Hi-Grouse Project

Watershed Report

Prepared by:

Michael McNamara,

Hydrologist/Soil Scientist

USDA-Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise Unit

for:

Goosenest Ranger District,

Klamath National Forest

April 21, 2009

Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2

Soil Resource........................................................................................................................... 2

Hydrologic Resource............................................................................................................... 3

Geologic Resource................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 5

Soil .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6

Soil Resource Components...................................................................................................... 6

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 6

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 7

Significance Factors.............................................................................................................. 16

Existing Information.............................................................................................................. 16

Background Information ....................................................................................................... 16

Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 17

Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 21

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 21

Hydrologic Resource Components........................................................................................ 21

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 22

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 24

Significance Factors.............................................................................................................. 37

Existing Information.............................................................................................................. 37

Background Information ....................................................................................................... 37

Geology..................................................................................................................................... 37

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 37

Geologic Resource Components ........................................................................................... 37

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 38

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 38

Significance Factors.............................................................................................................. 45

Existing Information.............................................................................................................. 45

References................................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix Tables....................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix A: Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs)................................................. 59
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

2

Executive Summary

Soil Resource 

The role of the soil scientist/hydrologist/geologist in this project was to provide input to the 

decision maker on ways to maintain the productive capacity of the soils and water quality in the 

project area as defined in the Klamath National Forest’s Land Resource Management Plan and 

Regional Soil Quality Analysis Standards (SQAS). This will be accomplished by implementing 

the project design features that include soil and watershed resource protection measures. 

Soils in the project area have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited over lava flows. 

Soils are generally moderately deep to very deep (20 to 60 inches). Surface soil textures are 

gravelly, coarse sandy loams overlying gravelly, cobbly or very cobbly, sandy loam subsoils. 

Estimated soil productivity, as determined from soil properties, is generally FSSC 4-5. Maximum 

erosion hazard ratings for 100 percent bare soil are moderate. Currently, erosion hazards are low 

due to gentle slopes and the high amount of soil cover. 

Total soil cover ranges from about 85 to 100 percent and averages about 92 percent. The average 

slope distribution within the project area ranges from about 0 up to 50 percent and averages 

around 5 to 10 percent. The amount of area in identifiable skid trails and landings is 

approximately 3 percent of the project area. The level of existing detrimental soil disturbance 

that exceeds the soil compaction thresholds at 4 to 8 inch depth or loss of soil organic matter in 

the upper 12 inches of soil was estimated to vary from 0 to 15 percent and averages 3 percent. 

Currently, over 95 percent of the soils in the project area have a well functioning soil biological 

system.

Overall, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have a high probability of meeting the six soil resource evaluation 

criteria, and therefore, maintaining long-term soil productivity. The main soil concerns are the 

effects of ground-based mechanical logging on the soil resource. Increased soil erosion and 

reductions in soil productivity (compaction and soil displacement) would occur primarily in main 

skid trails. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would mechanically remove biomass on 4,863, 3,354, and 

3,654 acres, respectively. It is estimated that detrimental soil disturbance would occupy 

approximately 8 to 10 percent of the project acres after project implementation. The generally 

low intensity of planned harvesting and fuel reduction activities would minimize detrimental 

effects on nutrient cycling by minimizing the consumption of the fine organic component (duff 

mat). The dynamic and highly variable nature of soil processes and ecosystem and its strong 

buffering capacity reduce the possibility of having any measurable negative long-term effects on 

soil productivity. 

The three action alternatives are expected to meet the LRMP and SQAS guidelines for soil cover, 

porosity, soil organic matter content, surface organic matter levels, soil moisture regime, soil 

hydrologic function, and buffering capacity, and maintain a well functioning soil biological 

system on approximately 90 percent of the ground-based logging acres after project 

implementation. 

The effects of wildfire on the soil resource are primarily dependent on how well existing and 

activity fuels are reduced. Higher percentage of low burn severity equates to less impacts on the 

soil resource. The negative effects of wildfire on soil (accelerated erosion, loss of nutrients) are 

diminished as the total volume of fuels is reduced. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will lessen these 

negative wildfire effects on the soil resource while alternative 1, the no-action alternative will not.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

3

Post-project monitoring, as part of the Forest’s soil program, would be done to evaluate how well 

the project met the SQAS and LRMP soil guidelines. Three units logged with ground-based 

harvest systems will be selected for SQAS compliance (percent area in skid trails + landings, 

porosity changes in skid trails).

Hydrologic Resource

The project area lies within the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th field HUC watershed. This 

watershed is further subdivided into 6th and 7th field HUCs. The following 7th field HUC 

watersheds—Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack Flat—are within the 

project area. The project area contains two riparian reserves. Two riparian reserve segments (300 

feet) were identified previously to the project with remote sensing inside of the project area 

boundaries. However, field verification revealed that there is no defined channel and inter-annual 

scour in these drainages, and that they likely flow only directly in response to very large flows, 

and, are therefore, ephemeral. As a result, the designated riparian reserves lack the characteristics 

necessary for classifying them as riparian reserves. There is no mapped surface hydrologic 

connectivity between the project units and downstream waters. There are no domestic water 

sources in the project watersheds. The project area is upstream of domestic and fish beneficial 

uses.

Three models were used to identify cumulative effects in project watersheds. The USLE model

looked at soil surface erosion, the GEO model looks at mass wasting risk, and the ERA model 

looked at the risk of higher peak flows generated by the project.

Antelope Well 7th Field Watershed

In the Antelope Well 7th Field Watershed, there are no fish and no identified stream courses. 

Drainages consist of ephemeral draws that flow only in direct response to large precipitation 

events. There is no sign of inter-annual scour in drainages.

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.1 miles per square mile. Tables 4 and 5 

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Currently, 

ERA cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.12 to 0.33 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes. Cumulative effects risk ratios are the relative risk of the current 

watershed conditions exceeding the threshold of concern for the watershed. A risk ratio of 1 

indicates that the risk of sedimentation or sediment delivery to streams exceeds the threshold of 

concern.

Dock Well 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.3 miles per square mile. Tables 6 and 7

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Currently, 

cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.11 to 0.52 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes. 

Grouse Hill 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.3 miles per square mile. Tables 8 and 9

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Currently, 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

4

cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.22 to 0.48 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes. 

Hill 22 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.1 miles per square mile. Tables 10 and 11

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Currently, 

cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.14 to 0.38 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes. 

Tamarack Flat 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.0 miles per square mile. Tables 12 and 13

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Currently, 

cumulative watershed effects risk ratios range from 0.11 to 0.37 for the three modeled 

erosion/disturbance processes.

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to project area hydrology are anticipated from this 

project because there are no defined stream channels in the project units. Overall, alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 have a very high probability of meeting the watershed resource evaluation criteria, and,

therefore, maintaining long-term watershed condition/quality. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will meet

the LRMP and Basin Plan objectives for suspended sediment, settleable materials, turbidity and 

water temperature. Overall, this project would not significantly decrease short- or long-term 

watershed condition and water quality.

The cumulative effects of the project on the mass wasting risk (GEO model) are not significantly 

increased with implementing alternatives 2, 3, and 4, or with inclusion of future foreseeable 

actions. The slightly increased risk for alternative 2 is associated with a larger number of acres 

treated, and more ground-based commercial thin acres. All of the increases in the percent over 

background for all watersheds are no more than 25 percent. The surface erosion (USLE) model 

shows that surface erosion is slightly increased, but these increases would probably be within the 

natural variability of sediment transport and turbidity. The cumulative risk ratios as determined by 

the ERA model are raised for all watersheds, but do not exceed the threshold of concern. As a 

result of the project, Dock Well Watershed has the highest increase from 0.11 to 0.53. Other 

watershed increases range from 0.1 to 0.16. These increases are small and are likely not to result 

in detectable increased effects on peak flows within project watersheds. This potential increased 

peak flow is not expected to negatively affect channel conditions or water quality. Beneficial 

uses in project watersheds would not be significantly affected by these small increases in 

cumulative watershed effects. 

Geologic Resource

The project area contains various lava deposits dominated by Quaternary- and Pliocene-aged 

basalt flows. The bedrock is basically unweathered and very competent. These flows have been 

subsequently covered by a mantel of volcanic ash. The majority of the project area has a low 

slope stability hazard rating with a small inclusion of moderate hazard in relatively steeper areas. 

Mass wasting is not in evidence due to the relatively flat terrane making up the project area.

No adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated from this project because there 

are no slope stability concerns due to gently sloping terrane, sandy loam soil material, and hard 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

5

unweathered bedrock. Cave resources will be adequately protected from disturbance and

potential sediment. Overall, alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would equally meet the geologic resource 

evaluation criteria, and therefore, maintain public health, safety, welfare and property. The 

groundwater and cave resources will be adequately protected from potential adverse affects by the 

equipment exclusion buffers. 

Introduction

This report contains the results of the soil, hydrologic, and geologic investigations for this project. 

Each resource will be discussed in separate sections in order to make it easier for the reader to 

follow the discussions.

