final soils specialist report - august...

Harris Vegetation Management Soils Report

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

August 2013

Final Soils Specialist

Report

Harris Vegetation Management Project

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Shasta-McCloud Management Unit

Shasta County, California

(Harris Guard Station on Ovall soils)

Prepared by

Brad Rust & Tricia Burgoyne Date

Forest Soil Scientist and TEAMS Soil Scientist

Shasta-Trinity National Forest and TEAMS


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology for Analysis ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Current Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 Erosion ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.4.2 Soil Organic Matter............................................................................................................. 6 1.4.3 Soil Porosity ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.5 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 12

1.5.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 12 1.5.2 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis .......................................................... 13 1.5.3 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 13 1.5.4 Resource Protection Measures .......................................................................................... 15 1.5.5 Desired Condition for all units .......................................................................................... 16 1.5.6 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 17 1.5.7 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 22 1.5.8 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 22 1.5.9 Alternative 4a .................................................................................................................... 22 1.5.10 Alternative 4b ................................................................................................................... 23 1.5.11 Alternative 4c .................................................................................................................... 23 1.5.12 Alternative 5 – No Action ................................................................................................. 24

1.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 26

1.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction ......................................... 27

1.8 References ............................................................................................................................... 28

2. APPENDIX A. EROSION HAZARD RATING CALCULATIONS .................................................... 33

3. APPENDIX B. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TABLE ............................................................................. 35

4. APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK-CURRENT CONDITION ........................................ 38

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.


3

5. APPENDIX D. SDM TRANSECTS ...................................................................................................... 40

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Physical properties of Harris Vegetation Management project area soils ......................... 4

Table 2. Harris Windrow Sampling Data ......................................................................................... 4

Table 3. Soil disturbance monitoring on Selected Impacted Sites……………………………… 10

Table 4. Soil compaction monitoring on Shasta-Trinity National Forest from 2002 to 20102….. 11 Table 5. Recovery rates for mechanical understory thinning soils ................................................ 14 Table 6. Resource protection measures for soils ............................................................................ 15 Table 7. Fuel treatments and their qualitative effect on soils......................................................... 18 Table 8. Comparison of alternatives .............................................................................................. 24 Table 9. Comparison of alternatives for soil resources .................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 10. EHR for Harris Vegetation Management project area soils ........................................... 33 Table 11. Soil effects by proposed treatment unit for the Harris Vegetation Project ................... 35 Table 12. Current conditions of Harris soils from field surveys .................................................... 38


Shasta-Trinity National Forest 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the soil conditions and discloses the potential direct, indirect and

cumulative effects of the alternatives for the Harris Vegetation Management Project. This report

includes:

Analysis methods and scale;

Affected environment, including current conditions that describe the lasting effects and influence of

past land management; and

Environmental consequences, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects in light of past, present

and reasonably foreseeable future events.

The project area encompasses approximately 2,800 treatment acres of federal lands within the

Shasta Trinity National Forest northeast of McCloud, California. The Harris Vegetation

Management Project is designed to improve forest health, develop late successional forest, and

restore fire-adapted ecosystem characteristics.

The Harris Vegetation Management Project would comply with the Shasta Trinity Land and

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards for long-term soil productivity. The

proposed silvicultural and fuel treatments in each alternative are not expected to adversely affect

soil resources because of soil protection measures that will be implemented as part of each

management alternative. These protection measures will help to ensure that resource safeguards

will be in place that would prevent adverse effects on the soil resource from occurring. Where

effects cannot be avoided, mitigation is planned in order to minimize or negate detrimental levels

of soil disturbance.

Regulatory Framework 1.1.1

Management actions must occur in conformance with applicable law, regulation, policy,

guidance, and management direction. This regulatory framework determines the overall

objectives and standards and guidelines applied to project activities and resource management.

Elements specifically relevant to the soil resource are described here.

Specific measures, indicators, and thresholds are established in assessing soil condition, and for

evaluating the effects of the proposed project on the soil resource- what gets looked at, why, and

interpretation of what it means to soil quality and site productivity. The Shasta Trinity National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1995b) includes forest-wide

standards that has a goal to maintain or improve soil productivity and prevent excessive surface

erosion, mass wasting, and cumulative watershed impacts. Measures should be taken to avoid

adverse effects to soil conditions and to evaluate management effects on soil productivity, soil

hydrologic function and soil buffering capacity. For this project, all evaluations of soil

productivity also address concerns of hydrologic function and buffering capacity. Hydrologic

function is discussed in the hydrology report. Soil buffering capacity is directly proportional to

the amount of organic matter in soil and humus and relates to cation exchange capacity. Coarse

wood, surface organics (duff or litter), and soil organic carbon (SOC) directly relate to buffering

capacity.

The National Soil Management Handbook defines soil productivity and components of soil

productivity, and establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity. In determining a



significant change in productivity, a 15% reduction in inherent soil productivity potential will be

used as a basis for setting threshold values. Threshold values would apply to measurable or

observable soil properties or conditions that are sensitive to significant change. The threshold

values, along with areal extent limits, would serve as an early warning signal of reduced soil

productive capacity, where changes to management practices or rehabilitation measures may be

warranted.

Management activities have potential to cause various types and degrees of disturbance. Soil

disturbance is categorized into compaction, displacement, puddling, severe burning, and erosion.

Direction was established that properties, measures, and thresholds relative to these disturbance

types would be developed at the Regional and Forest levels, known as Soil Quality Standards

(SQS).

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) establishes

Forest-wide management direction, and Standards and Guidelines in carrying out project

activities. Management direction pertaining to soils includes the following:

• Develop specific soil evaluation and mitigation measures for each project that has the

potential to impact the soil resource.

• Develop and apply erosion control plans to road construction, mining, recreation

developments, and other site disturbing projects. Use the Soils and Geologic Resource

Inventories for predicting the need and extent for erosion control measures.

• Identify and evaluate areas of known or suspected instability as a part of project planning.

Protect areas with a high probability of mass wasting from ground disturbing activities.

• Protect long-term soil productivity in controlled burn prescriptions and by meeting

aquatic conservation strategy objectives.

• Logging Systems: generally confine tractor logging to sustained slopes of less than 35

percent. When possible, limit skid trails to 15 percent of the harvest area and tractor slash piling

to the dry season.

1.2 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS

During July of 2009, the TEAMS soil scientist evaluated all units with a history of soils

disturbance, and many units without any sign of disturbance were also surveyed. For the soil

resource, the treatment unit serves as the analysis area, as we do not expect activities within units

to influence soil characteristics outside of unit boundaries.

In order to evaluate soil quality, a site-specific assessment of soil quality indicators has been

conducted within the analysis area.

In each unit, the following indicators were examined:



Percent detrimental1 soil disturbance: decrease in soil porosity, or increase in soil bulk density, that

impairs site productivity, soil displacement, severe soil burning, lack of adequate cover, rutting, or

lack of large woody debris (LWD);

Percent cover by category: rock, wood, vegetation, and litter;

Down woody debris (tons per acre);

Litter and duff depths;

Percent of rock in the uppermost soil horizon; and

Slope stability, erosion concerns and other soil issues.

Please see the project record for unit-specific field notes and specific methods used for sampling.

The sampling protocol used was the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-

Dumroese et al 2009a).

Since then the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) has adopted the Forest Soil Disturbance

Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese, et. al. 2009) which is a multi-faceted approach to soil

disturbance and forest sustainability. The STNF has incorporated validation sampling (using

transects to measure erosion, disturbance, compaction, displacement, and cover (Rust 2011) as a

component of the soil monitoring protocol.

The STNF used the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) developed by USFS

Region 1 and the Rocky Mountain Research Station to provide a standard inventory, monitoring,

and assessment tool. This method uses paced transects with “toe-point” sampling combined with

qualitative indicators of disturbance. At each point, spade holes are used to assess soil

disturbance classes by looking at forest-floor attributes (cover, vegetation, woody debris),

surface-soil attributes (displacement, erosion, ruts, burn severity), and subsurface attributes

(compaction, platy and massive structure). After porosity, surface woody debris (large woody

debris, fine slash, organic matter, and other visual signs of disturbance i.e. ruts, piles of soil,

wheel tracks, erosion, burning, displaced topsoil, etc.) are evaluated, each sample point is ranked

according to the FSDMP classification system. Bulk density samples are used to validate if

detrimental effects have occurred or not, along with tree growth and lack of surface cover and

vegetation. Extent of platyness, penetration resistance (cone penetrometer readings >3000 kpa),

rutted terrain, and topsoil displacement are also used. Taken together a call is made in the field

initially and adjusted if necessary after bulk density samples are analyzed and penetrometer

readings are processed. Doing the validation sampling was a step that the STNF added to the

process to confirm field calls and develop one’s ability to make proper calls in the field. It also

provides additional data to support the FSDMP.

1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Harris Vegetation Management Project area encompasses 9,200 acres on the Shasta Trinity

National Forest in the Shasta-McCloud Management Unit in the McCloud Ranger District. The

project area is located approximately 23 miles northeast of the city of McCloud, CA. The

vegetation in the area is predominately mixed conifer with some pure fir stands. Stands of

ponderosa pine and Douglas fir are also common. Elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,600 feet.

1

Detrimental soil disturbance refers to either decrease in porosity of greater than 10%, or greater than 2 inches of topsoil displaced, eroded, or

severely burned, or lack of large woody debris of less than 5 trees per acre with some or all occurring over the project unit greater than 15% or the area.



This area is typified by buttes and cinder cones (with up to 45 percent slopes) separated by

nearly level glacial outwash terraces and lava flows. Virtually no surface water exists within the

project area. The climate in the project area is characterized by cool, wet winters and warm dry

summers with an average annual precipitation of 48 inches, with most precipitation falling

between October and May (Western Regional Climate Center 2010).

The soils in the project area (Table 1) are terrace and cinder cone soils that are deep and gravelly

with sideslope and lava flow soils that are moderately deep and well drained. Soils are generally

derived from volcanic materials from lava flows, pyroclastics, mudflows, ash deposition and

pumice deposition. The soils are generally coarse textured with a range of coarse fragments, are

deep to moderately deep and are well drained (Lanspa 1994). Areas of low lying outwash

terraces (Ovall soils) have depressions of fine-textured riparian soils (Morical and Aquic

Xerofluvents).

Table 1. Physical properties of Harris Vegetation Management project area soils

Soil Name Texture

Rock

fragments

(%)

Deptha

Compaction

Ratingb

Acres % of project

area

Ash derived soils

Germany Family Medial (SL) 10-50 Moderate Moderate 4074 44

Germany Family, Deep

Medial (SL) 10-40 Deep Moderate 340 4

Ledmount Family Medial (fSL) 10-35 shallow Moderate 1621 18

Revit Family Medial (fSL) 0-30 moderate High 110 1

Yallani Family Medial-skeletal (cSL)

35-60 deep Moderate 136 1.5

Coarse-ashy soils

Neer Family Medial-skeletal (SL)

30-70 Moderate Low 1 <1

Sheld Family Medial-skeletal (SL)

35-65 Deep Low 632 7

Washougal Family Medial-skeletal (L) 20-80 Moderate Low 260 3

Riparian soils

Ovall Family, Ponded

Coarse-loamy (SL)

0-35 Deep Moderate 1644 18

*Morical Family Fine-loamy (SCL) 0-15 Deep High Minor soil

*Aquic Xerorthents Fine-loamy(SiL) 0-5 Deep High Minor soil

Rock Outcrop 352 4

Total 9170

a - Depth classes are: Very Shallow - <10 inches, Shallow - 10-20 inches, Moderate - 20-40 inches, Deep - 40-60 inches. b - Based on R-5 soil interpretations (USDA, 1999); * - possible wetlands but these areas dry out in the summer so they do not support wetland vegetation. They have hydric indicators but the season of ponding is too cold for vegetative growth before it dries out in the summer.

Soils vary in their susceptibility to erosion, compaction, displacement, and soil-burn-severity.

