mode by which activities are pursued and how well users can travel to or within the setting.

Adaptive Management – A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended 

outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if not, to 

facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-evaluated. 

Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is 

sometimes uncertain.

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) – A long-term operating plan for a grazing allotment on public land 

prepared and agreed to by the permittee and appropriate agency.

Allowable Use – (1) The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various parts of a 

ranch or allotment considering the present nature and condition of the resource, management objectives 

and levels of management. (2) The amount of forage planned to be used to accelerate range 

improvement.

Animal-Unit-Month (AUM) – The amount of dry forage required by one animal unit for one month based 

on a forage allowance of 26 pounds per day. Not synonymous with animal-month. The term AUM is 

commonly used in three ways: (a) stocking rate, as in “X acres per AUM”, (b) forage allocations, as in “X 

AUMs in Allotment A”, (c) utilization, as in “X AUMs taken from Unit B.”

Available Forage – That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified kind or 

class of grazing animal.

Average Bankfull Width – The width at the elevation of the bank where flooding occurs. 

B: 

Bankfull width to depth – A ratio that divides the bankfull width by the average depth of the bankfull 

channel. A higher value is typically wide and shallow, whereas a lower values is narrower and deeper. 

Bankfull – The elevation of the bank where flooding begins. The bankfull level is associated with the 

streamflow that just fills the channel to the top of its banks where water begins to overflow onto the 

floodplain. 

Bryophyte – Species of land plants that do not have true vascular tissue (non-vascular), such as 

mosses, liverworts, and hornworts (compare to vascular plant).

C: 

Capability – Potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management 

intensity. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, 

landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or 

protection from fire, insects, and disease

Carrying Capacity – Also known as grazing capacity. The maximum stocking rate possible without 

inducing damage to vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year on the same areas due 

to fluctuating forage production.

Complete Survey – For this type of survey, the survey area is given a very close review by walking 

through the entire area and its perimeter more than once. Virtually all of the area is examined.

Cultural Resources – The physical remains (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) and 

conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, as a sacred area 

of native peoples, etc.) of an area associated with human use capable of providing scientific or humanistic 

understanding of past human behavior, cultural adaptation and related topics through the application of 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

352 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

scientific or scholarly techniques of investigation, or has spiritual value for members of the affiliated 

culture.

D: 

Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) – Forest plan management area 13 which is comprised of mature trees 

(150 years or older) provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature forest conditions and 

provides for ecosystem diversity. These areas are equally distributed across the Forest. Wildlife species 

dependent on these lands include pileated woodpecker and American (pine) marten.

Deferred Grazing – The use of deferment in grazing management of a management unit, but not in a 

systematic rotation including other units.

Deferred Rotation – Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of the deferment 

among pastures.

Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) – A relatively small portion of a pasture or management unit 

selected because of its location, use or grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed 

that key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall riparian condition and the acceptability of 

current grazing management in riparian areas.

Desired Condition – (1) A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals 

and objectives are fully achieved. (2) A description of the landscape as it could reasonably be expected to 

appear at the end of the planning period if the plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for that 

landscape are fully achieved.

Dispersed Recreation – Recreation use that occurs outside of developed sites and requires few, if any, 

facilities other than roads and trails. Dispersed recreation activities include hiking, backpacking, crosscountry skiing, hunting, and snowmobiling, viewing scenery, and driving for pleasure.

E: 

Ecological Status (seral status) – The present state of vegetation and soil protection of an ecological site 

in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the expression of the 

relative degree of which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble that of 

the potential natural community. If classes or ratings are used, they should be described in ecological 

rather than utilization terms. For example, some agencies are utilizing four classes of ecological status 

ratings (early seral, mid-seral, late seral, potential natural community) of vegetation corresponding to 0-

25%, 26-50%, 51-75% and 76-100% of the potential natural community standard. Soil status is a 

measure of present vegetation and litter cover relative to the amount of cover needed on the site to 

prevent accelerated erosion. This term is not used by all agencies.

Ecological Status Rating – The average ecological status rating of plants. The ecological status is 

calculated using plant successional status ratings and Winward’s Riparian Capability Groups. It is further 

adjusted where a woody overstory component should be present but currently is not present. 

Effective Shade – The percent reduction of potential daily solar radiation delivered to the water surface.

End-point Indicator – Physical features that can be measured as a group to assess cause and affect 

relationships and determine condition and trend. The timing of measurements is based on the objective – 

bank disturbance features (such as hoof prints) are best measured at the end of the grazing season, 

vegetation monitoring is generally conducted at the end of the growing season (or the end of the grazing 

season-whichever is later).

Exclosure – An area fenced to exclude animals.

Extensive Management Strategy – A Forest Plan strategy where management seeks full utilization of 

forage available to livestock. Cost-effective management systems and techniques, including fencing and 

water development, are designed and applied to obtain relatively uniform distribution and use of forage 

and to maintain plant vigor.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 353

F: 

Featured Species – The Malheur Forest Plan defines a featured species as a wildlife species of high 

public interest or demand. 

Fen – A groundwater-dependent ecosystem and type of minerotrophic peatland that has a relatively 

constant supply of groundwater which saturates the soil and slows decomposition to the point that peat 

accumulates. The water table is slightly below, at, or just above the surface; there is internal groundwater 

seepage in these systems, but sometimes they have over-surface flow. The dominant vegetation are 

bryophyte, graminoid, or low shrub species.

Floodplain – The relatively flat area adjacent to a stream or lake that experiences occasional or periodic 

flooding. 

Forage –Browse and herbage which is available and may provide food for grazing animals or be 

harvested for feeding. 

Forage Production – The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on a given 

area. The weight may be expressed as either green, air-dry, or oven-dry. The term may also be modified 

as to time of production such as annual, current years or seasonal forage production. 

Foreground – A term used in visual management to describe the portions of a view between the 

observer and up to 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile distant.

Functional At Risk (FAR) – Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but an existing soil, 

water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. 

G: 

General Survey – For this type of survey, the survey area is given a closer review by walking through the 

area and its perimeter or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the area is examined.

Geomorphology – The study of landforms and the processes that form them.

Graminoid – Species of vascular plants that include grasses and grass-like plants, such as sedges, 

rushes, bulrushes, and spikerushes.

Grassland – Land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, and/or forbs. Nonforest land shall be classified as grassland if herbaceous vegetation provides at least 80% of the canopy 

cover excluding trees. Lands not presently grassland that were originally or could become grassland 

through natural succession may be classified as potential natural grassland. See also: Rangeland.

Grazing Permit – Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and class of livestock for a 

specified period on a defined allotment or management area. See also: Term Permit. 

Grazing Permittee – An individual or other legal entity who has been granted a term grazing permit to 

graze a specified number of livestock for a specific period on a range allotment. 

Grazing Season – (1) On public lands, an established period for which grazing permits are issued. May 

be established on private land in a grazing management plan. (2) The time interval when animals are 

allowed to utilize a certain area.

Grazing Use - 

Actual Use – Report of the actual livestock use. 

Authorized Use – is the use specified on the annual Bill(s) for Collection and verified by permittee's 

payment of fees.

Permitted Use – is the number of animals, period of use, and location of use specified in Part 1 of the 

grazing permit (see also definition for authorized use).

Greenline Stability Rating – The average vegetation stability rating of plants measured during the 

greenline plant composition component of MIM. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

354 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Greenline to Greenline Width – The nonvegetated width of a stream channel measured from the 

greenline on one side of the channel perpendicular to the streamflow to the greenline on the opposite 

side.

Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) – A wetland community that is reliant on having access to 

groundwater to maintain its ecological structure and function. They are diverse, complex, and often have 

a disproportionate amount of rare, sensitive, and unusual plant species. Springs, seeps, fens, swamps, 

and marshes are all types of GDEs.

H: 

Hyphoreic Zone – The region beneath and adjacent to a stream where mixing in shallow groundwater 

and surface water occurs. Fish spawning typically occurs in these regions that provide cool water. 

I: 

Incidental Survey – This type of survey is conducted while accomplishing other botanical, ecological, or 

biological work. Thus, the primary purpose of the survey is not necessarily to locate and document TES 

plant species, but to accomplish other goals related to plant species function and occurrence. However, 

TES species are often located through this method. Most of the area is examined.

Interdependent – A relationship where each member is mutually dependent on the others. 

Interrelated – Relates or connects to one another.

Intuitive Survey – This type of survey is the most commonly used and most efficient method of surveying 

for TES plants. Potential suitable habitat is identified for each species of interest and the survey effort is 

focused in those areas. When conducting intuitive controlled surveys, an area somewhat larger than the 

identified suitable habitat is searched to validate current suitable habitat definitions.

Invasive species – Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original vegetation of a 

specific range site and will invade or increase following disturbance or continued heavy grazing.

Irretrievable – Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources. For example, some or all of the 

timber production from an area is irretrievably lost during the time an area is used as a winter sports site. 

If the use is changed, timber production can be resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but the 

action is not irreversible.

Irreversible – Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural 

resources, or to those factors such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long time periods. 

Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

L: 

Landscape Character – Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and 

make it identifiable or unique.

Late and Old Structural (LOS) Forest – A term used in Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans 

Amendment #2 (Interim Wildlife Standard) that refers to the structural stages where large trees are 

common. In this document old growth and mature forest are sometimes used as surrogate terms.

Lentic – Pertaining to ecosystems with still or slow moving waters (as lakes, ponds, fens, marshes, or 

swamps).

Letdown fence – Is a three of four-stand fence that can be laid down as a unit but remains under 

tension. It is commonly used in mountainous areas where snow packs of four feet or more commonly 

loosen or break wires or pull over posts. 

M: 

Management Indicator Species – Species selected by the Malheur National Forest as “barometers” of 

species diversity, viability, and the forest ecosystem. They are monitored over time to assess how 

changes in forest conditions (especially from management) affect MIS populations and habitat, and thus 

also populations of other species with similar habitat needs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 355

Meadow – (1) An area of perennial herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or grass-like, (2) Openings in 

forests and grasslands of exceptional productivity in arid regions, usually resulting from high water 

content of the soil, as in streamside situations and areas having a perched water table. 

Mean Residual Pool Depth – The average of all differences between the crest depth and pool max 

depth in the survey. This difference can be visualized by imagining that if water ceased to flow, the water 

left in the pool that can’t flow into the next riffle is the amount of the residual pool depth. 

Middleground – The visible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible, but do 

not stand out distinctly from the stand. It is the zone between the foreground and the background in a 

landscape. The area located from 1⁄2 mile to 4 mile from the observer.

Minerotrophic – Soils and vegetation whose water supply comes mainly from streams or springs. This 

water has flowed over or through rocks or other minerals, often acquiring dissolved chemicals which raise 

the nutrient levels and reduce the acidity.

Modification – A Visual Quality Objective meaning human activity may visually dominate the 

characteristic landscape, but also must utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture.

N: 

Non-Use – (1) Absence of grazing use on current year's forage production. (2) Lack of exercise, 

temporarily, of a grazing privilege on grazing lands. (3) An authorization to refrain, temporarily, from 

placing livestock on public ranges without loss of preference for future consideration

Noxious Weed – A plant species that is undesirable because it conflicts, restricts, or otherwise causes 

problems under management objectives. Not to be confused with species declared noxious by lows 

concerned with plants that are weedy in cultivated crops and on range. 

O: 

On-Site Recreation Development – The degree and appropriateness of recreation facilities provided 

within the setting.

P: 

Partial Retention – Management activities may be evident to the viewer but must remain visually 

subordinate to the surrounding landscape.

Pasture – A grazing area enclosed and separated from other areas by fencing or other barriers; the 

management unit for grazing land. 

Peat – Organic soils that are composed of partially decayed vegetation. Peat formation occurs when 

decomposition is very slow due to low oxygen conditions associated with waterlogging. Peat is primarily 

composed of un-decomposed graminoids and bryophytes.

Peatland – Any wetland that accumulates partially decayed plant matter (peat). Peatlands are often 

thousands of years old, and take from hundreds to thousands of years to form. Fens and bogs are the 

two primary peatland types.

Pedestaling – An evidence of soil erosion, where soil has been eroded from around a piece of ground 

cover (such as a clump of grass, or a piece of gravel), leaving the ground cover on a pedestal of uneroded soil. 

Percent Use – Grazing use of current growth, usually expressed as a percent of the current growth (by 

weight) that has been removed.

Permittee – One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or certain privately owned lands. 

Phenology – The study of periodic biological phenomena that are recurrent such as flowering, seeding, 

etc., especially as related to climate. 

Plant Vigor – Plant health. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

356 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Potential Natural Community (PNC) – The biotic community that would become established on an 

ecological site if all successional sequences were completed without interferences by man under the 

present environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in its development. The PNC may 

include acclimatized or naturalized non-native species.

Productivity – (1) Soil productivity: the capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s 

chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity and 

mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). (2) Vegetative productivity: the rate of production of 

vegetation within a given period. (3) General: the innate capacity of an environment to support plant and

animal life over time. 

Proper Functioning Condition – A riparian-wetland area is considered to be in proper functioning 

condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: dissipate stream 

energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter 

sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse 

ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature 

necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; support greater biodiversity.

R: 

Range – (n.) Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including rangeland, grazable woodland 

and shrubland. Range is not a use. (adj.) Modifies resources, products, activities, practices and 

phenomena pertaining to rangeland.

Rangeland – Land where the vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs 

suitable for grazing and browsing. 

Range Improvement – Any structure or nonstructural improvement to facilitate management of 

rangelands or livestock. 

Range Readiness – The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin under a specific 

management plan without permanent damage to vegetation or soil. Usually applied to seasonal range. To 

be determined by Range Management Specialist with input from IDT. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A system for planning and managing recreation resources. 

Land delineations that identify a variety of recreation experience opportunities categorized into classes on 

a continuum from primitive to urban. Each class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies 

certain recreation experience needs, based on the extent to which the natural environment has been 

modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the 

relative density of recreation use. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences 

have been arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven classes: Primitive, Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban.

Remoteness – The extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from the sight and sounds 

of human activity.

Replacement Old Growth (ROG) – Part of Forest Plan management area 13. These areas serve as 

replacements for DOG in the case of catastrophic damage or deterioration of dedicated old growth. 

Replacement old growth areas are to be located within 1⁄4 mile of the dedicated areas and are one-half the 

size of corresponding dedicated old growth units.

Resilient, resilience, resiliency – (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is 

one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or successional stages. (2) 

In human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally induced changes such 

as larger economic or social forces. 

Retention – Provides for management activities that are not visually evident. Management activities are 

permitted, but the results of the activities on the natural landscape must not be evident to the average 

viewer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 357

Riparian area – Area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream and other body of water and 

the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support 

riparian vegetation.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) – Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and 

guidelines. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, 

intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) 

influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams, (2) providing 

root strength for channel stability, (3) shading for stream, and (4) protecting water quality.

Riparian Pasture – Riparian pastures are designed to protect riparian values. They may be smaller 

areas of rangeland containing both upland and riparian vegetation that are managed together as a unit to 

achieve riparian objectives, or they may be streamside pastures containing only riparian vegetation.

Riparian Species – Plant species occurring within the riparian zone. Obligate species require the 

environmental conditions within the riparian zone; facultative species tolerate the environmental 

conditions, and may occur away from the riparian zone. 

Riparian Zone – The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, watercourses, seeps and springs whose 

waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally so as to provide a 

moister habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands. 

Roaded Natural – A natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of 

humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may 

be moderate to high with evidence of other users prevalent. Motorized use is allowed.

Roaded Modified – A natural environment substantially modified, particularly by vegetation and landform 

alterations. There is strong evidence of roads and/or highways. Frequency of contact is low to moderate.

Rosgen Channel Types – An alpha-numeric classification system for communicating the type of stream 

channel that exists. Streams are grouped by entrenchment (the ease in which water flows onto the 

floodplain or is confined in the stream channel), the bankfull width/depth ratio, the sinuosity (or degree of 

meandering), water surface slope, and streambed rock size. The system goes from A-G and 1-6. A 

channel types are steep headwater streams. B channel types typically have water surface slopes 

between 2 and 4%, C channel types are lower gradient streams that typically have floodplains and point 

bars. D channel types drain glacially outwash areas such as Logan Valley. E channel types are extremely 

low gradient, have very sinuous channel patterns, don’t have point bars and have vegetation creating a 

very narrow, deep channel dimension. F and G channel types typically have been incised and are 

evolving into a different channel type. 

Rotation Grazing – A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit (paddock) in the 

same group of grazing units to another without regard to specific graze; rest periods or levels of plant 

defoliation.

S: 

Satisfactory Range Condition – On suitable range, forage condition is at least fair, with stable trend, 

and allotment is not classified PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage).

Scabland – An area characterized by elevated tracts of rocky land with little or no soil and sparse 

vegetation of vascular plants.

Scenery Management System – Management guidelines based on the premise that land management 

activities (including construction of facilities) should not contrast with the existing natural appearing 

landscape. Within a framework of regional landscape, character types, form, line, color, and texture 

should be used to make activities and structures “fit” within landscapes.

Scenic Integrity – The degree of direct human-caused deviations in the landscape, such as road 

construction, timber harvesting, or activity debris. Scenic integrity is evaluated by measuring degree of 

alteration in line, form, color, and texture from the natural or natural-appearing landscape character or 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

358 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

form the established landscape character accepted over time by the general public. This is done by 

measuring changes in scale, intensity, and pattern against the attributes of that landscape character.

Seasonal Grazing – Grazing restricted to a specific season. 

Season of Use – The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as specified 

in the grazing permit.

Sediment – Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, ice, 

or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle out.

Semi-Primitive Motorized – A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. 

Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The opportunity exists to use 

motorized equipment. 

Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized – A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. 

Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Use of local roads for recreation 

purposes is not allowed. 

Seral – 1) Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during succession. Developmental 

stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. Early seral refers to plants that are 

present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process (in riparian areasusually shallow-rooted, weak-stemmed colonizing plants that grow quickly and filter very fine sedimentoften grasses); mid seral is often a mix of early and late seral plants; late or old seral refers to plants 

present during a later stage of plant community succession (in riparian areas-commonly stabilizing plants 

such as sedges and rushes that have strong cord-like rhizomes, deep, fibrous roots, coarse leaves and 

strong crowns that buffer streambanks against erosion, enhance streambank strength, filter sediments, 

and with water build/rebuild eroded banks-Winward 2000). 2) Refers to species or communities that are 

eventually replaced by other species or communities within a sere.

Seral stage – The developmental phase of rangeland with characteristic structure and plant species 

composition (see SERAL). Seral stage is a measure of vegetative condition which varies from very early 

to late seral with potential natural community (PNC) being the latest seral stage. Generally, an area falls 

into a later seral stage if it has a high percentage of “stabilizers” (usually native, deep-rooted sedges and 

grasses, and in some places rocks and down wood) and a shrub component. Areas with a higher 

percentage of “colonizers” (usually short-lived, shallow-rooted plants that respond quickly to change, 

including non-native plants) and with fewer shrubs are in earlier seral stages (adopted from Winward, 

2000). PACFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) defines seral stage by percent similarity of riparian 

vegetation to PNC or stream condition: under 25% similarity to PNC or “poor” stream condition equals 

early seral, over 50% similarity to PNC or “good” or better stream condition equals late seral. In terms of 

riparian function, later stages provide better stability and function, but in terms of forage, mid- and early 

seral stages tend to provide more production. 

Social Encounters – The degree of solitude or social opportunities provided.

Soil – In this document “soil” means soil outside of stream channels. 

Species Composition – The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. 

It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. 

Standard 127 – Forest Plan Forest-wide Standard 127, which gives minimum ground cover by soil 

erodibility class. 

Stock Water Development – Development of a new or improved source of stock water supply, such as 

well, spring, pond, together with storage and delivery system. 

Suitable Range – Land which produces or has the inherent capability to produce 50 pounds or more of 

palatable forage per acre, can be grazed on a sustained-yield basis, and is or can be feasibly made 

accessible for use. 

Suitability – a determination of the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices 

to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 359

T: 

Term Permit – A document that authorizes grazing on public lands for a stated number of years as 

contrasted with an annual or temporary permit. See also: Grazing Permit. 

Thinning – An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, maintaining 

stand vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. Although thinning can 

result in commercial products, thinning generally refers to non-commercial operations. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species – An endangered species is an animal or plant 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the 

Forest Service Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern either a) because of significant 

current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or b) because of significant current 

or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Trend – The direction of change in ecological status or resource value rating observed over time. Trend 

in ecological status should be described as toward or away from the potential natural community, or as 

not apparent. Trend in a resource value rating for a specific use should be described as up, down or not 

apparent. Trends in resource value ratings for several uses on the same site at a given time may be in 

different directions, and there is no necessary correlation between trends in resource value ratings and 

trend in ecological status. Some agencies use trend only in the context of ecological status. 

U: 

Understory – The trees and other woody species that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually 

refers to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. 

Unsatisfactory Range Condition – Allotment does not meet criteria for satisfactory condition.

Upland – Ground elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills. The portion of the landscape 

above the valley floor or stream. 

Use – Also called utilization. 1) The proportion of current year's forage production that is consumed or 

destroyed by grazing animals. May refer either to a single species or to the vegetation as a whole. (2) 

Utilization of range for a purpose such as grazing, bedding, shelter, trailing, watering, watershed, 

recreation, forestry, etc. 

Utilization Standards – The prescribed level of grazing by livestock which will achieve specific objectives 

including maintenance of vegetation and soil condition. Expressed as the percent of the annual 

herbaceous production removed by grazing.

V: 

Vascular Plant – Species of land plants that have true vascular tissue, such as flowering plants, conifers, 

and ferns (compare to bryophyte).

Vegetation condition rating – A rating for range vegetation from Condition and Trend (C/T) plot data 

that is calculated by using a model that uses four successional stages (climax, late seral, mid seral, and 

early seral) mainly determined by percentage of climax vegetation on site. The C/T plots on the Malheur 

National Forest used ratings of excellent, good, fair, and poor which correlate to climax, late seral, mid 

seral and early seral and can be substituted in the vocabulary if necessary. With heavy grazing and 

subsequent defoliation of decreases (palatable productive plants and perennial grasses associated with 

climax seral stages) comes retrogression to an earlier seral stage resulting in an increase of increasers 

(plants usually of lower productivity and/or palatability associated with early seral stages).

Vigor – Relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the same 

species. It is reflected primarily by the size of a plant and its parts in relation to its age and the 

environment in which it is growing. Syn. plant vigor. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

360 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Visitor Impacts – The degree of impact on both the attributes of the setting and other visitors within the 

setting.

Visitor Management – The degree and appropriateness of how visitor actions are managed and 

serviced.

Visual Corridor (Viewshed) – The total landscape seen or potentially seen from all or a logical part of a 

travel route. 

Visual Quality – The degree of apparent modification of the natural landscape.

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) – A desired level of management based on physical and sociological 

characteristics of an area. Refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape.

W:

Water Gap – 1) A specially constructed fence across drainage. The fence is easily moved by the forces 

of a flood, thus preventing damage to the permanent fence. (2) An opening of fences area providing 

access to a developed or natural water supply permitting one watering facility to serve two or more 

pastures. 

Wetland Rating – The average wetland ranking of plants as computed using the Wetland Indicator 

Status of Reed (1996).

Wolf Plant (wolfiness) – 1) A plant that, though of a species generally considered palatable, is not grazed 

by livestock. 2) An isolated plant growing to extraordinary size, usually from lack of competition.

Woody Cover – The sum of the percent cover of woody species along the greenline.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 361

Appendix A - Existing and Desired Conditions, Management Objectives and 

Adaptive Management Strategies

Table 102. Existing and desired conditions

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Summit Creek

Reach 1

• Functional At Risk 

(FAR), No 

Apparent Trend 

(2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit 

Constrained, rocky reached 

that are dominated by alder 

thickets and conifers with 

occasional scattered willows 

(Carex Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: Ranges from 23% (Wall 2009) to 45% (Carex 

Working Group 2012). 

Increase hardwood shade component. Shade 65% or greater 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The vast majority of shrubs are alders 

less that 6 ft. tall (average height of 3 ft.) and are moderately 

browsed with an average utilization of 55%; shrub density is 63 

shrubs per 100 m of streambank (Carex Working Group 2012, 

Rausch 2012).

Increase shrub development: ≤ 30% shrub utilization (INFISH 

1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working Group 

2012); ≥ 80 shrubs per 100 m of streambank (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because of the type of vegetation does not 

develop a root mass and the scour line width will be wider than a herbaceous site, the streambank soil texture and stream 

gradient attributes are also not conducive towards developing these features. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated at 

60% (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000, Elmore

2007).

Stable Banks: N/D

Summit Creek 

Reach 2 

• Functional At 

Risk, Downward, 

No Apparent 

Trend (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a 

mosaic of extensive willow 

thickets, alder, grasslands, 

and sedge wetlands in old 

meanders; occasional areas 

of sedge-dominated 

wetlands where lateral flows 

promote deep anoxic soils; 

also potential habitat for 

aspen and cottonwood 

groves (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 6-45% with an average of 24%; 

shade in sedge dominated portion is 8% (Carex Working Group 

2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 60% (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% native floodplain grasses 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: Alders and willows are the dominant 

shrubs, the majority of which are less than 3 ft. tall; all shrubs 

less than 6 ft. are heavily browsed with an average utilization 

78%; floodplain shrub density is 81 shrubs per acre; shrub 

density of the > 6 ft. height class is 13 shrubs per acre (Carex 

Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% shrub utilization 

(INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working 

Group 2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain (Carex 

Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species present have a 

greenline stability rating of Mid (4.4), ecological status rating of 

Early Seral (35) and hydric plants at 49% (USDI BLM 2011). 

Greater than High (8.0 to 9.5) greenline stability rating (Winward 

2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 60% stable banks (USDI 

BLM 2011). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % US Fish and 

Wildlife Service Properly Functioning criteria). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

362 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Summit Creek

Reach 3

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit 

Constrained, rocky reaches 

that are dominated by alder 

thickets, with occasional 

scattered willows (Carex 

Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 43% (Wall 2009) to 98% (Carex 

Working Group 2012). 

Increased hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 80% 

(Amendment 29, TMDL 2011).

Shrub Development: Alders are the dominant shrub with some 

willows also present; the vast majority of shrubs are greater 

than 6 ft. tall and shrubs less than 6 ft. are either not browsed 

or lightly browsed with average utilization less than 25%; shrub 

density is 97 shrubs per 100 m of streambank (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Maintain shrub development: continue shrub utilization ≤ 25% 

(INFISH 1995); maintain abundance of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (CWG 

2012); maintain existing density of shrubs at ≥ 80 shrubs per 

100 m of streambank (Carex Working Group 2012; Rausch 

2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because the type of vegetation does not develop a

root mass and the scour line width will be wider than a herbaceous site, the streambank soil texture and stream gradient 

attributes are also not conducive towards developing these features. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated at 

70% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 4

• FAR, Upward 

Trend (2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a 

mosaic of extensive willow 

thickets, aspen, alder, 

grasslands, and sedge 

wetlands in old meanders; 

occasional areas of sedgedominated wetlands where 

lateral flows promote deep 

anoxic soils; there is also 

potential habitat for 

cottonwood groves (Carex 

Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 10-57% with an average of 32% 

(Wall 2009, Carex Working Group 2012). 

Increased hardwood shade component: shade ≥ 60% (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The vast majority of shrubs are willows 

with a fairly even distribution of shrub height classes; willows 

under 6 ft. are moderately browsed with an average utilization 

of 26%; however some areas within upper portions of the reach 

are primarily composed of willows less than 2 ft. tall with 

utilization that approaches 90%; overall floodplain shrub 

density is 49 shrubs per acre; shrub density of the > 6 ft. height 

class is 5 shrubs per acre (Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 

2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% shrub utilization 

(INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working 

Group 2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain (Carex 

Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 22% (Wall 

2009). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated at 

75% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % US Fish and 

Wildlife Service Properly Functioning criteria). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 363

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Summit Creek 

Reach 5

• At Proper

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Creek 

allotment 

• Little Logan unit 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a 

mosaic of extensive willow 

thickets, aspen, grasslands, 

and sedge wetlands in old 

meanders; occasional areas 

of sedge-dominated

wetlands where lateral flows 

promote deep anoxic soils; 

there is also potential habitat 

for cottonwood groves 

(Carex Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 8-51% with an average of 23% 

(Wall 2009, Carex Working Group 2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 60% (Carex 

Working Group 2012).

Shrub Development: The vast majority of shrubs are willows; 

no alders are present; willows are either over 6 ft. tall and 

caged or less than 2 ft. tall and heavily browsed with an 

average utilization of 97%; floodplain shrub density is 8 shrubs 

per acre; shrub density of the 3-6 ft. height class is 0.3 shrubs 

per acre (Carex Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% shrub utilization 

(INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Working 

Group 2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain (Carex 

Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Present undercut bank was measured at 31% 

(site id: 952, PIBO 2011) and 29% (site id: 954, USDA Forest 

Service 2011). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 55-60% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 96% stable banks (site 

id: 952, PIBO 2011) and 100% stable banks (site id: 954, PIBO 

2011).

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 6

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Summit Rock unit 

Sedge-dominated meadows 

and wetlands with lateral 

flow and deep anoxic soils, 

willows or alders along the 

stream bank (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 5-32% with an average of 18% 

(Wall 2009, Carex Working Group 2012).

≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The majority of the reach is composed of 

sedge wetlands with occasional shrubs; the majority of shrubs 

are less than 2 ft. tall, and all shrubs are heavily browsed with 

average utilization greater than 90%; shrub density is 5 shrubs 

per 100 meters of streambank; shrub density of the > 3 ft. 

height class is 0.8 shrubs per 100 meters of streambank (Carex 

Working Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Increase shrub development along streambank: ≤ 30% shrub 

utilization (INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex 

Working Group 2012); ≥ 25 shrubs per 100 m of streambank 

(Carex Working Group 2012; Rausch 2012)

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 10% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 77% (PFC 2007) Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

364 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Summit Creek 

Reach 7

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• North Summit unit 

Broad valleys with mesic 

terraces comprised of a 

mosaic of extensive willow 

and alder thickets, aspen 

groves, grasslands, and 

sedge wetlands in old 

meanders; occasional areas 

of sedge-dominated 

wetlands where lateral flows 

promote peat formation and 

deep anoxic soils; there is 

also potential habitat for 

cottonwood groves (Carex 

Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 51-84% with an average of 64% 

(Carex Working Group 2012).

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 80% for alderdominated areas (Amendment 29), ≥ 60% for mixed shrub areas 

(Carex Working Group 2012), or ≥ 25% native floodplain 

grasses (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: Primarily a mixed shrub community; the 

majority of willows and alders are less that 3 ft. tall; Alders 

under 6 ft. are lightly browsed and willows under 6 ft. are 

heavily browsed with average utilizations of 26% and 100%, 

respectively; floodplain shrub density is 190 shrubs per acre; 

shrub density of the > 6 ft. height class is 9 shrubs per acre 

(Carex Work Group 2012, Rausch 2012).

Increase shrubland development: ≤ 30% shrub utilization 

(INFISH 1995); majority of shrubs > 6 ft. tall (Carex Work Group 

2012); ≥ 200 shrubs per acre of floodplain (Carex Working 

Group 2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species present have a 

greenline stability rating of High (6.7), ecological status rating of 

Later Seral (77) and hydric plants at 71% (DMA 2009). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline stability rating (Winward 

2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 89% stable banks (DMA 

2009). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Summit Creek 

Reach 8

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Summit Rock unit 

Headwater reaches 

dominated by conifers, alder, 

and aspen that also support 

shade-tolerant vegetation 

(Carex Working Group 2012, 

Elmore 2007).

Stream Shade: Ranges from 55-83% with an average of 70% 

(Carex Working Group 2012). 

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 80% 

(Amendment 29).

Shrub Development: The vast majority of shrubs are alders 

with a fairly even distribution of height classes; alders under 6 

ft. are lightly browsed with an average utilization of 24%, shrub 

density is 35 alder per 100 m of streambank; small aspen 

shoots are also present in some locations (Carex Working 

Group 2012, Rausch 2012) 

Maintain and/or increase shrub development: continue shrub 

utilization ≤ 25% (INFISH 1995); increase proportion of shrubs > 

6 ft. tall (Carex Working Group 2012); increase alder density to 

≥ 80 shrubs per 100 m of streambank (Carex Working Group 

2012; Rausch 2012).

Undercut Banks: Undercut banks is not an appropriate measure for this reach because the vegetation type does not develop root

mass. The scour line width will be wider than a herbaceous site, streambank soil texture and stream gradient attributes are not 

conductive towards developing these features. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 75% (Elmore 2007) Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 365

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1

• FAR, Downward 

Trend (Elmore 

2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• West Summit 

Recovery unit

Vegetation potential is 

sedge/rush/grass with some 

alder There still are many of 

those plants present but 

Kentucky bluegrass is 

dominant and the site 

continues to dry out due to a 

lowering water table (Elmore

2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The reach is primarily a sedge/rush grass 

meadow. A small areas of alder is present at the upper end of 

the reach (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 20% (Elmore 2007) Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2

• FAR, Downward 

Trend (2007)

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Summit Rock unit 

Potential vegetation is 

sedge/rush/grass with alder. 

Potential vegetation in the 

upper end is conifer story 

with an alder overstory 

(Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 80% for alderdominated areas (Amendment 29), ≥ 60% for mixed shrub areas 

(Carex Working Group 2012), or ≥ 25% for native floodplain 

grasses (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The reach currently contains 20% 

seedlings and young age class shrubs (alder). Present mature 

age class is 80% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: N/D Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species present have a 

greenline stability rating of Mid (5.2), ecological status rating of 

Early Seral (30.5) and hydric plants at 31% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline stability rating (Winward 

2000). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 47% stable banks (DMA 

2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Crooked Creek 

Reach 1

• FAR, Downward 

Trend (2007)

• McCoy Creek 

allotment 

• Starvation unit 

Vegetation potential is 

sedge/rush with some 

willows (Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010) 

Shrub Development: Some willows are present but are not a 

dominate part of the reach. Three willow species were noted. 

Woody plants are released older plants (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 73% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 75% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 97% stable banks 

(USDA Forest Service 1999). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

366 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Lake Creek Reach 

1 

• FAR, Upward 

Trend (2007)

• McCoy Creek 

allotment 

• Starvation unit

Vegetation is dominated by 

sedge/rush/grass with 

willows (Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: N/D

Increase hardwood shade component; shade ≥ 60% (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010).