Alternatives

The following is a brief description of each alternative. A more complete description of each 

alternative is found in the Hi-Grouse EIS, under preparation. 

Alternative 1 (No Action). This alternative implements no activity at this time and leaves the 

project area in its present condition. 

Alternative 2. This alternative proposes to conduct commercial, pre-commercial and thinning 

harvesting on approximately 4,863 acres using ground-based logging systems. There will be 

some group-select prescriptions (makes small gaps or openings) in this alternative. In addition, 

approximately 844 acres will be mowed and 2,710 acres will be underburned. This alternative 

will use 5.5 miles of unclassified roads, re-construct 3.9 miles of temporary road, and 

decommission 0.7 miles of unclassified roads at the end of the project. The purpose of this 

project is to promote stand health and reduce fire hazard (see the draft EIS for a detailed 

description of this alternative). 

Alternative 3. This alternative proposes to conduct commercial, pre-commercial and thin 

harvesting on approximately 3,354 acres using ground-based logging systems. In addition, 

approximately 682 acres will be mowed and 1,267 acres will be underburned. This alternative 

will use 4.8 miles of unclassified roads, re-construct 2.3 miles of temporary road, and 

decommission 0.7 miles of new temporary roads at the end of the project. The purpose of this 

project is to promote stand health and reduce fire hazard (see the draft EIS for a detailed 

description of this alternative). 

Alternative 4. This alternative proposes to conduct commercial, pre-commercial and thin 

harvesting on approximately 3,654 acres using ground-based logging systems. In addition, 

approximately 1,074 acres will be mowed and 1,537 acres will be underburned. This alternative 

will use 5.5 miles of unclassified roads, re-construct 1.3 miles of temporary road, and close or 

decommission 1.3 miles of new temporary roads at the end of the project. The purpose of this 

project is to promote stand health and reduce fire hazard (see the EIS for a detailed description of 

this alternative). 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

6

Soil

Introduction

Soil Resource Concerns

The role of the soil scientist is to ensure that the methods used to achieve project objectives will 

maintain the long-term productivity capacity of the soils in the project area as defined in the 

Klamath National Forest’s Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and Regional Soil Quality 

Analysis Standards (SQAS). The soil concerns are the effects of soil disturbance, compaction,

and erosion on long-term soil productivity that occur when soil is disturbed. Detrimental soil 

disturbance (displacement) and compaction are levels of disturbance that exceed LRMP and 

SQAS standards. Soil concerns are mitigated by designing the project to minimize both 

detrimental soil disturbance (compaction, displacement) and surface erosion by meeting soil 

cover guidelines.

Soil Resource Components

The following measures are designed to provide for soil resource protection as applied to 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

• Reuse existing skid trails and landings whenever practical

• Skidding should cease on skid trails when more than 10 percent of a skid trial contains 

ruts deeper than 6 inches due to saturated soils

• Waterbar skid trails per Sale Administration Handbook guidelines and as needed

• Ground-based logging equipment generally restricted to slopes <35 percent

• Retain existing coarse woody debris (CWD) whenever possible providing the amount of 

logs meet fuel management objectives

• Meet the prescribed soil cover for each harvest unit as measured before the fall rainy 

season (late October/early November)

• Post-treatment total soil cover should range from 70 to 80 percent for machine-disturbed 

areas and 60 to 80 percent for underburned areas depending on slope steepness

• Areas where existing soil cover is less than recommended levels, use the existing amount 

of cover as the guideline

• Machine piling will use a brush rake that will generally be lifted a few inches above the 

soil surface to minimize soil disturbance, protect duff mat, and prevent piling soil into the 

slash piles

• Machine piling will be done when the soil is dry down to 12 inches

• Machine mowing of brush is limited to slopes generally <35 percent

• At least 50 percent cover, as fine organic matter (<3 inch material), would be retained in 

all units 

Affected Environment

Soils in the project area have developed primarily from volcanic ash deposited over lava flows. 

Soils are generally moderately deep to very deep (24 to 60+ inches). Surface soil textures are 

gravelly coarse sandy loams overlying gravelly, cobbly or very cobbly sandy loam sub-soils and 

bedrock.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

7

Soil productivity is a measure of a soils’ ability to produce vegetation. Estimated soil 

productivity, as determined from soil properties, is generally FSSC 4.

Erosion hazard is a relative measure of the soils sensitivity to erosion processes. Soil disturbance 

has the potential to increase the erosion hazard as cover is reduced. Maximum erosion hazard 

ratings for 100 percent bare soil are generally moderate. Currently, erosion hazards are low due 

to gentle slopes and the high amount of existing soil cover present. 

Existing total soil cover ranges from 80 to 90 percent and averages 85 percent. The average slope 

distribution within the project area ranges from 0 to 20 percent and averages 10 percent. 

The amount of area currently in identifiable old existing skid trails or landings is at most 

approximately 2 to 3 percent of the project area. The level of existing detrimental soil 

disturbance that exceeds the soil compaction threshold at 4 to 8 inch depth or loss of soil organic 

matter in the upper 12 inches of soil was estimated to vary from 0 to 15 percent and averages 3

percent.

Coarse woody debris (CWD) or downed logs are an important component of coniferous forest 

ecosystems. Existing levels of CWD are an interaction between past fires, past management 

activities, and the age of the existing vegetation. Currently, CWD (>20 inches diameter) varies 

from 0 to 11 logs/acre and averages 4 logs/acre. The CWD is poorly dispersed throughout the 

project area. Overall, the CWD will continue to increase over time as trees continue to fall by 

natural events. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects of individual management activities on the soil resource will be assessed using the 

following Region 5 SQAS (USDA-FS 1995a) and the Klamath NF’s LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines (USDA-FS 1995b). 

1. Maintain soil productivity by retaining organic matter on the soil surface and by 

retaining organic matter in the soil profile [LRMP Ch. 4, Sec. 3-3; SQAS 1a, 1c, 1c(1)].

• Meet the recommended soil cover amounts (60-80 percent) in order to prevent 

accelerated erosion from exceeding the long-term soil formation rate.

• Retain at least 50 percent cover as fine organic matter (<3 inch dia. material) in all units. 

• Dedicate no more that 15 percent of a harvest unit to primary tractor skid trails and 

landings by good yarding layout and administration.

• Reuse existing skid trails and landings whenever practical.

• Maintain at least 85 percent of the existing total organic matter in the upper 12 inches of 

soil.

2. Minimize changes in the site’s ability to cycle nutrients and maintain site productivity 

[LRMP Ch. 4, Sec. 6-14; SQAS 1a, 1b, 1c(1)].

• Maintain at least 85 percent of the existing total organic matter in the upper 12 inches of 

soil.

• Maintain 30-50 percent of existing duff mat (spatially). 

• Maintain at least 50 percent fine organic matter (<3 inches in diameter) on site.

• Retain at least 60-80 percent soil cover in order to prevent accelerated erosion from 

exceeding the long-term soil formation rate.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

8

• Minimize detrimental soil compaction.

3. Retain CWD and protect existing CWD [SQAS (2b); LRMP Ch. 4, Sec. 3-6].

• Protect existing CWD as much as possible by having machinery avoid larger diameter 

logs and using lower intensity fuel reduction methods (underburns, brush mowing, 

machine piling).

• Increase numbers of CWD where low and within fuel management objectives by 

retaining snags and larger trees on site.

4. Minimize soil and litter disturbances resulting from ground based yarding and heavy 

equipment (LRMP Ch. 4, Sec. 3-5 and 6-16).

• Reuse existing skid trails and landings whenever practical.

• Skidding equipment will be generally restricted to slopes <35 percent.

• Track mounted mowers can operate on slopes up to 40 percent.

• Minimize ground disturbance by keeping the area within each unit that is used for main 

skid trails and landings under 15 percent.

5. Prescribed fire (pile burning) should be planned to minimize the consumption of litter 

and CWD [SQAS 1a, 1c(2a), 1c(2b)].

• Use low intensity burn prescriptions that have a high likelihood of retaining duff mat and 

CWD or burn when logs and the duff layer are moist enough to prevent total 

consumption.

• Hand piling will maintain the recommend soil cover amounts and to protect appropriate 

levels of CWD.

6. Maintain the functionality of the soil ecosystem by maintaining a sites ability to cycle 

nutrients and maintaining the biological components (fungi, arthropods, bryophytes) 

[LRMP 6-1, 6-2, 6-14(3c), 21-12 and 21-20].

• Dedicate no more that 15 percent of a harvest unit to primary skid trails and landings.

• Maintain at least 50 percent fine organic matter on the soil surface and sufficient duff mat 

(30-50 percent).

• Protect the existing CWD especially the decomposition class 4 and 5 logs.

• Keep the area within each treatment unit that may exceed detrimental soil disturbance 

thresholds to less that 15 percent.