For the Harris Project area erosion is generally low due to mild slopes and good soil cover. Many

of the soils within the project area are more resilient to compaction with 20-35 percent of coarse

fragments (rock content) in the mineral soil profile. Rock content is an indicator of the

susceptibility of compaction on a specific soil type. Rock content over 35 percent will greatly

reduce the effect of mechanical compaction. Fine textured ashy soils (Revit & Morical Families)

with few rock fragments have a high compaction hazard. Other ashy soils have more sand

(Germany, Ledmount, and Yallani families) and are less susceptible to compaction.



The soils in the project area generally have between 10 and 30 percent rock content which helps

to reduce the compaction hazard considerably, but does not eliminate it. Dry soils are less likely

to compact and have lower risk of compaction than moist soils (Welke and Fryles 2005). Fine

loamy and loamy soils have better water holding capacity and provide available water for plant

growth, increasing site productivity especially for Germany soils (Welke and Fyles 2005). Ovall

soils are coarse sandy soils with depositional fine-textured layered deposits that restrict water

infiltration and are seasonally ponded (see Figure 1 below). Ovall soils lack rock content and are

susceptible to compaction when wet or moist. Because low-lying areas are seasonally ponded the

potential exists for wetlands to form on the fine-textured soils (20% of map unit 240) but due to

cold winter temperatures, early season ponding, and rapid drying in the summer little wetland

vegetation is expressed, disqualifying them for wetlands (Appendix E).

Figure 1: Harris Project Soils

Mechanical soil displacement has occurred within the project area in four units (40,185,197,199).

The practice of “brush to trees” windrowing practiced in the 1950s to 1970s plowed brush fields

and soil into windrows displacing from 4 to 8 inches of topsoil. The windrows were subsequently

planted with conifers. Topsoil was scalped to tear out brush and to remove duff and seeds to

expose bare soil for planting. Windrowed brush was burned leaving large rows of topsoil rich in

soil organic matter.

71

240

69

69

71

69

295

71

166

71

166166

74

24069

167

166

73

240

74

357

333

253

247

253

295

333333

273

253

278

253

333

199

69

359

71

0 0.8 1.60.4

Miles 4

Legendharris_soilsSOIL_NAME, SOIL_MAP_U

Oval sandy loam Ponded

Germany loam

Ledmount sandy loam

Neer gravelly sandy loam

Revit fine sandy loam

Rock Outcrop

Sadie sandy loam

Sheld gravelly coarse sandy loam

Washougal gravelly sandy loam

Yallani sandy loam

harrislsr_bnd

Harris TS Project

Physical Science Dept.



1.4 CURRENT CONDITIONS

Logging in the Harris project area started in the early 1900s with railroad logging. Much of the

area was harvested as is reflected in the overall stand age. Review of the project area shows an

existing skid trail network in units that averages 10 percent. The upland area was not managed

until the 1970s. The Toad Mountain Allotment and the McCloud/Hambone allotment are both

within part of the project area and have been vacant for several years.

Erosion 1.4.1

Inherent potential for erosion is low. The slope is generally between 5 and 10 percent with some

small areas up to 20 percent. Ground cover by rock, litter, duff and vegetation was nearly

continuous in many places, averaging 91 percent over the units. Basal vegetative cover averaged

13 percent, organic matter 65 percent, rock 4 percent and wood 9 percent across the project.

An intact litter layer was found throughout the project area, with thicker and more effective

cover in the closed canopy forests versus the open shrubby areas. The litter layer was generally

loose, but the shallow duff layer was generally tighter and held together by fungal hyphae. This

duff layer provides excellent soil protection. Annual grasses, herbaceous vegetation, and even

rock fragments can also be a form of protection and may reduce rain drop impact on soils.

In assessing inherent erosion hazard ratings (EHR) an assumption is made about the ability of a

soil, with little or no vegetation cover, to withstand a precipitation event equivalent to the long-

term average occurrence of a 2-year, 6 hour storm. The severity of a soil’s erosion hazard depend

on a number of factors including the soil’s texture, water movement within the soil as well as

runoff potential, slope length, and (importantly) soil surface cover. Risk ratings vary from low to

very high with low ratings meaning low probability of adverse effects on soil and water quality if

accelerated surface erosion occurs. Moderate erosion hazard ratings mean that accelerated

erosion is likely to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur. High to very high

erosion hazard ratings mean that effects to soil productivity and water quality are likely to occur

when accelerated erosion happens. Although two soil types within the project area (eight percent

of the total area) can potentially have high erosion hazard ratings, currently all of the erosion

hazard ratings for the Harris Vegetation Management Project area are low (appendix A). Please

refer to the hydrology section for a discussion on erosion and equivalent roaded acres for this

project.

Soil Organic Matter 1.4.2

The importance of soil organic matter cannot be overstated (Okinarian 1996, Jurgensen et al.

1997). This organic component contains a large reserve of nutrients and carbon, and it is

dynamically alive with microbial activity. The character of forest soil organic matter influences

many critical ecosystem processes, such as the formation of soil structure, which in turn

influences soil gas exchange, soil water infiltration rates and soil water-holding capacity. Soil

organic matter is also the primary site of nutrient recycling and humus formation, which

enhances soil cation exchange capacity and overall fertility.



Monitoring of previous windrowing practices on the STNF shown in Table 2 have high levels of

soil displacement and low LWD counts as brush fields were converted to plantations.

Additionally these same plantations have truncated topsoil A horizons due to displacement of

topsoil into the windrows. There are four units within the Harris project area that were

windrowed (40, 185, 197, and 199).

The monitoring compared windrowed (wr) trees to inter-bay (ib) trees to see if surface duff and

partial topsoil scalping from windrowing has affected soil productivity (see Table 2 below). On

the average 3 to 6 inches of topsoil was scraped off when brush fields were converted to

plantations in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This topsoil was pushed into windrows and then brush was

burned leaving soil mounds in rows from 90 to 150 feet apart. Measurements of tree height, age,

and diameter breast height (DBH) were used as a relative indicator of site soil productivity.. For

Germany soils windrow trees on the average on 2 windrowed units were 126 feet tall for 36 year

old trees where inter-bay trees were 96 feet tall for 36 year old trees. DBH for windrow trees was

20 inches where inter-bay trees were 16 inches. The difference between windrow trees and inter-

bay trees was 30 feet in height and a 4 inch DBH. For Shasta soils windrow trees on the average

on 2 windrowed units were 86 feet tall for 47 year old trees where inter-bay trees were 80 feet

tall for 47 year old trees. DBH for windrow trees was 20 inches where inter-bay trees were 15

inches. Difference between windrow trees and inter-bay trees was 6 feet in height and a 5 inch

DBH. Germany soils on a whole are more productive than Shasta, Washougal, or Sadie soils due

to higher available water holding capacities and higher soil organic matter explaining bigger

trees at an earlier age. But in all cases when topsoil was scalped from windrowing, the windrow

trees benefited (more nutrients, moisture, and space) from the topsoil and the inter-bay trees,

suffered.

Table 2: Windrow Sampling Data

The loss of these processes, due to windrowing has direct effect on site productivity and

sustainability. Organic matter is the one component of the soil resource that, if managed

Unit Age Site Characteristics Location

Topsoil depth (undist. A)

(inches)

Topsoil depth (dist. A)

(inches)

WR distance

(feet)

Tree height

(feet)

DBH

(in)

Height differ.

(feet)

DBH differ.

(inches)

Elk 1 36 flat (0-5%) Germany wr 6 140 134 20

(Elk unit 6 LSR area) ib 3 109 17 25 3

Elk 2 36 flat (0-5%) Germany wr 8 150 118 20

(Elk unit 14 LSR area) ib 3 82 15 36 5

CC1 47 flat (0-5%) Shasta wr 8 90 89 20

(Clear Ck, Pilgrim Ck. area) ib 4 86 14 3 6

CC2 47 flat (0-5%) Shasta wr 8 150 86 20

(Clear Ck, Pilgrim Ck. area) ib 3 74 16 12 4

SH1 45 sloping (5-15%) Washougal wr 10 90 69 18

(Spring Hill - Mt. Shasta) ib 6 69 15 0 3

SH2 45 sloping (5-15%) Washougal wr 10 90 62 18

(Spring Hill - Mt. Shasta) ib 6 62 15 0 3

AL8 36 sloping (5-15%) Sadie wr 8 135 79 18

(Algoma Unit 8 - Tate Ck) ib 3 67 14 12 4

BC1 39 rolling (15-40%) Washougal wr 6 150 72 16

(Big Canyon unit 3-160) ib 3 67 12 5 4

Windrow Sampling - sampled Shasta, Germany, Sadie, and Washougal windrow and interbay locations on the McCloud Flats and West Mt. Shasta



correctly, can actually be improved by human activity. Manipulation of the organic constituents

of the soil may be the only practical tool available for mitigating effects of harvesting systems

that remove standing trees and dead and down trees, or cause extensive soil disturbance. To

protect the sustainable productivity of the forest soil, a continuous supply of organic materials

should be provided, particularly in harsh environments (Harvey et al. 1987). The four units with

soil windrows would have soil redistributed to improve soil productivity in the Harris project.

1.4.2.1 Soil Wood

Residue left after advanced brown-rot decay is a brown, crumbly mass composed largely of

lignin. In healthy forest ecosystems, especially coniferous forests, the upper-most soil horizon

contains a significant portion of brown-rotted wood residues. The sponge-like properties of

advanced brown-rotted wood act as a moisture wick. Because of the high lignin concentrations,

and low carbohydrate rates, soil wood persists in the forest for a long time (Blanchette 1995).

The soil wood in the Harris Vegetation Management Project area is generally adequate. Soil

cover from organic matter is nearly continuous throughout the project area except old skid trails

and landings. Even where cover is naturally patchy, such as in woodland and shrub vegetation

types, soil cover standards are met (well exceeding 50 percent as described above). Average

observed depth of litter is 2 cm and duff is 2 cm also but total organics range from 1 cm to 13

cm. The thin litter and duff layer in this area is likely due to high rates of decomposition and the

organic matter is most likely incorporated in the top soil horizon and to areas that were

windrowed and in plantations. In addition to cover directly on the soil surface, most locations

within the project area have a canopy cover of perennial, live vegetation which serves as a

relatively continuous source of replenishment for soil organic matter. Also charcoal is found in

all the units indicating this ecosystem experiences fire and may therefore have shallower

litter/duff layers overall.

Currently, coarse woody debris (CWD) greater than 20 inches in diameter is relatively sparse

throughout the entire project area which is consistent with historic fire regime for the area

(Skinner 2002, McIver et. al. 2012). The quadratic mean diameter of project stands ranges from

about 9.4” to 14.4” (Silviculture Report p. 41-42). Because of the stand age and average tree

sizes, the availability of trees larger than 20” is limited. Remnant large diameter trees and snags

are present, although these size classes are under-represented on the forest floor in most surveyed

units.

Soil Porosity 1.4.3

Soil porosity refers to the amount and character of void space within the soil. In a “typical” soil

approximately 50 percent of the soil volume is void space. Pore space is lost primarily through

mechanical compaction. Three fundamental processes are negatively impacted by compromised

soil pore space: 1) Gas exchange; 2) Soil water infiltration rates; and 3) Water holding capacity.



1.4.3.1 Gas Exchange

Soil oxygen is fundamental to all soil biologic activity. Roots, soil fauna, and fungi all respire,

using oxygen while releasing carbon dioxide. When gas exchange is compromised, biologic

activity is also compromised. Maintaining appropriate soil biologic activity is paramount when

considering long-term forest vitality. 1.4.3.2 Soil Water Infiltration Rates and Water Holding Capacity

Soil compaction can reducewater infiltration, leading to overland flow and associated erosion,

sediment delivery, spring flooding, and low summer flows. Roads, primary skid trails, and

landings have the most compaction. Timing of operations is key since activities on moist soils

can cause compaction and puddling. Operations on dry or frozen soils helps maintain the soil’s

natural ability to quickly restore pore spaces. Available water holding capacity is compromised

by compaction since less water infiltrates to be held for plant growth.