Shrub Development: Two willow species were noted. Due to 

recent changes in management, willows are more prevalent 

and vigorous. As the reach continues to recover there will be 

an increase in willow cover. Diverse age-class distribution of 

riparian-wetland vegetation is present (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 85% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 60% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: This reach currently has 91% stable banks (DMA 

2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29 % USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek Reach 

2 

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• McCoy Creek 

allotment 

• Cow Camp unit 

Potential vegetation is 

willow, sedge/rush 

communities (Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: 

Increased hardwood shade component: shade ≥ 60% (Carex 

Working Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses 

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: Several willow species and mountain 

alder present. Diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland 

vegetation is present. Beaver colony activity present (Elmore

2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 16% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 80% (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 367

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Lake Creek Reach 

3 

• FAR, Downward 

Trend (2007)

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• West Lake Creek 

Riparian pasture 

Primary potential vegetation 

being conifer overstory with 

alder, willow and mesic 

Graminiods in the open 

areas while the lower end of 

the reach has little or no 

conifer overstory (Elmore 

2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 39% (Wall 2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: The reach currently contains 15% 

seedlings and young age class shrubs (alder with some 

willows). Present mature age class is 83% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Present undercut banks was measured at 

different sites along the reach. PIBO site ID 1884 was 37% and 

site ID 2037 was 43% (PIBO 2011). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species presently have a 

greenline stability rating of Mid (4.4), ecological status rating of 

Very Early Seral (13.6) and hydric plants at 50% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) greenline stability rating (Winward 

2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 55% stable banks (DMA 

2008). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Lake Creek (No 

PFC Assessment) 

• Lake Creek 

allotment 

• McCoy Creek unit

Primary potential vegetation 

being conifer overstory alder 

(IDT Review 2012) 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 70% (Wall 2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 25% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek (No PFC 

Assessment, s. side 

of FS rd 16 for 0.15 

miles.) 

• Logan Valley 

allotment

• West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture

Potential vegetation is 

willow, sedge/rush 

communities (IDT Review 

2012) 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 7% (Wall 2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 62% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

368 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Big Creek Reach 1

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• South Big Creek 

unit 

Potential vegetation is a 

conifer overstory with willow 

and alder and mesic 

Graminoids (Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: Several willow species present. Beaver 

activity on main and side channels. Several age classes for 

herbaceous and woody species present. Young willow is 

heavily browsed (PFC 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 36% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 75% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek Reach 2

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• North Big Creek 

unit 

Potential vegetation in the 

upper end is a conifer 

overstory with a mesic 

Graminoid understory. The 

lower 1/3 transitions to an 

alder, willow, mesic 

Graminoid (Elmore 2007). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 2009). 

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer (Carex Working 

Group 2012) or ≥ 25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: Several willow species present. Young 

willows are heavily browsed, like by deer, elk and some 

livestock. Diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland 

vegetation is present. Willow and alder provide a bigger role in 

the lower part of the reach (Elmore 2007). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 36% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Stabilizing plant cover is estimated to 

be 75% (Elmore 2007). Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 369

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Big Creek Reach 3

• At Proper 

Functioning 

Condition (Elmore

2007)

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• East Lake Creek 

unit 

Potential vegetation is 

conifer with alder with mesic 

Graminoid (IDT Review 

2012). 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 26% (Wall 2009). Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer (Carex Working 

Group 2012).

Shrub Development: The reach currently contains 17% 

seedlings and young age class shrubs (alder). Present mature 

age class is 83% (DMA 2008). 

Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 36% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: Reach species present have a 

greenline stability rating of Low (2.8), ecological status rating of 

Mid Serial (41) and hydric plants at 8% (DMA 2011). 

Greater than High (8.0-9.5) stability rating (Winward 2000). 

Greater than 64-78% hydrophytic vegetation (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 98% stable banks (DMA 

2011). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek (No PFC 

Assessment) 

• Lake Creek 

allotment 

• Big Creek unit 

(above FS rd 

1648) 

Potential vegetation is a 

conifer overstory with willow 

and alder and mesic 

Graminoids (IDT Review 

2012)

Stream Shade: Shade average is 20% (Wall 2009). Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub and conifer (Carex Working 

Group 2012).

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004). 

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be 42% (Wall 

2009).

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems. 

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000). 

Stable Banks: N/D Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria). 

Big Creek (No PFC 

Assessment) 

• Logan Valley 

allotment

• West Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture

Primary potential vegetation 

being conifer overstory with 

alder, willow and mesic 

Graminiods in the open 

areas (IDT Review 2012) 

Stream Shade: Shade average is 7% (Wall 2009)

Shade 60-80% in mixed shrub (Carex Working Group 2012) or ≥ 

25% for native floodplain grasses (Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 2010). 

Shrub Development: N/D Greater than 25% sapling and young shrubs (Winward 2000, UI 

Stubble Height Study Results 2004).

Undercut Banks: Undercut bank is estimated to be at 62% 

(Wall 2009). 

Undercut banks should be greater than 75% for non-forested 

systems.

Stabilizing Plant Cover: N/D Greater than 80-95% stabilizing cover (Winward 2000).

Stable Banks: The reach currently has 95% stable banks 

(USDA Forest Service 1998). 

Greater than 90% stable banks (Amendment 29, USFWS 

Properly Functioning criteria).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

370 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Vegetation Community 

Potential Existing Condition Long-Term Desired Condition

Logan Valley Fen 

Complex 

Logan Valley 

allotment 

• Big Field unit and 

associated 

components of 

West Lake Creek, 

North Big Creek & 

South Big Creek 

units

The fen complex can be 

described as a broad 

helocrene spring system with 

a mosaic of peatlands (= 

fen), fen pools, wet and 

moist meadows, mesic 

shrublands, aspen stands, 

lodgepole pine swamps, and 

occasional mixed conifer 

stands. Fen and wetland 

systems are primarily 

dominated by wetland moss, 

graminoid, and willow 

species. (USDA Forest 

Service 2009, Rausch 2009, 

USDA Forest Service 2010).

Hydrologic Function: Overall, hydrologic processes are in 

proper functioning condition. Natural surface or subsurface flow 

patterns are largely unaltered and hydrologic alterations are not 

substantially contributing to degradation. However, some 

livestock trails are diverting early season flow patterns in 

isolated areas (USDA Forest Service 2009, Rausch 2009, 

USDA Forest Service 2010).

Livestock trails are not diverting flow patterns anywhere in the 

fen complex (Weixelman & Cooper 2007).

Peat Development: The majority of peatlands have exposed 

peat ≤ 10%; however, there are specific areas where exposed 

peat is 40% (USDA Forest Service 2009, USDA Forest Service

2010). On average, 96% of plant species are peat forming, 

91% are wetland obligates, and 3% are non-native.

Exposed peat is ≤ 10% throughout the entire fen complex 

(USDA Forest Service 2009, Weixelman & Cooper 2009). The 

proportion of peat forming species and obligate wetland species 

are maintained at 96% and 91% or greater, respectively. Nonnative species are absent or are not expanding (FSM 2900).

Sensitive Animals: The Columbia spotted frog occurs in three 

different locations (USDA Forest Service 2009, Rausch 2009); 

these fen pools serve as spawning, rearing and over-wintering 

grounds (Bull 2005, USFWS 2011). At least one other location 

has potential habitat, but the current condition is not suitable for 

occupation (USDA Forest Service 2009, USDA Forest Service

2010).

Expansion of sensitive animal populations and/or their 

respective habitats (FSM 2670).

Sensitive Plants: Five sensitive plant species are documented 

in various locations throughout the fen complex (NRIS 2012), 

and unoccupied habitat exists for numerous other sensitive 

plants (ISSSSP 2012). Isolated areas (where exposed peat is 

>10%) have the potential for sensitive species habitat, but the 

current condition is not suitable.

Expansion of sensitive plant populations and/or their respective 

habitats (FSM 2670).

NOTE: All surveys only include portions of reaches located on National Forest lands. Private land pieces are not included in the summary. 

N/D: Existing Condition information not available. MIM DMA has greenline stability and ecological status indicators that are ratings. The rating system for greenline stability rating is as follows: 

<4 is Low, 4-6 is Mid and >6 is High. The ecological status rating system is as follows: 0-15 is Very Early Seral, 16-40 is Early Seral, 41-60 is Mid Serial, 61-85 is Late Seral and 86-100 is 

Potential natural community. 

. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 371

Table 103. Management objectives 

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

Summit Creek Reach 

2 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit 

Note: Reaches 2 and 

4 would be used as 

representative reaches 

for the Sagehen unit 

as a whole. 

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Greenling to Greenline Width 5 year Greenline to greenline width would 

decrease by 25% from 12.7 to 9.5 feet.

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Greenline Stability Rating 5 year Increase greenline stability rating from 

Mid (4.4) to high (6.3).

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Stable Banks 5 year Increase bank stability from 60 % to 

80%.

Multiple indicator

monitoring at DMA site

Shrub Development Shrub Density and Height 

Class 5 year

Expand alder and willow species shrub 

density of the > 6 ft. height class from 

13 shrubs per acre to 32 shrubs per 

acre of floodplain (average across the 

reach).

Monitoring at Carex Working Group 

plots

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull width on 

an upward trend towards exclosure 

reference condition (establish cross 

section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull W/D on 

upward trend towards exclosure 

reference conditions (establish cross 

section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year 

Increase residual pool depth from 0.63 

ft to an upward trend towards 

exclosure reference condition 

(establish cross section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site 

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of pools > 3.3 ft 

depth on upward trend towards 

exclosure reference condition 

(establish cross section in exclosure).

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site 

Water Temperate, Shade, 

Shade Development and 

Channel Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase shade at DMA towards 

reference condition, site potential 

values of 60% in hardwood areas and 

25% for native floodplain grass sites 

(Carex Working Group 2012, TMLD 

2010). 

SolarPathfinder at DMA
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

372 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

Summit Creek Reach 

4 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen unit

Note: Reaches 2 and 

4 would be used as 

representative reaches 

for the Sagehen unit 

as a whole.

Shrub Development and 

Shade 

Shrub Density and Height 

Class 5 year

Expand alder and willow species shrub 

density of the > 6 ft. height class from 

5 shrubs per acre to 29 shrubs per 

acre of the floodplain (average across 

the reach).

Monitor at Carex Working Group plots 

Summit Creek Reach 

5 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Little Logan unit

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Greenline Wetland Rating 5 year

Increase the greenline wetland rating 

value by 10 percent from 73.9 to 81.3 

(PIBO site id 952) and from 76 to 83.6 

(PIBO site id 954).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Cross Section Vegetative 

Wetland Rating 5 year

Increase the cross section wetland 

rating value by 10 percent from 57.9 to 

63.7 (PIBO site id 952) and from 62.3 

to 68.5 (PIBO site id 954).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Shrub Development and 

Shade 

Shrub Density and Height 

Class 5 year

Expand willow species shrub density of 

the 3-6 ft. height class from 0.3 shrubs 

per acre to 4 shrubs per acre of 

floodplain (average across the reach).

Monitoring at Carex Working Group 

plots 

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull width on 

an upward trend towards exclosure 

reference condition (establish cross 

section in 1⁄4 miles buck-n-pole 

exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites. 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site in 1⁄4 mile new exclosure

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull W/D on 

upward trend towards exclosure 

reference conditions (establish cross 

section in 1⁄4 miles buck-n-pole 

exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites. 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site in 1⁄4 mile new exclosure

Residual Pool Depth 10 year 

Increase residual pool depth from 0.63 

ft to an upward trend towards 

exclosure reference condition 

(establish cross section in 1⁄4 miles 

buck-n-pole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites. 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site in 1⁄4 mile new exclosure
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 373

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

Summit Creek Reach 

5 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

Little Logan unit

(cont’d)

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat (cont’d)

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of pools > 3.3 ft 

depth on upward trend towards 

exclosure reference condition 

(establish cross section in 1⁄4 miles 

buck-n-pole exclosure).

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites. 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site in 1⁄4 mile new exclosure

Water Temperate, Shade, 

Shade Development and 

Channel Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at DMA 

towards reference condition, site 

potential values of 60% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group 2012).

SolarPathfinder at DMA 

Shrub Development and 

Water Quality Macroinvertebrate 10 years 

Increased abundance of species in the 

shredder function group. Decreased 

number of intolerant taxa and taxa 

richness. 

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Summit Creek Reach 

6 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Summit Rock unit

Shrub Development and 

Shade 

Shrub Density and Height 

Class 

5 years

Expand willow species shrub density of 

the > 3 ft. height class from 0.8 shrubs 

per 100 meters of streambank to 6 

shrubs per 100 meters of streambank 

(average across the reach).

Monitoring at Carex Working Group 

plots 

Summit Creek Reach 

7 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• North Summit unit

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability Greenline to Greenline Width 5 years Greenline to greenline width would 

decrease by 25% from 4 to 3 feet.

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site

Shrub Development and 

Shade 

Shrub Density and Height 

Class 5 years

Expand alder and willow species shrub 

density of the > 6 ft. height class from 

9 shrubs per acre to 40 shrubs per 

acre of floodplain (average across the 

reach).

Monitoring at Carex Working Group 

plots 

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease in average bankfull W/D 

toward a Rosgen E channel type of 12 

(PFC 2007). 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years 

Increase in numbers of pools > 3.3 ft 

depth on upward trend towards 

exclosure reference condition.

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

DMA site

Water temperate Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at DMA 

towards reference condition, site 

potential values of 60% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group 2012). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

374 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

West Fork of Summit 

Creek Reach 1 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• West Summit 

Recovery Unit

Stabilizing Plant Cover Photopoint 5 years Expand wetland obligate plant 

communities. Establish photo monitoring at DMA site 

West Fork of Summit 

Creek Reach 2

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Summit Rock unit

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities 

Greenline Stability Rating 5 years Increase greenline stability rating from 

Mid (5.2) to High (6.5).

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Stable Banks 5 years Increase bank stability from 47% to 

80%.

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Shrub Development and 

Shade 

Shrub Density and Height 

Class 5 years

Expand alder shrub density along 

greenline (3 to 6 foot height class) by 

10%.

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Lake Creek Reach 3 

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• West Lake Creek 

Riparian Pasture 

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Plant Communities, and 

Shrub Development 

Greenline to Greenline Width 5 years

Greenline to greenline width would 

decrease by 25% from 24.8 to 18.6 

feet.

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Greenline Stability Rating 5 years Increase greenline stability rating from 

Mid (4.4) to High (6.3).

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Stable Banks 5 years Increase bank stability from 55% to 

80%.

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Bankfull Width/Depth 5 years

Decrease the bankfull width/depth ratio 

at riffles by 15 percent from 23.8 to 

27.4 (PIBO site id 1884) and 33.8 to 

38.9 (PIBO site id 2037). 

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years 

Decrease the bankfull W/D ratio at 

riffles by 15% (from 23.8 to 18.8) 

towards a Rosgen E channel type of 

12 (PIBO Site ID 1884, PFC 2007). 

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years Increase number of pools > 3.3 ft depth PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 

Water Temperature Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at DMA 

towards reference condition, site 

potential values of 80% in hardwood 

areas (Carex Working Group 2012). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA site 

Shrub Development and 

Water Quality Macroinvertebrate 10 years 

Increased abundance of species in the 

shredder function group. Decreased 

number of intolerant taxa and taxa 

richness. 

PIBO monitoring at DMA sites 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 375

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

Big Creek (No PFC, S. 

side of FS rd 1600 for 

0.15 miles) 

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture

Shrub Development and 

Stabilizing Plant Cover Photopoint 5 years Increase of shrubs and wetland 

obligate plant communities. Establish photo monitoring at DMA site

Big Creek Reaches 1, 

2 & 3

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• South Big Creek unit 

(reach 1) 

• North Big Creek unit 

(reach 2) 

• East Big Creek unit 

(reach 3) 

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Pant Communities, and 

Shrub Development 

Site Visits 5 years Continued maintenance and 

improvements in riparian conditions. 

Multiple indicator monitoring at DMA 

site 

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years Decrease the bankfull W/D ratio at 

riffles 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years Increase number of pools > 3.3 ft depth 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Water Temperate, Shade, 

Shade Development and 

Channel Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at DMA 

towards reference condition, site 

potential values of 60% in hardwood 

areas and 25% for native floodplain 

grass site (Carex Working Group, 

2012, TMDL 2010). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA site 

Bosenberg Creek (No 

PFC Assessment) 

• Lake Creek 

allotment 

• Bosenberg unit 

(above FS rd 1648)

Undercut Banks, Shade and 

Bank Stability, Stabilizing 

Pant Communities, and 

Shrub Development 

MIM Attributes 5 years 

Establish a designated monitoring area 

and collect baseline information 

immediately. Follow up five years post 

implementation of boundary changes 

with repeat monitoring. 

Establish multiple indicator monitoring 

at new DMA site 

Channel Characteristics and 

Aquatic Habitat 

Average Bankfull Width (feet) 10 years Decrease in average bankfull width Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Average Bankfull 

Width/Depth (ratio) 10 years Decrease the bankfull W/D ratio at riffles 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Residual Pool Depth 10 year Increase residual pool depth Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 

Pool Quality (# of pools > 3.3 

ft) 10 years Increase number of pools > 3.3 ft depth 

Channel characteristics monitoring at 

new DMA site 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

376 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach Indicator 

(Measure of Table 102) Indicator Target Time Period Management Objective (Measure) Monitoring Type

Bosenberg Creek (No 

PFC Assessment) 

• Lake Creek 

allotment 

• Bosenberg unit 

(above FS rd 1648)

(cont’d)

Water Temperate, Shade, 

Shade Development and 

Channel Characteristics 

Shade 10 years 

Increase effective shade at DMA 

towards reference condition, site 

potential values of 60% in hardwood 

areas and 25% for native floodplain 

grass sites (Carex Working Group 

2012, TMDL 2012). 

SolarPathfinder at new DMA site

Fen Area

• Logan Valley 

allotment

• Big Field unit

Hydrologic Function Early Season Flow Diversion 5 years

Livestock trails are revegetating and 

are diverting less flow (Weixelman & 

Cooper 2007).

Fen PFC, GDE Level 2 and 

photopoints 

Peat Development

Exposed Peat 5 years Exposed peat is ≤ 15% (Weixelman & 

Cooper 2007).

Fen PFC and GDE Level 2 

Peat Forming Species 5 years The proportion of peat forming species 

is ≥ 90%.

Obligate Wetland Species 5 years The proportion of obligate wetland 

species is ≥ 90%.

Non-Native Species 5 years Non-native species are absent or are 

not expanding (FSM 2900).

Sensitive Species

Population Abundance 5 years 

Sensitive species populations are 

maintained at current extent or are 

expanding (FSM 2670).

Modified GDE Level 2 and Threatened, 

Endangered and Sensitive Plant 

module of the USFS Natural Resource 

Information System 

Habitat Abundance 5 year 

Sensitive species habitats are 

maintained at current extent or are 

expanding (FSM 2670).

Modified GDE Level 2 and photopoints 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 377

Table 104. Adaptive management strategies

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

Summit Creek

Reaches 1, 2, 3 & 

4 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• Sagehen Unit 

Entire pasture would be 

rested 3 years out of a 

10 year period (season 

long rest). Entire 

allowable use levels 

(see appendix E). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

Construction of the 

Sagehen Riparian 

exclosure and Sagehen 

Riparian pasture along 

Summit Creek in Reach 

2. The riparian 

exclosure would not be 

grazed. The riparian 

pasture would be 

rested for 3-5 years 

after the pasture fence 

is constructed. Grazing 

would resume after 

resource objectives 

have been achieved.

Reach 1, 3, and 4 of 

Summit Creek would 

be grazed annually to 

allowable use levels 

(see appendix I). 

Additionally rest within 

the riparian pasture 

(Reach 2) and change 

allowable use levels 

(Reaches 1, 3, and 4). 

Daily riding by 

permittee to move 

livestock away from 

Summit Creek. 

Construction of cages 

and small exclosure 

(20x50 ft). Exclosures 

would be approximately 

10% of the total riparian 

length. 

Construct exclosures 

around a higher 

percentage of Summit 

Creek. 

Summit Creek 

Reach 5 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment

• Little Logan unit 

Entire pasture rested 3 

years out of a 10 year 

period (season long 

rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

Construction of two 

riparian pastures 

(Lower Little Logan and 

Upper Little Logan 

Riparian pastures) 

along Summit Creek. 

The riparian pastures 

would be rested for 3-5 

years after the pasture 

fences are constructed. 

Grazing would resume 

after resource 

objectives have been 

achieved

Additionally rest within 

the riparian pasture 

Daily riding by 

permittee to move 

livestock away from 

Summit Creek. 

Construction of cages 

and small exclosures 

(20x50 ft). Exclosures 

would be approximately 

10% of the total riparian 

length. 

Construct exclosures 

around a higher 

percentage of Summit 

Creek.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

378 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

Summit Creek 

Reach 6 

and

West Fork 

Summit Creek 

Reach 2 

• Summit Prairie 

allotment

• Summit Rock 

unit 

Entire pasture would be 

grazed annually to 

allowable use level 

(see appendix E). 

Change allowable use 

levels. 

Entire pasture would be 

grazed annually to 

allowable use level 

(see appendix E). 

Change allowable use 

levels. 

The area outside of the 

Prairie Riparian pasture 

would be grazed 

annually to allowable 

use level (see appendix

E). 

See below for Prairie 

Riparian pasture 

proposed action. 

Change allowable use 

levels outside of the 

Prairie Riparian 

pasture. 

See below for Riparian 

Pasture Adaptive 

Strategy.

Summit Creek

Reach 7

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• North Summit 

unit 

Entire pasture would be 

grazed annually to 

allowable use level 

(See appendix E). 

Change allowable use 

levels. 

Construct North 

Summit Riparian 

pasture (Summit Creek 

Reach 7). The riparian 

pasture would be 

rested for 3-5 years 

after the pasture fence 

is constructed. Grazing 

would resume after 

resource objectives 

have been achieved 

(see appendix E). 

Additionally rest within 

the riparian pasture.

Construct Prairie 

Riparian pasture along 

(Summit Creek Reach 

7 and West Fork of 

Summit Creek Reach 

2). The riparian pasture 

would be rested for 3-5 

years after the pasture 

fence is constructed. 

Grazing would resume 

after resource 

objectives have been 

achieved (see appendix

E). 

Additionally rest within 

the riparian pasture.

West Fork of 

Summit Creek 

Reach 1

• Summit Prairie 

allotment 

• West Summit 

Recovery unit

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 2011) 

would be rested 3-5 

immediate grazing 

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit. 

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 2011) 

would be rested 3-5 

immediate grazing 

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit. 

The West Summit 

Recovery unit 

(constructed in 2011) 

would be rested 3-5 

immediate grazing 

season (season long 

rest). 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 379

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

Bosenberg Creek 

No PFC 

Assessment 

• Lake Creek

allotment

• Bosenberg unit 

(above FS rd 

1648)

Entire pasture rested 3 

years out of a 10 year 

period (season long 

rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

None (Bosenberg 

remains vacant) None None (Bosenberg remains vacant) None

Lake Creek 

Reach 3

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• West Lake 

Creek Riparian 

Pasture 

(existing 

authorized 

project to be 

constructed in 

2012 or 2013)

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have 

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit. 

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have 

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have 

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Summit 

Recovery unit 

Big Creek 

(No PFC 

Assessment, 

located s. side of 

FS rd 16 for 0.15 

miles) 

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• West Bosenberg 

Riparian 

Pasture 

(existing 

authorized 

project to be 

constructed in 

2012 or 2013)

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture. 

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have 

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture.

Rest would occur for 3-

5 years after the fence 

is constructed and 

willows are planted. 

Grazing would resume 

after willows have 

established. 

Additional rest within 

the West Bosenberg 

Riparian pasture.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

380 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Stream/Reach

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy Proposed Action Adaptive Strategy

Big Creek Reach 

1, 2, & 3

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• South Big Creek 

unit (reach 1)

• North Big Creek 

unit (reach 2) 

• East Big Creek 

unit (reach 3) 

The South Big Creek, 

North Big Creek and 

East Big Creek units 

would be combined into 

a single unit identified 

as the Big Creek 

Riparian pasture. The 

entire Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of a 

10 year period (season 

long rest). 

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest. 

The South Big Creek, 

North Big Creek and 

East Big Creek units 

would be combined into 

a single unit identified 

as the Big Creek 

Riparian pasture. The 

entire Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of a 

10 year period (season 

long rest).

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest

The South Big Creek, 

North Big Creek and 

East Big Creek units 

would be combined into 

a single unit identified 

as the Big Creek 

Riparian pasture. The 

entire Riparian pasture 

rested 3 years out of a 

10 year period (season 

long rest).

Scheduled rest or 

additional rest 

Fen Area

• Logan Valley 

allotment 

• Big Field Creek 

unit 

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence around 

Fen area 

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence around 

Fen area 

Graze annually and 

monitor Fen area. 

Construct riparian 

pasture fence around 

Fen area 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 381

Appendix B - Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization 

Project Maps

Figure 35. Vicinity map of the four allotments

Alternative 1 – No Grazing: 

Figure 36. Alternative 1 - Lake Creek allotment

Figure 37. Alternative 1 - Logan Valley allotment

Figure 38. Alternative 1 - McCoy Creek allotment

Figure 39. Alternative 1 - Summit Prairie allotment

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: 

Figure 40. Alternative 2 - Lake Creek allotment

Figure 41. Alternative 2 - Logan Valley allotment

Figure 42. Alternative 2 - McCoy Creek allotment

Figure 43. Alternative 2 - Summit Prairie allotment

Alternative 3: 

Figure 44. Alternative 3 - Lake Creek allotment

Figure 45. Alternative 3 - Logan Valley allotment

Figure 46. Alternative 3 - McCoy Creek allotment

Figure 47. Alternative 3 - Summit Prairie allotment

Alternative 4: 

Figure 48. Alternative 4 - Lake Creek allotment

Figure 49. Alternative 4 - Logan Valley allotment

Figure 50. Alternative 4 - McCoy Creek allotment

Figure 51. Alternative 4 - Summit Prairie allotment

Figure 52. Bull trout critical habitat within the project area

Figure 53. Monitoring sites and stream reaches within the project area
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

382 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 35. Vicinity map of the four allotments
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 383

Figure 36. Alternative 1 - Lake Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

384 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 37. Alternative 1 - Logan Valley allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 385

Figure 38. Alternative 1 - McCoy Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

386 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 39. Alternative 1 - Summit Prairie allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 387

Figure 40. Alternative 2 - Lake Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

388 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 41. Alternative 2 - Logan Valley allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 389

Figure 42. Alternative 2 - McCoy Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

390 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 43. Alternative 2 - Summit Prairie allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 391

Figure 44. Alternative 3 - Lake Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

392 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 45. Alternative 3 - Logan Valley allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 393

Figure 46. Alternative 3 - McCoy Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

394 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 47. Alternative 3 - Summit Prairie allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 395

Figure 48. Alternative 4 - Lake Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

396 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 49. Alternative 4 - Logan Valley allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 397

Figure 50. Alternative 4 - McCoy Creek allotment
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

398 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 51. Alternative 4 - Summit Prairie allotment
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 399

Figure 52. Bull trout critical habitat within the project area
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

400 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Figure 53. Monitoring sites and stream reaches within the project area
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 401

Appendix C – Cumulative Activities Considered

The following listed activities will be reviewed for cumulative effects within each of the resource 

sections. These activities are located within the project area unless otherwise noted. The project area 

consists of all or portions of the Upper Big Creek, Lake Creek, Summit Creek, and Bosenberg Creek 

subwatersheds in the Upper Malheur River Watershed. The year listed on the table is the year the activity 

was implemented or proposed for implementation. 

Table 105. Past activities in the Summit Logan Grazing Authorization Project Area

Year Sale Name Harvest Type 

Past Timber Sales

1972 Little Logan HPR

1972 Mickey Mouse HSV

1974 Bosenberg HPR

1975 Black Canyon HPR

1977-1979 Lonsumess HCC/HPR/HFR

1979 Muddy Shoe HSH/HFR

1980-1983 Spiketail HCR/HFR/HSH

1981 Big Pine HSV/HPR/HCC

1981 Conroy HPR

1981 Malheur River HFR

1981-1984 Scots HCC/HPR/HSH/HFR

1982 Stacked HSV

1982 Logan IV HCR

1982 Logan LP HCR

1982-1983 Fourteen HFR/HCC/HPR/HSV

1983 Logan 0 HCR

1983 Logan II HCR

1983 Logan III HCR

1983-1984 BO HFR/HSV

1983-1984 Sage HFR

1983-1987 Exchange II HSV/HCR

1984-1985 Hare HCC/HPR/HCR/HFR

1984-1986 Teen HFR

1985 Bigham HCR/HTH/HPR

1985-1987 Keystone HSH/HFR

1986 Logan HFR/HCR

1986 Exchange III HCR/HFR/HTH/HPR

1986-1988 Exchange IV HCR/HPR/HTH

1986-1988 PC Rock HCC/HFR/HOR/HOH

1987-1989 Hilo Exchange II HCC/HCR/HSH/HPR

1989-1995 McCoy HCC/HCP/HOR/HSH

1990-1991 Parallel HCC/HOR/HCP

1991-1992 Bullet HCR/HCP/HSH

1991-1992 Silver HSH/HCP/HSV/HCR
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

402 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Year Sale Name Harvest Type 

1991-1992 Sno A HSH/HCC

1991-1992 Sno B HCR/HCC

1991-1992 Sno C HCC/HTH

1991-2001 Wickiup HSH/HOR/HCC/HSV/HSA

2002-2011 Merit HTH/HCR/HSH

2002-2011 Starvation Lodgepole HTH

A map showing the locations of past harvest areas from 1960 to 2000 is located in the Malheur Headwaters Watershed 

Assessment (2000), Figure 37.

Harvest Prescription Definitions: 

• HTH: Commercial thinning

• HCR: Regeneration harvest (even aged management; the stands naturally or artificially regenerated) 

• HCC: Clearcut 

• HSH: Shelterwood/Seed tree 

• HOR: Harvest overstory removal 

• HFR: Final removal (of a mature overstory to release established immature crop tree that were not a result of a 

prescribed regeneration cut)

• HPR: Partial removal 

• HSV: Selection removal 

• HSA: Salvage harvest

Past Wildfires

Year Fire Name Acres

1990 Snowshoe, Corral Basin, 

and Sheep 10,022

2002 High Robert 9,917

Other Past Activities

Years Type of Activity Description

Mid-1800s to 

Present 

Livestock grazing 

(cattle/sheep)

From the mid-1880s to the 1900s, cattle mostly grazed in low-lying 

riparian areas but since the early 1900s, when overgrazing 

became an obvious problem, livestock grazing decreased 

considerably. Grazing activities include construction and 

maintenance projects (fences and water troughs) needed for 

range management. Currently, Dollar Basin, McCoy Creek, 

Summit Prairie and Logan Valley are active allotments; Lake 

Creek has been vacant with no livestock grazing since 1985.

Mid-1800s to 

Present 

Private land livestock 

grazing adjacent to project 

area.

There are four private land owners adjacent to the project area. All 

private lands are grazed to some extent. The private lands located 

along Lake Creek and McCoy Creek are generally grazed from 

June through October.

The private land located along Bosenberg Creek is generally 

grazed from June through October. 

The private land located south of the National Forest System road 

16 is generally grazed May through October. The riparian areas 

have been placed in a conservation program and are currently not 

being grazed. 

The private land at the south end of the project area along the 

Malheur River is grazed early in the season from June to July, and 

in the fall for a week or two before livestock are trucked home. 

The private land located along Summit Creek is generally grazed 

from June through October. 

Early 1900s to 

Present 

Water withdrawal for 

irrigation 

Construction and maintenance of diversions and ditches for either 

pasture irrigation or livestock watering. 

Early 1900s to 

Present Summer Recreation Use includes camping, mushroom picking, fishing and sightseeing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 403

Year Sale Name Harvest Type 

Early 1900s to 

Present Fall Recreation Use includes hunting and fishing. 

1920s to 

Present 

Use and Maintenance of 

National Forest System 

roads 

Road maintenance includes but is not limited to cleaning culverts,

ditches and cattleguards, blading, brushing and signing roads. All 

road maintenance activity follows the commercial roads rule 

requirements of 2009. 

Early 1900s to 

1960s 

Railroad Line 

Railroad lines were constructed from Seneca, Oregon to Summit 

Prairie. The track was abandoned and removed in the 1960s and 

the majority of the lines were converted to roads.

1950s to 

Present Fire Suppression Fire suppression activities 

1950s Introduction of Brook Trout Introduction of brook trout into the Malheur River system. 

1960s to 

Present Firewood Cutting 

Firewood cutting throughout the project area. Firewood cutting has 

increased since the 1920s as railroad lines and roads were 

established.

1960s to 

Present 

Lake Creek Organization 

Camp

In 2005 a Special Use Permit (20 year permit) granting continued 

use of approximately 20 acres of NFS lands to Lake Creek Youth 

Recreational Camp, Inc. (Lake Creek Camp). The permit 

authorizes maintenance and seasonal operation of existing 

facilities on this site primarily for a youth camp. Additional 

conditions under the permit removal of facilities within Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas. Historically the area was a Forest 

Service Ranger Station (early 1900s). 

1970s to 

Present Winter Recreation Use includes snowmobiling, grooming and use of existing 

snowmobile trails. 

1990s Sandpiper Habitat 

Restoration 

Removal and piling of encroaching lodgepole pine saplings along 

the edges of meadow areas in Logan Valley. 

2004 Burns Paiute Bridge Construction of an access bridge. 

2004 Bridge removal Removal of two unsafe railroad bridges. 

2005 Meadow Fork Culvert 

Replacement Replaced the culvert on Meadow For Big Creek with a bridge.

2009-2010 Merit Road Closures and 

Decommissioning

Road closures (10.4 miles with gates and 15.3 miles with dirt 

berms) and decommissioning (12.6 miles) in the Lake Creek 

subwatershed. 

2005-2011 Merit Precommercial 

Thinning

Precommercial thinning and machine piling and handpiling on 

approximately 370 acres in the Lake Creek subwatershed.

2010 Merit Underburning Underburned 250 acres

2005-Present Big Creek Aspen 

Restoration

Construction of buck and pole fence, commercial and 

noncommercial thinning, and fuel treatments on 22 acres. Still 

need to do jackpot burning. 

2008 Logan Valley Meadow 

Restoration

5 acres of meadow restoration in Logan Valley. Noncommercial 

removal of encroaching lodgepole pine and handpiling in 

meadows.

2010 - Present

Logan Valley 

Meadow/Grassland 

Enhancement, Aspen 

Restoration Project.