Each management activity will be rated for its probability of meeting each applicable evaluation 

criteria using descriptive terms (Low, Moderate, and High). Probability ratings are qualitative 

estimators based on past experiences, observations, and monitoring data. A high rating is 

comparable to a 90 to 100 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the evaluation criteria. A 

moderate rating is comparable to a 75 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the evaluation 

criteria. A low rating is comparable to <50 percent likelihood of the activity meeting the 

evaluation criteria. 

A low rating for a particular evaluation criterion does not mean that the evaluated management 

activity would not maintain long-term soil productivity. As an example, not meeting the 

recommended soil cover amount does not imply that soil productivity would not be maintained. 

Rather, it means that soil cover would be less than the recommended amount and soil erosion 

would therefore be higher then what management would like and that some soil material as well 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

9

as nutrients would be lost. It would require a substantial departure from the cover guideline over 

an extended period of years to result in 15 percent or more reduction in soil productivity. 

Detrimental disturbance consists of two main types of disturbance: detrimental compaction and 

detrimental displacement. Detrimental compaction is compaction that exceeds threshold bulk 

density values as measured at the 4 to 8 inch soil depth. Detrimental disturbance is where soil 

displacement of the topsoil removes greater than 15 percent of the soil organic matter in the upper 

12 inches of soil (disturbed area must be greater than 1 square meter in size).

Alternative 1–No Action

Direct Effects

Under this alternative, there would be no new soil disturbances. The existing condition of the soil 

resource is as identified in Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 (Appendix A). Existing total soil cover 

ranges from 85 to 100 percent and averages 92 percent. The average slope distribution within the 

project area ranges from 0 to 50 percent and averages 5 to 10 percent.

The amount of area currently in identifiable existing skid trails and landings is approximately 2 to 

3 percent of the project area. The level of existing detrimental soil disturbance that exceeds 

Regional and Forest SQAS for soil porosity (compaction) at 4 to 8 inch depth or loss of soil 

organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil was estimated to vary from 0 to 15 percent and 

averages 3 percent. With no action, there would be no new soil disturbances. 

Coarse woody debris (CWD) or downed logs are an important component of coniferous forest 

ecosystems. Existing levels of CWD are an interaction between past fires, past management 

activities, and the age of the existing vegetation. Currently, CWD (>20 inches diameter) varies 

from 0 to 11 logs/acre and averages 4 logs/acre. Overall, the CWD will continue to increase over 

time as trees continue to fall by natural events and is poorly dispersed throughout the project area.

With no action taken, the effect on the soil resource would be no new disturbances and the 

gradual increase in larger CWD. Without vegetative management, the stands of pine will become 

increasingly denser as white fir encroaches under the pine. This increases the effects of wildfire,

and consequently, on the soil resource. Wildfires would burn with more severity and expose wide 

areas of soil to erosion processes. Increased loss of topsoil would occur with more intense 

wildfires. These fires would return large areas to the early-seral stage of grass and bitterbrush.

Evaluations in Table 1 indicate that no action under alternative 1 has a high probability of 

meeting the six soil resource evaluation standards and guidelines based upon current conditions.

Table 1. Probability of no action meeting the soil resource evaluation standards and guidelines

Management Activity

Evaluation Standards and Guidelines

1 2 3 4 5 6

None High High High High NA High

Indirect Effects

Nutrient cycling would be maintained as fine organic matter increases in the duff/litter layers. 

Soil fertility would be maintained in managed stands due to the increased organic matter on the 

soil surface and in the soil. Compacted soils (reduced porosity) in portions of old skid trails will 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

10

slowly increase their porosity due to biological activities, and thereby, regain lost soil 

productivity over the next 40 to 50 years. A wildfire would interrupt this increased nutrient 

cycling by removing the duff layer. The duff layer would not return until the grass/brush seral 

stage evolved into pine stands. 

Cumulative Effects

Removal of the litter and duff layers in future fires would reduce soil mesofauna populations 

(organisms between 0.2 millimeters and 1 centimeter in size) and favor a fungal and bacterial 

system that reduces decomposition rates and nutrient cycling. Future wildfires would change the 

forest floor and increase the time frames for rebuilding the litter layer and mesofauna population 

recovery. Future wildfires would also cause organic matter decomposition rates to increase due to 

more sunlight and changes in organic litter composition. Soil erosion would significantly 

increase after a wildfire. Calculated wildfire accelerated surface erosion would experience a 10-

fold increase to an estimated 0.4 tons/acre and could increase more if rilling occurs with 

snowmelt runoff and thunderstorms. 

Summary

With no action, there would be no new soil disturbances. The level of existing detrimental soil 

disturbance within the project area would remain unchanged. Nutrient cycling would be 

maintained as fine organic matter increases as duff/litter layers. Soil fertility would be 

maintained in managed stands due to the increased organic matter on the soil surface and in the 

soil. Compacted soils (reduced porosity) in portions of old skid trails will slowly increase their 

porosity due to biological activities, and thereby regain lost soil productivity over the next 40 to 

50 years. 

Future wildfires would change the forest floor and increase the time frames for rebuilding the 

litter layer and mesofauna population recovery. Future wildfires would also cause organic matter 

decomposition rates to increase due to more sunlight and changes in organic litter composition. 

Soil erosion would significantly increase after a wildfire. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects

Table A-6 (Appendix A) displays the various management activities, their context, adverse 

effects, intensity and determination for their direct effects on the soil resource. Table A-5 

(Appendix A) displays the recommended soil cover and subsequent post-treatment erosion hazard 

rating for each harvest unit. Detrimental soil disturbance and detrimental compaction are levels 

of disturbance (soil displacement) and compaction that exceed LRMP and SQAS standards.

Ground-based mechanical harvesting would result in increased soil disturbance and both 

increased microporosity and reduced macroporosity, but with proper layout of the skid trail 

system (which maximizes the distance between main skid trails), detrimental disturbance can be 

kept within allowable limits (15 percent of each unit). Placing a high priority on reusing existing 

skid trails and designating main skid trails and landings will ensure that detrimental effects can be 

minimized. Recent soil compaction and disturbance monitoring on the Goosenest Ranger District 

(Laurent 2006) of feller/buncher harvesting with rubber-tired skidders showed that detrimental 

soil compaction occurred on 3 to 7.6 percent of the area within logged units. Skid trails in 

thinning biomass prescription units occupied an average of 12 percent of the logged area. Small 

increases in compaction (reduced soil macroporosity) also occurred in other areas where 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

11

machinery made one or two passes, but this increased compaction did not exceed threshold values 

as documented by Laurent (2006). Small changes in porosity, such as reducing macroporosity 

and increasing microporosity, is actually beneficial to plants due to increasing the soil water 

holding capacity in these sandy loam soils. Areas with slopes >35 percent will be avoided as 

much as practical. Table 2 indicates that new ground disturbance has a high probability of 

meeting the evaluation criteria. 

Biomass removal of the small-diameter biomass and treetops has the potential to affect nutrient 

cycling by removing the nutrient rich material (needles, twigs) from the site. Biomass thinning 

harvest prescriptions (merchantable + submerchantable sized materials), using long rotations (80-

100+ years), would have much smaller impact to nitrogen removal compared to total biomass 

removal with short rotations (50 to 60 years) as reported in the literature and discussed in more 

detail in the “Background Information” section. These activities have a high probability of 

meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 2), SQAS and NFMA. 

Machine mowing of brush within the project area should maintain the high level of existing 

cover. This is accomplished by cutting the existing live and/dead standing material into smaller 

pieces and letting it fall to the soil surface. The equipment will also travel and work over the 

masticated material, thereby reducing minimizing disturbance and soil exposure. Recent soil

cover monitoring data (Laurent 2006) on the Klamath National Forest for mastication in a precommercial thinned plantations and areas of brush retained soil cover was 88 to 99 percent, and 

averaged 96 percent. This activity has a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria 

(Table 2).

Machine piling/burn piles would increase ground disturbance and soil displacement when the 

machine turns. Increased ground disturbance, as long as it is not excessive, does not always 

equate with excessive surface erosion. Soil displacement occurs when the equipment turns and 

one track scrapes the soil surface. The upper few inches of soil can be scraped into small mounds 

(2 to 6 inches high by 6 to 10 inches wide) where the track stops turning. This has a short-term 

negative impact on soil fertility in very small patches throughout the treated area. Over a few 

years the mounded material slowly resettles into the scraped areas and the mounds may 

eventually disappear entirely. This activity has a moderate probability of not significantly 

changing the site’s ability to cycle nutrients (criteria 2), because of the potential to disrupt

(obliterate) most of the existing duff mat. The fine organic material will still be on site but the 

duff mat’s functionality would be lost. This is a short-term effect and will recover as the duff mat 

is rebuilt. Table S-2 indicates that the ground disturbance resulting from this activity has mostly a 

Moderate to High probability of not significantly impairing soil productivity, because only those 

areas with slopes <35 percent would be machined piled. 

Hand pile/burn piles would easily maintain sufficient fine soil cover without causing additional 

ground disturbance. The associated burning of this piled material should easily meet the required 

soil cover amount. It is estimated from recent data (Laurent 2006) that the burn piles would 

occupy approximately 4 to 6 percent of the piled area depending on the quantity of material to be 

piled. This activity has a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table S-2).

