Butte Mtn. Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project Soil Report

KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST Butte Mtn. Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project Soil Report GOOSENEST RANGER DISTRICT JOE BLANCHARD 4/23/2013 Prepared by Joe Blanchard Forest Soil Scientist Klamath National Forest 1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097 jhblanchard@fs.fed.us 530-841-4591

Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Soils Resource Report... 1 Introduction... 1 Affected Environment... 1 Soil Stability and Erosion...1 Surface and Soil Organic Matter...2 Soil Strength and Structure...2 Environmental Consequences... 2 Issue #1 Soil Stability and Erosion...2 Issue #2 Surface and Soil Organic Matter...6 Issue #3 Soil Strength and Structure... 10 Compliance with Law, Policy, and Regulation... 14 Literature Cited... 15 Appendix A:... 16 Soil Map and Interpretations for the Project Area... 16 Appendix B... 18 Soil Erosion Hazard Ratings Table and Post-Treatment Soil Cover Recommendations... 18 List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives... v Table 2: Soil Cover Guidelines for Projects from Klamath LRMP... 3 Table 3: Soil Stability Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM... 3 Table 4: Soil Stability Indicator Assessment for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4... 5 Table 5: Surface Organic Matter and Soil Organic Matter Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM... 7 Table 6: Surface and Soil Organic Matter Indicator Assessment for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4... 9 Table 7: Soil Strength and Structure Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM... 11 Table 8: Soil Strength and Structure Indicator Assessment for Alternative 2, 3 and 4... 12

Table 9: Compliance with Law, Policy, and Regulation... 14 Table 10: Soil Survey Information for the Project Area... 17 Table 11: Soil erosion hazard rating (EHR) for the soils in the Project Area... 18 List of Figures Figure 1: Order 3 Soil Survey Map of the Project Area... 16 1

Executive Summary Analysis Indicators and Methodology Three analysis indicators for effects on the soil resource are soil stability and erosion, surface and soil organic matter, and soil strength and structure. All of these indicators can affect a soil s ability to support plant growth; soil cover (stability and erosion) can also affect hydrologic function. The associated law, policy or regulation including standards and guidelines from the KNF Forest Plan and soil condition indicators from the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500, Chapter 2550-Soil Management, are used to establish a set of rules for each indicator. The measurement of analysis indicators is discussed further in the body of the Soil resource report as are the condition classes used to measure each indicator. The projected soil stability, surface and soil organic matter, and soil strength and structure condition class ratings were determined from data collected from previous projects on the Forest using the National Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol (NFSDMP) (USDA Forest Service 2009). Good soil condition represents an undisturbed state in which desired conditions are fully met; fair condition represents a slightly disturbed state with desired conditions being partly me; and poor condition represents a heavily disturbed state with desired conditions not being met. For the areas that have been rated with poor condition, a substantial and permanent impairment does not exist and soil function is expected to recover naturally over a period of decades. Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan require that soil productivity and stability are maintained or enhanced through management activities. Maintaining the vast majority of the project area in the good soil condition will ensure that Forest Plan Standards are being met. A more detailed definition of good, fair, and poor condition class for each indicator is included in the NFSDMP and in the body of this Soil resource report. Spatial and Temporal Context For all analysis indicators, the analysis area is spatially bounded by the activity units because this is where soil disturbing activities take place. The analysis is bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project may persist as detectable, noticeable effects. Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is deposited on the forest floor. The temporal boundary for soil stability and erosion is 5 years. Soil organic matter can take years to decades to rebuild after it is lost through displacement or erosion. The temporal boundary for surface and soil organic matter is 30 years. Once compacted, soil strength, structure, and macroporosity can remain affected for decades. The temporal boundary for soil strength and structure is 30 years. Affected Environment Soils in the analysis area have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited over basaltic rock types. Soil textures are silt loams, loams, and sandy loams with varying amounts of gravel. Soil depths range from 20 inches to 201 inches with the deepest soils formed from alluvium igneous rock. Geomorphic landforms are predominately gently sloping mountain side slopes but also include alluvial flats along tributaries to Shovel and Little Shasta Creeks. Forest Survey Site Class (FSSC) ratings range from moderately productive to marginally productive for timber yield. The soils in the project area have a low to moderate maximum erosion hazard rating. ii