In the Harris Vegetation Management Project area, compaction was found on existing skid trails

in most of the treatment units. In units 55, 176, 187, 189, 192, 194, and 200, skid trails occupy

15 percent of the unit and up to 35 percent in unit 194. It is important to note that the skid trails

have varying degrees of soil compaction depending on whether they were used as a primary,

secondary, or tertiary skid trail.

Generally coarse fragments in the Harris project area range from 20-35 percent coarse fragments

with a sandy loam texture. Soils with higher ash content also have increased susceptibility to

compaction. Several units in the project area have a pumice overburden, which are less

susceptible to compaction damage.

Riparian soils (Morical and Aquic Xerofluvent) are seasonally wet with stratified outwash layers

that pond water and provide potential habitat for wetland vegetation. But due to cold winter

seasons, shading from timber, and rapid drying during the summer wetlands are very limited in

the Harris Vegetation Management Area (see Appendix E).

Overall, approximately 37 percent of the treatment units had slight disturbance between 0 and 5

percent, 32 percent had moderate disturbance (between 6 and 12 percent) soil disturbance, and

the remaining 13 percent were highly disturbed. Currently, two proposed treatment units (42 and

200) exceed the forest plan standards for compaction in subsurface soil at the 4 to 8 inch depth

and three units (181, 186, and 193) are right at the threshold. Observed detrimental disturbance

due to compaction was associated with old primary skid trails, landings, and user created trails.

Average areal extent of detrimental compaction observed within ground-based treatment units

was about 7 percent (within a general range of 0-15 percent). Detrimental soil compaction is

measured by a 10 percent decrease in porosity.

Based on these initial findings further analysis was conducted to determine if the disturbance

correlated to detrimental soil conditions that affect soil productivity. Sampling was conducted in

2011 (Table 3 below) using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese,

et. al. 2009) on units previously identified as over or near soil disturbance thresholds (see

Appendix C).



Table 3 – Soil Disturbance Monitoring on Selected Impacted Sites (Appendix C)

Taking the average soil disturbance of the selected impacted sites above, shows only 5% of the

area is detrimentally disturbed. Units 42 and 181 are near threshold levels and only unit 200

exceeded soil compaction threshold levels. Units 42 and 181 occur on Germany soils and bulk

density samples show decreases in soil porosity on 8 to 10% of the units. Unit 200 occurs on

Oval soils and bulk density samples show decrease in soil porosity exceeding threshold levels on

12% of the unit.

Monitoring from the STNF National Forest (Rust 2009b, Foss 2010) from 2001 to 2010 found

that when soils are dry2 to 8 inches, detrimental compaction does not occur. Resource protection

measures restricting operation during wet weather have been effective according to monitoring

results on the forest (Table 4).

2 Dry is defined as “when soils are dry (generally less than 18% soil moisture) enough to operate mechanical

equipment without causing detrimental soil impacts of erosion, compaction, puddling, or displacement.”

Unit Proportion 0's Proportion 1's Proportion 2's Proportion 3's

Detrimental

Proportion

20 0.05 0.89 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

25 0.02 0.97 0.02 0.00 0.00

26 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.02

27 0.02 0.94 0.04 0.00 0.04

28 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00

39 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00

42 0.00 0.93 0.06 0.01 0.00

54 0.09 0.86 0.05 0.00 0.00

55 0.11 0.86 0.03 0.00 0.00

181 0.01 0.90 0.09 0.00 0.00

192 0.00 0.97 0.03 0.00 0.00

193 0.01 0.94 0.04 0.00 0.00

200 0.00 0.87 0.06 0.06 0.00

Average: 0.03 0.93 0.04 0.01 0.00

Soil Type Disturbance Moist Wt. Dry Wt. % Moist. Bd (g/cm) Porosity % Porosity ∆,% Threshold BD

0 134.60 116.90 15.14 0.87 64.40 0.00

1 154.70 135.20 14.42 1.01 58.83 8.65

2 185.25 161.63 14.62 1.21 50.79 21.15

0 142.50 121.25 17.53 0.90 63.08 0.00

1 157.25 134.00 17.35 1.00 59.20 6.15

2 172.00 142.00 21.13 1.06 56.76 10.02

0 135.38 116.88 15.83 0.87 64.41 0.00

1 154.13 132.50 16.32 0.99 59.65 7.39

2 168.00 143.00 17.48 1.07 56.46 5.36

3 192.00 166.00 15.66 1.24 49.45 23.22

0 138.00 117.33 17.61 0.88 64.27 0.00

1 149.83 126.67 18.29 0.94 61.43 4.42

2 164.17 139.50 17.68 1.04 57.52 6.36

3 194.50 164.50 18.24 1.23 49.91 22.35

166 - Ledmount 1.03

240 - Ovall 1.03

Harris Unit Average by Soil Type

Estimated Soil Disturbance Class

69 - Germany 1.03

71 - Germany 1.06

Harris Soil Disturbance

Averages

Proportion 0's

Proportion 1's

Proportion 2's

Proportion 3's



Table 4. Soil compaction monitoring on Shasta-Trinity National Forest from 2002 to 2012

Project Soil

1

U D ST U D ST

Timber Sales (25 ea)

Iron Cyn I - moist Boomer F-L (Post)* 34.0 32.0 34.0 0.0 8.7 11.1

Iron Cyn II Boomer F-L (Pre) 67.0 22.0 11.0 0.0 1.5 7.4

Boomer F-L (Post)* 16.0 60.0 24.0 0.0 1.0 8.1

Browns - moist Forbes F-L (Pre) 51.0 29.0 20.0 0.0 9.0 11.0

Browns2 - moist Forbes F-L (Pre) 62.0 24.0 14.0 0.0 7.0 20.0

Forbes F-L (Post)* 50.0 28.0 22.0 0.0 6.0 8.0

Professor Neuns L-Skl (Pre) 96.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

Neuns L-Skl (Post)* 55.0 27.0 18.0 0.0 4.7 4.8

Pettijohn - moist Forbes F-L (Pre) 55.0 23.0 22.0 0.0 3.8 9.7

Gemmil Hugo F-L (Pre) 66.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 3.4 8.2

Salt Holland F-L (Pre) 53.0 27.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 2.0

Reynolds Basin - moist Boomer F-L (Pre) 68.0 25.0 7.0 0.0 1.2 5.4

Boomer F-L (Post)* 39.0 26.0 18.0 0.0 4.6 12.0

McCloud Black Stain Holland F-L Ashy (Pre) 48.0 31.0 21.0 0.0 2.6 10.3

Shasta Co-L (Pre) 42.0 39.0 19.0 0.0 5.1 9.0

Algoma Holland F-L Ashy (Pre) 41.0 50.0 9.0 0.0 3.7 8.9

Sadie Loam (Pre) 57.0 34.0 9.0 0.0 6.3 13.4

Davis2 Holland F-L Ashy (Post)* 34.0 44.0 22.0 0.0 1.8 15.0

Germany Loam (Post)* 35.0 42.0 23.0 0.0 7.2 8.9

Edson Germany Loam (Post)* 2.0 71.0 27.0 0.0 8.1 16.3

Holland F-L Ashy (Post)* 5.0 73.0 22.0 0.0 4.8 14.0

Elk Shasta Co-L (Pre) 55.0 35.0 10.0 0.0 9.2 9.5

Flog Germany Loam (Post)* 3.0 76.0 22.0 0.0 12.0 14.0

Shasta Co-L (Post)* 0.0 79.0 21.0 0.0 11.0 13.0

Harris Germany Loam (Pre) 3.0 92.0 5.0 0.0 7.0 13.0

Hemlock Germany Loam (Post)* 77.0 22.0 1.0 0.0 5.7 8.4

Moosehead Holland F-L Ashy (Pre) 24.0 61.0 15.0 0.0 1.9 3.8

Germany Loam (Pre) 33.0 60.0 7.0 0.0 10.3 10.8

Mudflow Germany Loam (Pre) 38.0 42.0 20.0 0.0 3.3 10.5

Shasta Co-L (Pre) 67.0 27.0 6.0 0.0 0.5 1.8

Porcupine Holland F-L Ashy (Pre) 54.0 41.0 5.0 0.0 3.3 14.2

Germany Loam (Pre) 72.0 24.0 4.0 0.0 2.7 10.8

Beegum-C - moist Holland F-L (Pre) 60.0 28.0 12.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

Holland F-L (Post)* 48.0 32.0 20.0 0.0 8.0 13.0

E. Fork 2 Holland F-L (Post)* 52.0 33.0 15.0 0.0 2.1 4.3

Rattlesnake Holland F-L (Pre) 63.0 26.0 11.0 0.0 1.0 7.1

Trough Hugo F-L (Post)* 42.0 40.0 28.0 0.0 3.6 9.4

Soil Compaction Monitoring on Shasta-Trinity National Forest from 2001 to 2012

Disturbance2

Decrease in Porosity3

------------------------------------------%------------------------------------------



The main soil type found in the Harris Vegetation Management Project area is Germany and

these soils are much less compactable than Holland soils. Skid trails in the Harris Project are

compacted with an average of 13 percent decrease in porosity on 5 percent of the units.

Monitoring on the adjacent Klamath National Forest with similar soil types noted that while

compaction does occur on landings and main skid trails (usually only within about 200 feet of

the landings where multiple passes of machinery coalesce), it is generally less than 15 percent of

the unit (Laurent 2007). Areas on the Klamath where detrimental compaction was found were

effectively rehabilitated by subsoiling. The STNF has also incorporated subsoiling to reduce

compaction and improve infiltration on projects on the Shasta-McCloud Management Unit.

The table above shows soil compaction monitored projects from 2001 to 2012. Soil types are

listed from fine-loamy soils (Boomer, Forbes, Holland, and Hugo) to coarse soils (Neuns, Marpa,

Germany, Sadie, and Shasta) on tractor based slopes of 2 to 40%. Disturbance levels are noted as

U is undisturbed sites (SD0), D is areas with moderate levels of disturbance (SD1), and ST is

areas that have definite skid-trails (SD2&3). Breaking out fine textured (fine-loamy and loamy)

soils from coarse textured (coarse-loamy and loamy-skeletal) soils showed more post-harvest

skid-trails at threshold bulk density for fine soils vs. coarse soils, indicating fine textured soils

are more susceptible to compaction than coarse textured soils. This data shows on the average

across all soil types current mechanical harvesting operations decrease porosity on skid-trails

only by 1% from pre-harvest levels due to better equipment, effective BMPs, and site specific

mitigations. Total disturbance increased on an average of 12 to 15% using new harvest methods

but this disturbance is not detrimental. New harvest equipment is lighter on the ground but has a

bigger footprint.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Methodology 1.5.1

Soil resources on the project area have been reviewed using soil survey data, data in GIS, and

field reconnaissance. Most of the units have been field reviewed by the soil scientist to verify

mapping, identify areas where soil productivity may be affected by proposed actions, and

examine current disturbance on site. Best management practices (BMPs) and resource protection

measures for soil protection in harvest units and along road segments are based on field data.

Effects analyses are based on the proposed silvicultural prescriptions and fuel treatments.

In determining a significant change in productivity, a 15 percent reduction in inherent soil

productivity potential will be used as a basis for setting threshold values. This 15 percent

reduction is generally considered a reduction of productivity over 15 percent of an area.

Threshold values would apply to measurable or observable soil properties or conditions that are

sensitive to significant change. The threshold values, along with aerial extent limits, would serve

as an early warning signal of reduced soil productive capacity, where changes to management

practices or rehabilitation measures may be warranted.

Management activities have potential to cause various types and degrees of disturbance. Soil

disturbance is categorized into compaction, displacement, puddling, severe burning, and erosion.

Direction was established that properties, measures, and thresholds relative to these disturbance

types would be developed at the Regional and Forest levels, known as soil quality standards.