Project is partially complete. Approximately 229 acres of 

grassland/meadow enhancement which includes combinations of 

hand cutting of encroaching lodgepole, fuel treatments, and 

underburning. Aspen restoration on approximately 18 acres which 

includes conifer cutting and seedling protection (hinging and 

fencing). Commercial thinning on approximately 100 acres to 

minimize the impacts of Mt. Pine beetle.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

404 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Table 106. Present or ongoing activities (2012)

Activity Description 

Water withdrawals/irrigation Same as in the past 

Firewood cutting Same as in the past 

Livestock grazing Same as in the past 

Invasive weed control Same as in the past 

Summer, fall, winter recreation Same as in the past 

Use and maintenance of National Forest 

System roads Same as in the past 

Fire suppression Same as in the past 

Lake Creek Organization Camp Same as in the past

Logan Valley Meadow/Grassland 

Enhancement, Aspen Restoration Project. Same as in the past

West Fork Summit Creek fence and water gap 

Construct a 4-wire let-down fence along approximately 0.3 miles 

of West Fork of Summit Creek. The fence and water gap would 

be constructed along the west side of the stream. 

West Fork Summit Creek parallel tree felling Green lodgepole felled parallel along West Fork of Summit Creek 

for approximately 1⁄2 miles (roughly 50-75 trees). 

Little Logan willow restoration (continued) 

Enlarge or replace existing cages around willows. Cages would 

be approximately 20 ft. in diameter. Construct a 1⁄4 mile buck and 

pole exclosure around a group of willows, removing cages. 

Sagehen stock ponds 

Construction of 3 stock ponds in the Sagehen unit. Ponds would 

be located in the uplands (outside of RHACs), capturing runoff 

from snow melt. 

Lake Creek unit division fence reconstruction Reconstruction of approximately 1 mile of 4-wire barbed wire letdown fence. 

Big Creek fence and water-gap 

Construct a 4-wire barbed let-down fence along approximately 

0.2 miles of Big Creek. The fence (with rock jacks) and water gap 

would be constructed along the east side of the stream. Some 

willows may be cut or removed, depending on the timing, willow 

stems or entire places with roots may be transplanted to other 

locations along Big and/or Lake Creeks. 

Lake Creek fence and water-gap

Construct a 4-wire barbed let-down fence with water-gaps along 

approximately 0.2 miles of Lake Creek. 

Lake Creek willow gallery fence Construct a 4-wire barbed wire fence with rock jacks along 

approximately 0.5 miles of Lake Creek.

Big Creek and Lake Creek off-site water 

source

A flex tub with pump would be placed in stream channel. A small 

piece of equipment would trench the pipeline from the adjacent 

riparian area to the troughs. A solar panel would be placed in the 

adjacent area of the stream channel to power the pump. Trough 

locations would be leveled and hardened with rocks. 

West Lake Creek riparian fence Construct a 4-wire let-down fence with rock jacks along 

approximately 1 mile of Lake Creek (totally 2.1 miles of fence). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 405

Table 107. Foreseeable activities

Year Approved Foreseeable Activity Description 

Annual Yes Water withdrawals/irrigation Same as in past 

Annual Yes Firewood cutting Same as in past 

Annual Yes Livestock grazing Same as in past 

Annual Yes Summer, fall, winter recreation Same as in past 

Annual Yes Use and maintenance of National 

Forest System roads Same as in past 

Annual Yes Fire Suppression Same as in past 

2012-

2013 Yes Riparian Hardwood Planting Restoration

Planting of hardwood cuttings along 

approximately 1.2 miles of Lake Creek and 

2.5 miles of Big Creek to restore shade and 

cover.

2013 NO Malheur National Forest Travel 

Management 

Cross country travel would be prohibited 

across 1,337,770 acres on the Malheur 

National Forest where it is not already 

prohibited with the exception of cross country 

travel from designated open routes for the 

sole purpose of dispersed camping when 

resource damage caused by motor vehicle 

use can be avoided. The distance that cross 

country travel would be allowed from open 

routes to existing dispersed camp sites would 

vary by alternative considered in the travel 

management analysis. Existing dispersed 

sites in a riparian area would also have a 

setback distance from the stream where 

motorized access would be restricted.

2013 No Malheur National Forest Site- Specific 

Invasive Plant Treatment 

Treatment of known and newly discovered 

invasive plants using herbicide, manual, 

mechanical, biological and/or cultural 

treatments. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 407

Appendix E - Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose different combinations of use levels that control the duration of the 

grazing management system to address the purpose and need and the significant issues shown in chapter

1. To control the duration of grazing, move triggers and thresholds for allowable use levels (end-point 

indicators) are identified for each alternative. Established thresholds are identified for upland and riparian 

herbaceous species use, bank alteration, and shrub browsing. 

Monitoring would ensure that management is helping or moving towards attaining desired conditions. 

appendix A, Table 104 describes the monitoring that would be implemented with the action alternatives. 

The Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines lists accepted methodologies for monitoring, 

which may continue to be updated overtime. 

Allowable use, move triggers, and end-point indicators may change for pastures based on site specific 

data collected at representative monitoring sites based on adjustments made in response to monitoring 

results, timing, or climatic conditions. As recovery is obtained through meeting management objectives

(see appendix A, Table 103), less restrictive use levels may be adequate to maintain or continue recovery 

of stream conditions. If management objectives are not being achieved in a timely manner, changes in 

move triggers and allowable use levels may be necessary to accelerate recovery (see appendix A, Table 

104).

Table 108. Move triggers and allowable use levels by alternative

Indicator Measurement Location Move 

Triggersa

Allowable Use 

(End-Point 

Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., 

sedges and rushes)

Along the greenlineb

45% use OR 

5-inch 

stubble 

heightc

4-inch stubble 

height All pastures not listed below

35% use OR 

7-inch 

stubble 

height

6-inch stubble 

height

Logan Valley Allotment:

• West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

Pasture

Summit Prairie Allotment:

• Sagehen unit

• West Summit Recovery 

unit

• West Fork Summit Creek 

within in the Summit Rock 

unit

Grass and grasslike (nonhydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian benchesd

and uplande areas 

of the unit

Uplands and in soils that 

are non-hydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available foragef

within riparian benches and 

forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within 

shrublands.

All pastures
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

408 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Indicator Measurement Location Move 

Triggersa

Allowable Use 

(End-Point 

Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

Light (30%) to moderate (50%)g

hedging. 

Note: The level of use would be 

gathered in conjunction with 

estimates of age class 

distribution. A good mix of age 

classes is desired

All pastures

Bank Alteration

Along the greenline 20% bank alteration All pastures not listed below 

Along the greenline 15% bank alteration West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture

Critical DMA 10% bank alteration

Bosenberg unit Representative DMA 15% bank alteration

Alternative 3

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., 

sedges and rushes)

Along the greenline

45% use OR 

5-inch 

stubble 

height

4-inch stubble 

height All pastures not listed below

35% use OR 

7-inch 

stubble 

height

6-inch stubble 

height

Logan Valley allotment: 

• West Bosenberg Riparian 

Pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen unit

• Little Logan unit 

• West Summit Recovery 

unit

9-inch 

stubble 

height

7-inch stubble 

height

Logan Valley allotment:

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment: 

• Summit Rock unit (Reach 2 

of W. Fork Summit Creek, 

Reach 6 of Summit Creek) 

• Upper Little Logan Riparian 

pasture

• Lower Little Logan Riparian 

pasture

• Sagehen Riparian pasture

Grass and grasslike (nonhydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian bunches

and upland areas of 

the unit

Uplands and in soils that 

are non-hydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available forage 

within riparian benches and 

forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within 

shrublands.

All pastures
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 409

Indicator Measurement Location Move 

Triggersa

Allowable Use 

(End-Point 

Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

30% 40% All pastures not listed below

20% 30%

Logan Valley allotment: 

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen

• Little Logan

• North Summit Riparian 

pasture

Bank Alteration Along the greenline

20% 25% All pastures not listed below

10% 15%

Logan Valley allotment:

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

• West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen

• Little Logan 

• Summit Rock (Reach 2 of 

W. Fork Summit Creek & 

Reach 6 of Summit Creek)

• Upper Little Logan Riparian 

pasture

• Lower Little Logan Riparian 

pasture

• Sagehen Riparian pasture

15% 20%

Summit Prairie allotment: 

• North Summit Riparian 

pasture
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

410 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Indicator Measurement Location Move 

Triggersa

Allowable Use 

(End-Point 

Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Alternative 4

Stubble Height on 

herbaceous 

hydrophytic riparian 

species (i.e., 

sedges and rushes)

Along the greenline

45% use OR 

5-inch 

stubble 

height

4-inch stubble 

height

All pastures and greenlines 

not listed below

35% use OR 

7-inch 

stubble 

height

6-inch stubble 

height

Logan Valley allotment: 

• West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Prairie Riparian pasture 

(Summit Creek)

9-inch 

stubble 

height

7-inch stubble 

height

Logan Valley allotment:

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen

• Little Logan

• Summit Rock units (Reach 

2 of W. Fork of Summit 

Creek & Reach 6 of 

Summit Creek)

• Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit (7-9 inches 

on W. Fork of Summit 

Creek)

Grass and grasslike (nonhydrophytic 

species) within 

riparian bunches

and upland areas of 

the unit

Uplands and in soils that 

are non-hydrophytic in 

nature

45% use of available forage 

within riparian benches and 

forested stands, 55% within 

grasslands and 50% within 

shrublands

Uplands and in soils that are 

non-hydrophytic in nature

Riparian woody 

shrubs (i.e., willows, 

alders, dogwood, 

wildrose)

Riparian Areas

30% 40% All pastures and greenlines 

not listed below

20% 30%

Logan Valley allotment:

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen unit

• Little Logan unit 

• Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 411

Indicator Measurement Location Move 

Triggersa

Allowable Use 

(End-Point 

Indicators)

Allotment and Pasture

Bank Alteration Along the greenline

20% 25% All pastures and greenlines 

not listed below

10% 15%

Logan Valley allotment:

• Big Creek Riparian pasture 

• West Lake Creek Riparian 

pasture 

• West Bosenberg Riparian 

pasture 

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Sagehen, Little Logan, & 

Summit Rock units (Reach 

2 of W. Fork Summit Creek 

& Reach 6 on Summit 

Creek)

15% 20%

Summit Prairie allotment:

• Prairie Riparian pasture 

and West Summit 

Recovery unit 

a – Move Triggers are used to determine when livestock should be relocated from an area or pasture to achieve desired use 

levels.

b – Greenline is the first hydrophytic perennial vegetation for the water’s edge.

c – Stubble is the basal portion of herbaceous plants remaining after the top portion has been harvested by grazing animals.

d – Benches, riparian terraces or islands are those portions of the riparian areas slightly higher and drier than the rest of the 

riparian area.

e – Uplands are defined as the portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream.

f – Available use is the portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specific kind or class of grazing animal.

g - In general, light (30%) hedging would be an expected end-point indicator. However, moderate (50%) hedging may be 

acceptable on an occasional basis if the woody component is in a healthy and vigorous condition and there is good 

representation of age cohorts and the moderate use does not result in significant suppression in the vigor or growth form of the 

plant.

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 413

Appendix F – Response to Comments

The USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, received eight timely comments on the Summit 

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Draft Environmental Impact Statement. All substantive comment 

comments were annotated and a response written.

Annotation Key:

1. Grant County Conservationists – Linda Driskill

Received Electronically, November 20, 2012 

Postmarked November 26, 2012 

• 3 page letter; no attachments 

2. United States Department of the Interior – Office of Environmental Policy and ComplianceAllison O’Brien

Received Electronically, December 11, 2012

• 1 page letter, no attachments 

3. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project – Karen Coulter 

Received by Mail, Postmarked December 16, 2012 

• 2 page letter, 116 enclosure 

4. Alan Jacobs and Jim Jacobs 

Received Electronically, December 17, 2012 

• 1 page, no attachments 

5. Alan Jacobs 

Received Electronically, December 17, 2012

• 1 page, no attachments 

6. Jim Jacobs

Received Electronically, December 17, 2012

• 1 page, no attachments 

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency- Christine Reichgott

Received Electronically, December 17, 2012

• 2 page letter, 1 page enclosure 

8. Jim and Alan Jacobs

Verbal Comments Recorded by the Forest Service, December 13, 2012 

• 2 page meeting notes 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

414 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment Letter #1 – Grant County Conservationists 

Comment Response

Thank you for sending us a timely copy of the recent DEIS for the Upper Malheur River. Our 

scrutiny of this document, “Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project” raises some 

disturbing issues especially as the area in question on the Prairie City Ranger District is in 

designated Bull Trout Critical Habitat.

1-1 

In 1998 (nearly 25 years ago) the Bull Trout was listed as Threatened by the USFWS. A year earlier 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife declared the Bull Trout “at a high risk of extinction” in 

the Upper Malheur Watershed. USFWS designated this area as Critical Habitat in 2010. For many 

years the ODFW with annual redd count surveys, and the Burns Paiute Tribes with telemetry 

surveys have been documenting the decline of the species[1].

1-2 

The MNF has identified two key issues. It seems revealing that the first issue raised in the 279-page 

DEIS is that of the Rescission Bill and the agency’s timely renewal of grazing permits. It is also 

revealing that basically one local ranch holds the permits to the entire project area. A small 

allotment is attached to the Oxbow Ranch owned by an absentee millionaire.

Coming in second (and last) place is the need to “improve resource conditions for aquatic habitat”. 

This presumably is an oblique reference to the threatened Bull Trout.

1-3 

Much of the document (see Summary, page 5 and sequel) is devoted to the plight of the ranch most 

affected and the necessity of amending the Forest Plan’s significant Amendment 29 so as to keep 

both in the commercial livestock business. We will return to this issue on the final page.

Our “purpose and need” here is to focus on the issue of the Bull Trout, Critical Habitat, and the US 

taxpayer.

1-4 

First, a quick review of the interacting chronology of the Forest’s development of its preferred 

alternative in the DEIS. The Project’s environment assessment was apparently begun in 2007 with 

allotment management shifting into a “be careful” mode. This resulted in a preliminary preferred 

Alternative: ALTERNATIVE 2. The USFWS voiced strong reservations, particularly as applied to the 

Summit Prairie Allotment that comprises much of the project area. So the MNF went back to the 

drawing board and, this time, with the collaboration of the permittees came up with ALTERNATIVE 

4.

1-5 

ALTERNATIVE 4 would promote “economic well being (and, hopefully, aquatic recovery) via 

continued livestock grazing. Specifically, this would be done by building more exclosures and 

riparian “pastures[2]”, vegetation cages, upland water (spring) developments,[3] decrease the 

allowable use and the promise of a daily “rider” for a few hours a day. Lots of new fences – 13.6 

miles. It is of interest that the projected costs of all this infrastructure (or “improvements”) drops from 

$595,000 per the original ALTERNATIVE 2 to $306,000 in ALTERNATIVE 4 (permittee input?)

Our question is who pays for all this?

1-6 

No doubt the MNF believes such staggering expenditures are justified and the only conceivable 

route to “improving.... aquatic habitat”. The DEIS defines the following benchmarks as imperative to

the survival of the Bull Trout and its Critical Habitat.

• A stabilizing plant cover of 80-95% of which least 25% are native floodplain species.

• A “high” rating for hydrophytic (aquatic) vegetation. If not currently present, then the 

imminent achievement of said objective

• A 90% or greater bank stability rating. 

• A 25% or greater proportion of saplings and/or young shrubs.

• Overhanging banks of 75% in floodplains and non-forested areas.

The MNF is to be commended for issuing (albeit only recently) improved riparian management 

guidelines such as those listed above. The problem from our perspective is that it is too little, too 

late.

Points in case are the two recent (June 2011) photos shown above taken on Summit Creek in the 

Summit Prairie Allotment. Remember the Bull Trout was listed as Threatened 25 years ago. Maybe

we can be forgiven for doubting that the continuation of livestock grazing in the project area will 

achieve the benchmarks in a timely manner?

1-7 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 415

Comment Response

Summit Creek June 2011 The nearby livestock exclosure June 2011

Summary of our major concerns:

1. The DEIS impresses us as a document primarily dedicated to promoting the continued grazing 

privileges of a single [albeit very progressive] ranch family.[4] For us, the paramount issue here is 

the national issue of a threatened species, the Bull Trout becoming extinct in the Malheur River.

1-8 

2. The presence in the area of just recently “Non-functioning” and presently “Functioning-at-risk” 

stream segments.[5] 1-9 

3. The well-documented historical presence of beaver throughout the Summit Creek drainage, 

whereas today they mainly exist in a small livestock exclosure. Beaver are faring better elsewhere in 

the Watershed, mainly on the land owned and managed by the Paiute Tribe.

1-10

4. The huge cost of protecting (literally) Summit Creek and other drainages in the Watershed by 

constructing many miles of new barbed wire fencing[6], water sources for livestock, etc. 1-11

5. The presence of several listed 303(d) streams[7] for temperature impairment and failure to meet 

the biological needs of the Bull Trout. 1-12

6. An unacceptable cursory treatment of the critical issue of forage available to all species, mainly 

livestock. The “analysis” is relegated to half a page and basically falls in the “trust us” category. 1-13

7. The same as concerns the DEIS treatment of the “noxious/”invasive” weed issue. Without any 

backup analysis, it is simply claimed to be an issue of “low risk”. Absent is an overview, much less a 

thorough critical examination of the health and vitality of native upland flora, grass species in 

particular.

1-14

8. The proposal to construct livestock water developments in areas that the district considers water 

deficient. At least one area of concern is the headwater spring development[8] in a “highly sensitive” 

area (but slated to be grazed) where a wildfire occurred two decades ago.

1-15

Finally, in order to expedite matters (i.e. the now preferred ALTERNATIVE 4), the forest would have 

to amend the (to us sacrosanct but usually ignored) Forest Plan Amendment 29, enacted over two 

decades ago by Forest Supervisor, Mark Boche. Amendment 29's intent was to strengthen the 

management guidelines mandated regionally by INFISH/PACFISH.

1-16

Given the preceding comments, our position is to urge a firm commitment by the Malheur National 

Forest to the recovery of the threatened Bull Trout and its critical habitat. We strongly feel that this 

can only be accomplished with the adoption of ALTERNATIVE 1, the no-grazing alternative. The 

DEIS states clearly that this can be implemented with a cancellation of the permits and a two-year 

grace period.

1-17
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

416 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment Response

[1] Conservation biologists have long considered the Bull Trout as a keystone species, as its 

survival depends on abundant clean, clear water in a complex habitat also needed by many other 

aquatic species.

[2] There are already abundant fenced units, some as small as 14 acres.

[3] Water scarcity is cited as an issue in the Watershed.

[4] It is personally painful for us to put the spotlight on this because through many years on the 

ground, this progressive rancher is one we would like to see succeed. Unfortunately, he inherited a 

bad situation of mismanagement on this allotment on the Prairie City Ranger District.

[5]The DEIS itself cites on page 151 that once a riparian area is non-functioning it usually takes 

large investments in time and money to recovery the area.

[6] Albeit slightly more wildlife friendly.

[7] And those, which should be listed such as Summit Creek.

[8] Bosenburg Creek

1-1 

Bull Trout 

After reviewing the public comments received during scoping, Bull Trout Critical Habitat was identified 

as a significant issue (see DEIS, Chapter 1, page 37). The information from public comments, the 

significant issues identified for the project and direction given by the Responsible Official including 

Forest Plan direction and amendments, existing State and Federal laws, and field related data was used to 

formulate a reasonable range of alternatives. See DEIS Chapter 2, page 39. 

1-2 

Bull Trout 

Bull trout and bull trout critical habitat are discussed extensively in the DEIS, Hydrology and Aquatics, 

Chapter 3, pages 142 through 214. The Affected Environment section examines the existing and desired 

habitat conditions for bull trout on DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 156 through 175. The effects of proposed 

activities on bull trout and critical bull trout habitat are discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 175 

through 213. 

1-3 

Issues 

To clarify, two significant issues were identified (see DEIS, Chapter 1, page 37). The two significant 

issues are Bull Trout Critical Habitat and Economic Impacts to Permittees and Community. Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat is the first significant issue discussed in the DEIS Significant Issues section, although the 

order that the issues are listed does not signify greater importance. 

1-4 

Amendment 

The DEIS analyzes the effects of proposed alternatives on a variety of resources including aquatic habitat 

and water quality, wildlife, soils, sensitive plants, recreation, heritage resources; as well as social 

economic impacts to grazing impacts to the permittees and local communities. DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 

142 through 214 specifically addresses the effects of alternatives on aquatic habitat and water quality, 

including bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 417

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 proposed amendments to the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan as 

amended by Amendment #29. Specifically, the numeric value for shade in hardwood/meadow complexes 

from Forest Plan Amendment #29 would be modified for site specific stream reaches based on 

information collected by the Carex Working Group in 2012 and new science used in the Water Quality 

Management Plan completed by State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2010). INFISH 

interim standards and guidelines replaced Forest Plan direction as amended by Amendment #29, except 

where the direction provides more protection for inland native fish habitat (INFISH Decision Notice). The 

numeric values for shade in hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan Amendment #29 provide 

more protection for inland native fish habitat than INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). 

Both Forest Plan Amendment #29 and INFISH allow changes in direction based on new or better 

information. Amendment 29 states that “If new information becomes available in the future which 

indicates changes in numeric values to achieve the stated desired condition, these values may be inserted 

as a clarification/correction to the individual standard”. INFISH states that “RMOs should be refined to 

better reflect conditions that are attainable in a specific watershed or stream reach based on local 

geological, topography, climate, and potential vegetation. Interim RMO’s may be modified by amendment 

in the absence of watershed analysis where watershed or stream specific data support the change”. The 

rationale for amending the Malheur Plan as amended by amendment #29, is documented on DEIS, 

Chapter 2, pages 63 through 65; Chapter 3, page 153 through 214; and Appendix A, Part 1. In Summary, 

work carried out by the Carex Working group involved estimating the expected (and perhaps maximum) 

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

hardwood under near-natural rates of recovery. Potential values for shade from the TMDL were derived 

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

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

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

potential height and density are present. 

1-5 

Alternatives 

A summary of the analysis chronology and future steps is as follows. Interaction with the Summit Logan 

allotment grazing permittees has been ongoing since the fall of 2007. This included several field trips and 

meetings. Field trips were facilitated by the National Riparian Service Team and attended by 

representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and permittees. Public comments were requested on a 

proposed action in October, 2008 for this project. Since that time, the Summit Logan Grazing 

Authorization Project transitioned from and Environmental Assessment (EA) to an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). On February 1, 2012, a scoping letter providing information on a proposed action, 

seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 230 agencies, groups, and individuals and other 

parties. Additionally, on February 8, 2012, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register (see 

DEIS, Chapter 1, page 35). The Forest Service developed four alternatives: the No Action, the Proposed 

Action, and two other action alternatives generated in response to issues raised by the public during 

scoping (see DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 43-63). Several other alternatives were considered but eliminated 

from detailed study with the reasons for why they were not developed in detail discussed on DEIS, 

Chapter 2, page 39. Based on the analysis of effects Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred by the 

Forest Supervisor, Teresa Raaf. Identification of a preferred alternatives is a requirement of a DEIS. The 

cover letter mailed with the DEIS provided some rationale why Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. 

Comments received on the DEIS will be considered in preparation of a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and decision which will be documented in a Record of Decision (ROD).
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

418 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

1-6 

Economics 

Some of these statements are not consistent with the DEIS. The DEIS states that Alternative 4 was 

developed using public scoping comments and recommendations from Summit Prairie allotment grazing 

permittees. The DEIS states that daily riding by the permittee would be required when livestock are 

within the Saghen and Little Logan units to move and distribute animals into the uplands away from 

Summit Creek. The DEIS states that in the Logan Valley, McCoy Creek, and Summit Prairie allotments, 

proposed move triggers and allowable use levels for herbaceous forage and shrub use, and bank alteration 

vary by pasture based on the existing condition of the specific riparian area, its resiliency to grazing 

effects and other disturbances, and the presence of critical bull trout habitat (see DEIS Chapter 2, 

Alternative 4, page 57; and Appendix E for specific details). 

Your concerns over new fence construction costs are acknowledged. The total cost associated with 

proposed structural improvements (including fence construction and removal) in Alternative 4 is 

estimated at $306,200. The DEIS, Chapter 3, Social and Economics, page 243 states that the Malheur 

National Forest would continue to receive one quarter of the grazing fees collected annually, for on the 

ground range improvements. Fences and other improvements are may also be completed using funds and 

labor from permittees, grants, and partnerships. 

In reviewing your comment we found a consistency error between the Range Vegetation and SocialEconomic sections. The miles of fence to be constructed in Alternative 4 is correct in the SocialEconomic section and will be corrected in the Range Vegetation section. 

1-7 

Benchmarks 

DEIS, Appendix A, Part 1 shows the existing and desired conditions for specific stream reaches in the 

Summit Logan project area. The purpose and need for action (why activities were proposed) was driven 

by the differences between the site specific existing and desired conditions (See DEIS, Chapter 1, Purpose 

and Need for Action, pages 30 and 31). 

To acknowledge your concerns (doubts) in achieving the management objectives and the long- term 

desired condition. Chapter 2, pages 77 through 82 identifies the monitoring that would be required with 

the alternatives to ensure successful management and compliance with pertinent laws and policy. The 

effectiveness monitoring proposed would be used to determine if satisfactory progress is being made 

towards meeting the management objectives (Appendix A, part 2). If not, this would inform the decision 

maker to determine what additional changes to management would be needed from the suite of adaptive 

management options identified in Appendix A, Part 3. 

1-8 

Bull Trout 

Improving aquatic habitat is part of the purpose and need, or why actions are being proposed (see DEIS, 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action, pages 30 and 31). Bull Trout Critical Habitat is a significant 

issue identified in DEIS (see Chapter 1, page 37). The alternatives identified in Chapter 2 were developed 

to 1: Meet the purpose and need for the project, and 2: Consider a reasonable range of solutions for the 

significant issues (see DEIS, Chapter 2, Development of Alternatives, page 39).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 419

1-9 

Functioning at Risk Streams 

There are no “non-functioning” streams in the project area. There are streams that are functioning-at-risk 

(see Appendix A, Part 1). Part of the purpose and need is to develop an upward trend in riparian areas 

currently assessed as FAR with a downward or slowed trend, while continuing to improve or maintain 

riparian area with upward recovery trends or properly functioning conditions toward desired conditions 

identified in Appendix A (part 1). Each alternative proposes combinations of management that change the 

timing, duration and frequency of grazing based on the specific recovery needs of streams that are 

functioning at risk. The analysis in DEIS, Chapter 3, shows which streams are currently functioning at 

risk, discloses the expected recovery rates by stream, allotment, and grazing unit by alternative. See 

DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics section, page 153 through 214. 

1-10 

Beaver 

Beaver habitat was a public concern identified during scoping. To address this concern an analysis issue 

was identified in the DEIS (see DEIS, Chapter 1, page 38). 

“Limited hardwoods have resulted in a loss of beaver habitat and reduction of populations”

Based on your comments this issue will be modified to read: 

“Limited hardwoods have resulted in loss of beaver habitat and reduction of animals within the 

project area”

Your concerns regarding beaver were tracked through the effects analysis using “Short- and Long-term 

Effects on Shrub Development” as a measure or indicator of the level of effect. The effects on Beaver 

are discussed in DEIS, Chapter 3, Wildlife, pages 276 through 277. The effects of proposed actions on 

shrub development are discussed in detail in DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics section, pages 153 

through 214. The long-term and short term effects of shrub recovery in the Hydrology and Aquatics 

section are discussed by specific allotment, pasture, and stream reach. 

1-11 

Cost of Constructing Fences 

See Response 1-6. 

1-12 

303(d) Streams 

The Clean Water Act and 303(d) streams are discussed in several sections of the document. See the 

following sections of the DEIS: 

• Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action, pages 30 through 31. 

• Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics, Clean Water Act, pages 145 through 146. 

• Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics, Water Temperature, pages 156 through 157. 

• Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics, Clean Water Act, page 214. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

420 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

New Clean Water Act information has been supplemented in the FEIS. All streams listed for stream 

temperature were de-listed from the 303(d) list when EPA accepted the 2010 DEQ Integrated Report as 

identified in the DEIS on page 146. The Regulatory Framework has changed based on a decision by EPA 

to add 870 waterbodies to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 2010 303(d) list on December 

14, 2012. One stream has been added to the 303(d) list in the Project Area. Summit Creek is 303(d) listed 

for parameter biological criteria with a Category 3c status, impairing pollutant unknown. This indicator 

states that waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental 

changes in the resident biological communities (ODEQ, 2013). The DEIS identifies monitoring objectives 

developed specifically for Summit Creek for macroinvertebrates (i.e. biological activities) on page 324 to 

ensure the trend is positive. 

ODEQ, 2013. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp 

See future response 3-46d. 

1-13 

Forage 

The DEIS contains substantial analysis on livestock stocking rates, forage availability for livestock, and 

forage use related wildlife effects. Refer to the following sections of the DEIS. 

• Chapter 1, Analysis Issues, Table 1-2, page 38. 

• Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, Reduction of Grazing 

Numbers, page 40. 

• Chapter 2, Other Requirements, Grazing Would be Based on AUMs, page 42. 

• Chapter 2, Livestock number and grazing season, pages 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62. 

• Chapter 2, Monitoring, pages 77 through 82. 

• Chapter 3, Grazing Utilization Standards (History), pages 98 through 99 

• Chapter 3, Rangeland Capability and Suitability Analysis, pages 99 through 100. 

• Chapter 3, Forage Production and Stocking Rates Analysis, pages 100 through 102. 

• Chapter 3, Rangeland Vegetation, Grazing Use Levels, pages 105-107. 

• Chapter 3, Rangeland Management, Forage Production and AUMs, page 110. 

• Chapter 3, Wildlife, pages 245 through 283. 

• Appendix E – Forage allowable use, move triggers, and endpoint indicators 

Additional information will be added to the FEIS to supplement the analysis on livestock stocking rates 

and forage availability.

1-14 

Noxious/Invasive Weeds 

The DEIS analyzes the potential effects of grazing on invasive weed species (see DEIS, Chapter 3, 

Invasive Weeds, pages 122 through 126. The DEIS also includes substantial analysis of the effect of 

proposed grazing frequency, duration, and intensity on vegetation health (see DEIS, Chapter 3, Rangeland 

Vegetation, pages 93 -97, 104 -110, 113-122. Additional information may be found in the Invasive Weeds 

Specialist Report, Appendices F. Based on your comment additional information will be added to the 

FEIS to supplement the Invasive Weeds analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 421

1-15 

Water Developments/Fire Burned Area 

Alternative 2 is the only alternative that proposes re-initiation of grazing in the Bosenberg Creek 

drainage. The effects of the proposed spring development project (Alternative 2 only) and re-initiation of 

grazing in the fire burned area are specifically addressed in DEIS, Chapter 3, page 193 and 194. 

1-16 

Forest Plan Amendment 

See Response 1-4 

1-17 

Bull Trout and No Grazing Alternative 

Your concerns related to threatened Bull Trout and its critical habitat are addressed in previous responses 

(see Responses 1-2 and 1-8). Your recommendation to select No Action (No Grazing) is noted. 

Comment Letter #2 – United States Department of Interior- Office 

of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Comment Response

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the 

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The Department does not have any comments 

to offer. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. 

2-1 

2-1 

No Comments to Offer 

Thank you for reviewing the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization draft environmental Impact 

Statement.

Comment Letter #3 - Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project – Karen 

Coulter 

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization – DEIS

The Forest Service needs to stop managing through Forest Plan Amendments 

effectively gutting the standards and guidelines of the Malheur LRMP, the only source of 

site-specific guidelines to curb or prevent ecological damage. 

5 3-11

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments 

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

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

shade in hardwood/meadow complexes from Forest Plan Amendment #29 would be 

modified for site specific stream reaches. 

We are opposed to amending the Forest Plan to allow for not meeting LRMP standards 

for stream shade.

5 3-12
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

422 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Issues

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

the purpose of this analysis: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rational for eliminating issues from detailed study should be disclosed within this 

EIS.

8 3-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are functioning at risk, channels may not be interacting with the floodplain, substrate is 

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

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

high. 

Based on this description of the Bull Trout Critical Habitat significant issues, such 

potential livestock grazing impacts must be fully prevented as Bull Trout are a federally 

listed species and the PS admits above that significant issues are those where the 

impacts cannot be reduced by normal Best Management Practices or Project Design 

Criteria such as those proposed by the action alternatives.

8 3-14

Table S-9: Comparison of Alternatives: Resource Areas

Threatened, 

Endangered 

and Sensitive 

Aquatic 

Species

See Table S-11

Forest Plan 

Consistency

Consistent with Management Area 3A standards, 

Amendment 29, and INFISH.

Use of a Forest Plan amendment for all action alternatives means they would not be 

consistent with the Forest Plan

18 3-15

Table S-9: Comparison of Alternatives: Resource Areas

Clean 

Water 

Act 

Consistent with the Clean Water Act; providing for the recovery of 

the wetland obligate vegetation attributes and channel 

morphology, resulting in water temperatures that would provide 

for Bull Trout beneficial uses. 

We question whether alts 2, 3, & 4 would really meet Clean Water Act standards in 

practice, given the violations and degradation so far.

18 3-16
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 423

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Table S-10: Effects to Sensitive Plant Species 

Concern / 

Impacts Sensitive Species

Alternative

Rationale

1 2, 3, 4

Species where 

impacts from

herbivory / 

grazing is a 

concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia 

minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI

These three species are 

palatable and have the 

potential to be 

negatively impacted by 

intensive grazing 

(Bakker et al. 2010, 

NatureServe 2012, 

Wilson et al. 2008).

Species where 

impacts from 

trampling and 

defecation is a 

concern.

Botrychium 

ascendens

Botrychium 

hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium 

montanum

Botrychium 

paradoxum

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI

These species are very 

small, delicate, and 

exists in areas with high 

soil moisture. Livestock 

are often concentrated 

in these areas. For 

these species, a single 

hoof print or cow pie can 

destroy an individual 

plant, and even a 

relatively small amount 

of hoof action and/or 

defecation can eliminate 

a small population.

Species where 

impacts from 

trampling, 

trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in 

peatlands is a 

concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium 

crenulatum

Harpanthus 

flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum 

pusillum

Pseudocalliergon 

trifarium 

Splachnum 

ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/B

I 

Adaptive management 

strategies that benefit 

these species would be 

implemented if 

detrimental effects are 

occurring and 

management objectives 

are not met within a 5 

year period (SLVGA 

DEIS, Appendix A, parts 

2 and 3).

We are concerned by the “May detrimentally impact” determination for all of these 

sensitive plant species for alt. 2, 3, &4 as there is no guarantee that the allowed 

livestock impacts would not cause a trend toward uplisting or end these species viability 

in the project area.