An assessment of current soil condition is based on the results of the field review. Calculated from 701 soil plots, approximately 8.3% of the project area has been disturbed from past activities excluding system roads and 3.4% from cattle grazing. Seventy-eight percent of the human-caused soil disturbance is existing skid trails, 7% is full bench skid trails, 14% is old temporary roads, and 1% is landings. All areas reviewed had sufficient ground cover to prevent soil loss from erosion. Live plant cover, fine woody material, and rock cover were measured as components of total soil cover. No active erosion or sediment movement was observed on any areas surveyed that will indicate a loss in soil productivity. Organic matter currently exists in kinds and amounts sufficient for nutrient cycle processes that support natural physical and biological soil conditions. In the project area, loss of soil organic matter is limited in old landings, the first few hundred feet of the main skid trails leading to landings, and on constructed skid trails. Soil porosity loss was the primary soil disturbance identified on the surveyed areas. Most loss of porosity was observed on the old temporary roads, landings, main skid trails, and full bench skid trails of the most recent entry. Effects of grazing were evident in some units with soil structure affected by deep hoof prints in wet soils. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects There will be no effect of this alternative on the soils, as soil disturbing activities will not take place. Soil cover for erosion protection will not change in the project area. Surface and soil organic matter will continue to accumulate faster than decomposition, with no additional benefit to soil fertility. Soil strength and structure conditions will remain the same in the short-term, with very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings. Cumulative Effects Past actions including timber harvest, thinning and cattle grazing are evident on the landscape in the project area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. The impacts of cattle grazing in the Ball Mountain allotment are considered in cumulative effects analysis because it is a continuing action that overlaps with project activities. Past effects of cattle grazing on the project area have been documented in BMP monitoring of the Ball Mountain allotment in 2002 and 2007. The allotment had successful implementation and effectiveness ratings in both years. In 2002, there was evidence of some wetland and streambank trampling but it was not severe enough to be in non-compliance with either implementation or effectiveness of BMPs. Soil disturbance sampling in the project area collected for this report has indicated the presence of deep hoof prints in wetland soils near Burnt Camp. Neither the extent nor severity of past or current wetland trampling by livestock has degraded the condition of the wetland soils in the project area. Since no reasonable foreseeable future actions will occur in the project area that will have an effect on soils, there will be no cumulative effects from adding the effects of current grazing to the effects of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects iii

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability and erosion, surface and soil organic matter, and soil strength and structure condition classes include ground-based tractor logging, small tractor piling, and temporary road construction. Soil stability and erosion, and surface and soil organic matter, are also affected by prescribed fire and pile burning. Implementation of PDFs will reduce the potential for negative effects from these activities. Alternative 2 will maintain adequate soil cover, protect surface and soil organic matter, and maintain soil strength and structure at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and prevent soil erosion. A full description of how the proposed activities may impact soil function can be found in the Soil resource report. Cumulative Effects Past actions including timber harvest, thinning and cattle grazing are evident on the landscape in the project area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. The impacts of continued cattle grazing are as described for Alternative 1. The proposed treatments designed to limit the degree to which permitted grazing impacts aspen and meadow restoration will also reduce the levels of trampling of wetland soils. See the Rangeland resource report, available on the project website, for details. Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions will not have measureable effects on soil stability and erosion, or surface and organic matter. Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of continuing grazing will not have measurable effects on soil strength and structure. Therefore, no substantial cumulative effects will occur. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to Alternative 2. The minor differences in acreages of good, fair and poor soil condition between Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 are a result of minor differences in acres of treatment, not changes in the effects of proposed activities. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2 even though treatments to limit the degree to which permitted grazing impacts aspen and meadow restoration may not include fencing if monitoring does not find a need for this action and implementation of treatments will be delayed until monitoring results are provided. No cumulatively substantial effects will occur. Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 will be similar to those of Alternative 2 except that the absence of new temporary road construction and small tractor piling will reduce potential effects to soil organic matter, soil strength and soil structure. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of Alternative 4 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. No cumulatively substantial impacts will occur. Comparison of Alternatives iv

Although all action alternatives will maintain adequate soil cover, protect surface and soil organic matter, and maintain soil strength and structure at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and prevent soil erosion, there are minor differences in acreages of good, fair and poor soil condition. These minor differences are displayed in Table 1. Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Analysis Indicator Current Condition (% of Project Area) Acres (%) due to Proposed Activities Acres (%) due to Proposed Activities Acres (%) due to Proposed Activities Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Soil Stability Surface and Soil Organic Matter Soil Strength and Structure 4140 273 0 4137 276 0 4061 261 0 100% 0% 0% 93.8% 6.2% 0% 93.7% 6.3% 0% 94% 6.0% 0% 4145 239 4 4141 267 4 4061 258 3 91.7% 5.7% 2.6% 94.5% 5.5% (<0.1%) 93.9% 6.1% (<0.1%) 94.0% 6.0% (<0.1%) 4157 98 30 4151 101 32 4106 60 27 91.7% 5.7% 2.6% 97.0% 2.3% 0.7% 96.9% 2.4% 0.7% 97.9% 1.4% 0.6% Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the KNF Forest Plan All alternatives comply with relevant law, policy, regulation and the KNF Forest Plan. Forest Plan compliance is documented in the Forest Plan Conformance table, available on the project website. v