Underburning would result in a minor loss of nitrogen, but this will have no measurable effect 

on soil productivity. The overall forest floor would be adequately maintained. The soil cover 

requirements would easily be met by this low intensity fuel treatment. Recent soil cover 

monitoring of 8 underburn units on the Goosenest District has shown that post-burn soil cover 

ranged from 66 to 91 percent and averaged 80 percent (Laurent 2006). This type of prescribed 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

12

fire will easily meet the recommended soil cover amounts. This activity has a high probability of 

meeting all the applicable evaluation criteria (Table S-2).

Fire lines would result in some additional soil displacement of the upper 3 to 6 inches of soil 

mainly with dozer-constructed fire lines. A smaller machine would have less impact due to use of 

a narrower blade. This would result in a measurable decrease in soil productivity within the onedozer-blade-wide fire line. This activity has a moderate probability of meeting all the applicable 

evaluation criteria (Table S-2). 

Landings are needed for logging operations. The size of individual landings is guided by safety 

requirements. Landings are a management decision that makes the loss of soil productivity an 

acceptable loss. Landings can produce erosion and sediment if not properly designed and 

maintained. Landings are considered necessary for managing vegetation; it is management 

decision to take this ground out of long-term timber production. There, the soil evaluation 

criteria are generally not applicable. Table S-2 indicates that landings have a high probability of 

meeting the applicable evaluation.

Borax use on cut stumps (>14 inches in diameter) would apply less than 1 pound/acre within the 

project area. Borax has a low toxicity to wildlife and is considered to have minimal to 

nondetectable effects on various soil organisms. Within the project area, some of the borax may 

persist in the soil for 2 or more years. Microbial activity probably accounts for the major 

breakdown of the chemical in soil (Phelps et al. undated).

CWD would be partially affected by the ground-based logging, machine piling, and 

underburning. Some of the more decomposed logs may be disturbed by heavy equipment 

operations and could, therefore, lose some of their effectiveness. CWD would increase over time 

by occasional natural falling of standing trees and snags. 

Table 2. Probability of the management activities in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meeting the soil resource 

evaluation criteria listed under the six standards and guidelines

Management Activity

Evaluation Standards and Guidelines

1 2 3 4 5 6

Mechanical Harvesting High High High High NA High

Biomass Removal High High High High NA High

Machine Mastication High High High High NA High

Machine Pile/Burn Piles High High High High NA High

Hand Pile/Burn Piles High High High NA High High

Underburning High High High NA High High

Fire Lines (Machine) Mod Mod High NA NA Mod

Landings High NA NA NA NA NA

Borax NA High NA NA NA High

NA = Not applicable; Mod = Moderate.

Table S-2 shows predominately a high probability that the soil resource evaluation criteria would 

be successfully met by implementing this alternative. 

Summary. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in various intensities of soil disturbance, such as, 

compaction, displacement, and loss of soil organic matter on 4,863, 3,354, and 3,654 acres, 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

13

respectively. Only a small portion of the total disturbed project acres, such as, portions of skid 

trails and landings, would exceed SQAS thresholds for loss of porosity and soil organic matter. 

Based upon recent soil compaction monitoring (Laurent 2006) on the district, detrimental soil 

disturbance would be confined to a small portion of main skid trails, landings, and dozer fire lines 

which would equal approximately 6 to 11 percent of the project area. This amount of disturbed

area would be well below the SQAS threshold level of 15 percent. These two alternatives would 

cause both reduced and increased soil productivity in skid trails, but would not, spatially, exceed 

LRMP and SQAS standards and guidelines. Within the project area, soil integrity (functionality) 

and productivity would be maintained. Overall, this project would result in recommended soil 

cover levels; varying degrees of decreased macroporosity; maintaining existing organic matter 

content in the soil; maintaining the existing moisture regime; a slightly altered hydrologic 

function; and unchanged buffering and exchange capacities.

Indirect Effects

Table A-8 (Appendix A) displays the various management activities, their context, adverse 

effects, intensity and determination of their indirect effects on the soil resource. Table A-5

(Appendix A) displays the recommended soil cover and subsequent post-treatment erosion hazard 

rating for each unit.

Ground-based mechanical harvesting would cause a minor loss of nutrients in the skid trails 

due to soil displacement and potential skid trail erosion. Some reduction in soil porosity, mainly 

a reduction in macro pores for sandy loam soils, can be beneficial to vegetation by increasing the 

amount of available soil water over the growing season. When the porosity reduction 

(compaction) approaches and exceeds the reduced porosity threshold (10 percent reduction in 

porosity), growth of trees and other vegetation that would grow on these skid trails, post-harvest 

would be increasingly reduced. Installing water bars on all skid trails is very effective in 

controlling runoff and preventing off-site sedimentation. Mitigation measures pertaining to skid 

trails are designed to minimize erosion.

Biomass removal has the potential to negatively affect soil productivity. There is a general 

agreement of researchers that stem harvest will not deplete the soil of nutrients; however, whole 

tree harvest combined with removal of non-merchantable materials has the potential to remove 

nutrients at a rate that could lead to productivity decline if short tree rotations (50 to 60 years)

were used (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). A thinning biomass removal instead of 100 percent

removal as discussed in the literature, reduces the negative effects and increases the ability of 

natural nutrient accumulation and cycling to offset nutrient losses. 

Machine mowing will have some effects on vegetative biomass production by causing some 

ground disturbance and possibly a small amount of area with decreased porosity. Overall, this 

treatment increases ground cover and onsite fine organic matter with only minimal ground 

disturbance when done during dry soil conditions. Required soil cover is 70 to 80 percent

depending on slope steepness. Site fertility will slowly increase as mowed organic material 

decomposes and increases site nutrients. Reduced evapotranspiration and cooler surface soil 

temperatures will result from the masticated material on the soil surface. Soil erosion would vary 

from 0.01 to 0.03 tons/acre (20 to 60 pounds/acre). This is very minimal erosion and would 

lower to less than 0.01 tons/acre (<20 pounds) in a few years.

Machine piling/burn piles will cause a small loss of nutrients in the tractor piles due to piling of 

nutrient rich material and some topsoil that inadvertently ends up in the pile. Burning the piles 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

14

will also result in a loss of nitrogen, but will also cause nutrient leaching into the soil from the 

ash.

Hand piling/burn piles and subsequent burning of the piles would occupy 1 to 5 percent of the 

area. The nutrient loss from the burned pile area will not have a significant effect on soil 

productivity (loss of nitrogen). Other nutrients, such as cations, will increase in the soil due to 

leaching. This activity has a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria. 

Underburning would not disturb additional soil within treated units. Heat penetration into the 

surface soil during burning will be minimal to none. Generally, soil pH, phosphorus, and 

exchangeable potassium, calcium, and magnesium increase in the soil immediately after fire 

(Wells et al. 1979). Also, some of the seedbed in isolated spots may be disturbed and cause less 

vegetative growth over the short term. Erosion will be minimal to none because this low intensity

burn will retain sufficient cover to protect the soil (Laurent 2006). Required soil cover is 60 to 70

percent depending on slope steepness. Based on soil cover monitoring data, calculated first-year 

surface erosion rate would be 0.045 tons/acre (90 pounds). This eroded soil would only move 

short distances due to the mosaic pattern of bare soil. These rates would lower to 0.01 tons/acre 

(20 pounds/acre) by the following year due to annual needle cast. Soil productivity would be 

maintained.

Fire lines would cause a loss of nutrients in the fire line due to soil displacement and erosion 

after digging. Dozer-constructed fire lines have substantially more ground disturbance than hand 

line construction. The effects of hand line construction on the soil resource are very minimal due 

to their narrow width (2 to 3 feet wide). 

Landings usually are drastically disturbed sites that have significant lower site productivity due 

to compaction and loss of nutrients. There may be a change in the types of vegetation grown on 

these sites; more towards grass and brush. The amount of area in landings is small and meets the 

region’s and forest’s guidelines.

Borax leaching off stumps or from spilled material can affect soil microorganisms by changing 

microorganism complexity within zones having higher levels, to zones where microorganism 

utilization of borax occurs. Potentially, there could be small localized changes in nutrient 

cycling. The overall change would be very limited in extent and short lived. There would be no 

detectable changes in soil productivity within the treated area. 

CWD would experience some loss of function when the more decomposed logs are disturbed 

from heavy equipment use. Increases in CWD from this project and through time will benefit 

long-term soil productivity.