19 3-17
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

424 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

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

Aquatic Species Status

Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Columbia River 

Bull Trout 

T 

(MIS) NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE 

Columbia River 

Bull Trout 

Designated 

Critical Habitat

D NLAA/BE LAA NLAA/BE NLAA/BE 

Interior Redband 

Trout 

S 

(MIS) MIIH/BI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Columbia spotted 

frog S NI MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Western Ridged 

Mussel S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Shortface Lanx S MIIH MIIH MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

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

Terrestrial 

Species Status 

Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Canada 

Lynx

Threatene

d NE NE NE NE

Gray Wolf Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle Sensitive NI NI NI NI

American 

Peregrine 

Falcon

Sensitive NI NI NI NI

California 

Wolverine Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Pygmy 

Rabbit Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Greater 

SageGrouse

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Silverbordered 

Fritillary

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa 

Rosy Finch Sensitive NI NI NI NI

Bobolink Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Grasshopp

er Sparrow Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland 

Sandpiper Sensitive NI No Impact No Impact No Impact

Tricolored 

Blackbird Sensitive NI No Impact No Impact No Impact

20 3-18
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 425

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Bufflehead Sensitive NI No Impact No Impact No Impact

Lewis’s 

Woodpeck

er

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Whiteheaded 

Woodpeck

er

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend'

s Big-Eared 

Bat 

Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid Bat Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed 

Myotis Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's 

Hairstreak Sensitive NI No Impact No Impact No Impact

Columbia 

Clubtail Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Columbia 

Spotted 

Frog

Sensitive See Aquatic 

Section MIIH MIIH MIIH

Big Game 

Habitat 

(Elk) 

MIS NI Not expected to affect elk population 

numbers or viability. 

Old Growth 

Habitat MIS

No direct or 

indirect 

effects to old 

growth 

habitat and 

the MIS 

species 

associated 

with this 

habitat. 

Cattle grazing would have little to no 

impact to Old Growth Habitat and 

associated MIS pileated woodpecker, 

American marten, and three-toed 

woodpecker. 

Primary 

Cavity 

Excavators

MIS

No direct, 

indirect or 

cumulative 

effects to the 

primary 

cavity 

excavators 

or their 

habitat.

No impact to snag and down wood 

habitat in ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine, or mixed conifer stands. Little or no 

impact to woodpeckers utilizing these 

habitats. 

Unprotected aspen stands may continue 

decline impacting nesting and foraging 

habitat. 

Goshawk, 

Osprey, 

Blue 

Grouse, 

Antelope

Features 

Species

No direct, 

indirect or 

cumulative 

effects to 

featured 

species or 

their habitat. 

There would be no impacts to goshawk 

nesting habitat, osprey nesting habitat 

(snags), or blue grouse winter roosts. 

Improvements in riparian shrub density 

and age classes, as well as herbaceous 

cover, would improve habitat for small 

mammals, birds (northern goshawk 

prey), fisheries (osprey prey), or blue 

grouse foraging areas.

Cattle grazing may displace female 

pronghorns. Because turn-out dates 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

426 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

would be in mid- June or later, this would 

not impact newly born fawns. Most 

antelope have had their young by June. 

Beaver

Species of 

Concern 

During 

Scoping

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Recovery of herbaceous vegetation and 

riparian hardwoods could increase the 

expansion of beaver within the project 

area. 

Landbirds 

Including 

Neotropical 

Migratory 

Birds 

Migratory 

Birds 

No direct or 

indirect, or 

cumulative 

effects.

Overall disturbance from activities would 

be limited in time and place, and 

therefore, would not be expected to 

impact populations of species at the 

landscape level. 

We are concerned by potential impacts too all the species listed in Table S-11 and Table

S-12 as they could still trend toward uplisting or lose viability.

After bull trout were listed as threatened in 1998, utilization standards were developed 

for allowable use of herbaceous riparian species, riparian woody shrubs, grass and 

grasslike species, and bank alteration through the consultation process with the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS). From 1998 through 2004, utilization levels were 6-inch 

stubble height along the greenline, moderate browse use, 45% utilization in uplands, 

and 10% bank alteration.

From 2005 through 2011, utilization standards were 4-inches stubble height along the 

greenline, light to moderate browse use, 45% utilization in uplands, and 20% bank 

alteration. These levels are used as both livestock move triggers and end-point 

indicators. 

Between 2005 and 2011 utilization standards have been met consistently in most 

grazing units with the exception of the West Lake Creek unit in the Logan Valley 

allotment and the North Summit and Sagehen units in the Summit Prairie Allotment.

In other words more deterioration of conditions was allowed from 2005-2001 than from 

1998-2004

99 3-19

A review of available science (summarized below) on the intensity of grazing shows that 

proposed use levels in all action alternatives are adequate to maintain or improve plant 

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

that light to moderate levels of livestock grazing have positive effects on maintaining, 

sustaining, and improving rangelands that are either in a satisfactory or unsatisfactory 

condition. All alternative propose the same use levels with riparian benches and upland 

areas of grazing units. Action alternatives vary in the proposed standards for the riparian 

communities along the “greenline” directly adjacent to streams. The “greenline is defined 

as the first communities dominated by perennial vegetation as you proceed outward 

from the center of the channel. The amount of forage left along the stream’s edge has 

been found to be important in catching sediments during the runoff periods, both from 

the stream channel as well as from overland flow (Clary and Webster 1988). The 

trapping of sediment is critical in rebuilding of streambanks as well as the maintenance 

of water quality. The effects of proposed differences in greenline stubble heights 

between the action alternatives on riparian vegetation and stream function and recovery 

is discussed in detail in the Aquatic Habitat section. 

Yet sediment can be transported to the stream from at least within 100 feet of the stream 

edge – potentially further than the greenline.

106 3-20

Deferred Rotation Grazing System

All action alternatives propose deferred rotation as part of the grazing system. Rotational 

grazing, where each area is grazed at a different season each year, was developed 

because different plant communities and physical features are affected differently at 

different seasons. All sites and species, over the grazing cycle, are grazed equally 

during seasons beneficial for each characteristic and seasons that are detrimental. This 

prevents preferred sites from receiving continuous detrimental timing (seasonal) effects 

and also limits the frequency of use during any one year.

Why don’t you drop all grazing with detrimental timing instead? Why plan for detrimental 

107 3-21
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 427

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

impacts.

In the project area, pastures along Lake Creek, Big Creek, Summit Creek, and West 

Fork Summit Creek contain a mix of riparian and upland vegetation. The riparian zones 

within the pasture are much different from the terrestrial systems, making management 

of the combined systems difficult. Livestock are selective grazers, therefore the 

frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants or species of plants varies 

depending on preference and availability. The result is that most preferred plants would 

be defoliated more frequently or severely than less preferred plants. Because of this 

preference livestock tend to concentrate in the riparian areas, making management of 

the frequency and intensity of use in these areas a challenge. Use levels and move 

triggers in the riparian portion of units have historically been reached before authorized 

forage in upland areas can be utilized

So keep all livestock out of riparian zones!

108 3-22

Rest

All alternatives include rest as part of proposed management. All alternatives proposed 

resting of riparian pastures or riparian exclosures. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose rest as 

part of the grazing system (termed periods of non-scheduled rest and deferment). In 

most cases, rest is proposed as part of the management strategy to meet riparian area 

recovery objectives. The length of rest proposed in all action alternatives for the West 

Bosenberg, West Lake Creek, and West Summit Recovery unit pastures is 3 to 5 years. 

After this period of rest, grazing would resume with management strategies that vary 

between action alternatives (effects of rest are similar to those discussed under 

Alternative 1, no grazing.)

Just drop all grazing in these riparian area “pastures”. Keep these areas permanently off 

limits to livestock.

108 3-23

If monitoring indicates that specific objectives are not being achieved, at any given time 

the Line Officer can choose to apply the analyzed adaptive strategy to reduce delays in 

recovery timeframes. Specific adaptive management strategies with their potential 

effects are described below.

Based on this discussion it’s obvious there’s little difference between action alternatives 

and a lack of real choice due to an inadequate range of alternatives.

109 3-24

Fencing to create riparian pastures – Construction of fences would have minimal ground 

effects to vegetation. With riparian pastures there is closer management and control to 

achieve goals and objectives. Each riparian pasture may be managed individually or 

rested depending on current conditions.

So how “riparian pastures” would be managed without fencing? Apparently fencing isn’t 

assumed in the action alts.

109 3-25

Over the last several years a section of electric fence (0.3 miles) has been maintained in 

the North Fork unit to exclude livestock grazing from Big Creek. All alternatives would 

replace the electric fence with a permanent let-down fence. The permanent fence would 

continue to protect the Big Creek Riparian area and effectively distribute livestock into 

the upland portions of the unit. 

What is a let-down fence?

109 3-26

Rangeland Management (All Allotments)

Forage Production and AUMs All action alternatives propose to retain the currently 

permitted AUMs. The AUMs proposed are maximum limits and may be adjusted to allow 

flexibility for annual adjustment of both numbers and/or season.

The analysis of available forage and stocking rates shows that adequate forage is 

available to support AUMs at levels currently permitted, including any proposed 

allotment boundary and management changes

Where is the analysis that supports this conclusion?

110 3-27

Cumulative Effects

Several ongoing projects in the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization project area 

would provide additive benefits when combined with the actions proposed in the action 

111 3-28
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

428 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

alternatives. The specific ongoing projects and their effects are described in Tables R: 4, 

5, and 6. Additional cumulative effects discussions are provide for each specific 

alternative.

This cumulative effects section fails to analyze the combined effects of the various 

management activities including, notably, grazing impacts, which are not described. 

There have been various court rulings saying that such a simple listing of effects as in 

Table R-4 is inadequate.

Logan Valley Allotment

Table R-4: Ongoing Activities in the Logan Valley Allotment

Project 

Name Specific Management Technique and General Effects 

Big Creek 

Fence and 

Water-Gap

Creates 

West 

Bosenberg 

Riparian 

pasture

Constructing a riparian pasture would protect riparian values. The 

pasture would provide closer management and control to achieve 

riparian goals and objectives. In the pasture may be managed 

individually or rested depending on resource conditions. Depending on 

the type and level of management in the riparian pasture there may be 

a loss of forage to the livestock operator. For this specific fence 

construction costs and maintenance labor costs would be incurred by 

a Forest Service partner. The water gap in the fence would maintain 

access to Big Creek from the adjacent upland unit for watering. The 

water gaps would limit access to only a few feet of the stream 

(approximately 20 feet) minimizing streambank impacts. The water 

gap would be hardened with rock material to reduce hoof impacts.

Big Creek & 

Lake Creek 

Off-Site 

Water 

Source 

Water developments would provide key water in units that currently 

lack distributed water sources, and/or units where the available water 

from streams would be excluded by fences (i.e., exclosures and 

riparian pastures). Water developments would reduce livestock 

concentrations in riparian areas allowing recovery of vegetation and 

aquatic habitat. Water developments would improve livestock 

distribution and more uniform utilization of forage in the uplands. In 

some upland pastures operators have not been able to utilize 

available forage because move triggers and utilization levels in 

riparian areas are reached first. Improved water and livestock 

distribution would provide better utilization of forage in some upland 

pastures. 

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

Fence

Creates 

West Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

pasture 

The effects would be similar to the Big Creek Fence (Bosenberg 

Riparian Pasture). Effects that are different include:

Fence maintenance labor costs would be incurred by the grazing 

permittee.

Water gaps would not be constructed.

Big Creek 

and Lake 

Creek 

Riparian 

Hardwood 

Planting

Planting of hardwood would increase the rate of willow recovery on 

Big Creek and Lake Creek. Expediting recovery would improve 

vegetation resiliency, allowing the pastures to be managed for grazing 

in the future. 

It’s interesting that only benefits of changes are mentioned, not any impacts from 

continued grazing, although such impacts are obviously identifiable and predictable.

For instance what would be the impact of allowed water gaps for cattle on Bull Trout and 

other aquatic and riparian species? How many water gaps, where, allowing how much 

sedimentation and loss of bank stability?
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 429

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1 because no actions are 

being proposed. There would be no change to the treatment of noxious weed 

infestations within the project area under Alternative 1. 

Yet Alt 1 is not really “No Action” but “No Grazing” which is a change from current 

management.

124 3-29

Cumulative Effects

Because Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative 

effects.

Yet its beneficial direct, indirect and cumulative effects are not analyzed.

124 3-30

Alternative 2, 3 & 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 the lands comprising the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Planning area would be managed to achieve a desired condition as described in the 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and would maintain a 

healthy ecosystem. The proposed activities would foster a healthy, weed-resistant plant 

community consisting of a collection of species diverse enough to fill all the niches. 

 Where is the analytic support for such optimistic conclusions? This reads more like 

advertising of a project than a DEIS.

124 3-31

Although the action alternatives continue as a disturbance factor that provides a 

potential risk of invasive weed species introduction and spread, and provides for a 

greater level of disturbance, all actoin althernative retain current levels of recognition 

and reporting of new infestations. The increased spread and establishment of invasive 

weed species would be expected to be imperceptible when viewed in the context of all of 

the other ongoing activities. 

Inadequate analysis of combined effects from other vectors and continued livestock 

grazing.

126 3-32

Affected Environment

As a result of all of the survey efforts, 14 sites of five different sensitive species have 

been discovered: three sensitive mosses, Helodium blandowii (Blandow's feather moss), 

Tomentypnum nitens (tomentypnum moss), and Meesia uliginosa (meesia moss), and 

two sensitive moonwort ferns Botrychium crenulatum (crenulate moonwort) and 

Botrychium montanum (mountain grape-fern). All of these species were found in or near 

the fen/peatland complex in the Big Field unit, West Lake Creek Riparian pasture, and 

Big Creek Riparian pasture of the Logan Valley Allotment. Table B-1 lists the sensitive 

species populations, management units, and approximate extent of the population. No 

sensitive species were found in the Lake Creek, McCoy Creek, and Summit Creek 

Allotments, even though the Summit Creek is one of the most intensively surveyed 

riparian areas on the Forest. 

Prohibit all livestock grazing in these five sensitive species.

128 3-33

Twenty-six sensitive species are further analyzed for potential effects (Table B-2). These 

species are either documented or are suspected to occur in the project area, and the 

specific characteristics of the species’ habitat, ecology, and/or biology are such that a 

more detail analysis of potential effects are needed.

Why is this relegated to an appendix?

129 3-34

Direct and Indirect Effects

The twenty-six sensitive plant species that may be affected are analyzed for potential 

effects from the action alternatives. These species are either documented or are 

suspected to occur in the project area and are listed and analyzed by three potential 

impact groups: (1) impacts from grazing and herbivory, (2) impacts from trampling 

and/or defecation, and (3) impacts to peatlands and peatland-dependent species from 

trampling, trailing, herbivory, and defecation. Potential impact group are roughly based 

on groupings of species by preferred habitat, but also takes into consideration the 

131 3-35
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

430 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

general biology, growth habits, and taxonomy of the species.

Table B-3 Direct/Indirect Effects to Sensitive Species by Alternative

Concern / 

Impacts Sensitive Species Alternative(s) Rationale

1 2, 3, 4

Species where 

impacts from 

herbivory / 

grazing is a 

concern.

Carex cordillerana

Muhlenbergia 

minutissima

Trifolium douglasii

BI MDI

These three species 

are palatable and 

have the potential to 

be negatively 

impacted by intensive 

grazing (Bakker et al. 

2010, NatureServe 

2012, Wilson et al. 

2008).

Species where 

impacts from 

trampling and 

defecation is a 

concern.

Botrychium 

ascendens

Botrychium 

hesperium

Botrychium lunaria

Botrychium 

montanum

Botrychium 

paradoxum

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Bryum calobryoides

Eleocharis bolanderi

Listera borealis

Mimulus evanescens

Phacelia minutissima

Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum

Tortula mucronifolia

BI MDI

These species are 

very small, delicate, 

and exists in areas 

with high soil moisture. 

Livestock are often 

concentrated in these 

areas. For these 

species, a single hoof 

print or cow pie can 

destroy an individual 

plant, and even a 

relatively small 

amount of hoof action 

and/or defecation can 

eliminate a small 

population.

Species where 

impacts from 

trampling, 

trailing, 

herbivory, and 

defecation in 

peatlands is a 

concern.

Anthelia julacea

Botrychium 

crenulatum

Harpanthus 

flotovianus

Helodium blandowii

Meesia uliginosa

Ophioglossum 

pusillum

Pseudocalliergon 

trifarium 

Splachnum 

ampullaceum

Tomentypnum nitens

Utricularia minor

BI MDI/BI

Adaptive management 

strategies that benefit 

these species would 

be implemented if 

detrimental effects are 

occurring and 

management 

objectives are not met 

within a 5 year period 

(SLVGA DEIS, 

Appendix A, parts 2 

and 3).no mention of 

threat re: MDI time line

BI = Beneficial Impact, NI = No Impact, MDI = May Detrimentally Impact, but will not 

lead to a trend toward federal listing [40 CFR §1508.8, FSM 2672.42(5)]. Species 

identified in bold font are documented within the project area.

There is no basis given for action alts’ livestock impacts not leading to an upward trend 

in federal listing for these species while there are plenty of reasons cited for concern re: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 431

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

elimination of single plants or even whole population in table B-3 and for protection from 

no grazing.

Sensitive Species with Potential Impacts from Grazing/ Herbivory (Page 132)

Species in this group are those which are known to be palatable to livestock, and are 

unlikely to be affected by any other potential impacts from livestock grazing. This 

includes the sedge Carex cordillerana, the grass Muhlenbergia minutissima, and the 

clover Trifolium douglasii. Currently, there are no known populations in the area. While 

these three species occur in different habitats, each species is palatable to livestock and 

have the potential to be negatively impacted by grazing (Bakker et al. 2010, 

NatureServe 2012, Wilson et al. 2008). Continued grazing under any of the three 

“action” alternatives may detrimentally impact these species, but would not lead to a 

trend toward federal listing.

There is no analysis as to why there would be no trend toward uplisting.

Portions of the fen complex exist throughout the allotment.

Drop the Logan Valley allotment from the livestock use to protect the fen complex that 

exists throughout the allotment, as fens take thousands of years to develop, are 

hotspots of biodiversity and cannot be easily restored. (See DEIS pp-132-133)

133 3-36a

Management objectives for peatland habitats and peatland-dependent sensitive species 

focus on three general topics which address the integrity and resiliency of these 

sensitive ecosystems: hydrologic function, peat development, and species distribution 

and composition. Within five years the following management objective shall be met 

(Appendix A, parts 1 and 2):

Can the peat/fen complex wait 5 years for these goals to be met? Further, with 

continued livestock use there is no guarantee these goals will be met and high likelihood 

of further degradation.

Exposed or bare peat is less than or equal to 15%. 

Livestock trails are re-vegetating and are diverting less early season flow of water.

The proportion of peat forming species is equal to or greater than 90%. 

The proportion of obligate wetland plant species is equal to or greater than 90%.

Non-native and invasive plant species are absent or are not expanding.

Sensitive plant species populations are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

Sensitive plant habitats are maintained at current extent or are expanding.

How is it assumed that this is enough to keep the system going and maintain full native 

biodiversity?

A more detailed description of the management objectives and existing conditions are 

provided in Appendix A, parts 1 and 2, of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization DEIS. Failure to meet these management objectives within a five year 

period will trigger an adaptive management strategy. In this case, a riparian pasture 

fence shall be constructed around the fen complex; this is common to all three “action” 

alternatives (Appendix A, part 3). Construction of a riparian pasture would allow better 

control of livestock use in the fen complex, and would provide the option of rest or nonuse of the riparian pasture(s).

The simple and most economically efficient solution is no livestock use.

Continued grazing under any of the three “action” alternatives may detrimentally impact 

documented populations of these species in the short-term, but would not lead to a trend 

toward federal listing. Furthermore, in the long-term (> 5 years), there should be a 

beneficial impact if either (1) the management objectives are met, or (2) adaptive 

management strategies are enacted.

Again there is no analyzed justification for the assumption of not leading to upward 

federal listing.

133 3-36b

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects to sensitive plant species may include past, present, and 

foreseeable future activities described in Appendix C.

This is not supported by any evidence. If sensitive plant protection has been ongoing 

133 3-37
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

432 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

since 1990, why are no trends for these plant species in the protected area reported? 

Why no description of effects of past and current actions?

wildlife, or trampling and trailing from wild ungulates, may also possibly contribute to 

cumulative effects on sensitive plant species.

So why is there no assessment of combined effects with continued grazing?

Consistency with Direction and Regulations

This analysis has shown that the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Project is consistent with 

the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as ammended. This 

analysis also indicates that there may potentially be detrimental impacts individuals, 

populations, and habitats of some sensitive plant species, but that this would not result 

in the loss of population or species viability nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, with adaptive management strategies 

in place, there may be beneficial impacts to individuals, populations, and habitats of 

some sensitive plant species. 

What analysis?

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

The Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project should not result in an 

irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources.

Conclusion statements can’t be substituted for compelling analysis.

Analysis Methods 

In order to check on how commonly current livestock use increases erosion, the project 

soil scientist visited the allotments (except Lake Cr. Allotment), examining selected 

areas for signs of erosion and overland runoff on September 22 and 26, 2008. 

The analysis area for this soil analysis is each allotment. The analysis time period for 

this soil analysis is the period that the management practices are applied.

Why did the FS Soil Scientist not survey soil conditions in the Lake Creek allotment? 

Even if this allotment was vacant, it could be a good control condition to compare with 

any future livestock use.

135 3-38

Affected Environment

Livestock detrimentally compact and puddle soil in the small areas where they 

concentrate, such as around salting ground and water troughs. However, on forested 

areas, current cattle impacts on the soil are minor because of the abundant ground 

cover and relatively small amounts of forage. **Thus, over the whole activity area of an 

allotment, livestock plus other sources of compaction (such as roads, logging, firewood 

gathering, and ATVs) cause a cumulative amount of compaction and puddling less than 

the 20% limit of Forest Wide Standard 126. On parts of Lake Creek Allotment burnt by 

the 1990 fires, ground cover has recovered so that soils function as forest soils and 

erosion is close to zero (Table S-2). On parts of the Lake Creek Allotment burnt by the 

2002 High Robert fire, ground cover is nearly recovered, and soil erosion is close to zero 

(Table S-2, between 1997 & 2004).

These are not always small areas with soil impacts and they are generally critical areas 

for riparian values and plant biodiversity – especially around springs, streams and wet 

meadows.

**Where is the data and calculation method that went into this assumption?

historic erosion, and still Standard 127. They continue to erode at rates greater than 

prior to the unregulated grazing. In places like these, plant production and resultant 

ground cover may have been decreased for hundreds of years. However, rates of 

erosion are fairly low in these allotments because of the relatively level ground. 

Grazing and livestock use impacts are long-Term up to hundreds of year.

Impacts from livestock grazing on uplands generally are minor under current 

management. Livestock tend to prefer places where water, shade, or better forage are 

available. However, cattle do decrease ground cover where non-forest areas are 

adjacent to good forage, water, and/or salting ground, such as part of the North Fork 

Unit of McCoy Cr. Allotment, and places along lower Summit Creek. Areas such as this

occupy probably well under 1% of any allotment. Burrowing mammals also decrease 

135/137 3-39
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 433

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

ground cover on some soils. Any sediment that may be produced from areas with 

decreased ground cover probably is filtered out on flat, well vegetated riparian soils 

before it reaches a stream. These observations are similar to other undocumented 

observations by the soil scientist elsewhere on Malheur National Forest. In summary, 

because impacts from current grazing on uplands are localized to small areas that do 

not affect water quality, Standard 127 is being met.

Yet there are no frames gives to support this for the different soil erosion hazard 

classes.

Meadows and Grassy Riparian Areas

In places where ground cover has been decreased below potential, it would increase 

above current levels. Erosion of soil from outside stream channels would decrease. The 

decrease would be negligible because cattle are causing a negligible amount of soil 

erosion. Detrimental soil conditions would decrease.

Admission of impacts but no quantification or analysis with effects to fish, Columbia 

Spotted Frog, sensitive plants, etc.

139 3-40

Compaction would decrease back to natural levels within 8 years (Kauffman and 

coworkers 2004), as root growth, animal burrowing, and soil freezing loosens the soil.

So what is the current level of livestock compaction and what are its effects? 

139 3-41

Cumulative Effects

The areas considered for cumulative effects are each allotment individually.

Effects from past and on-going actions are described in the Affected Environment 

section. Detrimental impacts on areas outside non-forest uplands, meadows and grassy 

riparian areas would remain at about current levels, as recovery from past activities 

(such as logging) is counter-balanced by impacts from future activities.

This is a huge generalization.

For future actions, implementation of the Travel Management plan would result in 

negligible decreases in soil erosion, because cross country travel is currently causing 

negligible erosion. Treatments of invasive weeds would comply with laws, regulations, 

and the Forest Plan. Thus, these treatments would not significantly increase erosion or 

detrimental soil conditions. No other foreseeable future action would take place on 

shallow soils, meadows, or grassy riparian areas, so no additional effects are expected. 

In summary, for every allotment, there would be a negligible decrease in erosion and 

detrimental soil conditions under Alternative 1.

Compliance with laws, regulations and the Forest Plan is not always 100% and does not 

mean that herbicide use would not cause significant detrimental soil conditions (by 

removing native and invasive plant cover) whether intentionally or not.

139 3-42

Direct and Indirect Effects

Non-Forest Upland Soils

The parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would not be grazed would continue the small, 

slow recovery of ground cover, erosion, detrimental soil conditions, and biological soil 

crusts described under Alternative 1. On the parts of Lake Creek Allotment that would be 

grazed, conditions would become like the other three allotments with slightly reduced 

ground cover and biological soil crusts and slightly increased erosion and detrimental 

soil conditions. 

How is slightly defined?

139 3-43

Regulatory Framework 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The MNF Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides program direction for wildlife 

and range management. The following elements are applicable to the proposed and 

other alternatives for the project area analysis (USFS 1990).

We request (by FOIA if necessary) the BE and the full ID Team reports for: Hydrology, 

fish, soils and sensitive plants.

The full Biological Evaluation should have been included in the DEIS.

142 3-44
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

434 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Allowable utilization of available forage in riparian areas (percent allowable use of 

available forage). Table IV-4 from the Forest Plan (IV-58). Note: all alternatives would 

use Strategy C.

Why is the more protective Stewardship Management level not chosen given the 

presence and decline of Bull Trout? Full utilization of forage available to livestock 

should take a backseat to riparian value given the Malheur LRMP goals, objectives, and 

standards cited and Bull Trout presence.

The following S&Gs are applicable to the proposed and other alternatives for the project 

area analysis. 

Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of 

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

of RMOs or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting 

practices is not effective in meeting RMOs

At what point is grazing suspended if RMOS are not met? Shouldn’t grazing be 

suspended whenever RMOS are not being met given many years of adjustment and 

continued degradation.

Executive Order 11990 -- Wetlands

Wetlands would be identified in the Project Area using Cowardin’s Classification 

scheme. 

The basic requirement of E.O. 11990 is that a Federal agency would avoid construction 

or management practices that would adversely affect wetlands unless that agency finds 

that (1) there is no practicable alternative, and (2) the proposed action includes all 

practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands. 

Yet there is a “practicable” alternative to adversely affecting wetlands (fens, wet 

meadows, riparian zones) in this case; suspending grazing in those aresa to protect 

them, which should be done.

145 3-46a

The Act also requires States to identify the status of all waters and prioritize water 

bodies whose water quality is limited or impaired. For Oregon, the Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) develops water quality standards and lists water quality 

limited waters. In addition, Region 6 of the Forest Service has entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Oregon State DEQ to acknowledge the 

Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency for implementation of the CWA 

on National Forest land. In an effort to support the CWA, the Forest conducts a variety of 

monitoring and inventory programs to determine status of meeting state water quality 

standards as well as other regulatory and agency requirements. 

So this is all evading the point of analyzing where these allotment grazing conditions 

stand with relation to the Malheur LRMP, amendment 29,, INFISH, Executive Order 

11990, The Clean Water Act and the ESA then the action alts would effect compliance

146 3-46b

By direction of the CWA, where water quality is limited, DEQ develops Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) plans to improve water quality to support the beneficial uses of 

water. For water quality limited streams on National Forest System lands, the USDA 

Forest Service provides information, analysis, and site-specific planning efforts to 

support state processes to protect and restore water quality. The Malheur River Basin 

TMDL Plan for stream temperature was approved by the Environmental Protection 

Agency on September 2010. Listed streams for water temperature are removed from the 

303(d) list and stream recovery would be achieved through the implementation plan 

specified in the TMDL

So what is the TMDL implementation plan and how is it being implemented re: the 

project area? Were there 303(d) listed streams in the project area?

146 3-46c

The TMDL addresses overgrazing impacts on riparian vegetation disturbance/removal 

reducing shade and increasing solar radiation, providing micro-climate effects that can 

provide cooler day time temperatures (Anderson et al 2007; Chen et al. 1999), and its 

role in stabilizing the channel characteristics and providing a narrower channel that has 

less surface area exposed to solar radiation. 

Why is a surrogate being used for measuring stream temps directly?

146 3-46d
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 435

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Bull trout Recovery Plan

Bull Trout Recovery Objectives as Defined by USFWS in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2006a) 

Recovery of bull trout requires reducing threats to the long-term persistence of 

populations, maintaining multiple interconnected populations of bull trout across the 

diverse habitats of their native range, and preserving the diversity of bull trout life-history 

strategies (e.g., resident or migratory forms, emigration age, spawning frequency, local 

habitat adaptations). To recover bull trout, the following four objectives have been 

identified:

Livestock grazing is a clear and known threat to the persistence of Bull Trout 

populations, to maintaining multiple interconnected populations across diverse habitats 

and preserving the diversity of life history strategies – so why is more grazing in critical 

Bull Trout habitat planned with this DEIS in contravention of the Bull Trout Recovery 

Plan.

147 3-47a

Bull Trout Recovery Actions Needed as Defined by USFWS in the Bull Trout Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 2006)

Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas and implement tasks to restore their 

appropriate functions.

Restore shade and canopy, riparian cover, and native vegetation in all bull trout 

146spawning areas. Summit Creek, the Malheur River downstream of Logan Valley, and 

Crooked Creek in the Upper Malheur subbasin have suppressed woody vegetation in 

reaches that need this component to become stable, as well as tributary streams to the 

North Fork Malheur on the lower end of the Malheur National Forest.

It looks like there’s multiple RMOs compromised on Summit Creek, best meeting 

USFWS recovery actions needed by removing livestock.

147 3-47b

Reduce grazing impacts in all bull trout spawning areas. Implement measures to reduce 

livestock impacts to streams, (e.g., fencing, changes in timing and use of riparian 

pastures, off-site watering and salting), to accomplish this task. Areas that would benefit 

from shade restoration include lower Lake Creek, lower Big Creek, lower Bosenberg 

Creek, lower McCoy Creek, Crane Creek, and Buttermilk Creek, as well as, private and 

tribal lands in Logan Valley. The highest grazing management priority for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service is that no direct effects occur to spawning fish or redds after August 

15.

Shade restoration for project area creeks will not be best accomplished with continuing 

livestock use.

147 3-47c

Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting bull trout biological 

needs and avoiding adverse effects on bull trout.

At what point does suspension of grazing permanently to avoid adverse effects to Bull 

Trout kick in? Arguably livestock grazing has not been effective so far in meeting Bull 

Trout biological needs.

Permanently exclude livestock from riparian habitat protection zones or streambank

areas at high risk and with poor recovery potential when there is no practical way to 

protect them while grazing adjacent uplands

Constant herd riding to keep cattle off the stream does not seem to be a practical way to 

protect riparian zones and stream bank areas at high risk and this also calls for 

permanent exclusion for high risk areas, not just livestock exclusion for 3-5 years.

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in 

determining which areas occupied at the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, 

USFWS considered the physical and biological features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or 

protection. These features are the PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for conservation of the species.

Ground water source persistent is at issue with the fens.

Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporehic 

flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia.

148 3-47d
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

436 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Springs are often destroyed for diversion to livestock, depleting both ground water flow 

for fish and surface biodiversity of plants and wildlife.

Livestock use is well known to jeopardize all of those physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of Bull Trout.

Analysis Methods 

Project area site visits for the analysis of livestock grazing began during 2007 by 

Malheur National Forest (MNF) staff and contractors and have continued through the 

spring of 2012. Data was collected to determine the existing condition of the vegetative, 

channel, fish habitat attributes, in conjunction with developing a desired condition. 

During this process we identified where there were differences or gaps between existing 

and desired condition related to livestock grazing within specific reaches of stream 

based on vegetative type, channel type, soil type, and slope. Data used in this analysis 

included: Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment, Carex Working Group 

Report, USFS Region 6 Stream Surveys, PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), water temperature data, and 

MNF Roads Analysis. The table below identifies the strengths and weaknesses 

associated with the data used for this analysis. 

Analysis methods in the field, while varied, were not consistently applied to all riparian 

areas at issue, nor for all years, and had changing protocols. Not all methods were 

quantitative and they were limited regarding long term trends and by inconsistency in 

application and changing measurement protocols.

150 3-48a

Analysis Process and Rates of Recovery

The following premise was used to analyze effects related to proposed actions in each 

alternative to riparian vegetation, channel characteristics, bull trout critical habitat, and 

water quality recovery in the project area. Any action to improve PFC ratings especially 

vegetative characteristics would also improve fish habitat to some degree within a given 

stream reach because of the inter-connectivity of riparian areas and in-stream 

hydrological functions for fish habitat. The extent and rate of recovery is dependent on 

the existing condition, extent of action, and intensity within the alternative. It was 

assumed that vegetation would respond more quickly to passive/active restoration and 

hydrological function would follow at a slower rate for the improvement of in-stream fish 

habitat (Appendix A part 2). Riparian and in-stream functionality conditions are 

consistently in a state of flux and the ratings can vary from year to year especially for 

riparian areas rated below PFC. Likewise each stream reach can be in various stages of 

recovery or degradation. This can be manifested in the resiliency of the streambanks 

and vegetation along any individual reach (some are more susceptible to impacts than 

others) for example streambanks may be well armored with large cobble or boulders and 

thus more resistant to the actions of overland flow or other actions that may impact 

streambanks. Additionally riparian areas may be in a more advanced late seral state 

resulting in resiliency to natural disturbances such as fire and 20-50 year flood events or 

land management actions such as grazing. The likelihood of recovery beyond a rating of 

PFC also increases within a more advanced seral state coupled with the extent and 

intensity of proposed action. These two factors are correlated with the rate of recovery of 

a riparian area. 

Why was it assumed that vegetation would respond more quickly to passive/active

reforestation and how would this include livestock grazing for faster response?