Soils Resource Report Introduction This report addresses the issues of soil stability and erosion, surface and soil organic matter, and soil strength and structure in the Butte Mtn. Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project (Project). Potential impacts to soil function are analyzed and mitigated through project design features (PDFs) and best management practices (BMPs). The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest is proposing to increase native vegetation, enhance vegetative diversity, and restore fire as a natural process in the Goosenest Late Successional Reserve (LSR). The proposed project will release and regenerate quaking aspen stands, restore meadow complexes, thin plantations, re-introduce fire, and restore and protect species diversity within plantations and in natural stands. The Butte Project area is located on Butte Mountain, in and around Lower Shovel Creek Meadow and Little Shasta Meadow within the Goosenest Late Successional Reserve and northern spotted owl Critical Habitat. Affected Environment Soils information for the project area was obtained from the Klamath National Forest Order 3 Soil Survey (Foster and Lang, 1994). This mapping was field verified for accuracy. Soils in the study area have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited over basaltic rock types. Soil textures are silt loams, loams, and sandy loams with varying amounts of gravel. Soil depths range from 20 inches to 201 inches with the deepest soils formed from alluvium igneous rock. Geomorphic landforms are predominately gently sloping mountain sideslopes but also include alluvial flats along tributaries to Shovel and Little Shasta Creeks. Forest Survey Site Class (FSSC) ratings range from moderately productive to marginally productive for timber yield. The FSSC system is a seven class system for expressing site productivity for timber with site class 1 being most productive and site class 7 least productive. The soils in the project area have a moderate to low maximum erosion hazard rating. Maximum erosion hazard rating are based on little or no vegetative cover present and the occurrence of a 2-year, 6-hour storm event. A soil map and table of map characteristics is attached in Appendix A The Region 5 Soil Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) System was used to rate the risk of soil erosion for all soils in the project area (USDA Forest Service 1990). This system uses various physical soil properties along with climate and site-specific conditions to rate soils for hazard of sheet and rill erosion. Erosion hazard rating (EHR) is dependent on slope, texture, depth, and soil cover. They are calculated with bare soil to reflect worst case scenario ; rock fragment cover >3/4 inch counts for cover. See Appendix A for current and expected post-treatment EHR. An assessment of current soil condition is based on the results of the field review. Calculated from 701 soil plots, approximately 8.3% of the project area has been disturbed from past activities excluding system roads. Approximately 9.6% of the project area has been disturbed by gopher activity and 3.4% has been disturbed by cattle grazing. Seventy-eight percent of the man-caused soil disturbance is existing skid trails, 7% is full bench skid trails, 14% is old temporary roads, and 1% is landings. Soil Stability and Erosion 1

All areas reviewed had sufficient ground cover to prevent soil loss from erosion. Live plant cover, fine woody material, and rock cover were measured as components of total soil cover. Average existing total soil cover ranges from 48-99% and averages 86% overall in the project area. No active erosion or sediment movement was observed on any areas surveyed that would indicate a loss in soil productivity. Surface and Soil Organic Matter Organic matter currently exists in kinds and amounts sufficient for nutrient cycle processes that support natural physical and biological soil conditions. In the project area, loss of soil organic matter is limited in old landings, the first few hundred feet of the main skid trails leading to landings, and on constructed skid trails. Fine organic matter, including litter, duff, and woody material < 3 inches diameter, currently occurs on 86% of the area. Existing CWD (>20 inches diameter logs) in the sampled units ranges from 0 to 24.0 logs/acre and averages 12.4 logs/acre. Soil Strength and Structure Soil porosity loss was the primary soil disturbance identified on the surveyed areas. Most loss of porosity was observed on the old temporary roads, landings, main skid trails, and full bench skid trails of the most recent entry. Effects of grazing were evident in some units with soil structure affected by deep hoof prints in wet soils. Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences for this project are analyzed through a process of determining an issue for the soil resource, establishing appropriate rules, analyzing the issue using those rules, and making conclusions based on those analyses. Three issues impacting the soil resource were identified as soil stability and erosion, surface and soil organic matter, and soil strength and structure (Powers et al., 2005). The associated law, policy or regulation including standards and guidelines (S&G) from the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and soil condition indicators from the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500, Chapter 2550- Soil Management are used to establish a set of rules for each issue. The methods used to analyze each issue are described including temporal and spatial boundaries as well as activities included in the cumulative effects. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed project activities are described in general terms and an indicator or measure for comparison is provided. Conclusions are made about the effects of each alternative based on the indicator or measure. Issue #1 Soil Stability and Erosion Soil stability and erosion are issues that can affect a soil s ability to support plant growth and proper hydrologic function. Forests generally have very low erosion rates unless they are disturbed in a manner that exposes bare soil to the erosive energy of water and wind. The desired condition for stable soils is adequate levels of soil cover to prevent erosion. This generally means soil cover levels are 50% or greater and is well distributed throughout the area. Rules 1. LRMP S&G 3-1: Plan and implement land management activities to maintain or enhance soil productivity and stability. 2