The effects of each alternative on the soil resource have been assessed using the Region 5 Soil

Quality Standards and the Forest Plan. Soil quality analysis standards provide threshold values

that indicate when changes in soil properties and soil conditions would result in significant

change or impairment of the productivity potential, hydrologic function, or buffering capacity of

the soil. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for soils state that in an even-aged managed stand

no more than 15% of the area shall be in a nonproductive state (landings, roads, and main skid-

trails) on matrix lands (Forest Plan Chapter 4 section 4-25). These standards apply to the soil

project bounding area only (treatment units).

The best available science was used in analyzing the soils and the effects of the Harris

Vegetation Management Project. The most current and relevant reports were used. Studies and

monitoring were related to the specific project area.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 1.5.2

The analysis area or bounding area, for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the soil

resource includes the proposed harvest units. This is the area that is expected to be directly

impacted by any silvicultural or fuel reduction activities. The Harris Vegetation Management

Project area is used to qualitatively discuss the past activities outside of proposed treatment units.

Please see the hydrology resource report for cumulative watershed effects.

The soil analysis includes the current environmental conditions as they reflect the aggregate

impact of both human and natural activities within the proposed treatment units. Many of the

past activities were not known prior to doing field surveys. GIS analysis prior to field surveys

did not have any past harvest activities documented in proposed units except for the plantations.

The evidence of railroad logging and yarding patterns are evident on the 1944 aerial photos.

The following units of measure will be used to describe the differences among alternatives.

Percent detrimental soil conditions from thinning and fuel operations, including skid trails, treatment

units, etc. post-activity will be evaluated by using pre-harvest conditions vs. proposed alternatives.

Number of units that have a high risk of exceeding soil quality standards with planned alternatives.

Assumptions 1.5.3

The effect of proposed activities have varying recovery rates depending on the degree of

disturbance, duration of disturbance effect, distribution of disturbance (pattern), and soil

variability. Soil compaction within the project area will vary depending on the existing

condition, type of harvest, equipment, and use of resource protection measures. Soil compaction

is reduced over the timeframe due to inputs from plant roots, other organics, and physical

weathering Table 4). Erosion recovery ranges from two to five years and fertility is one to three

years depending if the area has not been windrowed. Windrowed units that have topsoil removal

will begin to recover with windrow respreading.

The effect of management on soil recovery is dependent on soil type, climate, moisture, cover

and time. Different soil characteristics (erosion or compaction or fertility) have different

estimated recovery rates (Table 5). There are short term increases in erosion but over a two to

five year span those rates decrease. Reduced duff and dead woody material reduce fertility in the



short-term but recover quickly except areas windrowed. Residual trees will respond with

increased growth, root mass, soil organic matter and an overall increase of soil fertility when

released.

Table 5. Recovery rates for mechanical understory thinning soils

Soil Type Erosion Compaction Fertility

Ledmount 2-3 years 1-5 years 1-2 years

Sheld 1-2 years 1-2 years 1-2 years

Germany 2-3 years 10-20 years 1-2 years

Neer 2-3 years 5-10 years 2-3 years

Washougal 2-3 years 5-10 years 2-3 years

Ovall-ponded 3-5 years 5-10 years 1-2 years

Rust, 2009b and 2010, Foss 2010

Post thinning and fuel treatment activities should leave at least 50 percent of soil cover in the

form of duff, litter, slash, and large woody debris (LWD). Operations should minimize

disturbance to existing duff layer, maintaining as much of the existing duff onsite as possible.

Soil cover from duff, vegetation or surface rock fragments should be maintained to keep erosion

rates at natural levels. Where units exceed 15 percent areal extent from detrimental disturbance

from compaction, landings and the first 200 feet of primary skid trails should be subsoiled (deep

tillage) to reduce compaction.

Roads, landings or other transportation features would be treated to meet best management

practice (BMP) and water quality standards. Classified roads, borrow pits, and utility corridors

are a permanent commitment of resources and are not counted as detrimental soil disturbance as

they are not part of the productive land base.

The aerial extent for skid trails and landings would be 15 percent or less of an activity area

(generally a unit). Porosity (an expression of compaction) will not decrease by less than 10

percent over background levels through a unit (outside of dedicated skid trails and landings)

(Forest Plan, Appendix O - Soil Quality Standards).

The organic mat (fine slash less than 3 inches and duff layer) should be preserved as much as

operations allow. Maintaining this layer would moderate soil temperatures, nutrient processes,

soil biological health, and support the long term soil productivity. Retention of at least 50 percent

soil cover in the form of slash, duff, and litter would meet the Forest Plan tonnage requirement of

at least five tons per acre. Maintaining slash up to 50 percent has been shown to be beneficial for

forest regeneration by attenuating soil temperatures, increasing soil moisture, and reducing

competition for conifer regeneration (Harrington, 2013). Also, the duff mitigates compressive

forces on the soil. Coarse woody debris, when occurring in forested areas, should be of sufficient

size and number to be consistent with the forest vegetation type. The extent and distribution of

coarse woody debris will vary both spatially and temporally and provide spatial heterogeneity

within forested stands. Anticipated new disturbance from ground based yarding averages about 9

percent of an activity area (Table 4). This is not all detrimental soil disturbance. Detrimental soil

conditions are calculated for the individual harvest units by harvest methods. The current level of

detrimental disturbance is 5 percent for the project area (Rust 2012). Since most of the existing

skid trails would be reused, newer equipment, and effective BMP’s and site specific mitigations,

new disturbance would generally overlap old disturbance adding only 1 percent cumulative

detrimental soil compaction. Disturbance from tractor harvesting in winter conditions would be



less due to logging on snow or frozen ground. No monitoring following winter harvest has

occurred on the Shasta Shasta-Trinity National Forest. However, monitoring in Region 1 on the

Lolo National Forest found winter harvesting created about 5 percent disturbance, but again this

new disturbance would overlap existing disturbance adding about 9 percent cumulative

disturbance to a particular unit but only 1 percent increase in detrimental soil disturbance.3

Detrimental soil disturbances from fuel treatments are estimated at an additional 1 percent for

mastication or underburning, 2 percent for mechanical brush piling and burning, negligible for

handpiling for each unit.

Erosion risk for all units is low due to the gentle slopes and high infiltration capacity of the ash-

derived soils (most soils are in hydrologic group B). Erosion is predicted to remain low in all

units and in all action alternatives due to soils that are very deep to deep, well drained and gentle

slopes. The erosion hazard rating model rated three soils at low-moderate after treatment due to

small portions of steeper slopes (appendix A). The steepest slopes possible in the units were used

in the model so this is the highest post treatment risk. Generally, proposed harvest is on slopes

from 0 to 15 percent, much gentler than modeled.

By implementing all resource protection measures (soil design features), BMPs, and standard

timber sale contract clauses, all units should meet Forest Plan soil quality standards. There

should be less than 15 percent of any unit in skid trails or other non-productive state, adequate

cover should minimize erosion, added slash and maintenance of the duff layer should maintain

soil biological process, soil fertility, and ultimately soil productivity.

Many of the proposed units are located on the rocky coarser-textured soils which would resist

compaction and impacts could be less than anticipated (Welke and Fryles 2005).

Resource Protection Measures 1.5.4

The following resource protection measures are included and should apply (all resource

protection measures can be found in chapter 2 of the EIS).

Table 6. Resource protection measures for soils

Soil

Number Resource Protection Measure Alternatives Units/Location

S-1

Reuse existing skid trails and landings where possible and dedicate no more than 15 percent of a harvest unit to primary skid trails and landings to limit the extent of skid trail and landing impacts. Till landings and main skid trails within 200 feet of landings with equipment such as a winged subsoiler or other tilling device to a maximum depth of 18 inches so that the soil is lifted vertically and fractured laterally to alleviate detrimental compaction (where it occurs) following completion of all management activities. Tillage will be completed outside of the tree drip line so as not to impact root systems.

1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c

Units 1,2,4-20,22,25-30,33-

38,40,41,43,45-52,54,56-

58,113,173,174,175,180-182,184-

189,192-200,223

3 Detrimental soil disturbance vs. soil disturbance is defined as “detrimental soil disturbance is when SQS threshold

levels are exceeded causing a reduction in soil productivity. Soil disturbance is when SQS threshold levels are not

exceeded and that does not cause a reduction in soil productivity”.



Soil

Number Resource Protection Measure Alternatives Units/Location

S-2

Implement best management practices (BMPs) and Forest soil quality standards for all activities. These BMPs will be used to prevent or mitigate project-associated effects related to soil erosion, compaction, and productivity. BMPs are found in Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California (USDA Forest Service 2000).

1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c

All units

S-3

Redistribute soil windrows in old plantations post-harvest to restore soil productivity. Plantation units 185 and 199 will be evaluated post-harvest to determine if windrow respreading is necessary.

1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c

Units 40, 185, 197 and 199.

S-4 Maintain ground cover (duff, leaves) across at least 50 percent of all activity areas to maintain soil productivity where available.

1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c

All units

S-5

Limiting the operating period (LOP) of timber sale activities: The objective of Practice S-5 is to ensure that the purchasers conduct their operations, including erosion control work and road maintenance, in a timely manner and within the timeframe specified in the timber sale contract. The extent of the wet weather and snowmelt season in Northern California can be very unpredictable, therefore a fixed Limited Operating Period for wet weather conditions will not be set for any of the proposed actions described in the EIS. Timber sale contract provision B6.6 can be used to close down operations because of wet weather, high water, or other considerations in order to protect resources. The spring snowmelt period (April-May) is the time when the potential for soil impacts are greatest. The sale administrator will be responsible for ensuring that timber harvest activities will not degrade the soil and water resource. .

1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b

Units 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 39, 42, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 173, 180, 181, 185, 186, 192, 194, 196, 199, 200.

4c

Units 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 39, 42, 45, 52, 53-55, 57, 173, 180. 181, 185, 186, 192, 194, 196, 199

S-6

Conduct post-treatment FSDMP monitoring 1-3 years post-treatment to evaluate soil conditions including CWD.

All Representative units that include different soils and treatments.

Desired Condition for all units 1.5.5

Soil productivity is retained or improved in all treatment units.

At the end of project activities, a layer of ground cover should occur over at least 50 percent of

the activity area including duff, slash, and coarse woody debris.



Alternative 1 – Proposed Action 1.5.6

1.5.6.1 Direct Effects

Proposed activities would have short-term direct negative effects on forest soils. However, by

implementing the soil resource protection measures prescribed here and shown in chapter 2 of

the EIS the project would meet or exceed the Forest Plan soil quality standards as shown below,

and would therefore not have a significant impact to soils.

Effects include:

Compaction;

Rutting and displacement;

Soil-burn-severity;

Degraded litter layer and soil organic matter caused by increased decomposition rates and lack of

appropriate annual litter contributions;

Coarse woody debris. Proposed activities use techniques that maintain or promote natural soil

bio-physical resiliency. The effect of proposed activities should be relatively short compared to

techniques used in the past due to newer logging systems and resilient soils. By retaining natural

elements and processes we can expect soil impacts to be nearly undetectable within 10 to 20

years based on professional judgment and experience on these soil types. Freeze-thaw cycles,

soil organisms, and root growth will help alleviate compaction and rutting. Soil displacement

may last longer, but design features minimize soil displacement (Soil Design Features: S-1, S-2).

Units 181, 186, and 193 are near the threshold for detrimental disturbance with 8 to 12 percent

detrimental disturbance. Following Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and project

resource protection measure (including subsoiling of landings and heavily used skid trails)

should reduce adverse effects and improve soil physical, chemical and biological properties.

(Soil Design Feature: S-2). Monitoring has found that when soils are dry4 to 8 inches,

detrimental compaction does not occur. Resource protection measures restricting operation

during wet weather have been effective according to monitoring results on the forest.