Summary. There would be varying degrees of fertility/growth reduction and some growth

increases on approximately 700 to 800 acres of skid trails, landings, and dozer fire lines due to 

varying levels of compaction (decreased macroporosity and increased microporosity), soil 

displacement and loss of soil organic matter. Changes in site productivity are a normal 

occurrence associated with ground-based harvesting methods and may not be measurable due to 

the affects of competing vegetation. This project would meet the applicable SQAS. The land 

(excluding some skid trails, landings, and dozer fire lines) dedicated to growing vegetation would 

maintain its long-term soil productivity. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

15

Cumulative Effects

Management Unit Scale. Units within the project area that have a potential to have cumulative 

effects on the soil resource are managed units that were subjected to past logging, site 

preparation, and fire. Cumulatively, mechanical harvesting and biomass removal have the most 

potential to affect soil productivity. The affects are mostly associated with nutrient displacement 

and removal, which has the ability to recover over the long term. There may be a slight (within 

normal variability) short-term soil productivity decrease, but long-term soil productivity will not 

be significantly decreased (<15 percent decline) over the life of the new stand. It would probably 

take at least two or more rotations (160 to 200 years) using the same treatments to have a 

measurable (not significant) negatively effect on long-term soil productivity. 

Overall, the generally low to moderate intensity of harvesting and fuel reduction activities will 

minimize any cumulative effects. The use of existing skid trails and landings minimizes 

cumulative effects to these previously disturbed acres. Machine mowing (mastication) would not 

significantly increase soil compaction (reduction in soil porosity) because generally, only one 

pass would be made over any piece of ground. Short-term disturbance effects would not 

measurably affect long-term soil productivity. The dynamic and highly variable nature of soil 

processes and ecosystem and its strong buffering capacity reduce the possibility of having any 

measurable negative long-term cumulative effects on soil productivity. 

A long-term cumulative effect on soil productivity depends on the level of biomass utilization, 

method of harvest, method of site preparation, nutrient replacement rates, existing soil 

productivity and rotation length. Bole removal would result in minor cumulative effects 

regarding nutrient removal because sufficient nutrients are added to the soil through natural 

processes over a rotation. Biomass removal of only the merchantable sized material (whole tree) 

has a high probability of maintaining long-term soil productivity if the submerchantable material 

is left on site (professional judgment and literature documentation). Repeated entries into these 

stands, using the same skid trails increases the potential that soil compaction on the existing skid 

trails and would probably require some subsoiling of these skid trails in the future if the percent 

area in skid trails exceeds 15 percent of the unit. 

Potential future management treatments for these stands may be more thin harvests. Studies have 

shown that thin harvest would remove only 2.9 percent of the total site nitrogen, which is 67

percent less nitrogen removal than a total biomass harvest (whole-tree clear-cut). The literature 

also suggests that it would take at least three total biomass removals within 150 years to 

significantly reduce soil productivity (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). These stands, within the same 

timeframe could have at least two biomass thin harvests and numerous bole only harvests. The 

literature also indicates that repeated bole only harvest would not produce a significant soil 

productivity decline (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). 

Summary. Individually as well as cumulatively, these proposed activities would result in a slight 

decrease in soil fertility, but that would be within the natural variability for the soils within the 

project area. Soil productivity would be increased in areas where there is a slight increase in soil 

bulk density (equipment tracks) due to decreased macroporosity and increased microporosity. 

Reductions in macroporosity (compaction) and increased erosion rates would not exceed the 

SQAS. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are expected to retain sufficient soil cover to minimize soil 

erosion, maintain nutrient cycling, maintain soil fertility and soil integrity/health and therefore 

maintain short and long-term soil productivity. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

16

Significance Factors

Table A-8 (Appendix A) displays the intensity factors and their applicability to the soil resource 

for the proposed action. Tables A-5 and A-6 (Appendix A) provide more detailed context and 

intensity information.

Existing Information

The project area is covered by an order 3 soil survey completed in 1982 and published by the 

Forest Service in 1994 (Foster and Lang 1994). The portion of the district that contains the 

project was remapped in 1995–97, in more detail, as part of an ecological unit inventory 

(conducted by Tom Laurent) at the land type scale. The project area contains eight soil pedon 

descriptions. Pertinent soil survey information applicable to this project is displayed in Table 3. 

Other pertinent existing information (field gathered) is displayed in Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3 

(Appendix A).

Management Direction

The following laws, regulations, management plans, Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Forest 

Service Handbooks (FSH) provide the overall direction for soil resource investigations, standards 

and guidelines, and reasons for conducting field investigations: 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974;

• National Forest Management Act of 1976; 

• Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1976; 

• Land and Resource Management Plan-Klamath National Forests; 

• FSH 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook R5 Supplement No. 2509.18-95-1; 

• FSH 2509.18 Chapter 3 Pacific Southwest Soil Interpretations; 

• FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 Water Quality 

Management For National Forest Lands in California (BMP); 

• FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook Chapter 50 Soil Erosion Hazard 

Rating R5 Amend. 2, 1990; and 

• FSM 2552 Soil Management Support Services.

Background Information

Analysis and Report Time

A total of 10 days were spent in the field in the project area by the Klamath Forest soil scientist 

and/or myself conducting SQAS data collection surveys and making other field observations. 

Plot data was collected using traverses in proposed units. Fieldwork included verification of soils 

mapped in 1994. 

Education and Professional Experience

I have a Bachelor of Science degree (1983) in Geology from Northern Arizona University, 

Flagstaff, and a Master of Science degree in Forest Hydrology from Oregon State University, 

Corvallis (1993). 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

17

My professional experience includes 15 years as a district hydrologist/soil scientist and Forest 

hydrologist/soil scientist on the Winema/Fremont and Wallowa Whitman National Forests. My 

responsibilities included providing hydrology and soil resource input into the timber sale, 

watershed and fuels programs; and conducting soil quality monitoring, and BMP implementation 

and effectiveness monitoring.

I am a member of the American Geophysical Union, the American Water Resources Association, 

and the American Institute of Hydrology. I am a licensed professional geologist in Washington 

and Oregon and hydrologist with the American Institute of Hydrology.

Discussion

Soil Concerns

Soil is the fundamental nonrenewable resource on which other forest resources are dependent. 

Soils are dynamic bodies of mineral matter, organic materials, micro-fauna, vegetation, and air. 

The sum of these components makes up the soil ecosystem. The soil ecosystem is divided into 

above-ground and below-ground components. The above-ground component is the forest floor 

that consists of coarse woody debris, fine organic matter, litter, and duff mat. The below ground 

component is the mineral soil that consists of mineral materials, organic matter, and pore space. 

Biological activities occur in the forest floor and within the soil.

Any forest vegetation management activity that causes mechanical soil disturbance can have 

negative impacts to soil productivity, nutrient cycling, soil cover, and vegetation recovery. This is 

a common occurrence anytime the soil is disturbed. The Forest and Region have SQAS that are 

designed to minimize the severity as well as the spatial extent of these impacts. Soil productivity 

is considered not impaired if there is not a significant measurable (>15 percent change) decrease 

in site productivity. Some negative changes to soil productivity, nutrient cycling, and soil cover 

are reasonable as long as these changes do not result in a measurable >15 percent decline in soil 

productivity (biomass production).

Skidding equipment can increase the soil’s bulk density (soil compaction) and reduce soil 

porosity dependent upon the number of passes (skidding trips) that occur on a skid trail. A 10

percent reduction in soil porosity is the threshold used to determine significant impairment of soil 

productivity. A 10 percent reduction in total soil porosity, measured at the 4 to 8 inch depth, 

corresponds to a threshold soil bulk density that indicates when potentially detrimental soil 

compaction may occur (USDA-Forest Service 1995). Total soil porosity is not measured in the 

field, but can be calculated from field measured soil bulk density data. Increases in soil bulk 

density (compaction) will result in a corresponding decrease in porosity. In this report, the term 

“soil compaction” will be used when discussing changes in porosity or bulk density. Soil 

compaction implies increased soil bulk density and reduced soil porosity. The amount of soil 

compaction may or may not result in reduced porosity that exceeds the soil porosity threshold 

guideline.

Soil compaction hazard ratings indicate that the soils in the project area have slight to severe 

ratings. The gravelly sandy loam surface textures have a severe rating when the soil is moist and 

a lack of surface cobbles and stones. The rating is slight for dry soil. This means that under moist 

conditions, skidding equipment can more easily compact these sandy loam soils and with more 

difficulty under dry soil conditions. Mitigation measures are designed to minimize compaction 

by requiring dry soil conditions which makes it much more difficult to compact soils. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

18

A recent soil compaction monitoring feller buncher/rubber-tired skidder harvesting at a similar 

site to the project area showed that some main skid trails exceeded the soil porosity reduction 

threshold. The data showed that detrimental soil compaction occurred on 3 to 7.6 percent of the 

activity area which is below the 15 percent allowable area (Laurent 2006). The new skid trails 

had the highest bulk density increase compared to the forwarder and skidder tracks. 