2. LRMP S&G 3-2: With the exception of roads, permanent facilities or other projects that will permanently occupy a site, the following levels of total soil cover should be maintained at the stand level to reduce the potential of soil erosion: Table 2: Soil Cover Guidelines for Projects from Klamath LRMP Soil Texture Group Slope Group % Minimum Soil Cover % Machine Disturbed Areas (machine pile, mastication, mowing) Sandy loam or coarser (granitics) 0-25 26-35 36-45 70 80 80 Loam or finer 0-45 70 Prescribed Fire Areas (underburn, hand pile/burn) Sandy loam or coarser (granitics) 0-25 26-45 46+ Loam or finer 0-35 36-60 61+ 60 70 80 50 60 70 *Soil cover consists of low growing live vegetation (12 inches high), rock fragments (greater than 1/2 inch in diameter), slash (any size) and fine organic matter (charred or not) that is in contact with the soil surface. Fine organic matter refers to the duff, litter, and twigs less than 3 inches in diameter. 3. FSM 2500, Chapter 2550- Soil Management. Soil Stability Indicator: Table 3: Soil Stability Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM Indicator Condition Good Fair Poor Soil Function Indicator (Meets Desired Condition) (Partially Meets Desired Condition) (Does Not Meet Desired Condition) Support for Plant Growth and Soil Hydrologic Functions Soil Stability An adequate level of soil cover is present and signs of erosion are not visible or very limited in degree and extent. Any existing erosion control measures are For minor portions of the area, soil cover is lacking and/or existing erosion control measures are ineffective and there are signs of erosion such as Major portions of the area lack soil cover and/or lack effective erosion control measures. Signs of erosion such as pedestals, sheet, rill, 3

Indicator Condition Good Fair Poor Soil Function Indicator (Meets Desired Condition) (Partially Meets Desired Condition) (Does Not Meet Desired Condition) effective. Generally soil cover level is 50% or greater and is well distributed for soil types capable of supporting this level. pedestals, sheet, rill, and/or gully erosion visible. and/or gully erosion are common. Methods Indicator: Predicted acres of good, fair, and poor soil stability condition class. The proposed activities for the Project were categorized into similar activity types. For example, all of the various silviculture treatments that use ground-based equipment were lumped into Ground Based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings. The projected soil stability condition class rating for each activity type were determined from data collected from previous projects on the Forest using the National Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol (NFSDMP) (USDA Forest Service, 2009). A summary of the most recent results from soil disturbance monitoring on the Forest are included in the Project Record (USDA Forest Service, 2011a). Post-project soil cover levels for each activity type, as determined from previous projects, were used to infer soil stability condition class using Table 3 as a guide. Acres of predicted soil stability condition in good, fair, and poor condition class were estimated by activity type for each action alternative in table 4. For soil stability indicator, the analysis area is bounded by the project activity units, where disturbing activities take place. The analysis is further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could persist as detectable, significant effects. Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is deposited on the forest floor. The temporal boundary for soil stability is 5 years. Effects Analysis Alternative 1 Direct effects of the No Action alternative would be of no effect on the soils, as soil disturbing project activities would not take place. Soil cover for erosion protection would not change in the project area. There would be no indirect or cumulative effects of the No Action alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects As indicated in Table 4, the activities that can impact soil stability include ground based tractor logging, machine piling, prescribed fire, pile burning, and temporary road construction. 4

Ground based tractor logging with associated landings will result in reduced levels of soil cover on skid trails and landings but design features will reduce the potential for soil erosion. PDFs require minimum levels of soil cover depending on slope steepness and require cover levels to be met before the fall rainy season. The PDFs that prescribes placement of waterbars on skid trails and erosion control on landings will be effective in controlling runoff and preventing off-site sedimentation. Additionally, PDFs limit the slope steepness for operating ground-based logging equipment to slopes less than 35%, which will reduce the potential for soil erosion on steeper slopes. The high amounts of soil cover in non-skid trail areas will act as sediment filters and prevent skid trail derived sediment from reaching a drainage channel. Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring of skid trails and landings show that water bars and erosion control measures are effective in controlling erosion and preventing sediment from reaching a stream course (USDA Forest Service, 2011b). Machine piling will reduce the level excessive surface fuels but should not impact soil cover levels because the fine organic matter in close contact with the soil surface will not be piled. After review from a fuels specialist, the need for machine piling will be determined and may include up to 15% of the area. The burning of piled fuels will leave small areas of reduce soil cover but high amounts of soil cover in the unburned areas will act as sediment filters and prevent sediment from leaving the unit. Prescribed fire is a low intensity fire that is used to reduce fuel loads and fire hazards in overstocked stands. The impacts of prescribed fire on fuel loads and surface soil conditions can vary considerably depending on fuel characteristics and loading, soil climatic conditions at the time of burning, and resulting soil burn severity. Spring burns tend to consume less ground fuels than fall burns because of high soil moisture levels, leaving higher total soil cover levels post-fire. A PDF calls for ignition to cease if soil cover is below levels prescribed in S&G 3-2, which will reduce the potential of soil erosion. Recent soil cover monitoring of prescribed fire on the Forest for the BMP monitoring report has shown that postburn soil cover exceed levels prescribed in S&Gs (USDA Forest Service, 2011b). New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roads beds would be cleared and graded, reducing soil cover levels during project operations. Erosion from temporary roads will be mitigated by grading to out-slope and covering with slash, if needed, after the harvest season (prior to the first winter after use). Temporary roads will be hydrologically stabilized and closed after project completion, mitigating long term erosion in the project area. Table 4: Soil Stability Indicator Assessment for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Activity Ground Based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor 604 52 0 636 55 0 554 48 0 Thinning by Hand Treatments 1034 0 0 998 0 0 998 0 0 Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) or Machine Pile and Burn 281 38 0 281 38 0 0 0 0 5