152/154 3-48b

The rates of recovery within Appendix A part 2 would occur within the 10 year time 

frame.

Based on what data?

155 3-48c

Development of resilient riparian areas would allow for resumption of grazing within the 

pastures.

But then would the Desired Future Condition ever be reached or just set back?

155 3-48d

Rates of Recovery for riparian areas would be the same or similar for those areas with 

no livestock grazing (alternative 1) compared to those where the appropriate 

management is proposed.

How is this assumed? Livestock are an exotic invasive influence and recovery for 

155 3-48e
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 437

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

riparian areas should be should be assumed to be better without them.

Table A-1: Water Temperature for Lake Creek 

Stream Site Allotment Unit Elevation 7DADM 

(F)

TMDL

7DADM

Standard 

(F)

INFISH

Spawning 

& Rearing 

(F)

Adult 

Holding 

(F)

Lake 

Creek

Lake 

1 Lake Creek McCoy 5520 59.3

53.6 48 59

Lake 

2 

Logan 

Valley 

W. Lake 

Creek 5520 58.2

Lake 

3 Private -- 5060 75.6

Lake 

4 Private -- 5060 73.2

Lake 

5 

McCoy 

Creek

Cow 

Camp 5020 75.0

These are high stream temperatures not suitable for Bull Trout spawning, rearing, or 

adult holding, and even excluding the 7 day average TMDL Standard – Suggesting the 

need to remove all livestock from All these streams.

157 3-48a

A radio telemetry study began in 2000 conducted by the Burns Paiute Tribe of fluvial bull 

trout in the upper Malheur River and tributaries. Bull trout tagged near the confluence of 

Big Creek and Lake Creek spawned in the Meadow Fork of Big Creek in 2000. Bull trout 

redds have been counted within the Meadow Fork of Big Creek every year since 2000 

with the exception of 2003 in which no redds were observed. Radio tagged bull trout 

overwintered downstream of Lake Creek subwatershed in the vicinity of Malheur Ford.

So why continued livestock use proposed for Big Creek?

160 3-49b

Primary spawning areas for the Upper Malheur subpopulation are located in the 

Meadow Fork, Big Creek, Snowshoe Creek, and Lake Creeks. Meadow Fork is the key 

spawning stream for the local population. The majority of bull trout spawning within the 

project area occurs prior to mid-September. Due to the presence of brook trout redds 

are only counted as bull trout redds observed prior to mid-September. The estimated 

number of bull trout redds peaked in 2000 (39) and has since declined to 5 redds in 

2004. The decline in the estimated number of redds is most likely attributed to the 

effects of the 2002 High-Roberts Fire and the 2003 flash flooding that originated in the 

area. A passage barrier on the Meadow Fork at culvert FSR 1648021 developed 

following the 2003 flash flooding. 

Has the passage barrier been removed? # Of redds since 2004? Really, no monitoring 

of redds since 2004?!

160 3-50

Limiting Factors

Stream temperatures and the quality of habitat are the major limiting factors to bull trout 

recovery within the Malheur River Watershed. Primary effects from grazing are related to 

vegetation removal and hoof action along the banks and areas of saturated soils. 

Though much of the area has improved from historical conditions, wide and shallow 

streambanks are still prevalent which increases solar radiation reducing the cooling 

effect of deep pools, undercut banks, and hardwood shade. Well shaded cover also 

provides productive terrestrial and aquatic macro-invertebrates for an abundant food 

base. This complexity of cover also reduces stress to individual trout allowing for 

productive growth and reproduction.

Reasons for our concern re: continued livestock use in Bull Trout critical habitat.

161 3-51

The Recovery Plan Addresses sediment issues identified in the upper Malheur River 

watershed assessment, (e.g., road related sediment in Lake Creek and Bosenberg 

Creek). Noted was a diversion ditch on Lake Creek that diverts flow into a draw where 

erosion and head-cutting have been occurring on the return flow ditch.

So what has been done about this diversion?

161 3/52
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

438 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Habitat in the Analysis Area – Rearing Habitat

Currently, occupied rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout is present in Lake Creek,Big 

Creek, Meadow Fork, and Snowshoe Creek. Potential rearing habitat for juveniles is 

currently present in McCoy, Bosenberg, and Summit Creeks. Stream reaches with daily 

maximum water temperatures < 20oC were considered to be potential rearing habitat for 

juvenile bull trout (Dunham and Chandler 2001). Currently, juvenile bull trout occupy 

about 63% of potential habitat in the Upper Malheur subpopulation area (Table A-6). 

So take cattle out of all these areas and leave them out – obviously restoration isn’t

happening with livestock use.

162/163 3-53

Bull trout Critical Habitat

Lake Creek allotment is a stronghold for Bull Trout survival in the Upper Malheur 

Drainage. Much of the spawning and rearing takes place in the allotment. Meadow Fork 

of Big Creek had the highest density of redds until the wildfires introduced large amounts 

of sediment and have reworked the system. 

So don’t reopen the Lake Creek allotment to cattle use – cattle are not endangered but 

Bull Trout are.

166 3-54

A fish barrier is present on Bosenberg Creek, inhibiting fish connectivity to cooler water 

upstream. R6 stream survey data suggests bankfull width/depth and LWD are meeting 

standards, whereas pool quantity did not. 

So what is the Fish Barrier and is it removable?

166 3-55

One water temperature monitoring site (Lake 2) occurs in the West Lake Creek unit and 

two approximately one mile downstream below the 16 road on two channels of Lake 

Creek (Lake 3 and 4). Lake 3 is the east channel and Lake 4 is the west channel. Lake 2 

is near the most upstream extent of the unit. The 7DADM was 58.2°F at Lake 2, 75.6°F 

at Lake 3 and 73.2°F at Lake 4. Lake Creek heats up approximately 17.4°F between 

sites Lake 2 and 3 and heats up by 15°F from sites Lake 2 and 4. Site 1 met the 59°F 

INFISH standard for adult holding, but exceeded the 53.6°F TMDL standards and 48 ̊F 

INFISH standard for spawning and rearing. The temperature difference from sites Lake 

2 to 3 and 4 is because of the irrigation withdrawals that occur on private land. 

Stop irrigation withdrawals!

169 3-56

Channel Characteristics

Lake Creek reach 2 has a Rosgen E channel type and reach 1 a Rosgen C channel type 

that has channel stability controlled by vegetative attributes and is sensitive to livestock 

grazing. The beaver activity in reach 2 has created channel complexity that helps retain 

water and sediment and provide fish habitat faster than any other manner. The reach is 

a series of dams with a low gradient, meandering channel between the dams. Reach 1 

has narrowed dramatically and is meeting Forest Plan standards for undercut banks. 

Introduce Beaver to other creeks – why is this not considered as part of an alternative? 

170 3-57

An R6 stream survey was conducted on reach 1 of Lake Creek within the Starvation unit 

in 1999. Lake Creek reach 1 did not meet the INFISH and Forest Plan Amendment 29 

criteria for average Bankfull Width/depth of 19.23. It met INFISH and Forest Plan 

Amendment 29 standards for stream bank stability with 91%. Lake Creek reach 1 

measured 85% undercut banks and is meeting Forest Plan Standards

Currently 0.72 miles of Lake Creek are occupied, spawning and rearing Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat within the Cow Camp and Starvation units. 

Lake Creek reach 1 bankful with depth not to INFISH and Forest Plan Amendment 29 

standards.

171 3-58

An exclosure occurs on Reach 2 that has abundant age and height classes of different 

willow species and has beaver activity.

This suggests the PFC that would be attained by canceling livestock use in riparian 

areas.

173 3-59

The average seven day average daily max was 72.5°F at Summit 5 and 78.7°F at 

Summit 7, heating up approximately 6°F. Site 1 is the only site to meet the INFISH 

standard for adult holding. All sites did not meet the INFISH spawning and rearing or 

174 3-60
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 439

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

TMDL standard. 

High water temps, failure to meet INFISH, spawning and rearing (and all but one for 

holding) and TMPL standards.

Reaches 5 and 6 would primarily be used for migratory behavior by transitory bull trout 

currently because of the existing warm stream temperatures. However with improvement 

in existing condition cold influxes within reaches 5 and 6 may provide adequate rearing 

habitat. The components of quality migratory habitat include quality pools that are 

refugia for migrating fish and the absence of thermal barriers related to water 

temperature. A potential culvert barrier for adults and juvenile bull trout exists within 

reach 8 of Summit Creek which may limit access to cold water thermal refugia for 

juvenile bull trout. 

So what is being done about the culvert barrier? How many times does this DEIS 

mention a passage barrier without any indication that the FS is correcting the problem

175 3-61

Grazing would continue as permitted under the current permit for 2 years following 

notification of cancellation of the permit. The effects from another 2 years of grazing 

under the current permitted use are summarized in chapter 2 alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detail study (Current Management). Reaches of Summit Creek are not 

expected to improve at a rate sufficient for the desired conditions in Appendix A, part 1 

under the existing management and therefore the existing condition within this area is 

expected to remain the same for those two years.

Cattle are a far greater threat to hard woods than native wildlife. Returning wolves 

should be allowed to keep native ungulates moving out of riparian areas.

175 3-62

Bank Alteration: 20% (10-30% depending on measurement method used and on 

resiliency of site); like stubble height, streambank alteration is another annual or shortterm indicator used to evaluate the potential effects of livestock grazing in riparian areas, 

primarily any potential effects to long-term streambank stability and channel shape. It is 

used as a tool to assess the intensity of grazing along streambanks and to determine 

when such intensity may be appropriate or deemed too excessive. It can also prove 

useful in determining the cause-and-effect relationships between livestock grazing and 

stream channel conditions and whether management changes are needed for the 

following year. Streams are naturally dynamic and have the ability to repair a certain 

amount of annual disturbance each year (the amount is variable based upon stream 

gradient, substrate composition, streambank materials, vegetation type and abundance, 

channel geometry, flow regime, etc.). The literature is not extensive but generally 

suggests 10-30% streambank alteration is consistent with providing adequate riparian 

protection, and is intended to vary by site depending on similarity to desired conditions, 

resiliency of the site being monitored, and the timing, duration and intensity of livestock 

use (Burton et al. 2011, Heitke et al. 2008, Bengeyfield 2006, Cowley 2002, Bengeyfield 

and Svoboda 1998). Bengeyfield (2006) found that when streambank alteration 

measured 15-20%, width to depth ratios showed an improving trend. He also noted that 

the vegetation improvements kept pace with the physical changes. This annual use 

indicator should be used in combination with long-term monitoring of streambank 

stability and channel geometry. In addition, it is worth noting that research is continuing 

to be conducted on the various ways that can be used to monitor for and measure actual 

streambank alteration (including MIM, which the District is presently using) to account for 

accuracy of results, reduction of variability among observers, and the resources 

necessary to carry out such measures.

How is bank alteration actually measured in percentages?

178 3-63

These ongoing actions are common to all alternatives and the effects from these actions 

have been analyzed previously in other NEPA documents. This document considered 

the effects of these actions cumulatively in conjunctions with proposed actions in each of 

the alternatives within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization DEIS. 

Cumulatively these actions would have a net benefit to livestock management, riparian 

condition, bull trout critical habitat, and water quality within the project area.

Yet the extent of riparian/Bull Trout recovery would be greater with no grazing.

187 3-64
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

440 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Since impacts to aquatic habitat from the proposed actions are limited to negligible or 

not measureable decreases in overall riparian condition, wetland obligate plant 

communities, channel characteristics, water quality and aquatic habitat. It is unlikely that 

retarding of riparian condition and its relationships to aquatic dependent habitat would 

result in cumulative effects from timber, fuels and recreational management activities.

This has not been demonstrated that these would only be negligible or not measurable 

decrease in overall riparian condition, etc. Further these impacts would still contribute to 

the cumulative effects.

187 3-65

Maintaining or slightly improving the riparian shrubs and channel characteristics would 

not measurably increase effective shade values in the Big Creek Riparian pasture within 

10 years (Appendix A, part 2). These reaches represent all 1.7 miles of all life stages for 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Since the condition of the residual pool depth, pool quality and 

bankfull width/depth would not likely improve; spawning and rearing habitat would likely 

be maintained in their current condition. 

The creation of the Big Creek Riparian pasture may result 1.7 miles of critical habitat 

moving towards desired vegetation conditions, but not towards the desired channel 

characteristics within 10 years for reaches 1, 2 and 3 of Big Creek. Development of seed 

sources in the 0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may not likely occur due to the need of 

having consecutive years of no browse. The adaptive management strategy of additional 

rest or scheduled rest may allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired 

vegetative conditions identified in Appendix A, part 1. The ground disturbing impacts 

from removal of 1.2 miles of fencing would not be measurable. 

It’s unacceptable not to plan to move critical Bull Trout habitat to proper functioning 

condition with cooler stream temperatures and more stable banks to support Bull Trout 

viability and increased numbers and distribution.

190 3-66

Bosenberg Unit

The direct effects from authorizing livestock grazing in the Bosenberg Unit in the Summit 

Prairie Allotment would result in an increase in hoof shearing (bank alteration) of 

streambanks related to livestock grazing, increase in woody browse use (browse 

utilization), and maintenance of herbaceous plant vigor (stubble height). There are 

approximately 4.4 miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the Bosenberg Unit that are 

not currently being grazed and would have grazing reinitiated.

Critical Bull trout habitat should not be opened to livestock grazing.

191 3-67

The headwater spring proposed for development is within a highly sensitive area on a 

hill side because of the steep gradient. The dominant vegetation is hydric plant species. 

Soil composition is primarily organic and saturated. The spring has not fully recovered 

from the effects of past land management actions and the fire. Areas adjacent to the 

spring appear to have sloughed downhill. The direct and indirect effects of development 

of the spring would likely result in additional damage to the soils and vegetation 

surrounding the outlet of the spring. Movement of groundwater into a trough exposed to 

solar radiation may result in increased water temperatures on water returns to 

Bosenberg Creek. Bosenberg creek is one of a few creeks within the Upper Malheur 

watershed that likely meets bull trout temperature criteria (mostly groundwater inputs). 

Keep cattle away from the spring entirely. Development sounds like a bad idea, directly 

threatening Bull Trout in Bosenberg and Big Creeks with higher water temperatures.

193 3-68

If rest occurs only after exceedances of the previous grazing season, the vegetative and 

channel characteristics may retard or at a minimum maintain the current condition. 

Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot height classes of shrubs may not likely 

occur due to the need of having consecutive years of no browse. The adaptive 

management strategy of additional rest or scheduled rest may allow continual movement 

towards or achievement of desired vegetative conditions identified in Appendix A part 1. 

The ground disturbing impacts from removal of 0.7 miles of fencing would not be 

measurable. 

How is measurable defined? Of course they can be measured.

195 3-69
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 441

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Authorization of livestock grazing in the Sagehen unit would result in movement towards 

PFC, maintaining the vegetation existing conditions, and moving it towards the desired 

channel characteristics. Bull trout critical habitat on Reaches 1, 3 and 4 would likely 

achieve PFC in both 5 and 10 years. Reach 2 would likely move towards FAR UP in 

both 5 and 10 years, but not likely to achieve PFC because of the channel and riparian 

shrub existing conditions. Reaches 1, 3, and 4 would likely move towards the desired 

vegetation condition within 10 years (Appendix A, part 2). Reach 4 is adjacent to the 

road and would allow more efficient management of livestock. Reach 2 would likely 

maintain its existing vegetation condition because of the deficiency in riparian shrub, 

height classes and channel characteristics. Reaches 1, 3 and 4 would likely move 

towards desired channel characteristics. Reach 2 would likely move towards desired 

channel characteristics, but at a slow rate. If rest occurs only after exceedances of the 

previous grazing season, the vegetative and channel characteristics may retard or at a 

minimum maintain the current condition. Development of seed sources in the 0-3 foot 

height classes of shrubs may not likely occur due to the need of having consecutive 

years of no browse. The adaptive management strategy of additional rest or scheduled 

rest may allow continual movement towards or achievement of desired vegetative 

conditions identified in Appendix A, part1.

Problems with allowing PFC status to be a trigger for allowing continued livestock 

degradation of riparian values. Obviously the livestock degradation is even worse at 

FAR – ( Functioning At Risk)

197 3-70

Effects Determination

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout (T): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. 

Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (D): Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short 

term. 

Rationale

Habitat for Bull Trout in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High 

water temperatures, riparian hardwood suppression and altered stream channels have 

reduced the habitat capability of streams in the aquatic analysis area to support Bull 

Trout. Riparian areas within the project area are deficient in riparian hardwoods. Some 

recovery has occurred from past activities related to livestock grazing and timber harvest 

and natural disturbances such as fire. However many of the stream reaches are early 

seral with sensitive stream banks and or have not achieved a rating of PFC which is the 

minimum required to withstand flood events. Many of the areas have not achieved a 

state of resiliency and are susceptible to degradation from livestock. The addition of 

approximately 4.36 miles of Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the Bosenberg Unit that is 

currently vacant and development of cold water spring sources within the Unit would 

result in adverse affects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat due to the early seral state of the 

riparian area within the Unit that is currently recovering from wildfires in 1990 

(Snowshoe, Corral Basin, and Sheep) and 2002 High Roberts wildfire. The streambanks 

are composed of soft organic material that is easily sheared and compacted from hoof 

action.While measures such as a full time rider, adaptive management strategy of 

additional rest, establishment of two DMA’s, bank alteration standards of 10% and 15% 

would alleviate the possible impacts the sensitivity of the riparian area to disturbance 

and likelihood that cattle would prefer to congregate within the riparian area based on 

forage availability carries a high degree of uncertainty whether these measures would be 

effective. Forage production within this unit is primarily in the riparian area with the 

uplands dominated by Ceanothus and young ponderosa pine. 

So why is alt. 2 eve being considered, as it would likely adversely affect Bull Trout, a 

listed species and why then is alt. 1, no grazing, the most ecologically beneficial alt, 

relegated to the status of “No Action” as a baseline for comparison rather than the 

change it really represents and as a viable and preferable alternative.

199 3-71

Plant vigor and the greenline stability rating would likely continue to improve under this 

management. The condition of the herbaceous plant communities is currently on an 

upward trend and would likely improve from the minimum rest requirements and 

scheduled rest. This condition was assessed with a 4 inch stubble height.

Starting with alt. 3 descriptions, there is no real substantiation given for optimistic 

203 3-72
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

442 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

assumptions that management strategies will necessarily result in PFC status or better.

Cumulative Effects

Table A-11: Summary of Expected Recovery for PFC Ratings by Unit Based on the 

Actions Proposed

Allotment Unit Miles PFC in 5 

Years

PFC in 10 

Years

Desired Condition in 

10 Years

Lake 

Creek

Bosenberg 8.64 >PFC >>PFC Y 

McCoy Creek 5.66 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Logan 

Valley

Big Creek 

Riparian 

Pasture

1.67 >PFC >>PFC Y 

Corral Holding 0.12 PFC >>PFC Y 

Flat Field 0.02 PFC >>PFC Y 

Lower Field 0.12 PFC >PFC Y 

Is >PFC toward PFC? Is >>PFC beyond PFC?

206 3-73

The rate of recovery for this unit would result in the second fastest movement towards 

desired conditions, behind Alternative 1. 

So why isn’t the Forest Service choosing the most ecologically preferable alt (Alt 1) – 

especially when a federally listed species is at stake, with acknowledged severe 

degradation of its critical habitat?

208 3-74

The indirect effects of livestock effects for West Fork Summit Reach 2 would result in an 

improvement to the herbaceous plant community and channel characteristics, but 

maintenance of the existing riparian shrub conditions for West Fork Summit Reach 2. 

The riparian shrub conditions are critical for the resource values present in these areas. 

For example, beaver complexes were evident in the PFC assessments for these 

reaches, however, it is not likely that this alternative would provide the dietary conditions 

needed to support beaver populations or Bull Trout overwintering habitat. The vertical 

stability issues from active headcutting may impede improvement until they are 

addressed through active restoration. West Fork Summit Reaches 1 and 2 were found to 

be functioning at risk with a downward trend. Reaches rated functioning at risk are not 

stable or resilient to impacts from frequent flooding or other land management actions 

but a minimum rest requirement of 3-5 years would facilitate recovery.

So alt. 1 would likely provide for beaver’s dietary needs and Bull Trout over wintering 

habitats.

210 3-75

The direct and indirect effects of constructing 0.8 miles of fence along the boundary of 

the North Summit Riparian pasture may result in minimal ground disturbance from initial 

fence construction. Implementing the design criteria would minimize any effects to 

riparian areas, the viability of bull trout, redband trout or Columbia spotted Frog within 

the project area. The short term effects of fence construction are expected to result in 

long term beneficial effects for bull trout critical habitat within the North Summit Riparian 

pasture.

Minimizing effects is not the same as avoiding effects so consequences to Bull Trout, 

Redband Trout, and Columbia Spotter Frogs still should have been analyzed.

211 3-76

When cumulative effects common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are considered with the 

Proposed Actions from Alternative 4, the result is the third fastest rate of recovery or 

movement towards a proper functioning condition and the desired condition for riparian 

areas and Bull Trout Critical Habitat within the Project Area. The rate of recovery is 

because of the fundamental livestock management strategy for Alternative 4 that largely 

includes range riders, creation of riparian exclosures and units, adaptive management of 

enlargement of riparian exclosures and changes in allowable use levels with starting 

allowable use levels similar to Alternative 3. The cumulative effects are within the scope 

of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Malheur National Forest 

213 3-77
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 443

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Land and Resource Management Plan EIS.

Why does the Forest Service prefer only the 3rd fastest rate of recovery?

Endangered Species Act

The ESA requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

This is unequivocal.

Why is the Grazing Authorization Aquatic BE not done and not incorporated within this 

DEIS? This is information central to the larges key issue of the project – Bull Trout 

protection and recovery as a listed species.

213 3-78

The completed BA and consultations can be found in the project file. 

Shouldn’t the Forest Service be required to avoid adverse effects to floodplains where 

possible, as is the case with this project?

214 3-79

Consistency with the Forest Plan

All alternatives are consistent with Management Area 3A standards, Amendment 29, 

and INFISH. Modifications for shade and their respective stream reaches are proposed 

for Amendment #29 Numberic Values as shown in Table 2-33. The proposed values for 

shade would be changed from the Amendment #29 values to the values identified in the 

TMDL or data collected by the Carex Working Group. The proposed shade values by 

reach are considered to be more site specific and realistic than the value present in 

Amendment 29. They take into consideration more factors that have localized effects on 

stream shade. 

Actually alts. would not be consistent with Alt. 29, as modifications of standard (to lower 

standards)are proposed.

214 3-80

Clean Water Act

The CWA requires that that the Forest Service manages for the attainment of water 

quality criteria that provides for the most restrictive beneficial use present on a reach of 

a stream. The most restrictive beneficial use that is present in the Project Area is Bull 

Trout spawning and rearing. Many of the streams present in the Project Area were 

identified as water quality limiting for water temperature with supporting data collected 

continuously at multiple locations. Big Creek, Lake Creek and Summit Creek were 

identified with 303(d) listings that were followed with the development of a TMDL.

We believe that the “action” alts 2, 3, and 4are not consistent with the Clean Water Act 

as summarized before, as not managing most effectively for Bull Trout Spawning and 

rearing requirements.

214 3-81

The purpose of the niche is to help us identify what makes each Forest special and allow 

us to narrow our focus to the most appropriate recreation opportunities so that we can 

provide quality recreation.

Why should the Forest Service determine for us “the most appropriate recreational 

opportunities”?

216 3-82

It should be noted that livestock and livestock grazing are very much an integral part of 

western and local “traditional way of life”. 

Local traditional way of life is also native peoples’ historic cultural ways – which are not 

related to intrusive livestock grazing. Many visitors and residents also hate the presence 

of cattle and sheep and the degraded landscape associated with livestock, but this is 

ignored.

216 3-83

The Lake Creek Allotment is currently not active. East of the campground is an adjacent 

allotment that is not in use, thus lessening conflicts for recreating publics. However, 

livestock from a northwestern direction have occasionally entered the campground for 

the past several years As MA12, livestock is prohibited within campgrounds, however 

the campground has not been fenced excluding livestock entry.

Why not? There’s a clear bias toward livestock in this whole discussion and in 

management.

217 3-84

Campsites are concentrated primarily in flat areas off main transportation systems where 

water can be accessed. Many are near springs or creeks. Varied degrees of vegetation 217 3-85
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

444 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

and riparian zone damage occur throughout the watershed due to vehicles, sanitation 

practices, and removal of vegetation for various purposes. Use of Off Highway Vehicle 

Use (OHV) is often associated with dispersed camping.

So excluding livestock from all riparian areas would also benefit recreation and alleviate 

cumulative impacts.

Special Uses 

Alternative 2 would move the Horse pasture from Lake Creek allotment to Logan Valley 

allotment. Making the Horse pasture an active allotment pasture could have a negative 

impact on the Special Use Permit Horse Group that uses the Horse Pasture for an 

annual Recreation Event. If cows are pastured during the time of the event, the group 

may not be able to use the area at the same capacity as they did in the past. The vacant 

Horse Pasture is used as a campsite for the Horse Group that consist of approximately 

100 people with horses, trailers, catering trucks and showers. 

Another reason not to re-open a vacant allotment pasture to cattle use.

222 3-86

Many communities are closely tied to the forest in both work activities and recreation. 

The local communities within an hour or two drive that are anticipated to be directly or 

indirectly affected by the proposed action, alternatives, and their associated economics 

include: Prairie City (population 1,080), Burns/Hines (4,565), Dayville (140), John 

Day/Canyon City (2,740), Long Creek (260), Mount Vernon (650), Monument (150), 

Seneca (230), Sumpter (175), and Unity (145). Larger towns and cities two or more 

hours away from John Day include: Baker City (10,160), LaGrande (12,795), Ontario 

(10,680), Bend (52,029), and Pendleton (16,915). The nearest metropolitan areas are 

the Tri-Cities area of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland in Washington State, and Boise, 

Idaho. Most of the permittees live in the listed local communities. 

Biased discussion: Some of these towns are pretty far away from the planning area – 

not much likelihood of socio-economic effects. Larger cities like La Grande, Ontario, 

Bend and Pendleton are very unlikely to be affected. The Tri-cities and Boise are 

completely irrelevant.

236 3-87

However, the Forest Service does not recognize the permit as having additive financial 

value to an individual’s property because there is no guarantee that the permit would 

remain with current permittee in perpetuity and that the sale of the property would 

automatically give the permit to the new owner. Therefore the Forest Service recognizes 

grazing permits as a privilege and not a right. 

So why are economics so heavy a bias related to proposed grazing management, when 

livestock use is recognized by the forest to be a privilege, not a right.

237 3-88

However, Alternative 1 would eliminates all permittee costs associated with the 

allotment. In addition, a fair market appraisal of improvements may be necessary to 

determine appropriate compensation for investments made on the allotments by the 

current permittees. The magnitude of the direct effects of this alternative is considered to 

be the three ranching operations currently holding permits for the allotments under 

consideration and the Government.

Only 3 ranching operations are causing this level of threat to Bull Trout and riparian 

functioning? Ecological impacts clearly outweigh the distribution of economic gain.

240 3-89

The Warm Springs has purchased lands adjacent the Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area. Virtually the entire Summit Logan Valley Grazing 

Authorization Project area falls within the ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs. Under the terms of the Treaty of 1855, the Confederated Tribes reserve 

the rights to hunt, fish, gather plant crops, and pasture livestock within these ceded 

lands.

So why are 18 ranchers given much higher consideration than the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs, whose lands these really are?

244 3-90

This is a summary of the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report that 

evaluates the potential effects of livestock grazing on wildlife species and their 

associated habitat within the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project. The 

full Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist Report can be found in Appendix F 

245 3-91
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 445

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

which is available for review by request. 

The full Biological Evaluation should have been incorporated in this DEIS. Please send 

us a hard copy of the BE and the wildlife specialist reports.

There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx in the affected 

subwatersheds. Based on the National Lynx Survey, the Malheur National Forest falls 

under the designation of “Unoccupied Mapped Lynx Habitat” (USFWS Memo, 2006). 

Consequently, there is No Effect (NE) to Canada lynx. 

Yet this is Lynx habitat in the Northern moister mixed conifer area by the Strawberry 

Mountains and there have been no Lynx surveys to determine presence or absence!

247 3-92

Table W-1: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Wildlife Species Summary

Terrestrial 

Species Status Species Occurrence

Effects Determination

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Canada Lynx

Lynx canadensis T HN/N NE NE NE NE

* Gray Wolf 

Canis lupus

East of Hwy 395

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Bald Eagle

Hailaeetus 

leucocephalus

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

American 

Peregrine Falcon

Falco perigrinus 

anatum

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

California 

Wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit

Brachylagus 

idahoensis

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

*Greater SageGrouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

phaios

S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Silver-bordered 

Fritillary

Boloria selene

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wallowa Rosy 

Finch Leucosticte 

tephrocotis 

wallowa

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

*Bobolink

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Upland Sandpiper S HD/D NI NI NI NI

248 3-93 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

446 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Bartramia 

longicauda

Tricolored 

Blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

Bufflehead

Bucephala 

albeola

S HN/N NI NI NI NI

*Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*White-headed 

Woodpecker

Picoides 

albolarvatus

S HD/D NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Townsend's BigEared Bat 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Pallid Bat 

Antrozous 

pallidus

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Fringed Myotis 

Myotis 

thysanodes

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Johnson's 

Hairstreak 

Callophrys 

johnsoni

S HD/S NI NI NI NI

*Columbia 

Clubtail Gomphus 

lynnae

S HD/S NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

*Columbia 

Spotted Frog

Rana luteiventris

S HD/D

See 

Aquatic 

Section

MIIH MIIH MIIH

We are concerned by potential negative impacts to these species (Marked with an *) 

from alts 2, 3, and 4. Especially as there have been no population studies for these 

species in the project area and thus no guarantee of their viability.

Table W-2: Management Indicator Species Summary (Malheur National Forest)

MIS 

Species Representing Habitat Requirements Habitat Present in 

Analysis Area

*Elk

Commonly 

hunted Biggame Species

Forested Mountains and 

meadows with grasses and 

forbs

Yes, including known calving 

area within Logan Valley fen 

and vicinity

American 

(Pine) 

Marten

Old Growth

Mature, mesic coniferous 

forests, with high structural 

diversity in the under story

Higher elevation mixed 

conifer stands: designated 

old growth stands, 

replacement old growth 

stands, late and old 

structure on Lake Creek and 

Big Creek.

249 3-94a
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 447

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Extensive areas of dense 

coniferous forests with tall 

closed canopy, high basal 

area and large diameter 

snags

Yes, mixed conifer stands, 

drainages, designated old 

growth stands, replacement 

old growth stands, late and 

old structure on Lake Creek 

and Big Creek.

Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Old Growth, 

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Higher elevation (above 

4,500ft) lodgepole pine and 

mixed conifer forests with a 

lodgepole component

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat 

within the project area.

We are concerned by potential negative impacts to these Management Indicator 

Species (Marked with an *) and populations of other species with similar habitat needs 

from alts 2, 3, and 4.

*Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open forests and nests in 

large snags in cavities 

created by other cavity 

nesters or in very soft snags

Yes, have been documented 

nesting in aspen within the 

project area.

*Red-naped 

Sapsucker*

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian 

habitats consisting of a 

mixture of grasses shrubs 

and hard woods

Yes, associated with aspen 

stands

*Williamson’

s Sapsucker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Mature higher-elevation 

coniferous forests for 

nesting and feeding

Yes, associated with aspen 

stands, associated with 

larger conifer.

*Downy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags

and Down 

Wood

Associated with riparian 

habitats consisting of a 

mixture of grasses shrubs 

and hard woods

Yes, Big Creek, Lake Creek, 

portions of Summit Creek 

provide the most suitable 

habitat, as well as aspen 

habitat in riparian areas

Hairy 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that 

prefer large trees Yes

Whiteheaded 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Open ponderosa pine 

forests with large trees and 

snags in large patches

Yes, dry forest, large tree 

and open-canopied habitat. 

Blackbacked 

Woodpecker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Forests with dead, insectinfested trees associated 

with large-scale 

disturbances such as fire or 

wind throw

Yes, lodgepole pine habitat 

within the project area.

Northern 

Flicker

Primary Cavity 

Nester, Snags 

and Down 

Wood

Habitat generalists that 

prefer large trees stands 

near meadows

Yes

Indicates our concern re: negative impacts to these species (Marked with an *) viability 

in the project area from alts 2, 3, and 4. 

250 3-94b

In addition to Featured Species listed within the Malheur Forest Plan, American beaver 

are discussed, in response to public interest and comments generated by the proposed 251 3-94c
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

448 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

action.

Table W-3: Featured Species Habitat

Featured 

Species Habitat Requirements Habitat Present In or near 

Analysis Area

Northern 

Goshawk

Mature, multi-storied ponderosa 

pine stands, or mixed conifer 

stands that are dominated by 

ponderosa pine

Yes, documented within or near 

vicinity of the project area

Blue Grouse

Clumps of mistletoe infected 

Douglas-fir on tops or upper 

slopes of ridges

Yes, upper elevations within 

project area

*Sage Grouse Open sagebrush plains from 

4000-9000 ft in elevation.

Yes, incidental observations, 

Logan Valley. See TES section.

Osprey

Large dead trees suitable for 

nesting (30”dbh greater than60’ 

in height) adjacent to or near 

large rivers or lakes

Yes, active nests documented 

on Big Creek in Logan Valley, 

and near Summit Prairie

*Pronghorn 

Antelope

Open grasslands, with low 

sagebrush being an important 

component

Yes, animals use area in vicinity 

of fen as fawning area; also 

observed along Summit Creek

California 

Bighorn Sheep

Alpine-desert grasslands 

associated with mountains, 

cliffs, foot-hills, and river 

canyons

No, the project area does not 

fall with suitable habitat for 

Bighorn sheep

*Upland 

Sandpiper 

Large open mountane meadows 

and grasslands 

Yes, potential habitat; 

historically nested in project 

area. See TES section.

*American 

Beaver*

Lower gradient perennial 

streams with riparian vegetation

Yes, present in several stream 

reaches

* American beaver are discussed, in response to public interest and comments 

generated by the proposed action

We are concerned by potential negative impacts to these “featured” species (Marked 

with an *) from alts 2, 3, and 4 and to Neo-tropical Migratory songbirds. 