Biomass Removal

Removal of vegetation using a biomass or whole tree harvest prescription (boles + canopy + 

small diameter trees) has the potential to negatively affect nutrient levels in soil as well as 

nutrient cycling by removing the nutrient rich material (needles, twigs) from the site. A study of 

biomass harvesting in Douglas fir forests removed 8.8 percent of total site nitrogen compared to 

3.8 percent for bole harvest only (Cole et al. 1967). This was a 132 percent increase in nitrogen 

removal. More recent research discussed by Miller et al. (1989) showed that the amount of 

nitrogen removed by whole tree harvest on a site III soil was 8 percent higher (50 percent

increased nitrogen removal) compared to bole only harvest. Complete vegetation removal 

(biomass harvesting) increased nitrogen removal by 16 percent (100 percent increased nitrogen 

removal) compared to bole harvest. The increased nitrogen removal was more pronounced on a 

site IV soil where whole tree harvest (WTH) increased nitrogen removal by 100 percent

compared to bole only. Complete vegetation removal increased nitrogen removal by 231 percent

(Miller et al. 1989). 

There is a general agreement of researchers that multiple bole only harvests would not deplete the 

soil of nutrients; however, multiple whole tree or biomass harvests have the potential to remove 

nutrients at a rate that has a high probability of leading to soil productivity decline within a few 

tree rotations (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). The reduction in site nitrogen, phosphorous, 

potassium, and calcium combined with short rotations (50 to 60 years) has a high probability of 

resulting in a measurable decline in site productivity (Miller et al. 1989). Using longer rotations 

(such as 100 to 150 years) and less site biomass removed, such as thinning biomass prescriptions, 

the negative effects would be less. This project’s biomass thin removal indicates that biomass 

harvest would remove approximately 2.9 percent of the sites nitrogen compared to 8.8 percent

removed from a total biomass harvest (Miller et al. 1989). Biomass removal of just the 

merchantable sized material indicates that 2.2 percent of the sites nitrogen would be removed. 

This discussion concludes that there is a high probability that a single biomass thin harvest 

(merchantable + submerchantable materials) would maintain long-term soil productivity by not 

exceeding the 15 percent productivity decline threshold of the SQAS.

Wells and Jorgensen (1979) speculated that if biomass harvest is substituted for prescribed fire, 

overall nutrient removal may be unaffected. If biomass harvest prevents a serious wildfire, the 

nitrogen balance may even be in favor of biomass harvest (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). 

Soil Cover

The amount, kind, and distribution of soil cover necessary to avoid detrimental accelerated soil 

erosion is guided by the Region 5 Erosion Hazard Rating system (USDA-Forest Service 1990) 

and locally adopted standard erosion models and measurements, such as those described in the 

following papers: Soil Cover Process Paper (Laurent 2001a) and Soil Erosion Processes and the 

USLE (Laurent 2001b).

The Klamath’s LRMP (USDA-Forest Service 1995b) Standards and Guidelines (LRMP Table 4-

2) are used on the Forest for protecting soil productivity and minimizing soil erosion.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

19

Soil cover can be any combination of duff mat, litter, fine organic materials (<3 inch diameter), 

coarse organic materials (>3 inch diameter), live vegetation in contact with the soil and rock 

fragments (>3/4 inch diameter). The Forest and Regional SQAS require that fine organic 

materials (duff mat, litter, fine organic materials) be at least 50 percent (absolute percentage 

value) of the total cover.

Table 3. Minimum total soil cover needed for sandy loam soils in treated stands to minimize soil 

erosion per LRMP Table 4-2

Slope Group (%)

Minimum Soil Cover

Machine Disturbed Areas

(%) Underburned Areas (%)

0-25 70 60

26-35 80 70

The soil cover guidelines in Table 3 were used to determine the recommended post-treatment soil 

cover needed to achieve low erosion hazard ratings for each management unit. Table A-5

(Appendix A) displays the recommended soil cover and subsequent post-treatment erosion hazard 

rating (EHR) for each unit.

Effects on the Soil Ecosystem

Forest soils are generally considered nonrenewable resources with an average formation rate of 

0.1 inch/100 years. Recovery time frames for the various components of the soil ecosystem vary 

from a few years to 1,000 years depending on the intensity and type of disturbance. In 1995, the 

Forest Service in Region 5 developed soil resource monitoring standards (USDA-Forest Service

1995a) meant to detect changes that would lower soil productivity over a rotation which is at least 

100 years for nutrient cycling and longer for soil erosion (1,000 years). Changes above 

established thresholds indicate the need for mitigation. This monitoring is based upon the 

following concepts: (1) management practices create soil disturbance; (2) soil disturbances affect 

soil and site processes; and (3) soil and site processes control site productivity (Powers et al.

1998). A threshold for detrimental disturbance is defined as a change in any monitoring variable 

sufficient to trigger a 15 percent reduction in soil productivity from that of the undisturbed 

condition. Fifteen percent was chosen because this value was determined to be the smallest 

change that would be statistically significant. This does not imply that productivity has declined 

by 15 percent, but that a detrimental disturbance threshold has been exceeded (Powers et al.

1998). The Regional SQAS (USDA-Forest Service 1995a) are meant to be early warning 

thresholds of impaired soil conditions. Not all changes caused by management are detrimental to 

the soil resource. These soil quality standards are to be used as interim standards until such time 

as the long-term soil productivity installations reach a mature age (Powers et al. 1998) and are 

able to provide verification of the interim SQAS or require modifications of the SQAS.

Direct Effects

Direct effects on the soil ecosystem, by natural or man-caused activities, are primarily soil 

disturbance, redistribution of organic matter, and changes in biological properties. The soil 

ecosystem properties that are affected are soil volume, soil porosity, soil water availability, soil 

chemistry, and soil biology (Powers 1989).
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

20

Soil volume is reduced in main tractor yarding skid trails where soil displacement occurs, when 

tracked vehicles make turns, and to a lesser degree in cable yarding corridors. Soil porosity is 

moderately to severely reduced (compaction) when heavy equipment operates on moist soils 

compared to slightly reduced porosity with dry soil conditions or in cable yarding corridors. Soil 

water availability is reduced by reductions in porosity, by removing soil cover that increases 

transpiration and soil temperatures, and by soil displacement. 

Soil chemistry changes usually require drastic events such as wildfires, soil scalping, more 

intense broadcast prescribed fires or fertilization for most soils. Some soils, such as those derived 

from mica schist or granitic rocks, are more sensitive to disturbance due to a weak buffering 

capacity (how well a soil resists change) and lower resiliency (how well a soil recovers following 

disturbance). The majority of soils with loam to clay loam textures are very resilient to 

disturbances.

Soil biology refers to the myriad of soil organisms and their interactions that relate to a proper 

functioning soil ecosystem (soil health). Soil organisms are responsible for the capture and 

uptake of nutrients, nitrogen fixation, protection against pathogens, maintenance of soil structure, 

and buffering against moisture stress (Amaranthus et al. 1989). Some forest practices, such as 

ground disturbance, compaction, erosion, and intense fires can reduce or eliminate beneficial soil 

organisms. While other practices, such as hand pile and jack pot burns with underburning, have 

slight to no measurable effects on beneficial soil organisms.

Long-term soil productivity is also dependent upon ecosystem diversity and resilience (ability to 

absorb stress or change without significant loss of function). Retention of genetic, structural, 

landscape, and temporal diversity is important for resiliency (Franklin et al. 1989).

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects on the soil ecosystem are secondary reactions to direct effects. The most common 

secondary reactions are increased surface erosion, reduction in fertility, and reduced vegetative 

growth.

Increased erosion rates occur when soil cover (surface inorganic or organic materials) is reduced 

or removed by mechanical disturbance or fire. Soil productivity is affected when the erosion rate 

exceeds the annual soil formation rate for an extended period of time. Changes in or loss of the 

surface organic layers reduces nutrient cycling. Vegetative growth can be reduced if this reduced 

nutrient cycling lasts for an extended period of time. Soil organism composition changes when 

the organic surface layer is drastically altered. This negatively effects nutrient cycling. Changes 

in soil porosity (compaction) cause a reduction in vegetative growth by reducing plant available 

soil water. Significant changes in the coarse woody debris (CWD) can negatively affect soil 

fertility by changing the diversity of soil biology. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on the soil ecosystem have two scales: (1) the number and types of 

management activities occurring within an individual stand over time; and (2) the number and 

types of management activities and their distribution occurring within a project area or watershed 

over time.

There is little existing research done on measuring the effects of multiple management activities 

occurring in a stand through time such as the following: partial-cut harvest, wildfire, tractor 

logging and tractor piling all occurring over a 10-year period on the same managed stand. We 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

21

can make reasonable assumptions and conclusions based on professional opinion, knowledge, and 

experience on the affects of these previously listed multiple-management actions. The ongoing 

North American network of long-term soil productivity installations (Powers and Avers 1995) 

will be able to answer some of these questions, but the results are many years in the future. Some 

researchers believe that soil porosity and soil organic matter are the two most important 

components of the soil ecosystem and that significant changes in these two factors have 

corresponding changes in soil productivity (Nambiar 1996; Powers 1999). Changes in soil 

productivity can occur over both short-term (<10 years) and long-term (50+ years) time frames. 

Short-term changes in a stand can be negative and then show a positive change in the long term 

when nutrient cycling stabilizes.