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Activity Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 32 0 Prescribed Fire (Fall Burn) 1369 152 0 1369 152 0 1369 152 0 Pile Burn 5-10% of each stand 489 26 0 489 26 0 489 26 0 Plantation Prescribed Fire (Fall) /Replant 183 0 0 183 0 0 183 0 0 Plantation Replant (Reforestation) 181 0 0 181 0 0 181 0 0 New Temporary Roads 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Temporary Roads on Existing Road Beds 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Total Acres of Soil Condition Rating 4140 273 0 4137 276 0 4061 261 0 Cumulative Effects Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. No reasonable foreseeable future actions are expected in project area that would impact soil stability and erosion. Adding the effects of the no action or the action alternatives to the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions is not expected to have measurable effects on soil stability and erosion and, therefore, no significant cumulative effects will occur. Conclusion Estimated acres of good, fair, and poor soil stability class are similar for all action alternatives. Alternative 3 has the most acres in fair condition, Alternative 4 has the least, and Alternative 2 is intermediate. All three action alternatives will maintain adequate soil cover to protect from erosion and maintain productivity and therefore meet LRMP S&Gs and FSM desired conditions. Issue #2 Surface and Soil Organic Matter The organic matter on the soil surface is a major source of ecosystem nutrients that are essential to plant growth. Surface organic matter levels fluctuate naturally over time; the amount of organic matter on the soil surface is a balance between inputs from vegetation and decomposition rates as well as natural disturbances such as wildfire. Desired conditions includes amounts and distribution of surface organic matter present that are within the range of the ecological type and normal fire return interval and limited areas of displacement of the upper soil layers. Rule 6

1. LRMP S&G 3-1: Plan and implement land management activities to maintain or enhance soil productivity and stability. 2. LRMP S&G 3-3: Maintain soil productivity by retaining organic material on the soil surface and by retaining organic material in the soil profile. 3. LRMP S&G 3-4: A minimum of 50% of the soil surface should be covered by fine organic matter following project implementation, if it is available on the site. 4. LRMP S&G 3-5: Maintain a minimum of 85% of the existing soil organic matter in the top 12 inches of the soil profile to allow for nutrient cycling and maintain soil productivity. 5. FSM 2500, Chapter 2550- Soil Management. Surface and Soil Organic Matter Indicator: Table 5: Surface Organic Matter and Soil Organic Matter Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM Indicator Condition Good Fair Poor Soil Function Indicator (Meets Desired Condition) (Partially Meets Desired Condition) (Does Not Meet Desired Condition) Support for Plant Growth Surface Organic Matter Throughout the area, the size, amount and distribution of organic matter present is within the range of the ecological type and normal fire return interval. For minor portions of the area, the size, amount or distribution of organic matter does not meet the desired condition. The departure can either be a deficiency or excess. Major portions of the area do not meet the desired condition. The departure can either be a deficiency or excess. Support for Plant Growth Soil Organic Matter (SOM) The thickness and color of the upper soil layer is within the normal range of characteristics for the site and is distributed normally across the area. Localized areas of displacement may have occurred but it will not affect the productivity for the desired plant species. For minor portions of the area, the upper soil layer has been displaced or removed to a depth and area large enough to affect productivity for the desired plant species. Generally an area will be considered displaced if more than one-half of the upper soil layer or 4 inches (whichever is less) is removed from a contiguous area larger than 100 sq. ft. Major portions of the area have had the upper soil layer displaced or removed to a depth and area large enough to affect productivity for the desired plant species. Method Indicator: Predicted acres of good, fair, and poor surface and soil organic matter condition class. The proposed activities for the Project were categorized into similar activity types. The projected surface and soil organic matter condition class rating for each activity type were determined using data collected 7