Table W-4: Neotropical Migratory Birds – Priority Habitat Features & Associated Focal 

Landbirds Species within Project Area

Habitat 

Type

Habitat Feature/ 

Conservation Focus Focal Species Potential 

Grazing Effects

Dry Forest 

Old Forest

* Large patches of old 

forest with large trees 

and snags

White-headed

woodpecker

No impacts for 

conifer habitat 

impacts, 

associated with 

aspen habitat

Old forest with 

interspersion of grassy 

openings and dense 

thickets

Flammulated Owl Yes

Open understory with 

regenerating pines Chipping sparrow Yes

*Patches of burned old 

forest Lewis’ woodpecker

No impacts to 

confier habitat, 

impacts 

associated with 

252 3-94d
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 449

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

aspen habitat

Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Old 

Forest

Large snags Vaux’s swift No

Overstory canopy 

closure Townsend’s warbler No

Structurally diverse; 

multi-layered Varied thrush No

*Dense shrub layer in 

forest openings and 

understory

McGillivray’s warbler Yes

Edges and openings 

created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher No

Montane 

Meadow

*Wet or dry open 

tracts of short 

grasslands

Upland sandpiper

No impacts for 

upland 

sandpiper, 

contigent on 

monitoring (see 

Design 

Elements)

Shrub 

Steppe

Juniper, sage brush 

with small openings Vesper sparrow Yes

Riparian 

Shrub 

*Willow/alder shrub 

patches Willow flycatcher Yes

Aspen *Aspen stands Red-naped sapsucker Yes

Neotropical songbirds of potential concern for us re: grazing impacts from alt 3, 4, and 2.

Upland 

Sandpiper

Historically 

Present 

TES section, historically present, current 

status unknown

Long-Billed 

Curlew Present See Landbird Discussion

Yellow-Billed 

Cuckoo Present Documented infrequently in Logan Valley, 

see Landbird Discussion

Flammulated Owl Present See Landbird Discussion

Black Swift Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Lewis’ 

Woodpecker Present See TES section

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker Present MIS - Primary Cavity Excavator 

Discussion, see Landbird Discussion 

White-Headed 

Woodpecker Present See TES section

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher Present See Landbird Discussion

Willow Flycatcher Suspected See Landbird Discussion

Loggerhead 

Shrike Suspected See Landbird Discussion

Sage Thrasher Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Brewer’s 

Sparrow Present See Landbird Discussion

Sage Sparrow Absent Outside Range of Project Area

McCown’s Absent Outside Range of Project Area

253 3-94e
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

450 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Longspur

Black Rosy-Finch Absent Outside Range of Project Area

Cassin’s Finch Present See Landbird Discussion

Neotropical songbirds species and birds of conservation concern of particular concern to 

us re: grazing impacts from alt 2, 3, and 4 and other reasons for our concern re: impacts 

to neotropical migratory songbirds and birds of conservation concern.

Gray Wolf:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Wolves are limited by prey availability and are threatened by negative interactions with 

humans. Generally, land management activities are compatible with wolf protection and 

recovery, especially actions that maintain ungulate populations. Elk populations on the 

Malheur National Forest are stable; within the project area, elk populations are at or 

slightly above management objectives set by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW 2010). 

Inadequate analysis re: potential impacts to wolves of alt 2, 3, and 4.

254 3-95

Greater Sage-Grouse:

Alternative 2, 3 & 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

No documented leks of greater sage-grouse males, hens, or hens with broods have 

been recorded within the project area. Incidental sightings of sage-grouse have occurred 

in vicinity of Flat Field, within the Logan Valley allotment. This area may have some of 

the higher potential for sage grouse use, given its lack of conifer encroachment and 

open grass and sagebrush habitat.

Greater Sage Grouse are on the verge of uplisting and now require detailed 

conservation plans. The following discussion fails to adequately analyze potential 

impacts to Greater Sage Grouse from alts 2, 3, and 4.

256 3-96

Direct and Indirect Effects

Impacts to silver-bordered fritillary caterpillars or habitat would depend on timing of cattle 

grazing, and concentration of animals within pastures containing preferred meadow 

habitat. Grazing may impact butterfly eggs, young, or food plants. Because of variations 

in dates of turn-out, not all areas of potential habitat would be impacted by cattle in a 

given grazing season. 

Inadequate analysis of impacts to Silver-bordered Fritillary

257 3-97a

Determination

Grasshopper sparrow have not been documented within the project area. However, 

because meadow or grassland habitat exists within all of the allotments, there is 

potential for direct impacts to habitat from cattle grazing. However, not all habitat would 

be impacted concurrently throughout the project area, providing nesting and foraging 

habitat for grasshopper sparrow. The proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause 

a loss of viability to the population or species. 

There is no attempt to quantify or qualitatively describe potential impacts of livestock 

grazing to Grasshopper Sparrow, Bobolink, Greater Sage Grouse, Silver-bordered 

Fritillary, et al.

259 3-97b

If upland sandpipers are documented during these surveys, turnout would be postponed 

in order to allow nesting and incubation of upland sandpipers to occur without risk of 

trampling or disturbance. Foraging habitat is available in several pastures within Logan 

Valley. 

So how is foraging habitat affected by livestock use? Why no discussion of that. 

Species need foraging habitat, not just nesting habitat.

260 3-98

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not 262 3-99
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 451

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

be expected to adversely affect populations of Lewis’s woodpecker on the Forest.

Especially the combined effects would be expected to adversely affect populations of 

Lewis Woodpecker where ever there is livestock use continuing in historic aspen clone 

areas and existing Aspen stands.

Consequently, the proposed alternatives May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to 

the population or species.

By definition, mid to long term negative effects could contribute to a trend toward federal 

listing and loss of viability.

263 3-100

Determination

No surveys for Townsend’s big-eared bat have occurred within the project area, 

however potential roost and foraging habitat does exist. Improvements to riparian 

vegetation would benefit Townsend’s big-eared bat prey species. Lack of sapling 

recruitment within aspen stands continues to be an adverse impact from ungulate 

grazing. Conifer shading and competition with aspen compounds this problem. 

Depending on placement, wire fencing has potential to impale bats, directly impacting 

individuals. Direct impacts from fences could be minimized by making fences more 

visible (see Design Elements). 

Once again, in the absence of population surveys for this species, there is no known 

viability threshold for the population and impacts could cause a trend toward uplisting.

264 3-101

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not 

be expected to adversely affect populations of Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Forest.

Why not? What ate the cumulative other effects to Townsend’s Big Eared bat? Why are 

these not analyzed? What about loss of snags? Disturbance of caves?

265 3-102

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed at the project area level. All of the activities listed in 

Appendix C were considered for their cumulative effects on pallid bats or their habitat. 

Inadequate Cumulative Effects Analysis for at least several species.

265 3-102

Alternative 1 - No Grazing 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no management activities, no grazing 

would occur on any of the allotments. Impact to upland and riparian forage and shrubs 

from domestic livestock would be eliminated. Lack of displacement or competition for 

forage from cattle, especially in meadow and riparian systems, could be beneficial for 

big game species. Competition between cattle and big game in and around water 

sources, both developed and undeveloped, would be eliminated. If interior fences are 

not removed, lack of maintenance of those fences could be detrimental if loose wire 

resulted in entrapped or injured animals. 

Alt. 1 is also better for elk.

268 3-104

Overall, the combined effects of the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project 

with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not 

be expected to adversely affect populations of primary cavity excavators on the Forest.

What about cumulative effects to local populations of primary cavity excavators.

274 3-105

Once beaver become established in an area, grazing management may become more 

critical. Beaver cut willows at the base, which stimulates suckering and growth, while tip 

browsing by both wild and domestic animals can arrest growth (Kindschy 1985). Heavy 

browsing by ungulates, in addition to riparian hardwood use by beaver, can be 

detrimental for shrub recovery (Baker 2003). However, beaver currently exist on both 

Lake Creek and Big Creek within Logan Valley, and their activities appear to be 

compatible with some level of cattle grazing. Willows and other hardwoods are present 

in both areas. 

Failure to remove cattle from degraded riparian areas may result in not enough 

hardwood recovery to support beaver establishment, yet this is not discussed.

276 3-106
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

452 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment DEIS 

page# Response

Climate Change

The effects of proposed livestock grazing on climate change, aren't measurable and are 

likely insignificant at the global scale.

This ignores the cumulative contribution of livestock grazing to climate change.

282 3-107

3-1 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need for action is described in the DEIS in Chapter 1, pages 30 through 31. The purpose 

and need statement defines the scope and objectives of the proposal. It describes in detail why the action 

is being proposed. 40 CFR 1502.13 states that the environmental impact statement shall briefly specify 

the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives 

including the proposed action. A well-written purpose and need statement narrows the range of 

alternatives that may need to be developed in the “alternatives” section. The purpose and need may be 

tiered to other EISs (such as the FEIS for the Malheur Forest Plan) that influence the scope of the analysis 

or support the rationale for the need for action (40 CFR 1502.20). 

The no action alternative is required to be included in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.15). The No Action (No 

Grazing) alternative is discussed in the DEIS in Chapter 2, page 41 and substantial detail is included in 

the DEIS, Chapter 3 to compare its merits with other alternatives considered in detail.

3-2 

Bull Trout 

See previous responses 1-1, 1-2, and 1-8 related to bull trout. Improving resource conditions for aquatic 

habitat is part of the purpose and need for action identified in the DEIS, Chapter 1, pages 30 and 31. Bull 

trout critical habitat is a significant issue in the DEIS (see DEIS, Chapter 1, page 37). Your statement 

referencing INFISH is partially correct. INFISH Standard and Guideline (GM-1) states “modify grazing 

practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing 

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

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

Riparian Management Objectives. 

3-3 

Vacant Allotments 

Your concern regarding not grazing the existing vacant Lake Creek allotment was addressed in the range 

of alternatives considered in detail. In Alternative 3, the entire vacant Lake Creek Allotment would 

remain vacant with no authorized grazing proposed in the three existing grazing units (see DEIS Chapter 

3, page 52). Alternative 4 proposes to add portions of the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley 

allotment (see DEIS, Chapter 2, page 58). The areas containing critical bull trout habitat would remain 

vacant in both Alternatives 3 and 4. Table 2-36 (DEIS, Chapter 2, page 84) shows the acres that are 

currently vacant that would be shifted to active livestock use (would be grazed) and the miles of critical 

bull trout habitat that are currently vacant that would be grazed for each alternative studied in detail. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 453

3-4 

Economics and Reduce Livestock Numbers 

The social and economic effects of the alternatives studied in detail are disclosed in the DEIS on pages 

235-245. This section displays the construction costs of improvements associated with each alternative 

and also discusses how ranching contributes to the total core employment in Grant and Harney Counties. 

Additional information will be added to the FEIS to supplement the social-economics analysis.

 3-5 

Bull Trout Habitat 

See previous responses 3-1 and 3-2 relating to bull trout habitat. Your concerns over aquatic habitat and 

bull trout habitat are addressed in the purpose and need statement and significant issues. The analysis 

tracks measures identified for the bull trout critical habitat significant issue and compares the effects for 

each alternative (see DEIS, Chapter 2, Table 2-36, page 83). The hydrology and aquatics effects analysis 

in Chapter 3 of the DEIS discloses in great detail the effects of alternatives on bull trout and bull trout 

habitat (see DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 142 through 214. 

3-6 

Livestock Distribution and Riparian Impacts 

Your concerns regarding distribution of livestock riparian impacts are addressed in the alternatives by 

controlling the timing, frequency, duration, and intensity of grazing. The alternatives propose different 

types of actions to control these factors. These include combinations of grazing systems, allowable 

grazing use levels, pasture rest, pasture configurations (construction of riparian pastures and exclosures), 

livestock numbers and grazing season, allotment boundary changes, and herding (riding) practices. The 

specific actions proposed are disclosed in DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 43 through 63. All action alternatives 

are based on “adaptive management”. Adaptive management is explained in detail in the DEIS, Chapter 2, 

pages 41 through 42. In summary, the adaptive management process provides the flexibility to adapt or 

change management practices based on monitoring to ensure that riparian recovery objectives are being 

achieved in a timely manner. Adaptive management strategies that may be used with each alternative are 

identified in DEIS, Appendix A (part 3). 

Alternative 2 is the only alternative that proposes spring developments in the Bosenberg Creek drainage. 

The effects are described on DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 191 and 192. 

Specific Design Criteria to reduce impacts of spring developments and water gap construction are listed 

in DEIS, Chapter 2, Table 2-35, pages 71-73 and 76-77. 

3-7 

Misc. Concerns 

Your comments are addressed specifically in other comment responses.

3-8 

Socioeconomic, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act 

These concerns are addressed specifically in future comment responses.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

454 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-9 

Inadequate Cumulative Effects Discussions 

Each resource section in Chapter 3 discusses the cumulative effect of the alternatives proposed. Appendix 

C of the DEIS contains a list of past, present or ongoing, and foreseeable future projects or activities 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Additional cumulative effects analysis will be added to 

some sections in the FEIS. More detailed responses are provided on future comments. 

3-10 

Misc. Wildlife Species Concerns 

Your comments regarding specific wildlife and aquatic species are addressed where you provided more 

detailed hand written notes on the DEIS. 

3-11 

Forest Plan Amendments 

See previous comment response 1-4. 

3-12 

Forest Plan Amendments 

See previous comment response 1-4. 

3-13 

Issues Eliminated 

To address your comment the issues eliminated from detailed study along with the discussion of why 

these issues were eliminated will be added to the FEIS.

3-14 

Significant Issues 

A range of alternatives developed meet the purpose and need and address the two significant issues 

identified and discussed in Chapter 1 of the DEIS. Forest Service regulations specify that an alternative 

should meet the purpose and need and address one or more significant issues related to the proposed 

action. Since an alternative may be developed to address more than one significant issue, no specific 

number of alternatives is required or prescribed. Chapter 3 of the DEIS discloses the environmental 

consequences of the significant issues; consistency with the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH; and 

consistency with applicable laws, including the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. 

Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service will be initiated prior to signing of a NEPA decision on 

federally listed bull trout and critical habitat to meet the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirement. See 

comment response 3-78 for more information.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 455

3-15 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The wording in the FEIS will be clarified. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose amendments to the Malheur 

Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by Amendment #29. Specifically the numeric value for 

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

specific stream reaches so that the alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan as amended. See 

previous response 1-4 for more detail on the proposed amendment. 

3-16 

Clean Water Act Consistency 

The Existing Condition Section discusses the upward trends measured in riparian plant communities and 

channel form that have contributed to improving water temperatures. Immediate adjustments in the 

timing, intensity and duration of livestock grazing occurred after the 2007 PFC inventories identified 

issues. Please see the Environmental Consequences Section on pages 175 through 213 where it discusses 

the various configurations of livestock management and how it affects riparian vegetation, channel form 

and water temperatures. The action alternatives contain a monitoring strategy that utilizes site-specific 

management objectives. These objectives would ensure that each site remains on an upward trend towards 

desired condition. Adaptive management strategies are present to ensure that management continues to 

trend upwards if monitoring indicates that the condition is trending away from desired condition. 

3-17 

Sensitive Species Effects 

Based on this comment, additional or expanded analyses will be considered in preparation of a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Also, existing and future monitoring will trigger adaptive 

management strategies that will “protect” sensitive species if they are being negatively impacted (DEIS 

Chapter 2, pages 47, 54, 61, and 81; Chapter 3 page 133; Appendix A, Part 1, pages 318 and 319; 

Appendix A, Part 2, pages 328 and 329; Appendix A, Part 3, page 334).

3-18 

Loss of Viability 

This comment will be addressed in more detail in future responses.

3-19 

Past Grazing Utilization Standards 

This section is an overview of the history of livestock grazing management. Although science indicates 

that there can be a correlation between forage, browse use, and stream bank alteration and the riparian 

condition, there other important factors to consider. These include the potential vegetation, type of stream 

channel, and the condition of the stream. Pages 177 through 180 of the DEIS describe the science behind 

various numeric ranges of use levels. Appendix A, Part 1 shows the existing and desired condition, 

vegetation community potential for the stream reaches in the project area. Appendix E shows the 

proposed move triggers and allowable use levels by alternative and pasture. DEIS page 375 describes the 

process in which the use levels were established for this proposed project.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

456 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-20 

Sediment 

Providing adequate vegetative stubble along the greenline functions to ensure plant health is maintained 

and to provide floodplain roughness. The DEIS addresses how vegetative stubble filters sediment as 

snowmelt floods spill across the floodplain. This builds the floodplain and narrows the channel, ultimately 

offering cool, clean water important for biologic communities native to the Project Area. Please refer to 

DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics, Livestock Grazing, pages 177 through 182. 

3-21 

Deferred Rotation Grazing 

This wording will be clarified in the FEIS. 

3-22 

No Grazing of Riparian Zones 

Your comment recommending keeping all livestock out of the riparian zones is noted. This alternative 

will be added to the FEIS as an alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study. We feel that the 

purpose and need and significant issues identified in Chapter 1 can be addressed with the strategies 

proposed in the action alternatives that address the timing, duration, and frequency of grazing in riparian 

areas without removing livestock entirely from all riparian zones. These strategies vary by alternative and 

include periodic rest of riparian areas, fencing to create riparian pastures and exclosures to better control 

the duration and frequency of grazing, variations in use levels and move triggers, and herding techniques 

such as daily riding to move livestock away from riparian areas.

3-23 

Rest of Riparian Areas 

The West Bosenberg, West Lake Creek, and West summit Recovery unit pastures would be rested for 3-5 

years in all alternatives. Grazing would resume after management objectives have been achieved. In the 

DEIS, “management objective” is defined as conditions that have resilient vegetation and stream 

characteristics capable of withstanding disturbance and moving towards the desired condition when 

grazing is resumed”. Site specific management objectives by time periods are shown in Appendix A (Part 

2). If it is determined through monitoring that management objectives are not being achieved through the 

actions prescribed, then the respective adaptive management strategy would be applied to accelerate 

recover. Adaptive management strategies are shown in Appendix A (part 3). 

3-24 

Range of Alternatives 

Your comment on inadequate range of alternatives is being made on the first few pages of the effects 

analysis in Chapter 3, in a specific section describing the direct and indirect effects related to rangeland 

vegetation that are common between all action alternatives. We encourage you to review the entire effects 

analysis chapter. Other sections point out the differing effects of the alternatives studied in detail.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 457

3-25 

Big Creek Riparian Pasture 

Gates are left open and additional holes in the fence allow for livestock movement between pastures.

3-26 

Define Let-Down Fence 

Let-down fence: Is a three or four-strand fence that can be laid down as a unit but remains under tension. 

Also known as a lay-down or snow fence, is commonly used in mountainous areas where snow packs for 

four feet or more commonly loosen or breaks wires and pull over posts. This definition will be added to 

Appendix D (Definition of Terms). 

3-27 

Available Forage to Support AUMs 

This analysis is provided in the DEIS, Chapter 3, Forage Production and Stocking Rates Analysis, pages 

100 through 102. The analysis on forage production and stocking rates will be supplemented in the FEIS. 

See previous response 1-13 for additional information. 

3-28 

Cumulative Effects 

Table 4 describes the ongoing activities in the Logan Valley Allotment and their general effects. As stated 

in the text above the table, “additional cumulative effects discussions are provided for each specific 

alternative”. 

This section is specifically discussing the cumulative effects on rangeland vegetation and rangeland 

management. Future sections in the DEIS document discuss the cumulative effect to wildlife, bull trout, 

riparian species, and sedimentation.

See previous response 3-9. 

3-29 

No Action 

You are correct, No Action is “no grazing” in this analysis. 

3-30 

Noxious Weeds- Beneficial Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action 

The DEIS, Chapter 2, page 41 states that the no action alternative is interpreted as “No Grazing”. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative effects are defined as:

• Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (40 CFR § 1508.8) 

• Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects 

related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

458 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. (40 CFR § 1508.8) Indirect 

effects and secondary effects are used interchangeably by FHWA.

• Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 

time. (40 CFR § 1508.7 

The no action alternative does not propose any actions, so based on the above definitions there would be 

no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. We do acknowledge that there would be beneficial outcomes or 

consequences from removing grazing and grazing allotment management that relate to noxious weed 

spread. In the FEIS we will discuss these. 

3-31 

Analytic Support for Conclusions 

Based on your comment the noxious weeks analysis will be supplemented in the FEIS. 

3-32 

Noxious Weed Cumulative Effects 

Some foreseeable actions were not addressed in the noxious weeds cumulative effects analysis. These will 

be addressed in the FEIS.

3-33 

Eliminated Grazing from Sensitive Species Habitat 

See response 3-35. 

3-34 

Why is the Existing and Desired Condition Table an Appendix? 

We chose to make the Existing and Desired Condition table (Appendix A, Part 1) an appendix primarily 

because of its size. The table is 14 pages. 

3-35 

Sensitive Plant Effects Rationale 

Based on this comment, additional or expanded analyses will be considered in preparation of a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Also, existing and future monitoring will trigger adaptive 

management strategies that will “protect” sensitive species if they are being negatively impacted (DEIS 

Chapter 2, pages 47, 54, 61, and 81; Chapter 3 page 133; Appendix A, Part 1, pages 318 and 319; 

Appendix A, Part 2, pages 328 and 329; Appendix A, Part 3, page 334). 

3-36a 

Fen 

Based on this comment, additional or expanded analyses will be considered in preparation of a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Also, existing and future monitoring will trigger adaptive 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 459

management strategies that will “protect” sensitive species if they are being negatively impacted (DEIS 

Chapter 2, pages 47, 54, 61, and 81; Chapter 3 page 133; Appendix A, Part 1, pages 318 and 319; 

Appendix A, Part 2, pages 328 and 329; Appendix A, Part 3, page 334). 

3-36b 

Management Objectives 

The bulleted management objectives were determined by information provided in Weixelman & Cooper 

(2007) as cited in DEIS Appendix A, Part 2, pages 328 and 329. Based on the comment received on the 

DEIS, additional or expanded information will be considered in preparation of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS).

3-37 

Sensitive Plant Cumulative Effects 

Based on this comment, additional consideration will be included in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS).

3-38 

Lake Creek Allotment 

The soil scientist did not visit the Lake Creek Allotment because he was checking on how commonly 

current livestock use increases erosion, and Lake Creek Allotment does not have current livestock use.

3-39 

Misc. Comments on Soils 

Detrimentally impacted soil around salting grounds and water troughs is usually less than 3 acres. In 

response to this comment, the Soil Specialist Report was clarified regarding soil impacts in grassy 

riparian areas, with a description of the calculation. 

Typos in Table S-2 are corrected in the FEIS. The difference between the two clusters is that one was 

seeded. Ground cover on C & T clusters is estimated from transects, not photos. 

In this context, "minor," "slightly," and "negligible" mean causing no significant effects.

3-40 

Current Levels of Soil Compaction 

Soil effects of past and current grazing are described in the Soil Affected Environment section. Effects to 

other resources are described in the appropriate sections of this EIS.

3-41 

Soil Compaction Cumulative Effects 

The Soils Specialist Report has been revised to clarify the probable maximum level of compaction on the 

allotments, as described in the response to Comment 3-39. As described in the Soil Regulatory 

Framework section, compaction and puddling decrease infiltration and productivity, and thus they can 

affect ground cover and erosion. Ground cover and erosion are described in the Soil Affected 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

460 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Environment section. As described in the Environmental Consequences section, decreased grazing 

(compared to current grazing) would cause decreased effects, and vice versa.

3-42 

Herbicide Use Cumulative Effects 

Effects of herbicide use would be disclosed in that Environmental Analysis. It is unlikely that invasive 

plant treatments would increase erosion, even if an occasional mistake is made, because the individual 

areas treated would be small.

3-43 

Define Term (Slightly) 

In this context, "minor," "slightly," and "negligible" mean causing no significant effects.

3-44 

Request for Specialist Reports and Biological Evaluations 

Appendix F containing Specialist Reports has been mailed to you. 

3-45 

Forest Plan Grazing Use Levels 

This is explained in DEIS, Chapter 3, Range Vegetation, Grazing Utilization Standards (History), pages 

98 through 99. 

3-46a 

Regulatory Framework 

This is explained in the Inland Native Fish Strategy direction that amendment the Malheur Forest Plan. 

Standard and Guideline GM-1 states “modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to 

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

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

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

stated in previous responses all action alternatives are based on “adaptive management”. Adaptive 

management is explained in detail in the DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 41 through 42. In summary, the adaptive 

management process provides the flexibility to adapt or change management practices based on 

monitoring to ensure that riparian recovery objectives are being achieved in a timely manner. Adaptive 

management strategies that may be used with each alternative are identified in DEIS, Appendix A (part 3). 

3-46b 

303(d) listed streams 

All streams listed for stream temperature were de-listed from the 303(d) list when EPA accepted the 2010 

DEQ Integrated Report as identified in the DEIS on page 146. Please see comment 1-12 about the newly 

added 303(d) listed stream in the Project Area since the DEIS was released to the public for comments. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 461

3-46c 

Clean Water Act 

The USFS is responsible for complying with the Clean Water Act and the Total Maximum Daily Load for 

temperature through development of the Water Quality Recovery Plan (WQRP). The WQRP has not been 

developed yet, but Proposed Alternative is compliant with the framework of the WQRP identified in the 

DEIS on page 214. Please also refer to comments 1-12 and 3-16. 

3-46d 

Stream Temperature and Shade 

The Clean Water Act is implemented through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

DEQ has jurisdictional authority for establishing how water temperature will be measured and reported. 

This comment is outside of the scope of this analysis. Please refer DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology and 

Aquatics, Clean Water Act, pages 145 through 146. 

3-47a 

Bull Trout Habitat 

Your comment has been addressed in several previous responses. See specifically responses 1-1, 1-2, and 

3-3. 

3-47b 

Riparian Management Objectives 

The affected environment and effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat are discussed in detail in 

DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Aquatics, pages 156 through 214. 

3-47c 

Stream Shade 

Improving resource conditions for aquatic habitat is part of the purpose for the project. Specifically the 

DEIS on page 31 states that there is a need to improve aquatic habitat in Lake Creek, Big Creek, and 

Summit Creek to support all life stages of bull trout. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation 

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

stability. All action alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need considering the existing and 

desired condition of specific stream reaches shown in Appendix A (Part 1). The effects of proposed 

alternatives on shade and stream temperature is specifically addressed in the DEIS, Chapter 3, Hydrology 

and Aquatics, pages 156 through 214. 

See Response 3-46a 

3-47d 

Permanent Exclusion of Livestock 

Permanent exclusion of livestock is only one of the protection and recovery guidance measures 

recommended in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan. This measure is recommended for riparian habitat 

protection zones or streambank areas at high risk and with poor recovery potential when there is no 

practical way to protect them when grazing uplands. The plan recommends several other measures which 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

462 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

includes fencing and herding livestock out of riparian area for as long as necessary to allow vegetation 

and stream banks to recover; controlling the timing of grazing; adding more rest to the grazing cycle to 

increase plant vigor, allow stream banks to heal, or encourage more desirable plant species composition; 

limiting grazing intensity to a level that would maintain desired species composition and vigor. These are 

all tools considered and applied in the various alternatives studied in detail in the Summit Logan analysis. 

The recovery plan also recommends implementing monitoring and implementing changes consistent with 

the results. This is consistent with the monitoring and adaptive management strategies that are part of 

each alternative. 

3-48a 

Analysis Methods 

The Analysis Methods Section identifies the strengths and weaknesses associated with the different 

inventory and monitoring methodologies that were used for this project. Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC) was implemented first in 2007 and is a qualitative protocol for determining issues. Then, detailed 

quantitative monitoring through Pacfish/Infish Biological Opinion (PIBO), Multiple Indicator Monitoring 

(MIM) and Carex Working Group datasets informed the interdisciplinary team of the existing, desired 

condition and any trends; please see pages 164 through 175 for information pertaining to inventories and 

monitoring in the Project Area. Information was collected for previous timber sales or other projects that 

may only be applicable for certain allotments. Also, protocols change as they are improved for better 

accuracy and repeatability. Having a consistent set of inventory and monitoring data is extremely helpful, 

but typically is not available. The information available for this project is more than commonly available 

for a similar analysis. 

3-48b 

Rates of Recovery 

The DEIS discusses the assumptions used to evaluate the various action alternatives and their unique rate 

of recovery. In the DEIS on pages 152 through 156, it outlines the best available science and professional 

judgments used to develop these assumptions. Essentially, the basic building blocks of good aquatic 

habitat is vegetation and is affected by livestock grazing primarily through herbivory (i.e. eating plants). 

Vegetation improvements narrow the channel that affect shade, water temperature and overall aquatic 

habitat for the viability of bull trout and other aquatic organisms; please see Figure 1 on page 154 of the 

DEIS. Varying levels of livestock management changes were analyzed across the alternatives. These 

variations were derived from different use levels, rest periods, and adaptive management strategies. 

3-48c 

Rates of Recovery (Data) 

Best scientific articles, quantitative site specific measurements and professional judgment were used to 

develop monitoring objectives within Appendix A part 2 as discussed in the DEIS on pages 149 through 

156. Please refer to comment 3-152 for additional information that pertains to rates of recovery. 

3-48d 

Would the Desired Condition be Reached 

With the prescribed monitoring and adaptive management strategies the desired condition would be 

achieved. If it is determined that the resumption of grazing within a specific pasture is not allowing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 463

objectives or desired future condition to be achieved through the actions prescribed in a timely manner, 

then the pre-determined adaptive management strategy would be applied to allow continued recovery. 

3-48e 

Rates of Recovery 

The DEIS at page 155 discusses when riparian vegetation and channel characteristics are in balance and 

composed of resistant vegetation, risk of the system unraveling is decreased and recovery is more likely. 

Furthermore, on page 177 of the DEIS it discusses “general effects would be lessened annually or not 

measureable if a site is at greater than PFC and the existing condition is very close to the desired 

condition. If a reach is below PFC and there is large departure from desired condition, then the annual 

effects will be exacerbated. This is because the vegetative and channel attributes are not resilient enough 

to provide channel stability.

3-49a 

Stream Temperatures 

Temperatures across the project area are higher than desired. The purpose and need in Chapter 1 under 

Aquatic Habitat states that there is a “need to improve aquatic habitat in Lake Creek, Big Creek, and 

Summit Creek to support all live stages of bull trout. This includes improvements in riparian vegetation 

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

stability”. The alternatives proposed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS were develop to address the purpose and 

need. See response 3-47c. 

3-49b 

Bull Trout Spawning 

Spawning surveys have been ongoing in the project area as a partnership with the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the Burn Paiute Tribe. Additional spawning survey data is available and will be 

added to the FEIS. 

3-50 

Passage Barrier 

The passage barrier has been removed and replaced with a bridge. 

3-51 

Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

In reviewing your comments on the DEIS we noted some citation errors related to the Bull Trout 

Recovery Plan. These will be corrected in the FEIS and References Cited (Chapter 5). 

3-52 

Lake Creek Diversion 

No measures have been implemented to address this diversion. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

464 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-53 

Restoration 

See previous response 3-47c. 

3-54 

Don’t Reopen the Lake Creek Allotment 

See previous response 3-3. 

3-55 

Fish Barrier 

The barrier is an old railroad grade. It is potentially removable at a high dollar cost because of the large 

amount of material fill that would need to be removed over the barrier. 

3-56 

Stop Irrigation Withdrawals 

Stopping irrigation withdrawals is not within the scope of this analysis. This is a state regulated process.

3-57 

Beaver Introduction 

Including beaver recovery projects was an alternatives considered from detailed study. 

3-58 

South Summit Unit 

More information will be supplemented (added) to the FEIS regarding why the South Summit Unit will 

not be analyzed. The South Summit Unit contains approximately 20 feet of stream access and did not 

have issues identified during PFC inventories. It is utilized as a livestock watering access point. No 

management options are present other than to provide access to water. Therefore, the South Summit Unit 

will not be analyzed in the proceeding sections. 

3-59 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

DEIS, Chapter 3, Tables A-11, A-12, A-13, and A-14 disclose the expected recovery for PFC Ratings by 

grazing unit for the alternatives (including No Action). Table 2-36, Summary Comparison of Alternatives, 

compares the rates of recovery by showing the miles of critical habitat expected to achieve PFC in 5 years 

and 10 years. 

3-60 

High Water Temperatures 

See previous responses 3-46c, 3-46d, and 3-81. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 465

3-61 

Culvert Barriers 

The Existing Condition Section identifies passage barriers that restrict aquatic habitat from being utilized 

in various reaches in the Project Area, please see the DEIS in pages 156 through 175. The DEIS on pages 

30 through 31 define the purpose and need of the proposed action as two-fold; meeting the Rescission Act 

and Aquatic Habitat. The Aquatic Habitat purposes of the proposed action are defined in the DEIS on 

page 31 as improvements in riparian vegetation, channel form and water temperatures. 

3-62 

Wolves 

Returning wolves is outside the scope of this analysis.

3-63 

Bank Alteration 

The Monitoring Section of the DEIS at page 80 identifies Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) as the 

monitoring tool to address implementation indicators including bank alteration. In the MIM Technical 

Reference (Interagency Technical Reference 1737-23), it discusses bank alteration as “an estimate of the 

percent of the length of bank altered along the greenline based on the presence or absence of a 

hoofoprint(s) intercepting one (or more) of the five lines within a plot”. Also, the MIM monitoring frame 

is 2100 cm2 and the average cattle hoof is 208 cm2

. If one hoof intercepts one of the five lines, then 20% 

alteration would be recorded for that plot. 

3-64 

Bull Trout Habitat 

See responses 1-2. 

3-65 

Foreseeable Activities 

Thanks you for your comment. Minor supplements to the cumulative effects section will be made in 

FEIS.

3-66 

Big Creek 

This section discloses the effects of Alternative 2 on riparian habitat and bull trout critical habitat. See 

future response 3-71. 

3-67 

Critical Bull Trout Habitat and Vacant Allotments 

See previous response 3-3. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

466 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-68 

Bosenberg Unit Spring 

See previous response 3-3. Alternative 2 is the only action alternative that proposes to initiate grazing 

within the currently vacant Bosenberg unit. In Alternative 2 the headwater spring source would be 

developed with specific design criteria that would fence the spring source and pipe water to troughs 

located a minimum of 300 feet from the spring (See DEIS, Chapter 2, Design Criteria, page 71). 

3-69 

Definition of Measurable and Effects from Fence Removal 

A definition of measureable will be added to the FEIS. The ground disturbing impacts from removal of 

0.7 miles of fencing would not affect shade or add measureable sediment contributions to surface waters 

or degrade aquatic habitat. 

3-70 

PFC as Trigger 

The Analysis Methods Section of the DEIS at pages 149 through 156, discuss how PFC and Desired 

Condition were used as indicators for the Bull Trout Critical Habitat significant issue. It also discusses 

how the PFC condition is directly linked to livestock grazing and aquatic habitat. The DEIS Summary 

(page 15 through 16), and Chapter 2 (page 83) compares the alternatives relative to the significant issue 

measures. 