Units 42 and 200 have detrimental soil disturbance levels above 10 percent in existing landings

and skid trails. Those units with ashy soils are more easily rutted and compacted especially

during wet weather. Other ashy soils with more sand (e.g. Germany, Ledmount families) are less

susceptible to compaction (unit 42). The risk of exceeding standards is minimized by reusing

existing skid trails, operating during dry weather or frozen soil conditions, minimizing the sizes

of landings, and rehabilitating sections of skid trails and landings. A limited operating period,

when soils are dry to eight inches, has been effective at preventing detrimental compaction on

fine-textured soils (Rust 2009c). Reusing existing skid trails and minimizing size of landings

should keep the aerial extent of disturbance to a minimum, because a smaller impacted area

leaves more of the unit in an undisturbed state. Mechanical harvesting operations should only

increase compaction by 1 percent due to better operations, equipment, and soil resource

protection measures as show by the STNF Monitoring (Table 4 and Soil Design Feature: S-5).

4 Dry is defined as “when soils are dry (generally less than 18% soil moisture) enough to operate mechanical

equipment without causing detrimental soil impacts of erosion, compaction, puddling, or displacement.”



Units 40, 185, 197, and 199 are ponderosa pine plantations. When initially harvested, organic

matter and the top soil horizon were scraped into piles (windrows) on the edges of these units.

This organic matter and top soil horizon are crucial for soil productivity. The loss of organic

matter due to windrowing has a direct effect on site productivity and sustainability. In these

units, the soil piles would be redistributed throughout the unit to increase soil productivity and

increase the resiliency of these units. Windrow respreading has been used in several locations on

the STNF near the Harris Vegetation Management Project Area and has been found to be

effective (Van Susteren 2010 and Soil Design Feature: S-3).

Tractor piling brush in these units when soils are dry would not increase soil compaction due to

the degree, extent, distribution, and duration of the activity. The areal extent of tractor piling is

limited to slash concentrations and the equipment will operate over existing slash which reduces

the degree of impact to the forest floor. Some soil displacement may occur associated with

equipment operations but this too should be limited in extent due to flat topography and the

spatially patch distribution of activity generated slash. The fuel prescription requires

approximately four tons of slash in the unit (see fuels specialist report). The remaining slash will

provide for soil cover, erosion control, and provides a source of nutrient supply over time. The

five tons of slash is in addition to duff and smaller surface organics that would remain in the unit

(Soil Design Features: S-2, S-4).

Landings may range from 0.5 to 0.75 acre in size and will require approximately 70 landings for

this alternative. This equates to 35 to 53 acres in landings or 1.9% of the treatment acres in

landings. Approximately 1/3 of needed landings already exist. Landings that are on fine-textured

soils will be subsoiled to breakup compaction and return them to production. Other landings on

rocky soils do not compact to levels that are detrimental and will not be subsoiled (Rust, 2011).

The effects of fuel treatments on soils vary by method. Generally, hand methods have less of an

impact on soils than mechanical treatments (Table 7). Adverse effects from tractor piling to soil

fertility can occur if there is no mitigation; it is estimated to add two percent detrimental soil

disturbance as displacement to the activity unit (Young 2009). It is important to retain the duff

layer, slash and coarse woody debris in the units to maintain site productivity (Soil Design

Feature: S-2). The use of a brush rake or other techniques minimize soil disturbance by lifting or

rolling branches, etc., into piles while leaving finer organic materials to maintain adequate soil

cover (Roath 2006). Equipment operations would occur in units where it is necessary to meet

fuel loading requirements and only on those portions of a unit with excess logging slash

(typically 20 percent to 30 percent of a unit and only in certain units).

Prescribed Fire

Harvesting followed by prescribed burning will help to restore the natural role of fire to the

ecosystem. Burn plans that maintain approximately 50% soil cover will reduce potential for

erosion, and will provide for nutrient cycling. Needle cast is often observed post-fire treatment as

well as a vegetative response including grasses and herbaceous plants. In burned stands, there

could be up to 5 percent tree mortality and these trees would contribute to the coarse woody

debris of the stand.

Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning approximately 1.9 miles of roads would improve previously compacted road

beds by improving infiltration and restoring soil productivity through the addition of organic



material, and revegetation of bare areas. Rehabilitation through decompaction and/or

recontouring helps to restore the area to natural conditions, and initiates a long-term recovery

process. Anticipated results of road decommissioning include improvements in hydrologic

function that otherwise may be prolonged as soil compaction persists.

Road Maintenance

Proposed road maintenance includes improving road drainage, and site visibility. Treatments

may include rolling dips, culvert installation, outsloping, placement of aggregate base, and road

brushing to name a few. These actions disperse run-off and reduce erosion both on and off the

traveledway. Actions that improve road-side visibility reduce the risk of accidents.

Table 7. Fuel treatments and their qualitative effect on soils

Treatment Effects on Soil

Tractor Pile

. Topsoil is sometimes inadvertently mixed in with slash causing soil displacement. Keeping piles dirt-free and operating on residual slash minimize impacts. Use of a brush-rake reduces soil in piles.(2% detrimental disturbance as displacement)

Mastication

Fuel rearrangement, increased soil cover, temperature, moisture and microbe activity, possible short-term (less than 2 years) C/N imbalance if too much incorporation. The mulched material created by the masticator reduces the risk of soil compaction. (1% detrimental disturbance as displacement)

Jackpot pile

Treatment includes burning piles in the unit and at the landing. Concentrated areas of fuel consumed can be hot but are limited on the landscape, and do not increase overland erosion above natural rates. (Negligible detrimental soil disturbance)

Underburn

Treatment reduces surface slash and understory vegetation, generally at a low to moderated -intensity burn in a mosaic pattern across the landscape similar to what occurs in nature. This releases nutrients to the soil that are integral to plant growth. (Negligible detrimental soil disturbance)

1.5.6.2 Indirect Effects

There are several indirect effects associated with changes to soil physical properties including

reduced water infiltration rates, leading to increased overland flow and associated erosion and

sediment delivery to streams. Increased overland flow also increases intensity of spring flooding,

degrading the morphological integrity of streams, and contributing to low summer flows. Soil

compaction decreases gas exchange, which in turn degrades sub-surface biological activity and

above-ground forest vitality. Rutting and displacement cause the same indirect effects as

compaction and also channel water in an inappropriate fashion, increasing erosion potential. The

degree of soil burn severity can indirectly influence many forest elements and processes,

including changes in hydrology as described above, and decreased biologic activity. Loss of

organic matter decreases natural resiliency to disturbance, nutrient cycling and availability, soil

water and nutrient-holding capacity, and aggregate formation and all benefits associated with

aggregation. Forest soil is influenced in similar ways by both lack of coarse woody debris and

lack of organic matter.

Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees, and if there is

significant reduction in the litter layer and woody debris are removed. Depending on the amount

of trees which are retained on site, whole-tree harvesting, as compared to conventional sawlog or

thinning operations, extracts larger amounts of biomass and nutrients, especially nutrient-rich



foliage, from the site. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site varies with forest

types and particular site conditions (Grier et al. 1989). The amount of nutrients present in the

trees also varies with stand age and development of the humus layer (Grier et al. 1989). Data

suggest that nutrient losses from whole-tree harvesting are considerably greater when compared

to conventional sawlog harvesting for all nutrients. Calcium losses are particularly large for

whole-tree harvesting due to the high concentrations of calcium present in the wood fiber of

twigs, branches, and boles (Adams 1998, Mann et al. 1988). Soil design feature S-6 is designed

to address situations where openings may be created to remove dead and dying trees (insect

infestation, root disease, etc.). Fuel treatments planned include machine pile & burn, mastication,

and prescribed burning. Maintaining fine slash (less than 3 inches) rich in nutrients on shallow to

sandy soils will buffer these units. Prescribed fire can increase available nitrogen for one to two

years following fire (Choromanska and DeLuca 2002). Burning slash piles can create high

temperatures in concentrated areas, leading to volatilization of nitrogen, and loss of phosphorus

and potassium (DeBano 1981). Burn plans that incorporate a burn mosaic throughtout the unit

ensure litter layers and organic matter are kept intact, nutrient losses are minimized from burning

slash and are localized. Nitrogen-fixing plants can colonize sites following fire and help restore

nitrogen in the ecosystem (Newland and DeLuca 2000, Jurgensen et al. 1997). Generally, if

plants colonize sites following fire, nutrient levels can reach pre-fire levels quickly (Certini

2005). Also charcoal deposited following fire also adds carbon to the soil (DeLuca and Aplet

2007). Monitoring of machine pile burns on the Pilgrim Project on the Shasta-McCloud

Management Unit indicated that there are little soil impacts from machine piling and burning

using small tractors with brush rakes. Generally soil burning only extended down to 2 inches in

hot burned areas and for the rest of the piles it was 1 inch or less. Soil displacement was minimal

along with soil compaction (Rust 2012).

Indirect effects of soil nutrient loss on forest vegetation include reduced growth and yield and

increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease (Garrison and Moore 1998, Garrison-

Johnston 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnston et al. 2003 and 2004). Precipitation

(Stark 1979) and weathering of rocks would continue to make additional nutrients available on

site. Annual needle, leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality would continue to recycle

nutrients as well.

To prevent root disease, Sporax would be applied to cut stumps (RD-1), which should result in a

slight reduction in soil biotic activity in small areas. However, research has shown that it should

not contribute a significant amount of boron to the soil. Amounts applied to stumps are generally

small and are confined to a small area (USDA Forest Service 2006).

To summarize: maintaining soil organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil on at least 85

percent of the site by limiting detrimental disturbance to 15 percent or less of the unit area should

not alter nutrient cycling and availability, and should maintain soil productivity. The project

design features prescribed above and shown in chapter 2 of the FEIS would meet or exceed

Forest Plan soil quality standards (the established standard for protecting soil resources) and

would not have a significant impact to soils.

1.5.6.3 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of human activities.

For activities to be considered cumulative their effects need to overlap in both time and space



with those of the proposed actions. For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the unit

because effects on soils are site specific.

Fire and Fire Suppression

Active fire suppression has protected much of the Harris area over the past decades but has

resulted in increased fuel loading. The proposed harvest and subsequent treatments including

machine piling, mastication and under burning would improve overall forest health and

resilience. Treatments that reduce both current levels of infected dead and dying trees and

overstocked stands would help to reduce the risk of fire. Fuel model 9 accounts for a large part

of the project area and is characterized by closed canopy conifer stands with densely stocked

pole size trees in the understory. Typically, these stands contain pockets of dead and down

woody fuels. These fuels create high fire intensities during ground fires that can cause adverse

impacts to the soil resource. Fires with lower intensity and severity would reduce the potential

for excessive soil heating and sterilization as well as hydrophobic conditions that tend to increase

sediment movement, flooding, and possible slope instability (DeDios Benavides-Soloria and

McDonald 2005, Neary et al. 2005).The proposed risk reduction treatments will help restore.

Grazing

There are two vacant allotments that overlap with the Harris Vegetation Management Project

Area; the Toad Mountain allotment and the McCloud/Hambone Allotment.

Climate Change

The climate in Northern California is predicted to change in the near future. Increases in

temperature are likely and a change in precipitation is predicted as well but there is no clear trend

on precipitation changes (CEC 2006). What changes will actually occur and how these changes

will affect the soil resource are still unknown. Increased precipitation could lead to increased

erosion from rainfall (Nearing et al. 2004), but this is unlikely in the Harris Vegetation

Management Project area because of slopes and lack of water. Increased precipitation could also

lead to higher soil moisture levels and increased productivity (Nearing et al. 2004). Increased

temperature will increase soil respiration which will decrease carbon levels in the soil and

increase CO2 released into the atmosphere along with increased decomposition rate (Safford,

2011). Also predicted is a shift in species composition which could affect the soil resource (CEC

2006). Changes in species could affect litter and duff layers, nutrient cycling and soil

productivity.

There are insignificant cumulative effects to soils from global warming in the project area if soils

project design features are implemented.