from previous projects on the Forest using the NFSDMP. Post-project soil displacement values for each activity type, as determined from previous projects, were used to infer surface and soil organic matter condition using Table 5 as a guide. Acres of predicted surface and soil organic matter condition in good, fair, and poor condition class were estimated by activity type for each action alternative in table 6. For surface and soil organic matter indicator, the analysis area is bounded by the project activity units, where disturbing activities take place. The analysis is further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could persist as detectable, significant effects. Soil organic matter can take years to decades to rebuild after it is lost through displacement or erosion. The temporal boundary for surface and soil organic matter is 30 years. For cumulative effects, the analysis is bounded in time by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Effects Analysis Alternative I Direct Effects Direct effects of the No Action alternative would be of no effect on the soils, as soil disturbing project activities would not take place. Surface and soil organic matter would continue to accumulate faster than decomposition, with no additional benefit to soil fertility. Indirect Effects Indirect effects of the No Action alternative would be the increased accumulation of organic matter in terms of surface and ladder fuels, with a corresponding continual increase in fire hazard. Fire suppression and subsequent true fir encroachment has contributed to density related mortality and has increased the risk of large-scale high severity wildfire. As fire intensity increases, the potential for soil organic matter destruction, nitrogen volatilization, microbial mortality, structure & porosity destruction, and inducement of water-repellency are greatly elevated. This can severely damage soils and cause long-term declines in soil productivity and hydrologic function. In extreme cases, soils cannot be revegetated without management intervention. Prescribed fire does not have the same effects on soils (Well et al, 1979, McNabb et al., 1990). Fuels treatments such as thinning, prescribed fire and pile burning involve managing specifically for fire weather and fuel moisture during burns in order to moderate fire behavior, and avoid adverse environmental effects. These treatments usually also involve modification of the amount and distribution of fuels prior to fire being introduced. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Direct and Indirect As indicated in Table 6, the activities that can impact surface and soil organic matter include ground based tractor logging, machine piling, prescribed fire, pile burning, and temporary road construction. A combination of increased compaction, reduced soil cover, and soil displacement will lead to a loss of nutrients on the skid trails and landings in units where ground based tractor logging takes place. PDFs 8

including placement of waterbars, slope restrictions on ground-based equipment, and soil cover guidelines were designed to minimize the loss of soil organic matter from the unit. Additionally, PDFs to protect CWD will insure these features will provide soil nutrients into the future. Prescribed fire and pile burning can alter microbial communities in a forest stand by increasing the temperature of the post burn soil surface or changing the availability of organic substrates. Soil heating during the burn results in a substantial short-term loss of microbial biomass or a shift in community structure. These changes, and their duration, are the result of the interactions of fuel load, fuel moisture content, weather conditions, landscape position, light-up sequence, and resulting fire behavior and resident time combined with heat transfer variability within the soil profile (Busse, 2005). The low and moderate burn severities that are prescribed for this project will have short term impacts to soil organic matter and microbial communities. These impacts will not affect the long term productivity of the project area. Machine piling will not impact surface and soil organic matter because fine surface fuels and topsoil will not be piled. Reducing surface fuel loads with machine piling will result in lower temperatures and shorter residence time of prescribed fire which will benefit soil micro-organisms and tree roots. New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roads beds can have the upper soil layer displaced or removed when the road bed are cleared to allow log truck and equipment access. The loss of soil organic matter can impact productivity of trees growing next to temporary roads. Temporary roads will account for a minor portion of the area, so stand productivity will not be affected. Table 6: Surface and Soil Organic Matter Indicator Assessment for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Activity Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Ground Based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings 617 39 0 650 41 0 566 36 0 Thinning by Hand Treatments 1034 0 0 998 0 0 998 0 0 Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) or Machine Pile and Burn 316 3 0 316 3 0 0 0 0 Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 0 0 Prescribed Fire (Fall Burn) 1369 152 0 1369 152 0 1369 152 0 Pile Burn 5-10% of each stand 464 26 0 464 52 0 464 52 0 Plantation Prescribed Fire (Fall) /Replant Plantation Replant (Reforestation) 165 18 0 165 18 0 165 18 0 181 0 0 181 0 0 181 0 0 9

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Activity Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor New Temporary Roads 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Temporary Roads on Existing Road Beds Total Acres of Soil Condition Rating 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 4145 239 4 4141 267 4 4061 258 3 Cumulative Effects Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. No reasonable foreseeable future actions are expected in project area that would impact surface and soil organic matter. Adding the effects of the no action or the action alternatives to the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions is not expected to have measurable effects on surface and soil organic matter and, therefore, no significant cumulative effects will occur. Conclusion Estimated acres of good, fair, and poor surface and soil organic matter condition class are similar for all action alternatives. Alternative 3 has the most acres in fair condition, Alternative 4 has the least, and Alternative 2 is intermediate. New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing road beds were rated with poor surface and soil organic matter for all action alternatives. Alternative 4 has a slight reduction in acres of poor surface and soil organic matter condition class, compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, because no new temporary roads are proposed for this alternative. Surface and soil organic matter on these temporary roads will recover naturally, but it may take decades before levels are restored to natural conditions. This loss of surface and soil organic matter constitutes a minor portion of the treatment area and will not affect stand productivity. All three action alternative will protect surface and soil organic matter at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and therefore meet LRMP S&Gs and FSM desired conditions. Issue #3 Soil Strength and Structure Changes in soil strength and soil structure result in densification and distortion of the soil where biological activity, porosity and permeability are reduced. Destruction of soil structure can reduce water infiltration rates, have higher or lower water holding capacity (depending on soil texture), have an increase in soil strength that restricts root growth, and have an increase in soil erosion risk by accelerated run-off. Desired conditions include soil strength levels that are conductive to favorable rooting environment and soil structure and macroporosity that are relatively unchanged from natural conditions. Rule 1. LRMP S&G 3-1: Plan and implement land management activities to maintain or enhance soil productivity and stability. 2. FSM 2500, Chapter 2550- Soil Management. Soil Strength and Structure Indicators: 10