3-71 

Why Consider Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is the proposed action that was developed to address the purpose and need for action. In the 

analysis process public comments/concerns were requested on the proposed action. Two significant issues 

were identified from public comments and were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action. All of 

the alternatives studied in detail (including the proposed action) address the purpose and need for action. 

However, the alternatives to the proposed action (Alternatives 3 and 4) were developed to respond to one 

or more of the significant issues. As stated in Response 3-14, Forest Service regulations specify that an 

alternative should meet the purpose and need and address one or more significant issues related to the 

proposed action. Combined the alternatives provide a range of alternatives for analysis and consideration 

by the Deciding Official. A reasonable range of alternatives is required by Regulation.

3-72 

Optimistic Assumptions 

The Hydrology and Aquatics Effects Section in the DEIS on pages 175 - 212 discusses how various 

management actions, including creation of riparian pasture, and reduction in annual use levels will 

influence the attributes used to rate PFC and Desired Condition identified in Appendix A, Part 1 (DEIS on 

pages 307-320). The analysis prioritizes discussion of the attributes that were considered deficient to 

provide a functioning condition or desired aquatic habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 467

3-73 

Define Symbols in Table 

A footnote will be added at the bottom of the table to define symbols (>PFC and >>PFC). 

3-74 

Alternative 1 (most ecological alternative) 

Your preference for Alternative 1 is acknowledged. In making a decision the effects on the physical, 

biological, and social environments disclosed in the FEIS will be considered. 

3-75 

Prairie Riparian Pasture 

The Hydrology and Aquatics Effects Section discusses resting the Prairie Riparian Pasture for an 

immediate 3-5 years or until management objectives have been met in the DEIS on pages 209 through 

211. The objective is to ensure the riparian area is functioning properly and resilient prior to resuming 

livestock grazing in this pasture. 

3-76 

Minimizing Effects 

More effects rationale for these species will be provided in the FEIS. 

3-77 

Why Is Alternative 4 the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 4 was identified in the DEIS as the agency preferred alternative. A brief rationale of why 

Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred alternative was provided in the cover letter mailed with the 

DEIS. The letter states that “Alternative 4 was developed using public scoping comments and 

recommendation from Summit Prairie Allotment grazing permittees. I feel that Alternative 4 addresses the 

significant issues identified during scoping and provides a good balance between improving critical bull 

trout habitat for threatened bull trout and addressing the economic impacts to permittees and the local 

economy”. Although Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS, public 

comments and changes made between the draft and final EIS will be taken into consideration in making a 

final decision.

3-78 

Endangered Species Act 

Some errors have been noted in this section and will be corrected in the FEIS. The Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed species. 

Preparation of a Biological Assessment for initiation of formal ESA section 7 consultation with the FWS 

is expected to occur prior to signing a Record of Decision. Federally listed fish species and their proposed 

or designated critical habitat in the project area subject to consultation include bull trout and their critical 

habitat. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

468 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-79 

Floodplains 

The Hydrology and Aquatics Effects Section addresses how use levels specific for bank alteration will 

affect the channel form indicators greenline to greenline width and width/depth in the DEIS on pages 175 

through 213. No structures are being established on the floodplain that would affect flooding severity 

downstream. 

3-80 

Consistency With The Forest Plan 

See response 3-15. Wording in the FEIS will be clarified to address your comment. 

3-81 

Clean Water Act – Temperature 

The Hydrology and Aquatics Affected Environment Section (pages 156 - 174) addresses how there have 

been documented improvements in the trend of some attributes since PFC inventories started in 2007. 

Management objectives (Appendix A, Part 2; DEIS pages 321 – 329) were developed for the attributes 

where differences occur between the existing and desired condition. The management objectives will also 

serve to ensure the condition is maintained in a stable condition or improved on an upward trend. 

Monitoring (DEIS pages 77 – 81) will be implemented on 5 and 10 year time scales to document the 

response of riparian condition attributes and compare the management objectives to the monitored 

dataset. Adaptive management strategies (Appendix A, Part 3; DEIS pages 330 – 334) are in place to 

induce management changes if the trend is not upward due to livestock management. We believe the 

alternatives are consistent with the Clean Water Act through demonstrating that the trend is upward, or 

management changes will occur to ensure that stream temperatures improve towards desired conditions 

identified in the Malheur TMDL. 

3-82 

Forest Niche 

Some additional information will be added to the FEIS. Forest Niche conforms to direction established by 

the Forest land and resource management plan to prepare a facilities master plan. Niche can be thought of 

as a unique or special location, opportunity, or zone that contributes to the provision of highly valued 

experiences or significant benefits that, for Recreation Site Facility Master Planning, is expressed in terms 

of “Settings, Special Places, Values, Opportunities, Activities, and Primary Customers”. Niche is where 

the broader agency mission or role is narrowed to deliver specific experiences and benefits on a unit. A 

niche is the area (can be a geographic and/or an opportunity area) of specific focus within which the unit 

is most suited to add value to the agency and society, and from which features in recreation sites 

“facilitate” the unique opportunities, activities, experiences, and benefits.

The niche is based on analyzing the market demand (what people want) and the supply (what we have) 

with the recreation opportunity market “niche” the National Forest unit best serves as a result of the unit 

capability (supply) and sustainability (financial, environmental, and community). The fundamental basis 

for identifying the unit niche is determining and analyzing the demand/supply ratio for the unit recreation 

sites and the market for the use of those sites. It is the sites and facilities that are to be evaluated during 

facility master planning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 469

3-83 

Livestock Visitor Impacts 

The effects of grazing on developed recreation sites, dispersed recreation sites, snowmobile trails, bike 

trails, and other recreation activities are disclosed in the DEIS, Chapter 3, pages 215 through 224. 

3-84 

Livestock in Developed Campgrounds 

Wording in the FEIS will be clarified. The Lake Creek allotment is east of Murray Campground. The 

Lake Creek allotment has been vacant with no grazing for over 20 years. The livestock that have 

periodically entered the campground have come from an allotment to the northwest, outside the Summit 

Logan Project area. These are unauthorized livestock that have entered the campground by going around 

or through an allotment boundary fence. 

3-85 

Dispersed Recreation and Grazing Cumulative Impacts to Riparian Areas 

The cumulative impacts of dispersed recreation and riparian areas are discussed in the DEIS, Chapter 3 on 

pages 184 through 188. 

3-86 

Recreation Event 

Changes to this wording will be made in the FEIS. A special use permit for the horse group has been 

authorized on a year by year basis. The group has requested this permit for a couple of events over the last 

decade. The permit does not authorize grazing and requires the group to supply their own weed free hay 

for their horses. 

3-87 

Communities Affected Economically 

The DEIS on page 236 states that the local communities within an hour or two drive that are anticipated 

to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action, alternatives, and their associated economics 

include: Prairie City, Burns/Hines, Dayville, John Day/Canyon City, Long Creek, Mount Vernon, 

Monument, Seneca, Sumpter, and Unity. Larger City such as LaGrande, Ontario, Bend, and Pendleton are 

identified as larger towns and cities two or more hours way from John Day. The DEIS does not state that 

the larger cities are likely to be affected. 

3-88 

Livestock grazing is subsidized on public lands 

The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by 

the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally 

set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and 

extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per 

animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous 

year’s level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five 

sheep or goats for a month.) 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

470 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

The Federal grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing 

on public lands in Western states. The figure is then adjusted each year according to three factors – 

current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, 

the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more 

when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.

3-89 

Ecological Impacts Outweigh Economic Gain 

The effects section in an EIS describes the impacts of proposed alternatives on the environment and 

documents the methodologies used in evaluating these impacts. Information in this section is used to 

compare project alternatives and their impacts. 40 CFR 1508.8 requires discussions of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects. Effects to be discussed include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. In making a final decision all impacts of 

proposed alternatives will be considered. 

3-90 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

DEIS, Chapter 1, page 35 describes the ongoing tribal consultation that is occurring with the Burns Paiute 

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

Springs Reservation. 

3-91 

Biological Evaluation 

We have mailed you a hard copy of the Biological Evaluation as requested. 

3-92 

Canada Lynx 

The Malheur National Forest worked with USFWS personnel to develop a comprehensive sampling grid 

to conduct lynx hair snare surveys forest-wide as part of the USFWS National Lynx Survey (1999-2001). 

Training for set up of hair snare sites and hair sample collection protocols were provided by USFWS. 

Supplemental funding for personnel, equipment and materials to support the study were provided to the 

forest. Hair samples collected at survey sites and sent in for analysis ranged from coyote, bobcat, black 

bear, cougar and other animals. No samples of lynx hair were collected. Based on the results of these 

surveys, the USFWS has designated the Malheur National Forest as unoccupied mapped lynx habitat 

(USFWS 2006). The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) applies to occupied lynx 

habitat. Compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is not required for lynx on 

national forests determined to be unoccupied by lynx (USFWS 2006).

3-93 

Population Surveys and Studies 

The feasibility of comprehensive population and distribution studies for all wildlife species addressed in 

this DEIS is limited, in part due to the personnel and funding needed for systematic survey efforts, as well 

as the detectability of the animals themselves (bats, for example). Rather, effects on habitat are discussed, 

with the assumption that if appropriate habitat is available for a species, then that species occupies or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 471

could occupy the habitat. This strategy is based on science that demonstrates connections between species 

populations and the quantity and condition of habitat at appropriate scales of analysis (Baydack et al. 

1999 in USFS Thorn Fire Salvage Recovery Project FEIS 2008). 

Within the project area, species presence/absence determinations were based on habitat presence, review 

of recorded wildlife sightings in District and Forest wildlife databases, the National Resources 

Information System (NRIS) Wildlife database, non-Forest Service databases, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife reports, as well as notes, maps, and summary reports of wildlife observations made during 

field reconnaissance for several smaller projects in the area in 2011, with some follow-up visits early 

spring 2012. 

Improvements in riparian and upland vegetation, which is the desired future condition for all action 

alternatives, would result in improved habitat for all of the wildlife species discussed. Monitoring would 

be critical to determine if the desired outcome is occurring. Benchmarks are established to provide a 

measure for meeting these goals (See Appendix A, DEIS). Adaptive management strategies are to be 

implemented if target outcomes are not being achieved in a timely manner. Monitoring of these adaptive 

management strategies would also be required. Adaptive management strategies range from additional 

fencing to reduction in numbers of cattle, and are discussed in Chapter 2 (page 41) and Appendix A (Part 

3) of the DEIS. 

3-94a 

Management Indicator Species- Elk 

See Wildlife Specialist Report: The Murderer’s Creek and Malheur River Big Game Management Units 

are sufficiently large to provide for existing populations of big game. Elk populations have remained 

stable, meeting or exceeding ODFW management objectives. Elk distribution may shift depending on 

various configurations of the allotments and where cattle are grazing at any given time and place within 

the Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project area. However, the proposed alternatives would 

not be expected to affect elk population numbers or viability at the Forest level.

Improvements in riparian and upland vegetation, which is the desired future condition for all action 

alternatives, would result in improved habitat for all of the wildlife species discussed, including forage 

availability for elk. Monitoring would be critical to determine if the desired outcome is occurring. 

Benchmarks are established to provide a measure for meeting these goals (See Appendix A, DEIS). 

Adaptive management strategies are to be implemented if target outcomes are not being achieved in a 

timely manner. Monitoring of these adaptive management strategies would also be required. Adaptive 

management strategies range from additional fencing to reduction in numbers of cattle, and are discussed 

in Chapter 2 (page 41) and Appendix A (Part 3) of the DEIS. 

3-94b 

MIS Woodpecker Associated with Aspen 

See Wildlife Specialist Report for more information. 

Based on this comment, an additional recently fenced aspen stand in vicinity of the fen would be added to 

the aspen monitoring plan. This would allow us to evaluate aspen recruitment and sucker/sapling growth 

within a stand protected by 4-wire fencing. 

This information will be updated in the aspen monitoring plan and included in the FEIS. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

472 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-94c 

Featured Species 

See Wildlife Specialist Report for more information.

3-94d 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

See Wildlife Specialist Report for more information.

3-94e 

Birds of Conservation Concern 

See Wildlife Specialist Report for more information.

3-95 

Gray Wolves 

Additional Information will be added to the FEIS regarding Gray Wolves. As of February, 2013, Oregon’s 

wolf count is 46 wolves, including six packs (all breeding pairs12). The six Oregon packs are, in order: 

Imnaha, Wenaha, Walla Walla, Snake, Umatilla, and Minam. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/wolf_program_updates.asp

While individual wolves or tracks of large canids have been sighted, there are currently no known packs 

or denning pairs documented for the Malheur National Forest. Communication with USFWS indicates 

that because of the variety and range of habitat used by gray wolves, from alpine zones, forest habitat, 

sage steppe, to desert, “they did not consider any of our forest management activities to have any negative 

impacts on wolves.” (Reames, Forest Biologist, personal communication 2012, 2013). If and when a den 

site and reproducing animals are documented, USFWS would require a buffer around such sites. 

Shooting of wolves, whether intentionally or by accident, is illegal. The consequences of such activities 

are discussed in detail in the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ODFW 2010). This plan 

outlines procedures for dealing with problem animals and depredation of livestock, should the situation 

occur. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/Oregon_Wolf_Conservation_and_Management_Plan_2010.pdf

3-96 

Greater Sage-grouse 

See Wildlife Specialist Report: Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century may have impacted 

shrub, grass, and forb composition within potential greater sage-grouse habitat in the Summit Logan 

Valley Grazing Authorization Area....Over time, and with changes in grazing management, habitat has 

improved. It is expected that the current proposed use levels for all alternatives would continue an upward 

trend in riparian and upland habitat. 

 

12 For monitoring purposes, a wolf pack is four or more wolves that travel together in winter. A breeding pair is two 

adult wolves that produce at least two pups that survive through Dec. 31 of the year of their birth (ODFW 2010).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 473

“The effects of grazing on sage-grouse habitat vary widely with timing and intensity of use ... Light to 

moderate levels of grazing can have a positive or neutral impact on sage-grouse habitat, meaning this land 

use can be compatible with healthy sage-grouse habitat” (Species Fact Sheet, USFWS, accessed 2013). 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife “Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy for Oregon...” (ODFW, updated April 2011) provides conservation guidelines for grazing, 

including adaptive management strategies similar to those proposed in the DEIS. 

This additional information regarding greater sage-grouse will be added to the FEIS. 

3-97a 

Silver-bordered Fritillary 

See DEIS page 257, see Wildlife Specialist Report. Food plants for this butterfly and its larvae are found 

forest-wide in suitable habitat. Not all habitat would be impacted concurrently throughout the Project 

Area, providing areas where food plants would persist for this butterfly and its larvae.

3-97b 

Quantity or Quality Impacts – Various Species 

Acres rested or not grazed, as well as acres available for grazing, by alternative, are described in the 

Summary section of the DEIS, page 16. 

The Logan Valley and Summit Creek allotments would be managed with periods of rest or deferment 

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

be a systematic or scheduled rotation. For McCoy Creek, a deferred rotation grazing system would be 

applied throughout the allotment. This system provides for a systematic rotation of deferment among 

units and provides flexibility to change the time of year when units would be used (See DEIS, pages 2 

through 4). Depending on alternatives, portions of the Lake Creek Allotment would fall under the grazing 

systems for the Logan Valley or Summit Creek allotments. 

Generally, cattle are moved from pasture to pasture, as move triggers are met and animals are shifted to 

other areas. Consequently, qualitative assessments of impacts to various wildlife species were discussed; 

specific acres impacted by cattle grazing at any given time were difficult to quantify. Design criteria to 

avoid critical breeding and nesting periods, minimizing disturbance for known calving and fawning areas, 

etc. are listed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 

3-98 

Upland Sandpipers 

See Monitoring Plan for Upland Sandpipers, DEIS. See Wildlife Specialist Report.

Additional literature review indicates that late season light to moderate grazing appears to be compatible 

with upland sandpipers. These additional references will be incorporated into the FEIS. 

3-99 

Lewis Woodpecker and Aspen Habitat 

The Aspen Monitoring Plan will be added to the FEIS. 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

474 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

3-100 

White-headed Woodpecker and Aspen Habitat 

The Aspen Monitoring Plan will be added to the FEIS. 

3-101 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

Additional information will be added to the FEIS. Surveys for bat species have been conducted on the 

Emigrant Creek Ranger District as part of the Oregon Bat Grid project, which was initiated in 2002. Both 

acoustic surveys using Pettersen Bat Detectors and recording devices, as well as mist netting for 

identification and determination of reproductive status, as well as collecting genetic and bat call

information, were part of that study. Surveys confirmed the presence of several bat species found in a 

variety of habitats on the forest. http://www.batcon.org/index.php/media-and-info/batsarchives.html?task=viewArticle&magArticleID=1007

In addition, acoustic surveys have been conducted on the Blue Mountain and Prairie City Ranger 

Districts, associated with proposed mine closures and bat gate installations as well as proposed vegetation 

and fuels reduction projects (Soda Bear and Elk 16). 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is documented in cave habitat (Emigrant Creek Ranger District), pallid bat and 

fringed myotis are suspected, based on the presence of suitable habitat. 

See Wildlife Specialist Report and Design Elements (DEIS, page 74 and 75) for more information. 

3-102 

Disturbance of caves, loss of snags 

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock outcrops, rock crevices, hollow trees, old buildings) are expected 

from cattle grazing. See DEIS, Chapter 3. 

Design elements are in place to increase visibility of fencing in key areas, and to minimize loss of snags 

during fence building or other developments. See DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 73 through 75. 

Improvements in riparian and upland vegetation, which is the desired future condition for all action 

alternatives, would result in improved habitat for all of the wildlife species discussed. Monitoring would 

be critical to determine if the desired outcome is occurring. Benchmarks are established to provide a 

measure for meeting these goals (See Appendix A, DEIS). Adaptive management strategies are to be 

implemented if target outcomes are not being achieved in a timely manner. Monitoring of these adaptive 

management strategies would also be required. Adaptive management strategies range from additional 

fencing to reduction in numbers of cattle, and are discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 

3-103 

Pallid Bat – Cumulative effects 

No impacts to roost habitat (cliffs, rock outcrops, rock crevices, hollow trees, old buildings) are expected 

from cattle grazing. See DEIS, Chapter 3. Consequently, there would be no cumulative effects from 

grazing to roost habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 475

Improvements in riparian and upland vegetation, which is the desired future condition for all action 

alternatives, would result in improved foraging habitat for pallid bats. 

3-104 

Elk 

See Response 3-94. 

3-105 

Aspen and Cumulative Effects to Primary Cavity Excavators 

See Response 3-102. 

3-106 

Beaver 

Grazing management that allows for recovery of herbaceous vegetation and riparian hardwoods could 

increase the expansion of beaver within the project area (DEIS, page 276). See Wildlife Specialist Report, 

pages 56 and 58. 

Improvements in riparian and upland vegetation, which is the desired future condition for all action 

alternatives, would result in improved habitat for all of the wildlife species discussed. Monitoring would 

be critical to determine if the desired outcome is occurring. Benchmarks are established to provide a 

measure for meeting these goals (See Appendix A, DEIS). Adaptive management strategies are to be 

implemented if target outcomes are not being achieved in a timely manner. Monitoring of these adaptive 

management strategies would also be required. Adaptive management strategies range from additional 

fencing to reduction in numbers of cattle, and are discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 

3-107 

Climate Change 

Additional analysis related to climate change will be added to the FEIS.

Comment Letter #4 – Alan Jacobs and Jim Jacobs 

Comment Response

Chapter I page 37 identifies Bull Tout Critical Habitat and Economic Impacts to the Permittees and 

the Local Community as significant issues. Significant issue indicators are also described for these

two issues in Chapter I on page 37. Chapter II of the draft EIS describes the alternatives. Chapter 

II also provides a table that summarizes the effects of implementing each alternative in regard to 

the purpose and need for action and Significant and Analysis Issues identified in Chapter I. Chapter 

III discloses the potential consequences to the environment, including the physical, biological, 

social, and economic environments, from implementing the alternatives. I have the following 

concerns related to Chapter III:

The Hydrology and Aquatics section has the potential to have the most significant impact on 

grazing of all the issues discussed in Chapter III. The effects discussion is very difficult to 

understand because it contains numerous run on sentences, some of which are five and six lines

long. In addition a person would have to be a hydrologist and/or fish biologist to understand some

of the terminology used in this section. The effects analysis needs to be written in plain English 

with shorter sentences. This section does a good job of discussing adaptive management and how 

it will be used to mitigate the effects of livestock grazing on fish and riparian vegetation.

4-1 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

476 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment Response

The analysis of effects in the Economic Section of Chapter III is flawed because there is absolutely

no discussion of how adaptive management will impact the economic viability of the permittees 

operation. The economics section does an adequate job of discussing the cost of building fence 

and developing springs but totally ignores the cost of adaptive management. There is neither a 

qualitative or quantitative disclosure of the economic impacts associated with changing allowable

use levels, additional periods of rest, constructing additional enclosures and constructing additional

pasture fences. All of these activities have the potential to economically impact operations.

Adaptive management is part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and the cost of implementation needs to be 

included in the economic analysis.

4-2 

4-1 

Hydrology and Aquatics Section 

We understand your concerns regarding the complexity of the analysis in the Hydrology and Aquatics 

section. We will take a hard look to see what we can do to improve the Hydrology and Aquatics section 

and other parts of the document based on your comment in the final EIS. Hopefully, when we met with 

you on December 13 to discuss the DEIS, it helped clarify some of your questions. If there are particular 

areas of the DEIS that you would like to further discuss or clarify, the hydrologist and fish biologist will 

gladly sit down with you and explain them. We also want to point out that at the front of the DEIS there is 

a summary (see Summary pages 1 through 22). The summary compares in an abbreviated form the 

alternatives considered and their effects. 

4-2 

Economics Section 

Based on your comment, the social economic and rangeland management effects sections will be 

supplemented to discuss adaptive management impacts. 

Comment Letter #5 – Alan Jacobs 

Comment Response

1) Stubble height and move triggers should be more practical and scientifically described given the 

varying soil moisture, temperature variations from year to year. They should be varying do the 

changing conditions. 

5-1 

2) The No Action alternative would have direct and indirect disastrous effects on the economic 

status of these family size operations. The direct affects are outlined fairly well on pgs 239-240 of 

the EIS. The indirect effects such as stress on the livestock, interruptions in the reproduction, and 

general management are not addressed. 

5-2 

3) Since the conditions of the riparian areas are in an upward trend, then move triggers should be 

looked at individually. 5-3 

4) Availability of adjoining or close alternate grazing areas should be a very important part of 

continuing the upward trend of our riparian areas. This would allow for continuous grazing and less 

of an economic impact on the producers 

5-4 

5-1 

Stubble Height and Move Triggers 

We agree that move triggers and allowable use levels should vary by changing conditions. We also feel 

that they should vary based on the existing condition and the need for change to move towards the desired 

condition. The alternatives propose different types of actions to control the timing, frequency, duration, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 477

and intensity of grazing to address the purpose and need and significant issues identified in DEIS Chapter 

1. These include combinations of grazing systems, allowable grazing use levels, pasture rest, pasture 

configurations (construction of riparian pastures and exclosures), livestock numbers and grazing season, 

allotment boundary changes, and herding (riding) practices. The specific actions proposed are disclosed in 

DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 43 through 63. The utilization tables for the various alternatives can be found on 

pages 375 through 379. 

Scientific investigations regarding stubble height and move triggers were discussed in the DEIS on pages 

177 through 182. 

All alternatives are based on the concept of adaptive management which allows this flexibility. Adaptive 

management is explained in detail in the DEIS, Chapter 2, pages 41-42. Appendix E on page 375 explains 

that allowable use, move triggers, and end-point indicators may change for pastures based on site specific 

data collected at representative monitoring sites during the life of the analysis base on adjustments made 

in response to monitoring results, timing, or climatic conditions. As recovery is obtained through meeting 

management objectives (see Appendix A, part 2), less restrictive use levels may be adequate to maintain 

or continue recovery of stream conditions. If management objectives are not being achieved in a timely 

manner, changes in management including move triggers may be necessary to accelerate recovery. The 

goal of use levels, combined with management tools establishes appropriate timing, intensity, duration, 

and frequency of livestock grazing. This should move the condition towards management objectives and 

ultimately desired condition.

5-2 

No Action Alternative and Effects on Livestock Stress and Reproduction 

Your economic concerns related to no action are noted. Based on your comment, the economic and 

rangeland management effects analysis sections will be supplemented in the FEIS. 

5-3 

Move Triggers 

See previous response 5-1. 

5-4 

Alternate Grazing Areas 

Your comment regarding availability of adjoining or close alternative grazing areas is noted. During the 

Summit Logan analysis we were unable to identify any adjoining or close alternate grazing areas, with the

exception of the currently vacant Lake Creek grazing allotment. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose adding 

different amounts and areas of the Lake Creek allotment to the Logan Valley and Summit Prairie 

Allotments. The objective in adding these additional acres is to provide flexibility to periodically rest 

entire grazing units or defer the season of grazing to restore riparian conditions, while maintain enough 

acres to be grazed annually to support a viable operation. In the future, perhaps additional opportunities to 

utilize adjoining or close alternative grazing areas will be available.
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

478 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment Letter #6 – Jim Jacobs 

Comment Response

The biggest concern that I have with proposed alternate 4 is the amount of stubble height. Stubble 

height, bank alteration, and woody use have always been the suggested method for triggering 

moves for the cattle. In the EIS, it says that Clary stated that recovery can be accomplished with a 

stubble height of 4-5.5. Also the EIS states that Boyd and Svejcar found similar results, 4-6 in and 

still have recovery. Moving stubble height to 6in would surpass the recommended lever from Clary 

and be at the high end of the scope for Boyd and Svejcar’s recommendation. There are certain 

reaches of Summit Creek were the stubble height doesn’t get 6 in high. We can still improve the 

riparian areas and improve fish habitat having a 4 in. stubble height, this is an unnecessary step 

and makes no since to me. It has been proved that Summit Creek is in recovery, and we continue 

to manage the way that we have in the past, recovery will still occur. Increasing the stubble height 

will only make managing more difficult, and increase the chances for us to exceed standards. In 

talking with the USFS about introducing part of Bosenberg into the Summit Prairie Allotment would 

be, “setting us up to fail,” I believe that changing the stubble height to 6in. would also be setting us 

up to fail. I feel that since we are on the road to recovery and the 4in. stubble height is working that 

the 6in stubble height should be used in the adaptive management. 

6-1 

The second concern that I have is how the adaptive management will impact the economic viability 

of our operation. If adaptive management is put into place, what will the affects over the long term 

be on our operation? We do have somewhat of an idea of the short term effects but this document 

does not do a good job of stating what monetary affects will be. 

6-2 

The third concern that I have has to do with the Prairie Riparian Pasture in the North Summit Unit. I 

do not believe that the Prairie Riparian Pasture needs to be included into alternative 4. I believe 

that with the introduction of willow plantings, and small enclosures and with the new addition of the 

jack straw, that we will be able to meet our goals with out making this a riparian pasture. I believe 

that the Prairie Riparian Pasture should be included into the adaptive management and not 

included into Alternative 4. 

6-3 

In conclusion: 

I still hold firm on my position along with the decision of the National Riparian Team, that Summit 

Creek is in a recovery mode. I feel that drastic measures don’t need to be taken, but smaller less 

evasive improvements can always be made to sensitive areas. As I have stated in the past, I feel 

that the USFS should take more of a proactive approach to help with some of these sensitive area, 

and less of a reactive approach. We are onboard with the USFS when it comes to most all projects 

that will improve fish habitat and riparian areas. 

6-4 

6-1 

Stubble Height 

Best available science was considered for establishing move triggers and allowable use levels (DEIS 

pages 177 - 179). Clary recommends a 4 inch stubble height as a starting point. The DEIS at page 178 

(and Clary) state that “6-8 inches may be required to limit streambank trampling or reduce willow 

browsing”. It’s important to note that most of these studies did not occur where ESA values and Clean 

Water Act listings were in place. It is also important to note that stubble height values in Appendix E are 

not a cookie cutter approach, or one consistent number applied across the Project Area. Rather, these 

values are identified on a reach by reach basis that is site specific and factors in the departure of the 

existing to desired condition (Appendix A, Part 1; DEIS on pages 307-320). A MIM report in the project 

record identifies how monitoring data for stubble height affects the long term condition attributes (i.e. 

streambank stability and cover) per designated monitoring area. This dataset illustrates how stubble height 

is tied to the condition of the reach and suggests these values are needed to meet the monitoring 

objectives at the rate of recovery analyzed in the Environmental Consequences Section of the DEIS 

(pages 156-174). Please refer to comments 5-1 and 5-3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 479

Appendix E, Move Triggers and Allowable Use Levels DEIS on pages 375 – 379 illustrates the range of 

use levels associated with each alternative that were analyzed in the Hydrology and Aquatics Affected 

Environment Section (DEIS pages 156 - 174). The range of alternatives were developed to address the 

Purpose and Need. 

Appendix E (DEIS page 375) also states that use levels “may change for pastures based on site specific 

data collected at representative monitoring sites during the life of this analysis based on adjustments made 

in response to monitoring results, timing, or climatic conditions. As recovery is obtained through meeting 

management objectives (see Appendix A, part 1), less restrictive use levels may be adequate to maintain 

or continue recovery of stream conditions. If management objectives are not being achieved in a timely 

manner, changes in move triggers and allowable use levels may be necessary to accelerate recovery (see 

Appendix A, part 3)”. 

We feel that is important to note that greenline stubble height measurements will only occur along the 

greenline (DEIS at page 80) where the water table should support growth of at least 6 to 18 inches. 

6-3 

Prairie Riparian Pasture 

On March 13, 2012 we met with you and discussed the public comments received during scoping, and 

concepts for additional alternatives to address the comments. At the meeting you stated that you would 

like to propose a different fence configuration concept for the North Summit Unit. The Prairie Riparian 

pasture was proposed based on your recommendations and the map that you provided to the District. 

6-4 

Summit Creek is in a Recovery Mode 

Summit Creek is in recovery mode as stated by the national riparian team. As part of that process stream 

channels that have become incised are in the process of widening (eroding banks). As a result of the 

incision floodplains have become elevated and are no longer wetted resulting in a conversion from more 

hydric plant species with deep root masses to more mesic species (shallow rooted roots). This makes 

existing banks and plants more susceptible to the impacts of livestock grazing and care must be taken to 

allow these plants to thrive and re-establish. While it is true that Summit Creek is in recovery mode we 

must be cautious because early seral riparian areas in recovery are susceptible to losing the recovery that 

has happened and re-setting. By facilitating a transition from early seral (colonizers) to mid-late seral 

species we are ensuring that the likelihood of a resetting event does not occur in Summit Creek by doing 

this we are reducing the risk of failure to the permittee. 

Comment Letter #7 – United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Comment Response

In accordance w ith our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency h as

reviewed the U .S. Forest Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Summit

Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project (CEQ number: 20 120347) on Prairie City Ranger 

District of the Malheur Nation al Forest in Grant County, Oregon.

Based on our review, we have assigned a rating of LO (Lack of Environmenta Objections) to

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4). A summary of the EPA's rating is attached. 

7-1 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

480 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Comment Response

The DEIS evaluates potential environmental impacts of authorizing continued livestock 

grazing in the Summit Logan V alley Grazing Authorization Project area that includes Lake 

Creek (10, 196 acres), 

Logan Valley (3,756 acres), McCoy Creek (980 acres) and Summit Prairie (25,331) 

allotments. The analysis area would be about 40,263 acres of public lands and within which 

there are nearly 5,000 acres of private land. 

The DEIS considered four alternative action s, including a proposed action (Alternative 2), 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) and No Action (Alternative 1). Under the Preferred

Alternative, FS would authorize grazing on Logan Valley, McCoy Creek and Summit Prairie 

allotments and modify management to include no grazing on almost 9,459 acres of Lake 

Creek allotment , additional grazing area for Logan Valley (603 acres) and Summit Prairie 

(52 acres). Implementation of the proposed

project would also require modifications to the Malheur Forest Plan Amend- ment #29 to 

address streamside shade and renewal of existing Allotment Management Plan s approved in

the 1960s and

1970s.

The EPA supports the overall goals of the proposed action to allocate forage for livestock 

grazing, while improving range conditions particularly in riparian areas, and a grazing 

strategy that combines early season, rest-rotation grazing systems with fences and water 

developments to preserve and protect resources. We also com mend Forest Service staff for 

considering public comments in the NEPA analysis for the project and modifying alternatives 

in response to inputs received. Additionally, we support Forest Service's selection of 

Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative for implementation as it includes additional

measures in the Summit Prairie allotment to encourage recovery of riparian

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

streambank stability.

7-2 

Overall , we believe the DEIS includes a good description of resources within the project

area, analysis of anticipated env ironmental impacts, measures to offset the impacts, and

monitoring programs (p. 77-

82) to meet resource management objectives and other requirements. We would encourage 

additional early acti ons to address impaired streams currently listed by the State of Oregon 

as v iol ating water quality standards, primarily for temperature (p. 2 14). We believe that

additional, early actions to increase shade and improve flood plain function (in terms of

channel morphology and connection to ground water) would benefit the project. Such earl y 

action s would also benefit the many riparian areas in the Summit Prairie allotments presently 

functioning at risk. Additional protection of certain riparian areas may be warranted, 

especially within the Summit Prairie allotment w here many creeks are not expected to meet

desired conditions for a number of years, and other areas where impacts may affect high

quality habitat(s), drinking water sources, or other sensitive resources. 

7-3 

Becau se bacteria and nutrients are usually associated with livestock grazing, we recommend 

that the final EIS al so include available data on these parameters for stream s in the project

area. We recognize that actions in the Preferred Alternative would likely result in water 

quality benefits for these parameters as well as temperature. For additional perspective on 

addressing water quality impairments on National Forest System Lands, please consult the 

2007 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)between the EPA and Forest Service in addition to

the 2002 MOA between the Forest Service and Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality.

7-4 

We applaud and encourage continued coordination with the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality and the US Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services. 

The final EIS should include outcomes of consultations with the Services and recommended

measures to reduce risks and protect biota and habitat.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on thi s DEIS. If you have question s 

about our comments, please contact me at (206) 553- 1601 or by electronic mail at

reichgott.christine @epa.gov or contact Theogene Mbabaliye of my staff at (206) 553-6322

or by electronic mail at mbabaliye.theogene@epa.gov.

7-5 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 481

7-1 

Assigned Rating 

We are pleased that you do not have any environmental objections to the preferred alternative (Alternative 

4). 

7-2 

Support the Goals of the Proposed Action 

Thank you for your support of the project goals. 