Cumulative effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities: The following known

ongoing and foreseeable activities in the area would not overlap in space with the current

proposed activities and therefore would not have cumulative soil impacts.

Road maintenance

Firewood cutting

Mushroom picking

Dispersed recreation, including: driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, camping and hunting.

Fire suppression

Noxious weed control: monitoring of noxious weeds, prevention and control measures (hand

methods, no herbicides).



Remaining underburning in portions of the Betty Davis units of Davis NEPA.

There are no private lands within the project boundary. All lands within the project boundary are

National Forest System lands.

Alternative 2 1.5.7


Direct effects for alternative 2 would be similar to those of alternative 1, but alternative 2 treats

fewer total acres (2,617 acres versus 2,772 acres in alternative 1). This alternative would retain

more cover in the Harris Mountain LSR and would not have hazard reduction treatments

occurring in the LSR area. Retaining canopy cover in these areas would have less impact on

nutrient cycling and increase the soil resiliency of these sites to disturbance.


Indirect effects would be similar to those of alternative 1.


This alternative would have the same cumulative effects in units outside of the LSR as

alternative 1.

Alternative 3 1.5.8


The total acreage proposed for treatment in alternative 3 is less than alternative 1 (2,274 acres

versus 2,772 acres in alternative 1). Additionally no stands would be cut with less than 60

percent canopy cover, no hazard reduction treatments would occur, and no fuel reduction

activities would take place (machine pile and burn or mastication). No treatment would take

place in units 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 33, 34, 54, 56, 180, 181, 189, 192, 194, 196, 197, 199 and 223;

therefore, no direct effects would occur in these units. Units 36, 41, 174, 183, 185, and 193

would only be underburned in this alternative and burning effects would be the only effects on

these units. Currently units 42 and 200 are over 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance.

Alternative 3 would have the least impact on soil productivity of all of the action alternatives.


Indirect effects would be less than those of alternative 1.


Cumulative effects would be less than alternative 1 especially in the units listed above that would

not have treatment in this alternative.

Alternative 4a 1.5.9


Direct effects would be similar to those in alternative 1 except that the units proposed for

masticated treatments only (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) would also be

underburned to release remaining scatted timber. Mastication would increase the amount of



woody debris left on the soil surface and some of the debris would be incorporated into the soil.

There would be a short term decrease in nutrient availability, slight increase in compaction, and

disturbance would increase where machines are driven.

Operating on dry soils where soils are fine-textured during mastication operations reduces the

risk of compacting the soils across all slopes. Monitoring (Rust 2009a) shows that even with high

soil moisture, compaction from low pressure mastication (less than 6 psi) was below the

threshold value on slopes up to 35 percent. When the soils were moist and slopes exceeded 35

percent then detrimental compaction occurred. No units in the Harris Vegetation Management

Project area have slopes greater than 35 percent. Burning at low severity will create a mosaic

pattern leaving patches of duff and release short-term nutrients. Mastication of brush will provide

additional cover along with litter-fall from scattered trees.


Indirect effects would be similar to those of alternative 1 and have marginal impacts.


Cumulative effects would be similar to alternative 1 as well and little cumulative effects will be

realized by implementing the soil protection measures listed in Table 6.

Alternative 4b 1.5.10


Direct effects would be similar to those in alternative 1 except that there will be increased under-

burning with this proposal and mastication and slightly fewer acres treated (e.g. due to

adjustments to protect sensitive resources) (2,719 acres versus 2,772 acres in alternative 1).

Prescribed fire has been an effective tool in restoring fire to the landscape and improving

vegetative cover. Use of existing roads and trails as fire controls lines will eliminate additional

soil disturbance from fire line construction. Several units proposed for acceleration of late

successional characteristics thinning will be changed to hazard and risk reduction treatments to

treat trees that show evidence of western gall rust, dwarf mistletoe, or evidence of bark beetle

attack (31, 174, 175, 183, and 189). To reduce potential adverse soil effects soil resource

protection measures (Table 6) will be incorporated.


Indirect effects would be similar to those of alternative 1 and have marginal impacts.


Cumulative effects are greater than alternative 1 and effects will be off-set thru implementation

of the soil protection measures listed in Table 6 to insure SQS thresholds are not exceeded.

Alternative 4c 1.5.11


Direct effects are less than those in alternative 4b because there were several units dropped with

this proposal due to being NSO foraging areas along with decreased mastication units (2,577

acres versus 2,719 in alternative 4b and 2,772 acres in alternative 1). This will decrease soil

disturbance and with soil resource protection measures (Table 6) soils will be adequately



protected. With soil resource protection measures in place soil disturbance will be below SQS

thresholds.


Indirect effects would be similar to those of alternative 1 and have minimal impacts.


Cumulative effects are greater than alternative 1 and effects will be set-off by aggressive

implementation the soil protection measures listed in Table 6 to insure SQS thresholds are not

exceeded.

Comparison of all alternatives (Table 8 below) shows differences in the alternatives for machine

pile & burn. Alternative 3 has no machine pile and only underburning will lessen soil impacts for

alternative 3. Mastication will be part of alternative 4a, 4b, and 4c vs. none for alternative 1, 2, or

3. This action will modify the fuel profile and will lessen soil impacts by providing a litter layer

and buffer for both equipment and soil erosion. Alternatives 4a, 4b, and 4c are similar for

machine pile & burn, mastication, and underburning. Alternative 5 will have no treatments of

thinning, windrow respreading, machine piling and burning, mastication or underburning.

Implementing the soil resource protection measures (Table 6) will insure SQS thresholds are not

exceeded and soil productivity is maintained for all alternatives. For all soil resource protection

measures alternatives will vary in the degree of disturbance, but in all cases soil quality standards

will not be exceeded.

Table 8. Comparison of alternatives

Alternative Forest Stand

Treatment (acres)

Machine Pile and

Burn (acres)

Underburn

(acres)

Mastication

(acres)

Alternative 1 2772 929 1269 0

Alternative 2 2617 798 1214 0

Alternative 3 2274 0 1334 0

Alternative 4a 2772 878 1214 1214

Alternative 4b 2719 863 1214 1418

Alternative 4c 2553 828 1214 1214

Alternative 5 0 0 0 0

Alternative 5 – No Action 1.5.12

1.5.12.1 Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under the no-action alternative, no commercial timber harvest or fuel reduction treatments

would be implemented to accomplish project goals. There would be no new disturbance resulting

from forest management activities, and existing disturbance would persist. No new addition of

detrimental compaction would occur and old skid trails would continue to recover at natural

rates. Freeze-thaw processes, weathering, and soil biota would work to slowly break up

compaction over time and vegetation would continue to re-establish on the existing infrastructure

of trails as their roots become able to penetrate growth-limiting layers of old compaction. No

new adverse effects would likely result from this action but in some locations productivity

potential in the short term may not be as high under this alternative as compared to the action

alternatives because historic disturbance would not be alleviated. Hydrologic function, such as

soil drainage, would be maintained at existing rates.



Under the no-action alternative, the forest canopy would not be altered and organic material

covering the soil would not be disturbed by management. Soil cover standards would likely

continue to be met and the litter/duff layer would likely continue to thicken and increase in

continuity. Coarse woody debris levels would also likely continue to increase. As a result,

erosion hazards would likely remain low and soil nutrient cycles would be maintained.

Under the no-action alternative, the four units with windrowed soils would remain in its current

condition and no restoration of soil productivity would occur.

The probability of a high-severity fire within the project area during a given timeframe is

unpredictable. However, when a fire breaks out, the chances for high-severity fire effects on soils

can be much higher in untreated areas with excessively heavy fuel loads compared to those that

have been treated, including post-harvest logging slash (Certini 2005, Cram et al. 2006, Graham

et al. 2004, Gorman 2003, Keane et al. 2002).

Vegetation and fuel treatments would reduce the chance that a wildfire could have as severe an

effect on the soils and surrounding private property in treated areas as it could in untreated areas

because there would be fewer tons per acre of dead and dying fuels on treated sites.

A high-intensity wildfire would increase the potential for impacts to soils and soil productivity in

severely burned areas, especially since the risk of soil erosion increases proportionally with fire

intensity (Megahan 1990). Other effects would include the potential loss of organics, loss of

nutrients, and reduced water infiltration (Wells et al. 1979). Fires that create very high soil

surface temperatures, particularly when soil moisture content is low, almost completely destroy

soil microbial populations, woody debris, and the protective duff and litter layer over mineral

soil (Hungerford 1991, Neary et al. 2005). Nutrients stored in the organic layer (such as

potassium and nitrogen) can also be lost or reduced through volatilization and as fly ash

(DeBano 1991, Amaranthus et. al. 1989).

Fire-induced soil hydrophobicity is presumed to be a primary cause of the observed post-fire

increases in runoff and erosion from forested watersheds (Huffman et al. 2001). Though

hydrophobicity is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can be found on the mineral soil

surface, it is greatly amplified by increased burn severity (Doerr et al. 2000, Huffman et al. 2001,

Neary et al. 2005).

Soil hydrophobicity usually returns to pre-burn conditions in no more than six years (DeBano

1981). Dyrness (1976) and other studies have documented a much more rapid recovery of one to

three years (Huffman et al. 2001). The persistence of a hydrophobic layer depends on the

strength and extent of hydrophobic chemicals after burning and the many physical and biological

factors that can aid in breakdown (DeBano 1981). This variability means that post-fire impacts

on watershed conditions are difficult to predict and to quantify.

1.5.12.2 Cumulative Effects and Summary

Not treating the project area could result in unknown effects on productivity in the future in the

event of a wildfire. However, due to a lack of direct and indirect effects as a result of this

alternative, no cumulative effects are anticipated at this time. Because of the lack of adverse

effects, the forest is likely to continue meeting, or make progress toward Forest Plan standards.

By meeting soil quality standards, it is expected that desired conditions pertaining to the soil

resource would be achieved.



1.6 SUMMARY

The desired soil condition is to maintain long term soil productivity. All of the alternatives will

meet Forest Land and Resource Management Plan standards for soil. Overall soil risk ratings for

the project area are low given the inherent soil physical, chemical, and biological properties.

Existing conditions indicate two units (42, 200) with high levels of disturbance. Soil resource

protection measures will help to reduce adverse impacts to soil physical, chemical and biological

properties that could be directly or indirectly affected. The degree of potential soil effects is

ameliorated through these resource protection measures. Comparison of the action alternatives

indicate alternative 3 would have the least impacts on soils based on acres treated and the

remaining alternatives will have the potential for more disturbance due to the duration and

distribution of disturbance.

To address the cumulative effects, a conservative approach was taken to maintain or reduce existing levels of disturbance. Reusing old skid trails, logging during winter conditions (snow or frozen ground) or on dry soils, and avoiding re-entry into areas of concern would avoid new detrimental disturbance and adverse cumulative effects. Reclamation would focus on major skid trails and landings, especially in units with high amounts of old harvest routes that have resulted in relatively high levels of compaction. Less-traveled trails would be excluded since they are not expected to have detrimental levels of compaction. Where compaction exists in both extent and duration, sub-soiling should effectively relieve most of the compaction. Recommended sub-soiling would be 18 inches deep and only occur on high traffic skid trails and on landings, where the great majority of detrimental compaction occurs. Visits to previously sub-soiled locations on the Forest revealed the importance of re-establishing vegetation on reclaimed sites in order to help recovery of the soil. Where skid trails would be sub-soiled there should be an adequate overstory that would encourage trees to seed in post-harvest. Where only low to moderate compaction exists, leaving soils intact is more desirable. The net effect is that the proposed management alternatives should not increase the degree of compaction such that soil productivity would be adversely affected.

Overall, the intensity of harvesting and fuel reduction activities would minimize any cumulative

effects on soil cover or nutrient cycling. The use of existing skid trails and landings minimizes

cumulative effects to these previously disturbed acres. As a result, cover and organic matter

standards would be met. Soil protection standards and natural processes should provide for

coarse woody debris within the project area. The dynamic and highly variable nature of soil

ecosystem processes and its strong buffering capacity minimize the risk of having measurable,

negative, or long-term cumulative effects on soil productivity.