Table 7: Soil Strength and Structure Indicator Condition Assessment in FSM Indicator Condition Soil Function Indicator Good Fair Poor (Meets Desired Condition) (Partially Meets Desired Condition) (Does Not Meet Desired Condition) Support for Plant Growth Soil Strength Over most of the area the soil strength level is conducive to a favorable rooting environment for the desired plant species. For minor portions of the area, soil strength has increased in degree and depth such that it limits the growth of desired plant species. Over major portions of the area soil strength has increased in degree and depth such that it limits the growth of desired plant species. Soil Hydrologic Function Soil Structure and Macroporosity Visually soil structure and macro-porosity (defined here as pores 1mm or larger) are relatively unchanged from natural condition for nearly all the area. Signs of erosion or overland flow are absent or very limited in degree and extent. Infiltration and permeability capacity of the soil is sufficient for the local climate. For minor portions of the area: soil structure and macro-porosity are changed; or platy structure and/or increased density evident; or overland flow and signs of erosion are visible. Infiltration and permeability capacity is insufficient in localized portions of the area. Major portions of the area have reduced infiltration and permeability capacity indicated by soil structure and macroporosity changes; or platy structure and/or increased density; or signs of overland flow and erosion. Method Indicator: Predicted acres of good, fair, and poor soil strength and structure condition class. The proposed activities for the Project were categorized into similar activity types. The projected soil strength and structure condition class ratings for each activity type were determined from data collected from previous projects on the Forest using the NFSDMP. Post-project soil compaction values for each activity type, as determined from previous projects, were used to infer soil strength and structure condition using Table 7 as a guide. Acres of predicted soil strength and structure condition in good, fair, and poor condition class were estimated by activity type for each action alternative in table 8. For the soil strength and structure indicator, the analysis area is bounded by the project activity units, where disturbing activities take place. The analysis is further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could persist as detectable, significant effects. Once compacted, soil strength, structure, and macroporosity can remain affected for decades. The temporal boundary for soil strength and structure is 30 years. For cumulative effects, the analysis is bounded in time by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Effects Analysis Alternative 1 11

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects of the No Action alternative would be of no effect on the soils, as soil disturbing project activities would not take place. Soil Strength and structure conditions would remain the same in the shortterm, with very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings. There would be no indirect or cumulative effects of the No Action alternative. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects As indicated in Table 8, the activities that can move soil strength and structure condition class rating from good to fair or poor include ground based tractor logging, machine piling, and temporary road construction. Ground-based equipment will cause soil compaction on landings and main skid trails, but with proper layout, the level of disturbance can be kept below levels that would impact stand productivity. Placing a high priority on reusing existing skid trails will help to ensure that the area occupied by skid trails can be minimized. Soil compaction leading to poor soil strength and structure would occur on the heavily used portions of main skid trails and landings. On skid trails where machinery makes one or two passes, compaction increases slightly leading to fair soil strength and condition ratings. PDFs put limitations on the use ground based equipment during wet weather and saturated soil conditions reducing the amount of compaction on skid trails. Additionally, PDFs limit soil compaction by requiring that no more than 15% of a harvest unit to be disturbed by main skid trails and landings. Machine piling equipment will cause a minor increase in soil compaction. PDFs that restrict equipment from traveling on steep slopes, during periods of wet weather, or during saturated soil conditions will limit the impacts of machine piling on soil strength and structure. New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roads beds will have increased soil strength and cause reductions in infiltration and permeability. The increases in soil strength will limit the growth of trees growing next to temporary roads but because these roads occupy only a minor part of the project area, stand productivity will not be affected. While soil compaction will reduce infiltration and permeability, slash cover would reduce overland flow and prevent soil erosion. Table 8: Soil Strength and Structure Indicator Assessment for Alternative 2, 3 and 4 Activity Ground Based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor 564 66 26 594 69 28 518 60 24 Thinning by Hand Treatments 1034 0 0 998 0 0 998 0 0 Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) or Machine Pile and Burn 287 32 0 287 32 0 0 0 0 Aspen Prescribed Fire (Spring) 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 0 0 12