7-3 

Encourage Additional Early Actions 

Thanks for your recommendations on develop early actions and additional protection measures. We 

believe the DEIS addresses both of these concepts. Early actions to improve shade and channel form on 

impaired streams are addressed through the development of management objectives (Appendix A, Part 2; 

DEIS at pages 321 – 329). These management objectives were developed at representative monitoring 

areas, on these impaired streams using quantitative monitoring protocols (DEIS pages 77 – 81). Effective 

shade curves (DEIS pages 5, 64, 214) were developed for the Malheur Basin TMDL and were used for 

defining desired conditions (Appendix A, Part 1; pages 307 – 321). Management objectives will allow the 

interdisciplinary team to understand if the trend is downward, static or upward. Adaptive management 

strategies (DEIS pages 41 - 42) are the additional protection measures that may be warranted if the trend 

is not upward and due to livestock management. 

7-4 

Data on Bacteria and Nutrients 

No data is available for bacteria or nutrients in the project area. Therefore, it will not be discussed in the 

final EIS. DEQ does not identify any streams in the project area that are listed as being water quality 

limited for these parameters neither. 

7-5 

Include Outcomes of Consultation in FEIS 

The FEIS or Record of Decision will include the final outcomes of consultation. Thank you for your 

review and comments.

Comment Letter #8 – Alan and Jim Jacobs 

Comment Response

Allen started by sharing, while his family was college educated, they found the document to be 

hard to read and extremely difficult to understand. He appreciated the letter of transmittal which 

had a brief summary. He felt the document needed to have a summary (brief) upfront. Ryan 

informed him there was. Given the transmittal letter had indicated the preferred alternative was #4, 

Allen admitted he spent most of his time looking at that alternative. 

Randy explained while he may be leaning that way (towards Alt. 4) he has the ability to pick and 

choose from elements in all alternatives, therefor any comments the Jacobs may have need to be 

as specific and focused as possible.

8-1 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

482 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Jacobs had a major concern with the economic analysis not accurately reflecting the short and long 

term effects on the operators; i.e. lower numbers, let a hired man go. We asked them to please 

comment and assist with providing information on that matter.

Randy and Ryan indicated no permitted AUMs would be lost, however the analysis was for upper 

limit numbers.

8-2 

Use Levels: Jim recognizes the numbers remain the same in the analysis, however he also 

recognizes with more stringent use levels he will surely need to reduce the time or the numbers in 

a pasture. Stream bank alteration is not scientific (more of a farce for control).

Ryan referred to pg 177-180 on the effect of the use levels.

Jim & Allen shared they are conscientious businessmen, having held public lands permits for quite 

some time, they treat the land as their own and take care of it accordingly for a sustainable product. 

(History was shared.) Bottom-line is they are proud of the outcome which is and has been 

recovery for the resources, with minor bumps along the way. A discussion ensued regarding 

“recovery” and “how fast is fast enough” and for whom? Ryan referred them to Appendix A (pg. 

307-321).

Jim indicated they fine tune their operations daily, annually to find what works best to remain in 

recovery mode and wonders why you would want to change what works. If we want to accelerate 

recovery we should provide alternative resources (forage) for resting other areas. They should 

comment on that. There are “vacant” allotments not being used. This would require an analysis, but 

potentially in the long run provide options. 

Randy mentioned Bob Crisler reviewing the document for Jacobs and offered if he had any 

questions he should call Ryan. 

There was an immense amount of conversation not capture.

Allen & Jim are completely frustrated about being dictated to when they are so conscientious.

8-3 

8-1 

Document Hard to Read and Understand 

See response 4-1. 

8-2 

Economic Analysis 

See response 4-2. 

8-3 

Stringent Use Levels 

See responses 5-1 and 6-1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 483

Appendix G – Biological Evaluation
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

484 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 485

Index

A

Adaptive Management, v, xvii, xviii, xix, xxi, xxxiv, 

xxxv, xxxvi, 21, 30, 34, 35, 38, 40, 43, 46, 48, 49, 

52, 55, 58, 59, 62, 76, 81, 87, 88, 107, 110, 132, 

136, 146, 147, 153, 154, 163, 182, 188, 194, 197, 

198, 200, 201, 203, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 

213, 214, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 243, 248, 260, 265, 267, 270, 317, 

351, 361, 418, 427, 431, 440, 441, 442, 453, 455, 

456, 458, 459, 460, 462, 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 

477, 478

Additive, 104, 111, 134, 243, 251, 264, 289, 295, 310, 

427, 444

Allotment Management Plan, i, xxxi, 17, 18, 19, 22, 

96, 132, 136, 198, 248, 255, 351, 480

Allowable Use Levels, xiii, xiv, xvi, xxi, xxxiv, xxxvii, 40, 

43, 48, 52, 53, 62, 75, 97, 105, 108, 109, 125, 153, 

154, 211, 214, 215, 217, 225, 226, 227, 228, 248, 

295, 324, 377, 378, 407, 418, 442, 455, 476, 478, 

479 

Amphibian, 291, 292, 325

Analysis method, xxxiii, xxxiv, 132, 139, 148, 158, 228, 

240, 245, 250, 260, 432, 436, 462, 466

Animal Unit Months, v, vi, xi, xii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxii, 

xxiv, xxv, xxxvi, 12, 16, 21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 

37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 52, 55, 58, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 

82, 83, 97, 99, 100, 101, 109, 113, 114, 115, 119, 

120, 125, 126, 129, 254, 255, 351, 420, 427, 

457,469, 470, 482

Aspen, xxviii, xxxviii, 27, 46, 72, 80, 88, 92, 93, 94, 

117, 123, 138, 141, 142, 145, 182, 261, 276, 277, 

278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 287, 290, 292, 295, 

297, 298, 299, 300, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 312, 

313, 327, 342, 361, 362, 363, 364, 370, 403, 404, 

424, 447, 448, 450, 451, 471, 473, 474, 475

Aspen restoration, 117, 123, 277, 279, 281, 284, 290, 

299, 312, 313, 403

Avoidance, 245, 294

B

Bald eagle, xxvii, 262, 266, 267, 307, 313, 343, 424, 

445 

Bat, xxvii, 263, 280, 281, 283, 304, 313, 336, 342, 350, 

424, 445, 451, 474

Beaver, xii, xxiv, xxviii, xxxii, 14, 18, 24, 25, 28, 83, 

111, 143, 164, 180, 182, 194, 221, 261, 280, 283, 

300, 302, 303, 304, 323, 328, 334, 366, 368, 415, 

419, 422, 424, 438, 442, 447, 451, 464, 475

Beaver dam, 164, 302, 304

Beneficial Impact, xxvi, xxviii, 144, 146, 147, 185, 187, 

217, 225, 249, 263, 267, 290, 429, 431

Best Management Practice(s), x, 23, 71, 72, 336, 348, 

422 

Big game, ii, xxiii, 18, 25, 74, 83, 101, 109, 117, 123, 

231, 237, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 286, 288, 289, 

290, 291, 292, 302, 304, 451, 471

Big game habitat, 261, 289, 292, 304

Bighorn sheep, 300, 447

Biological Assessment, 10, 227, 467

Biological Evaluation, xxxv, 139, 141, 144, 146, 155, 

259, 313, 433, 444, 460, 470, 483

Birds of Conservation Concern, 261, 306, 314, 344, 

472 

Black rosy-finch, 307, 449

Black swift, 307, 449

Black-backed woodpecker, 287, 295, 296, 329, 330, 

447 

Blue grouse, xxviii, 261, 300, 301, 303, 314, 424, 447 

Bobolink, xxvii, 262, 272, 273, 313, 328, 424, 445, 450

Botany, xxv, xxxii, xxxiii, 87, 88, 139, 176, 318, 319

Broods, 269, 450

Browse species, 290

Bufflehead, xxvii, 262, 263, 424, 445

Bull trout, i, ii, v, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xviii, xxii, xxv, 

xxxvi, xxxviii, 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 

25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 48, 53, 54, 

58, 81, 88, 94, 96, 97, 101, 111, 117, 157, 158, 160, 

161, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 

176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 

200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 

211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 

221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 324, 325, 333, 381, 

399, 416, 418, 422, 426, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439,

440, 441, 442, 452, 453, 454, 457, 461, 462, 463, 

465, 467

Burning, 266, 276, 403

Butterfly, 271, 284, 285, 313, 332, 450, 473

C

Calving and fawning habitat, 289, 291

Camping, 138, 148, 195, 198, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 

236, 259, 266, 292, 402, 405, 443

Canada lynx, 262, 313, 445

Capability, xxiv, 25, 28, 77, 83, 91, 92, 97, 98, 184, 

188, 210, 217, 225, 351, 352, 358, 359, 441, 468

Capable rangelands, 98

Carrying capacity, 99

Caterpillar, 271, 284

Caves, 280, 283, 451, 474

Ceanothus, 284, 441

Chipping sparrow, 306, 448

Cliffs, 142, 280, 282, 283, 300, 332, 447, 474

Climate, xxxiv, 98, 106, 156, 162, 164, 192, 205, 267, 

314, 317, 324, 332, 335, 341, 342, 347, 351, 355, 

417, 434, 452, 475

Columbia clubtail, xxvii, 263, 285, 286, 313, 340, 424, 

445 
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

486 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Columbia spotted frog, xxvi, xxvii, 163, 166, 167, 184, 

185, 188, 193, 203, 209, 214, 217, 223, 225, 226, 

263, 292, 313, 325, 344, 370, 424, 433, 445

Competition, 134, 135, 199, 264, 281, 283, 288, 289, 

290, 299, 303, 312, 360, 451

Condition and Trend, 79, 91, 94, 95, 97, 105, 359

Consultation, x, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv, 1, 10, 22, 23, 74, 76, 

97, 101, 102, 227, 245, 248, 249, 319, 321, 426, 

454, 467, 470, 481

D

Dead wood habitat, 261, 300

Dedicated old growth, 293, 294, 295, 356

Deferred rotation, iv, xiii, xiv, xv, 20, 32, 38, 43, 54, 

68, 84, 85, 86, 105, 106, 108, 115, 117, 135, 426, 

473 

Denning, 265, 267, 268, 269, 472

Design Criteria, x, xi, xii, xxiii, xxiv, xxxii, xxxvi, 23, 25, 

27, 71, 72, 75, 83, 89, 133, 135, 136, 138, 146, 193, 

199, 200, 203, 214, 218, 220, 221, 223, 226, 249, 

267, 270, 275, 276, 280, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 

298, 303, 304, 305, 306, 314, 422, 442, 448, 451, 

453, 466, 473, 474

Designated Monitoring Area, 30, 76, 77, 78, 79, 157, 

177, 178, 183, 201, 202, 203, 205, 210, 213, 347, 

352, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 

374, 375, 376, 408, 441, 478

Determination, xxvii, xxviii, 88, 89, 97, 98, 185, 187, 

209, 217, 225, 244, 263, 264, 265, 267, 269, 270, 

271, 272, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 

285, 358, 423, 424, 441, 445, 450, 451, 474

Dispersal habitat, 265, 268, 269

Displacement, 196, 259, 287, 289, 290, 291, 303, 312, 

451 

Distribution, xiii, xv, xxxiv, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 31, 

37, 40, 41, 57, 79, 96, 101, 102, 103, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 128, 136, 

146, 168, 177, 196, 197, 202, 256, 264, 265, 267, 

268, 277, 279, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 296, 

299, 309, 319, 320, 323, 327, 328, 341, 349, 350, 

352, 359, 362, 364, 366, 368, 408, 427, 431, 440, 

444, 453, 470, 471

Disturbance, xxiv, xxviii, 30, 35, 73, 77, 80, 93, 103, 

130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 145, 156, 174, 189, 

191, 193, 202, 203, 210, 211, 213, 218, 220, 221, 

223, 226, 247, 249, 264, 266, 267, 268, 276, 280, 

283, 287, 289, 291, 292, 301, 303, 304, 312, 314, 

325, 352, 354, 358, 424, 429, 434, 439, 441, 442, 

450, 451, 456, 473, 474

Diversity, 8, 17, 18, 103, 189, 222, 229, 235, 236, 250, 

251, 267, 269, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 292, 

301, 304, 306, 308, 309, 312, 313, 352, 354, 435, 

446 

Downy woodpecker, 287, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 

309, 312, 447

Dragonfly, 285, 313, 340

Dry forest old growth, 307, 310, 311

Dwarf mistletoe, 284

E

Ecology plots, 91, 97

Egg masses, 74, 291, 292

Elk, xxvii, 25, 73, 80, 92, 93, 94, 182, 231, 233, 237, 

261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 281, 286, 287, 288, 289, 

290, 291, 292, 304, 309, 321, 327, 329, 337, 340, 

350, 368, 424, 446, 450, 451, 471, 474, 475

Endangered species, xiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxxiv, xxxv, 

xxxvii, 75, 77, 79, 88, 94, 96, 139, 140, 141, 147, 

157, 166, 184, 185, 227, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 

266, 267, 296, 300, 308, 313, 318, 335, 336, 337, 

343, 344, 347, 348, 359, 376, 422, 424, 431, 438, 

443, 445, 453, 454, 467, 470

Endangered Species Act, xiii, xxxiv, 75, 77, 88, 94, 96, 

139, 147, 157, 227, 260, 262, 263, 264, 267, 313, 

318, 329, 359, 431, 434, 443, 453, 454, 467, 470, 

478 

Evaporation, 291

Exclosure, x, xi, xii, xv, xviii, xix, xx, xxii, xxiv, 14, 16, 

17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 38, 44, 50, 51, 52, 54, 

60, 62, 68, 69, 70, 78, 81, 83, 85, 86, 96, 106, 111, 

112, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 181, 

182, 185, 186, 193, 194, 195, 197, 205, 208, 209, 

215, 216, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 248, 

257, 299, 302, 304, 333, 334, 352, 371, 372, 373, 

377, 404, 414, 415, 427, 438, 442, 453, 456, 477

F

Featured species, xxviii, xxxvii, 261, 300, 303, 304, 

305, 353, 424

Fen, 38, 48, 58, 79, 80, 140, 141, 145, 146, 176, 193, 

248, 271, 275, 276, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 297, 

300, 302, 306, 335, 338, 339, 347, 349, 353, 370, 

376, 380, 429, 431, 446, 447, 458, 471

Fence maintenance, xi, xii, 24, 25, 108, 110, 111, 112, 

117, 232, 235, 303, 312, 427

Fencing, ii, xxix, xxxii, 16, 17, 18, 28, 29, 34, 55, 81, 96, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 136, 170, 186, 192, 200, 205, 

218, 234, 235, 236, 237, 254, 270, 271, 272, 273, 

275, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 290, 291, 299, 

300, 303, 309, 311, 312, 333, 352, 355, 403, 415, 

427, 435, 440, 451, 456, 462, 466, 471, 474, 475

Ferruginous hawk, 307

Flammulated owl, 306, 307, 448, 449

Floodplain, vii, viii, ix, xii, xxxiv, 24, 63, 64, 65, 74, 119, 

143, 163, 164, 174, 178, 182, 183, 184, 190, 192, 

196, 200, 202, 227, 288, 318, 342, 349, 351, 353, 

356, 357, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 

369, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 414, 422, 443, 456, 

468, 479

Forage condition, xxiv, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 104, 105, 

108, 117, 357, 426

Forage production, xxiv, 25, 28, 83, 87, 90, 92, 99, 

109, 113, 117, 119, 123, 125, 351, 353, 355, 359, 

411, 420, 427, 457
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 487

Foraging habitat, xxviii, 272, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 

280, 281, 282, 283, 294, 297, 299, 329, 424, 450, 

451, 475

Forest Plan, i, vii, viii, xxxv, xxxvi, 6, 17, 18, 25, 63, 64, 

89, 90, 96, 97, 130, 132, 133, 139, 146, 147, 155, 

161, 199, 209, 217, 225, 238, 244, 250, 260, 286, 

300, 345, 353, 431, 433, 442, 447, 452, 460, 480

Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan, 260

Fringed myotis, xxvii, 263, 282, 283, 284, 313, 333, 

336, 424, 445, 474

G

Geographic Information System, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99, 

133, 139, 140, 172, 210, 218, 226, 229, 261, 309

Grant County Bird Club, 261, 306, 309, 327

Grasshopper sparrow, xxvii, 262, 273, 274, 313, 328, 

424, 445, 450

Grassland, 93, 95, 97, 110, 117, 123, 138, 269, 270, 

272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 

307, 308, 311, 312, 328, 333, 336, 339, 349, 353, 

403, 404, 450

Gray wolf, xxvii, 88, 260, 262, 264, 265, 266, 313, 342, 

344, 424, 445, 450

H

Hairy woodpecker, 287, 296, 297, 299, 312, 447

Hardwood establishment, 304

Herbaceous vegetation, xxviii, 18, 29, 104, 116, 123, 

179, 192, 194, 286, 304, 353, 355, 424, 475

Heritage, xxv, xxxiii, 81, 87, 229, 244, 248, 249, 251, 

317, 332, 336, 341, 416

Hoof action, xxvi, 144, 145, 160, 169, 183, 196, 206, 

210, 423, 429, 437, 441

Hunting, 137, 229, 231, 232, 233, 237, 246, 247, 253, 

265, 266, 269, 287, 288, 289, 301, 352, 403

I

Impacted, xxv, 81, 103, 104, 144, 145, 150, 248, 260, 

263, 267, 270, 271, 272, 273, 276, 277, 279, 280, 

281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 290, 292, 298, 299, 

300, 303, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 423, 429, 

450, 455, 458, 459, 472, 473

Incidental, 266, 268, 269, 279, 291, 300, 303, 305, 

307, 312, 313, 354, 447, 450

Invasive, xxiv, xxxii, 6, 72, 73, 87, 130, 132, 133, 134, 

135, 136, 137, 138, 146, 152, 153, 199, 270, 319, 

335, 346, 347, 354, 404, 405, 415, 420, 429, 431, 

433, 436, 460

L

Lake Creek Youth Camp, 109, 265, 268, 278

Loggerhead shrike, 307, 449

Long-billed curlew, 307, 449

Long-term, 22, 76, 77, 78, 91, 99, 103, 105, 109, 137, 

146, 147, 157, 159, 160, 161, 177, 187, 188, 189, 

190, 193, 198, 200, 203, 206, 214, 217, 218, 220, 

222, 223, 225, 226, 239, 249, 251, 261, 266, 267, 

277, 278, 279, 281, 284, 295, 299, 300, 305, 312, 

313, 316, 317, 323, 327, 329, 341, 350, 351, 419, 

431, 435, 436, 439, 442, 451, 478, 482

Loss of habitat, 210, 218, 226, 277, 278, 284, 294, 

299, 302

M

Management activities, 29, 76, 89, 198, 249, 264, 265, 

268, 274, 289, 294, 298, 302, 310, 314, 356, 357, 

427, 440, 450, 451, 472

Management Area, xxv, xxxi, xxxv, xxxvii, 6, 7, 8, 9, 90, 

91, 96, 97, 99, 130, 155, 228, 238, 239, 260, 293, 

313, 352, 422, 443

Management indicator species, xxviii, xxxiv, 88, 166, 

168, 184, 185, 188, 210, 217, 226, 260, 261, 286, 

287, 293, 294, 295, 298, 354, 446, 471

May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), xxviii, 185, 

209, 217, 225, 263, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 279, 

281, 282, 283, 285, 313, 450, 451

Meadow, vii, viii, ix, xxv, xxxvi, 63, 64, 65, 105, 117, 

123, 138, 142, 148, 151, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

173, 176, 184, 192, 193, 231, 266, 271, 272, 273, 

274, 275, 276, 281, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 299, 

302, 303, 304, 308, 311, 312, 314, 332, 355, 365, 

403, 404, 417, 421, 437, 438, 450, 451, 455

Meadow habitat, 266, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 

287, 289, 302, 303, 308, 450

Mesic mixed conifer, 305, 306, 308, 310, 311, 448

Migratory, 18, 180, 184, 192, 197, 259, 260, 262, 305, 

306, 307, 313, 314, 435, 439, 449

Migratory Bird Executive Order, 314

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, xxxiv, 260, 266, 314, 318

Mixed conifer forest, 278, 280, 286, 296, 307, 325, 

446 

Monitoring protocols, 92, 142, 300, 305, 306, 308, 

310, 311, 335, 347, 448, 481

Move triggers, v, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiii, 

xxxiv, xxxvii, 21, 25, 29, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 48, 52, 

53, 58, 62, 83, 84, 85, 86, 97, 101, 106, 109, 111, 

118, 119, 125, 280, 282, 283, 285, 290, 295, 298, 

303, 311, 312, 407, 411, 418, 420, 426, 427,455, 

456, 473, 476, 477, 478, 479

Mule deer, 73, 80, 264, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 

Multiple indicator monitoring, 76, 77, 78, 158, 160, 

161, 173, 325, 326, 347, 349, 353, 370, 375, 436, 

439, 462, 465, 478

N

National Forest Management Act, xxxiv, 17, 90, 244, 

260, 286, 318

National Resources Information System, 80, 132, 133, 

139, 145, 260, 336, 347, 348, 370, 471
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

488 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Neotropical migratory birds, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxvii, 261, 

262, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 424, 448, 

472 

Nest habitat, 267, 276

No effect, xxv, 148, 185, 235, 243, 262, 263, 313, 445

No impact, xxvi, xxviii, 144, 185, 188, 211, 235, 236, 

255, 263, 264, 265, 267, 269, 275, 284, 295, 298, 

303, 313, 424, 429

Northern flicker, 287, 296, 298, 299, 310, 312, 447

Northern goshawk, xxviii, 261, 300, 301, 303, 323, 

339, 424, 447

Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan, 

261, 305, 306, 314

Northern three-toed woodpecker, 261

Noxious weed, xxiv, 30, 74, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 

135, 136, 137, 138, 323, 429, 457, 458

O

Old growth, xxviii, 261, 292, 293, 294, 296, 313, 424

Olive-sided flycatcher, 306, 307, 309, 448, 449

Optimum forage, 290

Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, 307, 323

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 159, 165, 

168, 237, 261, 265, 268, 270, 288, 292, 302, 319, 

321, 323, 324, 325, 330, 332, 334, 335, 337, 340, 

414, 450, 463, 471, 473

Osprey, xxviii, 73, 261, 300, 301, 303, 314, 424, 447

P

Pallid bat, xxvii, 263, 281, 282, 313, 329, 336, 424, 

445, 451, 474, 475

Peregrine falcon, xxvii, 262, 307, 424, 445

Photo point, 79, 81, 91, 97, 194, 304

Pileated woodpecker, xxviii, 261, 286, 292, 293, 294, 

295, 296, 325, 335, 348, 352, 424, 446

Pine marten, 261, 292, 293, 294, 326, 352

Ponderosa pine, xxviii, 8, 92, 93, 94, 142, 183, 210, 

276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 287, 293, 296, 

297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 304, 307, 308, 314, 424, 

441, 447

Ponds, vi, 14, 16, 17, 21, 31, 42, 70, 73, 74, 84, 96, 98, 

118, 135, 143, 164, 166, 167, 202, 211, 237, 248, 

280, 282, 283, 291, 303, 325, 354, 358, 404

Potential habitat, 170, 184, 267, 270, 271, 272, 273, 

285, 292, 297, 300, 303, 311, 361, 362, 363, 364, 

370, 438, 447, 450

Presence/absence determinations, 260, 471

Prey species, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 280, 281, 282, 

283, 284, 291, 294, 295, 305, 312, 451

Primary cavity excavators, xxviii, 73, 260, 261, 295, 

296, 298, 299, 300, 312, 424, 451

Project implementation, 72, 73, 193, 220, 221, 223,

305, 312

Pronghorn antelope, 261, 287, 300, 302, 303, 304, 

314, 447

Pygmy rabbit, xxvii, 262, 424, 445

R

Rangeland, x, xxiv, xxxii, 8, 17, 23, 31, 72, 87, 90, 91, 

92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 

112, 113, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 

132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 148, 151, 228, 231, 251, 

254, 258, 315, 317, 319, 321, 324, 326, 327, 328, 

331, 332, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 

349, 350, 353, 356, 357, 358, 420, 426, 427, 456, 

457, 469, 476, 477

Rangeland capability, 97, 98, 420

Rangeland suitability, 97, 98

Raptor nests, 304

Recreationists, 231, 234, 235, 237, 253, 265

Recruitment, 27, 75, 80, 81, 106, 118, 191, 195, 196, 

200, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 286, 288, 298, 299, 

312, 451, 471

Redband trout, xxvi, xxxvi, 88, 163, 166, 167, 168, 

171, 172, 184, 188, 203, 209, 210, 214, 217, 218, 

220, 221, 223, 226, 424, 442

Red-naped sapsucker, 287, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 

306, 309, 312, 447, 448

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, 139, 261, 

278 

Regulatory Framework, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, 90, 132, 

139, 147, 155, 157, 228, 238, 244, 250, 260, 314, 

420, 433, 459, 460

Replacement old growth, 286, 293, 294, 295, 356, 446

Reproduce, 290

Research, 30, 77, 105, 115, 128, 147, 189, 289, 316, 

325, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 

338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349, 

350, 439

Rest, iv, xi, xxii, xxxv, xxxvi, 20, 24, 28, 29, 35, 40, 41, 

46, 50, 56, 60, 66, 69, 81, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 

118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 163, 188, 197, 

198, 208, 213, 214, 217, 220, 248, 441, 456, 473, 

476 

Riparian areas, ii, xi, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 72, 77, 

78, 80, 96, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 

113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 128, 140, 

142, 148, 151, 152, 153, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 

167, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 198, 

199, 201, 202, 203, 208, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 

217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 231, 270, 276, 

280, 283, 287, 289, 290, 297, 299, 302, 309, 312, 

315, 317, 324, 326, 327, 350, 352, 358, 402, 411, 

419, 422, 427, 429, 433, 434, 435, 436, 438, 439, 

441, 442, 443, 447, 451, 452, 456, 459, 460, 469, 

476, 478, 479, 480

Riparian habitat, 6, 8, 115, 135, 186, 189, 191, 195, 

196, 198, 227, 261, 267, 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 

287, 290, 291, 292, 297, 301, 303, 305, 309, 311, 

312, 328, 435, 447, 461, 465

Riparian hardwoods, xxviii, 184, 188, 196, 204, 206, 

208, 210, 212, 215, 219, 221, 222, 224, 304, 424, 

441, 475

Riparian shrublands, 309, 311
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest 489

Riparian vegetation, i, ii, xii, xv, 18, 19, 22, 32, 44, 54, 

74, 78, 79, 103, 105, 106, 107, 117, 119, 125, 136, 

156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 171, 185, 186, 188, 

191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 203, 208, 211, 

212, 217, 218, 225, 227, 247, 270, 280, 281, 283, 

285, 292, 295, 300, 303, 309, 324, 333, 335, 338, 

357, 358, 426, 434, 436, 447, 451, 455, 461, 463, 

465, 475

Roost habitat, 280, 282, 283, 301, 305, 314, 474

Roost trees, 304

Roosting, 266, 267, 283, 293, 295, 296, 301

Rotation, iv, xviii, xix, xx, 20, 35, 38, 40, 48, 52, 56, 62, 

75, 85, 86, 105, 108, 112, 113, 116, 117, 123, 128, 

135, 352, 357, 426, 456, 473, 480

Rushes, 103, 107, 119, 182, 183, 191, 192, 353, 358, 

407, 408, 410

S

Sage grouse, 261, 269, 270, 300, 329, 344, 447, 450, 

473 

Sage sparrow, 307, 449

Sage thrasher, 307, 449

Saturated wetlands, 304

Security, 266, 289, 291, 292, 301, 321

Sedges, vii, 63, 92, 93, 94, 103, 105, 107, 119, 140, 

142, 145, 177, 180, 182, 183, 190, 191, 192, 193, 

272, 288, 332, 350, 353, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 

365, 366, 367, 407, 408, 410, 417, 429

Sensitive species, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxv, 

xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79, 88, 136, 139, 

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 156, 159, 

166, 171, 174, 180, 184, 185, 191, 201, 203, 210, 

239, 240, 242, 248, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 267, 

269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 

282, 284, 285, 296, 300, 303, 308, 313, 324, 328, 

332, 335, 336, 340, 342, 346, 347, 348, 354, 359, 

370, 376, 415, 416, 422, 423, 424, 429, 431, 433, 

438, 440, 441, 445, 455, 458, 459, 478, 480

Short-term, 22, 76, 105, 107, 117, 123, 146, 189, 217, 

225, 261, 278, 279, 299, 305, 317, 326, 431, 439

Shrub steppe, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 448

Silver-bordered fritillary, xxvii, 262, 271, 272, 313, 

424, 445, 450, 473

Snag habitat, 276, 277, 279, 299, 305

Snags, xxviii, xxxviii, 73, 266, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 

283, 286, 287, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 

300, 301, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 312, 313, 

314, 325, 424, 446, 447, 448, 451, 474

Snowmobiling, 266, 352, 403

Species richness, 304

Springs, x, 11, 16, 23, 26, 113, 142, 143, 145, 161, 

166, 168, 169, 183, 231, 233, 242, 245, 246, 248, 

256, 259, 292, 319, 321, 335, 340, 343, 347, 354, 

355, 357, 432, 435, 443, 444, 470, 476

Standards and Guidelines, xxxii, 6, 8, 19, 22, 63, 76, 

77, 89, 90, 96, 139, 155, 198, 260, 357, 417, 421

Stocking rates, xxiv, 83, 92, 109, 113, 119, 125, 302, 

315, 420, 427, 457

Subwatershed, i, 3, 168, 173, 176, 181, 186, 195, 196, 

206, 212, 219, 222, 403, 437

Suitability Analysis, 420

Surveys, 79, 92, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 158, 

159, 161, 163, 173, 180, 184, 268, 271, 274, 275, 

280, 281, 282, 283, 297, 298, 301, 306, 309, 328, 

334, 349, 354, 370, 414, 436, 445, 450, 451, 463, 

470, 474

T

Threatened species, i, ii, xi, xiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 

xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvii, 1, 17, 18, 19, 24, 79, 94, 96, 97, 

139, 140, 143, 145, 157, 166, 168, 184, 185, 227, 

241, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 296, 

300, 308, 313, 335, 336, 337, 343, 344, 347, 348, 

359, 376, 414, 415, 421, 422, 424, 426, 443, 445, 

450, 467

Three-toed woodpecker, xxviii, 286, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 424, 446

Timing, ii, 19, 28, 29, 73, 76, 77, 93, 105, 106, 110, 

112, 135, 170, 189, 190, 193, 220, 221, 223, 232, 

233, 252, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 285, 

303, 304, 306, 311, 314, 352, 404, 407, 419, 426, 

434, 435, 439, 450, 452, 453, 455, 456, 460, 462, 

473, 476, 477, 479

Timing restrictions, 304

Trampling, xxvi, 73, 80, 105, 106, 107, 143, 144, 145, 

146, 147, 159, 174, 186, 189, 191, 194, 199, 200, 

201, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 280, 282, 

283, 291, 303, 311, 329, 333, 340, 423, 429, 431, 

450, 478

Travel management plan, 27, 137, 266, 278, 279, 292, 

299 

Tricolored blackbird, xxvii, 262, 263, 424, 445

Trough, vi, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26, 31, 43, 72, 73, 74, 148, 

202, 203, 211, 242, 246, 256, 270, 280, 282, 283, 

291, 292, 312, 402, 404, 432, 440, 459, 466

U

Upland sandpiper, xxvii, 73, 80, 88, 261, 262, 270, 

274, 275, 276, 300, 306, 307, 308, 313, 323, 328, 

331, 332, 335, 340, 424, 445, 447, 448, 449, 450, 

473 

Upland sandpiper surveys, 306

US Fish and Wildlife Service, x, 10, 22, 76, 97, 157, 

161, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 203, 210, 227, 260, 

261, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 305, 306, 314, 

321, 329, 343, 344, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 

367, 368, 369, 370, 414, 417, 426, 435, 445, 454, 

467, 470, 472, 473
Summit Logan Valley Grazing Authorization Project

490 Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest

Use levels, xxiv, 16, 18, 28, 29, 35, 41, 46, 50, 56, 60, 

76, 84, 85, 86, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 

108, 109, 110, 112, 116, 119, 122, 125, 127, 136, 

194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 

213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 

226, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 290, 298, 303, 311, 312, 

407, 411, 426, 427, 442, 453, 455, 456, 462, 466, 

468, 472, 477, 479, 482

Useable, 115, 128, 291

V

Varied thrush, 306, 448

Vesper sparrow, 306, 448

Viability, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 104, 131, 147, 185, 188, 

203, 209, 210, 214, 217, 218, 220, 221, 223, 225, 

226, 254, 255, 258, 261, 263, 267, 270, 271, 272, 

273, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 292, 295, 334, 

348, 354, 359, 423, 424, 431, 440, 442, 445, 447, 

450, 451, 455, 462, 471, 476, 478

W

Wallowa rosy finch, xxvii, 262, 424, 445

Water development, ii, xiv, 18, 31, 43, 72, 73, 74, 96, 

102, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117, 123, 135, 267, 270, 

291, 295, 298, 303, 304, 305, 312, 313, 352, 358, 

415, 421, 427, 480

Water quality, vii, xxxviii, 8, 25, 63, 71, 72, 105, 135, 

148, 150, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 

171, 172, 188, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 205, 208, 

209, 211, 217, 226, 227, 233, 239, 325, 336, 337, 

348, 356, 357, 373, 374, 416, 417, 426, 432, 434, 

435, 436, 439, 440, 443, 461, 480, 481

Water tables, 146, 274, 291, 304, 353, 355, 365, 479

Weed, xxiv, 74, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 152, 153, 232, 323, 324, 328, 334, 337, 

341, 350, 355, 404, 415, 420, 429, 433, 458, 469

Wet meadows, 72, 93, 142, 143, 145, 148, 167, 193, 

220, 221, 223, 271, 272, 288, 290, 291, 432, 434

White-headed woodpecker, xxvii, 263, 278, 279, 287, 

295, 296, 299, 307, 308, 312, 313, 329, 330, 347, 

424, 445, 447, 474

Wildlife escape ramps, 74, 270, 280, 282, 283, 292, 

312 

Willow, vii, xxiv, 14, 16, 31, 38, 60, 62, 63, 70, 83, 106, 

111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 141, 145, 163, 

174, 177, 178, 180, 182, 189, 194, 197, 205, 209, 

216, 224, 248, 288, 297, 304, 306, 307, 309, 334, 

361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 

371, 372, 373, 404, 427, 438, 448, 449, 478

Willow flycatcher, 306, 307, 309, 448, 449

Winter roosts, xxviii, 301, 303, 424

Wolverine, xxvii, 88, 260, 262, 267, 268, 269, 313, 

327, 335, 338, 340, 344, 424, 445

Y

Yellow-Billed cuckoo, 307, 449