The area has a high level of productivity and recovery potential. The indications are that the site

has a very high growth potential based on the field observations. The site potential, together with

other soil indicators being met, leads to the conclusion that the sites have a very high resiliency

to soil disturbance, low soil risk rating, and it is not expected that soil productivity would be

adversely affected.



1.7 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOREST PLAN AND OTHER REGULATORY DIRECTION

By implementing the soil resource protection measures, BMPs and any other mitigation

measures, the proposed activities will comply with the Forest Plan direction. Impacts to soil

productivity will stay below thresholds and will therefore meet NFMA.

See the regulatory compliance section (page 1) at the beginning of this report for more details.



1.8 REFERENCES

Adams, M.B. 1999. Acidic deposition and sustainable forest management in the central

Appalachians, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 122: 17-28.

Amaranthus, M. P.; J. M. Trappe and R. J. Molina. 1989. Long-term forest productivity and the

living soil. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific northwest forest

ecosystems. D. A. Perry, ed: 36 and 48.

Blanchette, R.A. 1995. Degradation of the lignocellulose complex in wood. Can. J. Bot. 73

(Suppl. 1): S999-S1010.

CEC 2006. Our changing climate: assessing the risks to California. CEC-500-2006-077. 16p.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1-10.

Choromanska, U. and T.H. DeLuca. 2002. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in forest

mineral soils following heating: evaluation of post-fire effects. Soil Biology and

Biochemistry 34: 263-271.

Cram, D., T. Baker, and J. Boren. 2006. Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs.

untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Research Paper RMRS-RP-55. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 28 p.

D’Anotonio, C. M. and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions of exotic grasses, the grass/fire

cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63-87.

de Dios Benavides-Soloria, J., and L.H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-

fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. Int. J. of Wildland Fire 14:457-

474.

DeBano, L. F. 1991. The effect of fire on soil properties. In: Proceedings—Management and

Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils. Harvey, A. and L. Neuenschwander,

compilers. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station. pp. 151-155.

DeBano, L.F. 1981. Water repellant soils: a state-of-the-art. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-46, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA. 21 pp.

DeLuca, T. and G.H. Aplet. 2008. Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky

Mountain West. Fron. Ecol. Environ. 6: 18-24.

Doerr S.H., R.A. Shakesby, and R.P.D. Walsh. 2000. Soil water repellency: its causes,

characteristics, and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Sci. Rev. 51:33-65.

Dyrness C.T. 1976. Effect of wildfire on soil wettability in the high Cascades of Oregon. Res.

Pap. PNW-202. 18 pp.

Foss, J. 2010. Moosehead Vegetation Management and Roads EIS: Soil Resource Report. Shasta-

Trinity National Forest. Draft.



Garrison, M. T. and J. A. Moore. 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review. In:

Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Garrison-Johnston, M. T., J. A. Moore and G. J.

Niehoff. 2001. Cooperative Supplemental Report 98: 5.

Garrison-Johnston, M. 2003. Geologic controls on tree nutrition and forest health in the Inland

Northwest. Presented at GSA Ann. Mtng, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.

Garrison-Johnston, M., T.M. Shaw, L.R. Johnson, and P.G. Mika. 2004. Intermountain Forest

Tree Nutrition Cooperative, Presentation at the Potassium Meeting, IPNF, Coeur d’Alene,

ID, April 23.

Gomez, A., RF Powers, MJ Singer, WR Horwath. 2002. Soil Compaction Effects on Growth of

Young Ponderosa Pine Following Litter Removal in California's Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci.

Soc. Am. J. 66: 1339

Gorman, J. 2003. How a forest stopped a fire in its tracks. New York Times article, July 22, 2003

Grier, C.C., K.M. Lee, N.M. Nadkarni, G.O. Klock, and P.J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of

forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management

practices: A review. PNW-GTR-222. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Harrington, T.B., Slesak, R.A., Schoenholtz, S.H. 2013. Variation in logging debris cover

influences competitor abundance, resource availability, and early growth of planted

Douglas-fir. Forest Ecology and Management 296 (2013) 41-52 pp.

Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen 1981. Rate of woody residue incorporation into

Northern Rocky Mountain forest soils. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-282.

Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen and R.T. Graham. 1987. Decaying organic

materials and soil quality in the Inland Northwest: A management opportunity. USDA,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-

225Howes, S.W. 2000. Proposed Soil Resource Condition Assessment. Wallowa-

Whitman National Forest. Baker City, OR. 9p.

Huffmann, E.L., L.H. MacDonald, and J.D. Stednick. 2001. Strength and persistence of fire-

induced soil hydrophobicity under ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Colorado Front Range.

Hydrol. Process. 15: 2877-2892. 5

Hungerford, R.D., M.G. Harrington, W.H. Frandsen, K.C. Ryan, and G.J. Niehoff. 1991.

Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In: Proceedings – Mgtmt. And

productivity of western montane forest soils. USDA FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. p. 32-

50.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, R.T. Graham, D.S. Page-Dumrose, J.R. Tonn, M.J. Larson, and

T.B. Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvests on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity

and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234-251.



Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, and others. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in the

Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. General Technical Report. RMRSGTR-

91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 24 p.

Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of five post-fire salvage logging systems on soils and vegetation. J.

Soil & Water Cons. Vol. 30(2):78-81.

Lanspa, Kenneth. 1994. Soil Survey of Shasta-Trinity National Forest Area, California. USDA

Forest Service.

Laurent, Tom. 2007. Soils Report: Little Doe/Low Gulch Timber Sale. Six Rivers National

Forest.

Mann, L.K., D.W. Johnson, D.C. West, D.W. Cole, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, H. Riekerk, C.T.

Smith, W.T. Swank, L.M. Tritton, and D.H. Van Lear. 1988. Effects of whole-tree and

stem-only clearcutting on postharvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth.

Forest Science 34: 412-428.

McIver, J., S. Stephens, J. Agee, J.Barbour, R.Boerner, C.Edminster, K.Erickson, K.Farris, C.

Fettig, C. Fiedler, S. Hase, S.Hart, J. Keeley, E.Knapp, J. Lehmkuhl, J. Moghaddas,

W.Otrosina, K. Outcalt, D. Schwilk, P. Shea, C.Skinner, T. Waldrop, P. Weatherspoon, D.

Yaussy, A.Youngblood, and S. Zack. Ecological effects of alternative fuel reduction

treatments: highlights of the U.S. Fire and Fire Surrogate study (FFS). International

Journal of Wildland Fire. 2012

Megahan, W.F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in western-Montana forest ecosystems. In:

Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western-Montana Forest Soils. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 146-150.

Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski and M. R. O’Neal. 2004. Expected climate change impacts on soil

erosion rates: a review (conservation implications of climate change). Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation 59: 43-50.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire

on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Newland, J.A., and T.H. DeLuca. 2000. Influence of fire on native nitrogen-fixing plants and soil

nitrogen status in ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forests in western Montana. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research 30:274-282.

Okinarian, M. 1996. Biological soil amelioration as the basis for sustainable agriculture and

forestry. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 22: 342-344.

Page-Dumroese, D, S. Deborah, A.A. Abbott, and T.M. Rice. 2009. Forest soil disturbance

monitoring protocol: Volume 1: Rapid assessment. WO-GTR-82a. Washington D.C. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 31 p.

Rust, Brad. 2008. Effects of tractor harvest on Shasta-Trinity soils. Personal communication.

Located in the project file



Rust, Brad. 2009a. Lakehead Mastication Project Soil Compaction Results. Internal monitoring

report.

Rust, Brad. 2009b. Personal communication (between Jacqueline Foss and Brad Rust) for

recovery rates of soils in Moosehead project area.

Rust, Brad. Past Shasta-Trinity Soil Disturbance Results, 2011.

Rust, Brad. 2012. Machine Piling & Burning Soil Monitoring Report. May 2012.

Rust, Brad. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Monitoring Results. 2003. Iron Canyon Late Seral

Reserve Study. Project File, pending publication by PSW Research Station after 5-year

follow up study.

Safford, Hugh, 2011. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Climate Change Expectations.

Stark, 1979. Nutrient losses from timber harvesting in a larch/Douglas fir forest. USDA Forest

Service Research Paper. INT-231.

USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity NF. 2004. Monitoring and evaluation report. Internal

document.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Forest Service Manual2550. Soil Management Handbook.

Washington D.C. 20p.

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Land and Resource Management Plan, Shasta-Trinity National

Forests. Redding, CA

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Northern Region Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Draft

Report.

USDA NRCS. 2008. Soil Survey database for Intermountain Area, parts of Lassen, Modoc,

Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties, California. Ca604 survey area. Via

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

Vinton, M. A. and I. C. Burke. 1995. Interactions between individual plant species and soil

nutrient status in shortgrass-steppe. Ecology 76: 1116.

Welke, Sylvia and James Fyles.2005. When texture matters: compaction in boreal forest soils.

FSMN research note series

http://www.sfmnetwork.ca/docs/e/RN_en_Compaction%20and%20Texture.pdf

Wells, C.G and J.R. Jorgensen. 1979. Effects of Intensive Harvesting on Nutrient Supply and

Sustained Productivity. USDA Symposium Proceedings, 212-230. p 225-226

Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C.

Froelich and D.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil: A State of the Knowledge Review.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-7. p.26.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. McCloud California weather and precipitation

summaries. Via http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. Retrieved on 6/8/2010.

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/



Young, David. 2009. Personal communication (between Jacqueline Foss and David Young) on

rates of disturbance for tractor harvest, located in project record.



2. APPENDIX A. EROSION HAZARD RATING CALCULATIONS

The Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) was developed to assess the potential risk of a given soil to erode (R-5 FSH 2505.22). The EHR system is

designed to assess the relative risk of accelerated sheet and rill erosion. This rating system is based on soil texture, depth, clay percent, infiltration,

rock fragments, surface cover, slope, and climate. Risk ratings range from low to very high. Moderate ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely

to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur, mitigation may be applied in certain cases. High to very high EHR ratings mean that

accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and that erosion control measures should be evaluated. Bare soil refers to soil without cover,

current refers to current conditions before treatment, and treatment refers to soil cover after treatment.

