United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

July 2016

Geology and Soil 

Resources Report

Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream 

Restoration Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Angie Bell

Forest Geologist

1711 South Main Street, Yreka Ca 96097

albell@fs.fed.us
i

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
i

Table of Contents

Geology and Soil Resources Report .................................................................... 1

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

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators and Measures ...................................................................................... 1

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ............................................................. 1

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 2

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. 2

Alternative 1 – No Action................................................................................................... 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects.................................................................................. 2

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 2

Alternative 2........................................................................................................................ 2

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 2

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 3

Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................ 3

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................... 3

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 4

Report Summary.......................................................................................... 5

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 5

Analysis Indicators and Measures ...................................................................................... 5

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ............................................................. 5

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 5

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. 5

No Action Alternative......................................................................................................... 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects.................................................................................. 5

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 5

Proposed Action.................................................................................................................. 5

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 5

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 6

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................... 6

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of the effects of the alternatives for each indicator....................................................3
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

1

Geology and Soil Resources Report

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the effects to geologic hazards and soil resources from 

the Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration project on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger 

District of the Klamath National Forest. The Klamath National Forest’s Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) Standards and Guidelines for soils resources (USDA, Forest 

Service page 4-20) includes the need to maintain soil productivity, soil cover and minimize soil 

erosion during and after project implementation. The Forest Plan also requires a geologic 

evaluation be completed for all ground disturbing activities. The Asbestos Air Toxic Control 

Measures for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations (CARB, 2002) 

require that before construction be implemented an assessment for the potential for naturally 

occurring asbestos.

Methodology

Analysis Indicators and Measures

• Potential for the project to cause hillslope instability

o This will be measured by determining how likely the project is to change the mass 

balance of the hillslope, specifically undercutting any toe zones or inner gorges.

• Potential for naturally occurring asbestos to be disturbed

o This will be measured by determining if any ultramafic bedrock will be disturbed 

during the project implementation.

• The functioning category of soil productivity in the project area

o This will be measured by determining the effects of the project on soil stability, 

organic matter, soil strength and moisture regimes. Properly functioning soil 

productivity includes adequate soil cover to minimize erosion. The area should 

have a wide range of sizes of organic matter on the surface and in the upper layer 

of the soil. The soil should be strong enough to securely anchor roots and remain 

relatively uncompacted. It should have a moisture regime consistent with which 

the soil was developed (USDA Forest Service, 2012).

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial analysis boundary will be the project area because this is the extent that effects are 

likely to be noticeable for the indicators defined above. The temporal bounds for cumulative 

effects will be four to five years for the hillslope instability and soil productivity. This is about 

how long we will see an increase in soil erosion as well as how long it will likely take for any 

changes in hillslope mass balance to become apparent (likely during a 2-10 year storm event). 

The temporal bounds for the naturally occurring asbestos analysis is during construction only. 

Dust generated during construction will settle within a few hours of cessation of work.
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

2

Affected Environment

The project area is on an alluvial fan that has been hydraulically mined in the past. This has left 

behind a mix of natural and man-made landforms including a steep headwall above the project 

area. Also, because of past uses the alluvium on the fan is shallow meaning that bedrock is near 

the surface in places (<10 feet). There is no ultramafic bedrock underlying the project area.

The soil type is a gravely loam in the Holland-Aiken family. The soil has a moderate erosion 

hazard rating meaning that erosion will be noticeable during storms that have just above average 

precipitation (3-5 year storm event). However, the soil has a low tendency toward rilling or 

gullying. Sheet wash is the most likely process of erosion for this soil and landform so sufficient 

soil cover can moderate erosion. Currently, the soils are properly functioning for soil 

productivity in the river bar environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There would be no action taken in the No Action Alternative so there is no effect to geologic or 

soils resources.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects as a result the No Action Alternative so there are no 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The work proposed is on gentle, relatively stable landforms (alluvial fan) for the project area. 

The headwall of the hydraulic mine is outside of the project area and will not be affected by the 

project activities. The filling of the existing channel or the modification of the existing channel 

will not undercut any sensitive landforms and won’t change the mass balance of the hillslope.

The proposed action is not likely to increase hillslope instability.

There is no ultramafic bedrock under the project area. The probability of disturbing naturally 

occurring asbestos is very low.

The heavy machinery will cause a small amount of soil compaction in the project area. This will 

be minimized by strategic use of heavy equipment. For instance, the implementation team is 

likely to plan work so that the equipment is ran over the existing channel once it is filled as much 

as possible to aid in compaction and minimize compaction elsewhere. The gravelly loam soils 

throughout this area have relatively high soil strength which implies a to moderate soil 

compaction hazard ratings. The work will be completed when the soil moisture is low 

(summer/fall) and compaction is least likely. There may be some localized compaction but it will 

be on the short-term and once vegetation is re-established it will be broken up. The degree and 

extent of soil compaction in the project area will not impact plant growth or soil hydrologic 

function. The soil areas will not have measurable soil compaction over the long-term.
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

3

The soils outside of the areas described above will remain undisturbed and the soil cover will not 

be reduced. Soil cover will be maintained or enhanced by stabilizing and re-vegetating disturbed 

areas with native vegetation. Weed-free straw, mulch or other soil erosion measures will also be 

used as needed to temporarily stabilize the disturbed areas until vegetation can be established. 