The second cumulative scale deals with soil disturbing activities on a watershed scale. The 

degree of effect is determined by the number of acres treated in a watershed, the type of ground 

disturbing or other soil cover removing activities used and their timing. This type of cumulative 

effects is analyzed by cumulative watershed effects analysis (CWE) and generally focuses on 

surface erosion and subsequent sedimentation.

Hydrology

Introduction

Hydrologic Concerns

The concerns for the hydrologic resource are to maintain or enhance the channel conditions, 

riparian conditions, and water quality for the beneficial uses within project watersheds.

Riparian reserves were established by the Northwest Forest Plan. The treatment areas do not 

contain any riparian reserves. Field work revealed that there is no surface hydrologic 

connectivity between the project units and downstream waters.

Hydrologic Resource Components

The following measures are designed to provide for hydrologic resource protection as applied to 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

• Roads will be cleared, and graded as necessary to allow log truck and equipment access 

using minimum disturbance methods and minimum clearing widths. 

• Roads used for this project will be graded to outslope where feasible.

• Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during all project activities (see 

Appendix A for applicable BMPs). 

• If needed, water drafting sites for dust abatement on roads will occur at designated sites 

for that purpose. Portable pumps used for drafting will incorporate a mesh-screened 

intake not to exceed 3/16 inch diameter and be placed on an oil-absorbing mat. During

water drafting operations, stream flows will not be reduced by more than 10 percent at 

any time. All equipment operating on the project will be maintained in good repair and 

free of abnormal leakage of lubricants.

• Erosion control measures will be employed on the access and/or main road to prevent 

water leakage from causing stream sedimentation as needed. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

22

Affected Environment

The project area is subdivided into five 7th field HUC watersheds—Antelope Well (5,039 acres), 

Dock Well (8,096 acres) Grouse Hill (9,731 acres), Hill 22 (3,709 acres) and Tamarack Flat 

(10,600 acres). The project area contains riparian reserves, but all riparian reserves in the project 

area were found to be ephemeral draws that do not qualify as riparian reserves due to a lack of 

inter-annual scour in the topographic depression where the stream was thought to exist. The 

presence of channel year-to-year scour is necessary for riparian reserve designation.

There is no mapped surface hydrologic connectivity between the project units and downstream 

waters. Thus, water quality is a non-key issue—one that has little influence on the decision 

because the project area contains very little surface water and no beneficial uses of water other 

than stock watering. No project activities would affect beneficial uses of water. The Klamath 

National Forest Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) models were run for the project (available 

in the project record); and all drainages are below threshold for all alternatives.

Antelope Well 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.32 miles per square mile. Tables 4 and 5 

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Risk ratios

range from 0.12 to 0.33 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. There is no yearround surface water in this 7th field watershed.

Table 4. Existing conditions for Antelope Well 7th

Sediment Type

field watershed

Background

Harvest & 

Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Surface Erosion Delivered sediment (yds3 /year)

17.3 0 23.3 40.6 0.33

Mass Wasting Delivered sediment (yds3/decade )

294 73 32.1 400 0.18

Table 5. Existing conditions for the ERA disturbance index

7th

Acres

Field 

Watershed

TOC 

%

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Antelope Well 5,039 16.5 41.6 57.1 98.7 0.12

Tamarack Flat 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.10 miles per square mile. Tables 6 and 7

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Risk ratios 

range from 0.11 to 0.37 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

Table 6. Existing conditions for Tamarack Flat 7th field watershed

Sediment Type Background Harvest & Roads Current Risk 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

23

Fire Ratio

Surface Erosion Delivered sediment (yds3 /year)

53.1 0 79.5 132.6 0.33

Mass Wasting Delivered sediment (yds3/decade )

588 141 63.5 793 0.18

Table 7. Existing conditions for the ERA disturbance index

7th

Acres

Field 

Watershed

TOC 

%

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Tamarack Flat 10,600 16.5 61.5 126 187.5 0.11

Dock Well 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.45 miles per square mile. Tables 8 and 9 

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Risk ratios 

range from 0.34 to 0.57 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

Table 8. Existing conditions for Dock Well 7th field watershed

Sediment Type Background

Harvest & 

Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Surface Erosion Delivered sediment (yds3 /year)

37.9 0 79.5 117.5 0.52

Mass Wasting Delivered sediment (yds3/decade )

588 157 55.6 632 0.25

Table 9. Existing conditions for the ERA disturbance index

7th

Acres

Field 

Watershed

TOC 

%

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Dock Well 8,096 17 36.6 111.1 147.7 0.11

Grouse Hill 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.27 miles per square mile. Tables 6 and 7 

display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Risk ratios 

range from 0.22 to 0.48 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes.

Table 10. Existing conditions for Grouse Hill 7th field watershed

Sediment Type Background

Harvest & 

Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

24

Surface Erosion Delivered sediment (yds3 /year)

40.3 0 72.2 112.5 0.48

Mass Wasting Delivered sediment (yds3/decade )

497 152 63.9 714 0.22

Table 11. Existing conditions for the ERA disturbance index

7th

Acres

Field 

Watershed

TOC 

%

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Grouse Hill 9,731 17 270.9 121.4 392.3 0.24

Hill 22 7th Field Watershed

Disturbances and past impacts in the watershed include roads, logging activities, OHV use, and 

grazing. The current road density is approximately 3.08 miles per square mile. The Tables 6 and 

7 display the existing conditions for surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance. Risk ratios

range from 0.14 to 0.37 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. 

Table 12. Existing conditions for Hill 22 7th field watershed

Sediment Type Background

Harvest & 

Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Surface Erosion Delivered sediment (yds3 /year)

13 0 14.5 27.5 0.28

Mass Wasting Delivered sediment (yds3/decade )

189 118 24.9 331 0.38

Table 13. Existing conditions for the ERA disturbance index

7th

Acres

Field 

Watershed

TOC 

%

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Current

Risk 

Ratio

Hill 22 3,709 16.5 38.7 44.9 83.6 0.14

Environmental Consequences

Hydrologic Direction

There are two sources of management direction for maintenance of watershed conditions in this 

project area: Clean water laws and the Klamath NF LRMP. 

Forest activities must be consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and the California PorterCologne Water Quality Act, as promulgated in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast 

Region (“Basin Plan”) (CRWQCB 1993). 

The following Basin Plan water quality objectives will be applied to this project: 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

25

1. Suspended sediment – “Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that cause 

nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.”

2. Settleable material (bedload sediment) – “Waters shall not contain substances in 

concentrations that result in deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affect 

beneficial uses.”

3. Turbidity – “Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally 

occurring background levels.”

4. Temperature – “The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be 

altered unless it can be demonstrated that such alteration in temperature does not adversely 

affect beneficial uses. At no time or place shall the temperature be increased more than 5 

degrees Fahrenheit above natural receiving water temperature.”

The above identified water quality objectives are not specifically relevant to this project because 

there is no surface flow connectivity between the project units and Antelope Creek. Without 

hydrologic connectivity, the project will basically have no measurable effects on surface water 

quality.

Each management activity will be rated for its ability to meet the applicable evaluation criteria by 

using descriptive terms (Low, Moderate, Moderately High, and High). A probability rating of 

Moderate, Moderately High, or High is just an indicator on the likelihood of the evaluation 

criteria being met. This does not mean that the standard and guideline would not be met. The 

ratings are similar to achievement expectations. As an example, not meeting the soil cover 

guideline does not imply that the standard and guideline was not met; rather, soil erosion would 

be a little higher then what management would like and that some soil material as well as 

nutrients would be lost. It would require a substantial departure from the cover guideline over an 

extended period of time to cause a significant reduction in soil productivity. A rating of Low 

would imply that there is a strong likelihood that the standard and guideline would not be met.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects

Existing conditions resulting from past disturbances and impacts in the project area include roads, 

logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. Current road density varies from 3.08 to 3.45 miles per 

square mile by 7th field watershed (see tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for a more detailed description 

of existing watershed conditions by surface erosion, mass wasting, and disturbance). Current risk 

ratios range from 0.11 to 0.52 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance processes. With no 

action, existing conditions would steadily improve over time. Effects of road density on the area 

would remain the same. Erosion would lower over time as soil cover increases in disturbed areas. 

Water quality would remain basically the same as current conditions. Future wildfires would 

change the forest floor, such as removing soil cover and reducing evapotranspiration. 

Indirect Effects

There would be no new indirect effects. Existing indirect effects are increased snow pack, 

increased subsurface water due to reduced evapotranspiration, and surface erosion as a result of 

past logging. These indirect effects would be reduced over time as the existing vegetation 

increases in density and height. Impacts from existing road densities would remain the same. 

Water quality would remain the same as current conditions. Future wildfires would drastically 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

26

increase soil erosion due to loss of soil cover, increase runoff and could negatively affect unnamed drainages leaving the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Existing cumulative effects would decrease as vegetation and soil cover in disturbed areas 

increases. Cumulative effects from future projects would be somewhat less if this area 

experiences no new disturbances. Water quality would remain the same as current conditions. 