Table 2. EHR for Harris Vegetation Management project area soils

Soil Texture Aggregate

Adjustment Erodibility

Climate Water

Movement Runoff

Uniform

Slope

Length

Runoff

Production

Runoff

Production

Rating

Slope

%

Runoff

Energy

Rating

Soil

Cover

%

Soil

Cover

Rating

Erosion

Hazard

Rating

Rating (1.8-2.2)

Germany

0 -10% slope bare

2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 0-10 5 1.7 Low

current 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 (90-100)

1 0.3 Low

treatment 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 (50-70)

2 0.7 Low

Ledmount

0-10% slope bare

2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 0-10 5 1.7 Low

current 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 (90-100)

1 0.3 Low

treatment 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 10 0.1 (50-70)

2 0.7 Low

Neer

20 - 40% slope bare

2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.3 0-10 5 5 Moderate

current 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.3 (90-100)

1 1 Low

treatment 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.3 (50-70)

2 2 Low

Ovall

0 - 5% slope bare

2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 5 0.05 0-10 5 1.7 Low

current 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 5 0.05 (90-100)

1 0.3 Low

treatment 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 5 0.05 (50-70)

2 0.7 Low



Soil Texture Aggregate

Adjustment Erodibility

Climate Water

Movement Runoff

Uniform

Slope

Length

Runoff

Production

Runoff

Production

Rating

Slope

%

Runoff

Energy

Rating

Soil

Cover

%

Soil

Cover

Rating

Erosion

Hazard

Rating

Rating (1.8-2.2)

Revit

15 - 45% slope bare

2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 45 0.45 0-10 5 15 High

current 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 45 0.45 (90-100)

1 3 Low

treatment 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 45 0.45 (50-70)

2 6 Moderate

Sheld

20 - 40% slope bare

2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 0-10 5 6.7 Moderate

current 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 (90-100)

1 1.3 Low

treatment 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 (50-70)

2 2.7 Low

Washougal

20 - 40% slope bare

2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 0-10 5 6.7 Moderate

current 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 (90-100)

1 1.3 Low

treatment 2 -1 1 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 40 0.4 (50-70)

2 2.7 Low

Yallani

20 - 50% slope bare

2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 50 0.5 0-10 5 16.7 High

current 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 50 0.5 (90-100)

1 3.3 Low

treatment 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 50 0.5 (50-70)

2 6.7 Moderate



3. APPENDIX B. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TABLE

Table 3. Summary of soil effects by proposed treatment unit for the Harris Vegetation Management Project

Unit # Alt. Acres Timber Harvest

Method Yarding Method Fuel Treatment

Erosion

Rating % cover

Current

LWD

(T/Ac)

Current

Total

Disturbance

% of unit

in skid

trails

Projected

Additional

Disturbance-

dry season or

winter

Risk of

Exceeding R5

15%

Disturbance

Threshold

20 1,2,4 38 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn Low 97% 7.7 13% 13% 3% High

21 1,2,4 46 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 97% 4.1 3% 8% 1% Low

22 1,2,4 51 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn Low 94% 2.2 5% 7% 3% Low

23 1,2,3,4 70 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 98% 5.7 2% 7% 1% Low


25 1,2,3,4 34 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 94% 12.6 13% 17% 1% Moderate


27 1,2,4 14 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn Low 93% 3.3 10% 13% 3% Moderate

28 1,2,3,4 49 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 88% 0.4 9% 8.50% 1% Low


31 1,2,3

55 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Underburn

Low 94% 2 5% 12% 2% Low

4 Masticate 2% Low




35 1,2,3


Low 84% 7.9 12% 13% 2% Moderate

4 masticate 2% Moderate

36 1,2,3


Low 73% 0.2 4% 5% 2% Low

4 Masticate 2% Low

37 1,2,3


Low 90% 1.2 5% 5% 2% Low

4 Masticate 2% Low

38 1,2,3,4 22 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 92% 0 7% 3% 1% Low

39 1,2,3,4 158 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 85% 0 13% 16% 1% Moderate

40 1,2,3,4 36 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 87% 0.5 22% 10% 1% High

41 1,2,3


Low 81% 0.6 2% 2% 2% Low

4 Masticate 2% Low

42 1,2,3,4 70 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 88% 0 25% 10% 1% High

43 1,2,3,


Low 89% 0.2 9% 9% 2% Moderate

4 Masticate 2% Low


52 1,2,3,4 58 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn Low 96% 4.3 5% 7% 3% Low





Erosion

Rating % cover

Current

LWD

(T/Ac)

Current

Total

Disturbance

% of unit

in skid

trails

Projected

Additional

Disturbance-

dry season or

winter

Risk of

Exceeding R5

15%

Disturbance

Threshold

53 1,2,3


Low 85% 4.2 9% 8% 2% Moderate

4 Masticate 2% Low

54 1,2,4 19 Mechanical Winter Tractor, WTY

Machine Pile and Burn Low 82% 18.1 20% 20% 1% High

55 1,2,3

148 Mechanical Winter Tractor, WTY

Underburn Low 75% 4.6 18% 19%

1% Moderate

4 Masticate 1% Moderate




113 1,2,3,4 8 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low NA NA 1% NA

173 1,4


Machine Pile and Burn Low 93% 1.6 5% 12%

1% Low

3 1% Low

174 1,2,4

39 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn

Low 92% 7.5 3% 3% 3% Low

3 Underburn 2% Low


180 1,4


Machine Pile and Burn Low 95% 4.2 8% 15%

1% Moderate

2 1% Moderate

181 1,2,4 68 Mechanical Winter Tractor, WTY

Low 100% 0.8 15% 15% 1% High

183 1,2,4

21 Mechanical Tractor, WTY

Low 98% 43.2 5% 15% 1% Low

3 Underburn 2% Low

185 1,2,4


Low 95% 0 18% 6% 1% High

3 Underburn 1% High

186 1,2,3,4 41 Mechanical Winter Tractor, WTY

Low 87% 3 15% 7% 1% High

187 1,3,4 9 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 83% 5.2 17% 16% 1% High


192 1,4

27 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn

Low 92% 11.1 10% 28% 3% Moderate

2 1% Moderate

193 1,4


Low 97% 5.2 10% 35% 1% Moderate

3 Underburn 1% Low



197 1,2,4 5 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 92% 1.9 7% 8% 1% Moderate

199 1,2,4 15 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Low 97% 0.7 15% 5% 1% High





Erosion

Rating % cover

Current

LWD

(T/Ac)

Current

Total

Disturbance

% of unit

in skid

trails

Projected

Additional

Disturbance-

dry season or

winter

Risk of

Exceeding R5

15%

Disturbance

Threshold

200 1,2,3,4 12 Mechanical Winter Tractor, WTY

Low 92% 19.6 17% 22% 1% Exceeds

223 1,2,4 27 Mechanical Tractor, WTY Machine Pile and Burn Low 93% 97.3 5% 7% 3% Low


WTY = whole tree yard Prescribed burn units 1-14 were not formally surveyed, walk through surveys were completed. Unit 113 is a campground thin, no formal survey was performed because this is a special use area



4. APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK-CURRENT CONDITION

Table 4. TEAMS current conditions of Harris soils from field transect surveys of 2009

Unit # # Plots Down Woody

Debris (T/ac)

Average

litter/duff

depths (cm)

Bare

Soil Rock Vegetation Litter Wood

%

Cover

Total

Disturbance

(%)

20 60 7.7 6.3 13.33% 11.67% 15.00% 41.67% 18.33% 86.7% 13.3%

21 60 4.1 4.0 1.67% 6.67% 13.33% 61.67% 16.67% 98.3% 3.3%

22 60 2.2 2.0 5.00% 8.33% 15.00% 70.00% 1.67% 95.0% 5.0%

23 95 5.7 3.9 6.67% 5.56% 7.78% 74.44% 5.56% 93.3% 2.1%

24 90 0.6 4.8 5.56% 6.67% 2.22% 78.89% 6.67% 94.4% 8.9%

25 75 12.6 7.3 4.00% 0.00% 14.67% 60.00% 21.33% 96.0% 13.3%

26 60 9.4 3.6 8.33% 0.00% 6.67% 66.67% 18.33% 91.7% 10.0%

27 60 3.3 1.9 3.33% 1.67% 6.67% 71.67% 16.67% 96.7% 10.0%

28 70 0.4 2.3 11.43% 10.00% 32.86% 41.43% 4.29% 88.6% 8.6%

29 60 16.3 3.9 5.00% 3.33% 15.00% 61.67% 15.00% 95.0% 8.3%

31 60 2.0 1.5 8.33% 0.00% 23.33% 63.33% 5.00% 91.7% 5.0%

32 75 3.4 3.0 14.67% 1.33% 29.33% 46.67% 8.00% 85.3% 8.0%

33 60 0.7 2.0 6.67% 1.67% 33.33% 56.67% 1.67% 93.3% 3.3%

34 60 17.2 4.1 3.33% 0.00% 3.33% 81.67% 11.67% 96.7% 5.0%

35 60 7.9 2.0 8.33% 1.67% 6.67% 76.67% 6.67% 91.7% 11.7%

36 75 0.2 9.0 16.00% 6.67% 1.33% 70.67% 5.33% 84.0% 4.0%

37 60 1.2 2.4 8.33% 5.00% 16.67% 70.00% 0.00% 91.7% 5.0%

38 60 0.0 2.0 16.67% 13.33% 16.67% 53.33% 0.00% 83.3% 6.7%

39 90 0.0 1.6 17.78% 13.33% 5.56% 62.22% 1.11% 82.2% 13.3%

40 40 0.5 4.0 13.33% 0.00% 18.33% 68.33% 0.00% 86.7% 22.5%

41 90 0.6 2.8 17.78% 13.33% 7.78% 58.89% 2.22% 82.2% 2.2%

42 80 0.0 2.9 25.00% 8.75% 6.25% 57.50% 2.50% 75.0% 11.3%

43 75 0.2 3.5 26.67% 6.67% 5.33% 60.00% 1.33% 73.3% 9.3%

44 60 0.5 4.0 13.33% 0.00% 18.33% 68.33% 0.00% 86.7% 1.7%

52 60 4.3 2.3 8.33% 8.33% 11.67% 68.33% 3.33% 91.7% 5.0%

53 90 4.2 4.0 12.22% 7.78% 15.56% 57.78% 6.67% 87.8% 8.9%



Unit # # Plots Down Woody

Debris (T/ac)

Average

litter/duff

depths (cm)

Bare

Soil Rock Vegetation Litter Wood

%

Cover

Total

Disturbance

(%)

54 65 18.1 3.0 15.38% 1.54% 6.15% 67.69% 9.23% 84.6% 20.0%

55 90 4.6 2.4 18.89% 2.22% 28.89% 45.56% 4.44% 81.1% 17.8%

56 60 14.1 5.0 0.00% 1.67% 10.00% 73.33% 15.00% 100.0% 3.3%

57 60 3.1 1.0 6.67% 0.00% 18.33% 66.67% 8.33% 93.3% 8.3%

58 30 3.4 2.5 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 86.67% 6.67% 100.0% 3.3%

173 60 1.6 8.0 3.33% 0.00% 1.67% 83.33% 11.67% 96.7% 5.0%

174 60 7.5 4.0 1.67% 3.33% 6.67% 85.00% 3.33% 98.3% 3.3%

175 90 5.6 2.8 6.67% 0.00% 12.22% 68.89% 12.22% 93.3% 4.4%

180 60 4.2 3.8 5.00% 1.67% 8.33% 68.33% 16.67% 95.0% 8.3%

181 60 0.8 5.0 10.00% 0.00% 16.67% 70.00% 3.33% 90.0% 15.0%

183 60 43.2 8.5 1.67% 5.00% 13.33% 63.33% 16.67% 98.3% 5.0%

185 53 0.0 2.0 18.52% 3.70% 12.96% 64.81% 0.00% 81.5% 17.5%

186 60 3.0 1.1 25.00% 0.00% 1.67% 73.33% 0.00% 75.0% 15.0%

187 60 5.2 4.7 6.00% 10.00% 0.00% 76.00% 8.00% 94.0% 16.7%

189 60 9.6 3.8 3.33% 3.33% 6.67% 85.00% 1.67% 96.7% 6.7%

192 60 11.1 3.7 5.00% 5.00% 11.67% 65.00% 13.33% 95.0% 10.0%

193 60 5.2 3.5 6.67% 1.67% 16.67% 71.67% 3.33% 93.3% 10.0%

194 60 0.7 2.0 5.00% 5.00% 33.33% 53.33% 3.33% 95.0% 1.7%

196 60 2.5 2.0 10.00% 3.33% 40.00% 41.67% 5.00% 90.0% 3.3%

197 60 1.9 2.3 11.67% 0.00% 5.00% 70.00% 13.33% 88.3% 6.7%

199 60 0.7 1.5 1.67% 1.67% 18.33% 78.33% 0.00% 98.3% 15.0%

200 60 19.6 4.0 10.00% 1.67% 8.33% 58.33% 21.67% 90.0% 16.7%

223 60 97.7 13.3 3.33% 0.00% 10.00% 36.67% 50.00% 96.7% 5.0%

311 30 0.6 5.3 0.00% 10.00% 13.33% 66.67% 10.00% 100.0% 0.0%

No soils data collected for units 1-14, prescribed burn units, these units were observed but no data was taken Unit 113 - Campground Thin-No Soils Data



5. APPENDIX D. SOIL DISTURBANCE MONITORING 2011 TRANSECTS



6. APPENDIX E. HARRIS WETLAND DETERMINATION

final soils specialist report - august...

Documents