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Prescribed Fire (Fall Burn) 1521 0 0 1521 0 0 1521 0 0 Pile Burn 5-10% of each stand 386 0 0 386 0 0 386 0 0 Plantation Prescribed Fire (Fall) /Replant 183 0 0 183 0 0 183 0 0 Plantation Replant (Reforestation) 181 0 0 181 0 0 181 0 0 New Temporary Roads 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Temporary Roads on Existing Road Beds Total Acres of Soil Condition Rating 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 4157 98 30 4151 101 32 4106 60 27 Cumulative Effects Past actions including timber harvest, thinning and cattle grazing are evident on the landscape in the project area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. The impacts of cattle grazing in the Ball Mountain allotment are considered in cumulative effects analysis because it is a past, present, and future action that overlaps with Project activities. Past effects of cattle grazing on the Project area have been documented in BMP monitoring of the Ball Mountain allotment in 2002 and 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2002 and 2007). The allotment passed implementation and effectiveness ratings in both years. However, it was noted in 2002 that there was some wetland and streambank trampling, but it was not severe enough to be in non-compliance with either implementation or effectiveness of BMPs. Soil disturbance sampling in the project area collected for this report has indicated the presence of deep hoof prints in wetland soils near Burnt Camp. Neither the extent nor severity of past or current wetland trampling by livestock has degraded the condition of the wetland soils in the Project area. Adaptive management of grazing in the Ball Mountain allotment should continue with a focus to reduce levels of trampling of wetland soils. Adding the effects of the no action or the action alternatives to the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions is not expected to have measurable effects on soil strength and structure and, therefore, no significant cumulative effects will occur. Conclusion Estimated acres of good, fair, and poor surface and soil strength condition class are similar for all action alternatives. Alternative 3 has the most acres in fair and poor condition, Alternative 4 has the least, and Alternative 2 is intermediate. A small portion of ground based tractor logging activity and all temporary roads were rated with poor soil strength and structure for all three action alternatives. PDFs are in place to minimize the extent of soil compaction but portions of main skid trails and landings will remain compacted for decades after the Project is completed. The impact to soil hydrologic function will be minimized with erosion control measures and slash cover. Soil strength and structure will recover 13

naturally as physical process such as freeze/thaw and biological activities like root growth begin to break up soil compaction. The extent of soil compaction on landings, main skid trails, and temporary roads will be minor compared to the size of the activity area and will not impact stand productivity. All three action alternatives will maintain soil strength and structure at levels adequate to protect soil productive and prevent soil erosion and therefore meet LRMP S&Gs and FSM desired conditions. Compliance with Law, Policy, and Regulation Table 9: Compliance with Law, Policy, and Regulation Resource Issue Law, Policy or Regulation (including S&G) No Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Soil Cover, Surface and Soil Organic Matter, Soil Strength and Structure LRMP S&G 3-1: Plan and implement land management activities to maintain or enhance soil productivity and stability. Complies Complies Soil Cover LRMP S&G 3-2: With the exception of roads, permanent facilities or other projects that will permanently occupy a site, the following levels of total soil cover should be maintained at the stand level to reduce the potential of soil erosion Complies Complies Surface and Soil Organic Matter LRMP S&G 3-3: Maintain soil productivity by retaining organic material on the soil surface and by retaining organic material in the soil profile. Complies Complies Surface and Soil Organic Matter LRMP S&G 3-4: A minimum of 50% of the soil surface should be covered by fine organic matter following project implementation, if it is available on the site. Complies Complies Surface and Soil Organic Matter LRMP S&G 3-5: Maintain a minimum of 85% of the existing soil organic matter in the top 12 inches of the soil profile to allow for nutrient cycling and maintain soil productivity. Complies Complies 14

Literature Cited Busse, M.D.; Hubbert, K.R.; Fiddler, G.O.; Shestak, C.J.; Powers, R.F. 2005. Lethal temperatures during burning of masticated forest residues. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 14: 267 276. Foster, C.M. and G.K. Lang. 1994. Soil Survey of Klamath National Forest area, California, parts of Siskiyou County, California and Jackson County, Oregon. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific SW Region, Vallejo, California. McNabb, D. H., and K. Cromack, Jr. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrients and soil productivity. Pp. 125-141 in J. D. Walstad, S. R. Radosevich, and D. V. Sandberg, editors, Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Powers, R., Scott, D., Sanchez, F., Voldseth, R., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J., and Stone, D. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management, 220: 31-50. USDA Forest Service, 1990. Soil erosion hazard rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Ch. 50, R-5 FSH 2509.22, R5 Amend. 2. PSW Region, Vallejo, California. USDA Forest Service, 2002. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices Report 2002 Fiscal Year. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. 12p. USDA Forest Service, 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of fire on soil and water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250p. USDA Forest Service, 2007. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices Report 2007 Fiscal Year. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. 24p. USDA Forest Service, 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Gen. Tech Report WO-82a. USDA Forest Service, 2011a. Klamath National Forest Soil Monitoring Report 2011. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. 35p. USDA Forest Service, 2011b. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices Report 2011 Fiscal Year. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. 35p. Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C, Froelich and R.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of fire on soil. USDA-Forest Service, U.S. Gov t Printing Office, Washington D.C. 34pp. 15

Appendix A: Soil Map and Interpretations for the Project Area Figure 1: Order 3 Soil Survey Map of the Project Area 16