This will keep the post-implementation soil cover and organic matter in the disturbed areas at 

desired conditions that will meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Forest Plan, Standard 

and Guides 3-2, page 4-20). The project area will continue to be in the properly functioning 

category for soil productivity.

Cumulative Effects

The other current or reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area do not directly overlap 

with the areas of disturbance for this project so there are no cumulative effects for soils 

resources. There are no effects to geologic resources so there are no cumulative effects. 

Summary of Effects

The project will not increase the hillslope instability or disturb any ultramafic bedrock during 

construction. The soil productivity will remain in the properly functioning category because of 

project design features.

Table 1: Comparison of the effects of the alternatives for each indicator.

Indicator No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Potential for Hillslope 

Instability

There is no change to hillslope 

stability.

There is no change to hillslope 

stability.

Potential for disturbance of 

Naturally Occurring 

Asbestos

There is no disturbance of 

ultramafic bedrock.

There is no disturbance of ultramafic 

bedrock.

Functioning Category for 

Soil Productivity

The soil will remain in a properly 

functioning category.

The soil will remain in a properly 

functioning category.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

This project complies with USFS direction in Forest Service Manual 2550 (Soil Management) 

(USDA Forest Service, 2012) and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010). The project is also in compliance with the Asbestos Air Toxic Control Measures 

(CARB, 2002).
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

4

Literature Cited

(CARB) California Air Resources Board. 2002. Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, 

Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Order 2002-07-29. Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm on January 28, 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Klamath National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Chapter 4. USDA-Forest Service, PSW Region, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, 

California.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. R5 Supplement to FSM 2550-Soil Management. USDA-Forest 

Service, Pacific SW Region, Vallejo, California. 10 p.
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

5

Report Summary

Methodology

Analysis Indicators and Measures

• Potential for the project to cause hillslope instability will be measured by determining 

how likely the project is to change the mass balance of the hillslope.

• Potential for naturally occurring asbestos. 

• The functioning category of soil productivity in the project area will be measured by 

determining the effects of the project on soil stability, organic matter, soil strength and 

moisture regimes.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial analysis boundary will be the project area because this is the extent that effects are 

likely to be noticeable for the indicators defined above. The temporal bounds for cumulative 

effects will be four to five years for the hillslope instability and soil productivity. The temporal 

bounds for the naturally occurring asbestos analysis is during construction only.

Affected Environment

There is a mix of natural and man-made landforms including a steep headwall above the project 

area and an alluvial fan. There is no ultramafic bedrock underlying the project area. The soil type 

is a gravely loam in the Holland-Aiken family. Sheet wash is the most likely process of erosion 

for this soil and landform so sufficient soil cover can moderate erosion. Currently, the soils are 

properly functioning for soil productivity in the river bar environment.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There would be no action taken in the No Action Alternative so there is no effect to geologic or 

soils resources.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects as a result of the No Action Alternative so there are no 

cumulative effects.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The work proposed is on gentle, relatively stable landforms (alluvial fan) for the project area. 

The proposed activities will not undercut any sensitive landforms and won’t change the mass 

balance of the hillslope. The proposed action is not likely to increase hillslope instability. There 

is no ultramafic bedrock under the project area. The probability of disturbing naturally occurring 

asbestos is very low.

The heavy machinery will cause a small amount of localized compaction but it will be on the 

short-term and once vegetation is re-established it will be broken up. The degree and extent of 
Geology and Soil Resources Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project

6

soil compaction in the project area will not impact plant growth or soil hydrologic function. The 

soil areas will not have measurable soil compaction over the long-term. Soil cover will be 

maintained or enhanced by stabilizing and re-vegetating disturbed areas with native vegetation. 

Project design will keep the post-implementation soil cover and organic matter in the disturbed 

areas at desired conditions that will meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Forest Plan, 

Standard and Guides 3-2, page 4-20). The project area will continue to be in the properly 

functioning category for soil productivity.

Cumulative Effects

The other current or reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area do not directly overlap 

with the areas of disturbance for this project so there are no cumulative effects for soils 

resources. There are no effects to geologic resources so there are no cumulative effects. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

This project complies with USFS direction in Forest Service Manual 2550 (Soil Management) 

(USDA Forest Service, 2012) and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010). The project is also in compliance with the Asbestos Air Toxic Control Measures 

(CARB, 2002).