Beneficial uses would remain the same as current conditions. 

Future wildfires would change the forest floor and increase the time frames for rebuilding the 

litter layer. Future wildfires would also cause reduced evapotranspiration and increased soil 

erosion. Future wildfires could have a measurable effect on peak flows by increasing subsurface 

water available to drainages thereby increasing peak or total flows.

Summary. Current road density varies from 3.08 to 3.45 miles per square mile by 7th field 

watershed. Current risk ratios range from 0.11 to 0.53 for the three modeled erosion/disturbance 

processes. With no action, existing conditions would remain the same and recover over time. 

Water quality would remain the same as well as channel conditions for project drainage channels.

Future wildfires would change the forest floor and increase the time frames for rebuilding the 

litter layer. Soil erosion would significantly increase after a wildfire. Future wildfires could also 

have a measurable effect on streamflows by increasing subsurface water available to drainages 

and thereby increasing total or peak flows.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the action. Direct effects relating 

to surface water hydrology and water quality consist of disturbances to the soil or vegetative 

cover, sedimentation and surface erosion into streams and channels, changes to water discharge 

and flow, and pollutant discharges. To have direct effects to stream water quality and quantity, 

project activities would have to occur in or nearby stream courses. These disturbances may be 

either natural or human caused. Table A-7 (Appendix A) displays the various management 

activities, their context, adverse effects, intensity, and determination of their direct effects on the 

watershed resources. For this project, typical activities that would produce direct effects include: 

• Temporary road and landing re-construction including road decommissioning and road 

maintenance

• timber harvest

• ground-based tree yarding 

• machine mowing and machine piling

• treatment of slash by underburning and hand piling

• water drafting

Discussion of the direct effects includes discussions of the relative risk of increased surface 

erosion (USLE Model), mass wasting (GEO Model), or altering (increase or reduction) stream 

flows (ERA Model) attributable to implementation of the proposed action.

Ground-based mechanical thinning/yarding has a low potential to contribute sediment due to 

no defined channels within the project units. There are designated riparian reserves in the project 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

27

area; however, due to no defined channel with channel scour, they will not be considered riparian 

reserves for the project. New ground disturbance probably would not impair water quality

because only those areas with slopes generally <35 percent would be tractor logged; no surface 

runoff connectivity to downstream channels would eliminate most or all potential sediment 

reaching streams.

Machine mowing/machine piling has a low potential to contribute sediment due to no channels 

within the project units. The project units lie outside of any riparian reserves. This undisturbed 

zone would act as a sediment filter for potential skid trail erosion. Table 15 indicates that new 

ground disturbance has mostly a high probability of not impairing water quality because only 

those areas with slopes generally <45 percent would be machine masticated/mowed.

Landings are needed for logging operations. The size of individual landings is guided by safety 

requirements and the amount of material that would be processed and/or stored. Generally, 

landings are kept to the smallest size practical, approximately 0.33 acres each. Landings 

servicing whole-tree yarding operations usually require at least 1 acre. Landings, since they are 

road associated, have a higher potential to contribute sediment to the channels compared to the 

harvest acres. This activity has a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 

15).

Road work/use includes normal maintenance of existing Forest Service roads, temporary use of 

unclassified roads, and construction of approximately 0.7 or 1.3 miles of temporary road has a 

low potential to create sediment because there are no stream channels or other surface runoff 

connectivity. At the end of the project the existing unclassified roads would be closed to use. 

Alternative 4 proposes closure of two segments of system roads for wildlife habitat protection.

Table 14 summarizes the road activity by alternative. Project design measures as described in the 

BMPs are designed to minimize erosion from roads during and after the project. This activity has 

a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 15).

Table 14. Summary of road activity within the project area

Road Type and Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt. 4

Miles of system road haul maintenance 0 37.5 33.8 36.0

Miles of non-system road maintenance 0 5.5 4.8 5.0

Miles of existing unclassified roads to open, 

use then close at project completion

0 3.2 1.6 1.9

Miles of new temporary road to use then

obliterate

0 0.7 0.7 1.3

Miles system road to close (44N62A, 

44N80A)

0 0 0 1.5

Underburning/hand piling would create little to no ground disturbance, would maintain high 

levels of soil cover, and therefore, would not produce any measurable sediment. This activity has 

a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 15).

Borax use on cut stumps (>14inches in diameter) would apply less than 1 pound/acre within the 

project area. Borax has a low toxicity to wildlife and is considered to have minimal to 

nondetectable effects on various soil organisms. Only a minimal amount of borax would enter 

the soil, mostly as material that inadvertently does not land on the cut stump. A borax spill would 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

28

immediately be scraped up and put back into the shaker container. Borax can persist in the soil 

for 1 or more years depending on soil types and rainfall. Within the project area, some of the 

borax may persist in the soil for 2 or more years. Microbial activity probably accounts for the 

major breakdown of the chemical in soil (Phelps et al. undated). This activity has a high 

probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 15).

Table 15. Probability of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meeting the hydrologic resource evaluation 

guidelines

Management Activity

Evaluation Standards and Guidelines

1 2 3 4

Ground-Based Mechanical Yarding High High High High

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling High High High High

Landings High High High High

Road Work/Use High High High High

Underburning/Hand Piling High High High High

Borax Use High High High High

The information displayed in Tables 16, 17, and 18 shows existing conditions as described by the 

surface erosion model (USLE), mass wasting model (GEO), and disturbance index (ERA) for the 

project 7th field drainages. These tables also show the effects of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and how 

they may influence existing conditions. 

Watershed Model. The model outputs need to be put in perspective to the surface hydroloogy of 

the project area. There is no surface connectivity as channels from inside the project area to 

streams. The USLE model assumes delivery to a channel. Without channels, there is no 

sediment delivery. These erosion values are estimates of mobilized soil due to changes in soil 

cover. The model does not effectively deal with surface topography and its runoff concentrating 

capabilities. The bottom line is that the estimated annual delivered sediment volumes 

(yard3

A similar situation exists for the mass wasting portion of the model. The mass wasting rates are 

those from the Klamath Mountains physiographic region which has a much higher mass wasting 

rate than the project area due to gentler slopes, less rainfall, and different bedrock lithologies. 

The mass wasting rate from roads is also highly over estimated. Basically, in the project area,

there is no mass wasting occurring nor is any likely to occur due to this project because of gentle 

slopes, highly permeable soils, low rainfall, and little to no road cuts and fills. Also, there is no 

surface hydrologic connectivity within the project area, so any mass wasting that might 

potentially occur would not reach downstream channels. These mass wasting sediment values 

should be used for comparison purposes only.

/year) from surface erosion are highly over estimated by this model with the type of 

topography in the project area. These values should be used for comparison purposes only. The 

likelihood of sediment entering downstream channels from the project area is very low.

The ERA modeled values have similar problems. This model evaluates for changes in peak 

flows. These peak flows can be changed by surface runoff and subsurface water movement. The 

surface runoff risk does not exist so changes in peak flows must rely on subsurface water flow to 

downstream waters. The subsurface water flow is not the same as occurs in the Klamath 

Mountains physiographic region. The ERA values probably overestimate the peak flow effects 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

29

from the project area. Therefore, these ERA values should be used for comparison between 

watersheds purposes only.

Surface Erosion. Surface erosion (Table 16) is calculated by using the standardized rainfall 

intensity value from a 2-year, 6-hour storm event. In theory, there is a 50 percent chance that a 

storm with this intensity will occur in any given year. This standardized rain intensity value (2-

year, 6-hour event) is used to average the gentle low intensity rains and more intense storms that 

occur. The values displayed in Table 16 are for comparison purposes to give a relative sense of 

the magnitude of the potential effects from the project as represented in alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

Alternative 2 is estimated to increase surface erosion by 1 to 31 percent (average 11.6 percent) for 

the five modeled watersheds. Alternative 3 is estimated to increase surface erosion by 0 to 8.5

percent (average 2.8 percent) for the five modeled watersheds. Alternative 4 is estimated to 

increase surface erosion by 0 to 17 percent (average 8.1 percent) for the five modeled watersheds. 

These increases for all alternatives are minor increases and the differences are probably not 

detectable due to the natural variability of erosion. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

30

Table 16. Effects of management activities on USLE modeled surface erosion by 7th field 

watersheds for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Conditions

Current

Harvest 

& Fire Roads

Risk Ratio

Increase from 

Current 

Delivered sediment (yds % 3/year

Antelope Well

) 

Existing 40.6 -- -- 0.33

Alternative 2 40.6 1.1 0 0.35 6

Alternative 3 40.6 0.1 0 0.34 0

Alternative 4 40.6 0.8 0 0.35 2

Dock Well

Existing 117.5 0 0.52

Alternative 2 117.5 35.1 1.4 0.76 31

Alternative 3 117.5 8.7 1.4 0.59 8.5

Alternative 4 117.5 19.1 1.4 0.66 17.5

Grouse Hill

Existing 112.5 0 0.48

Alternative 2 112.5 1.4 0 0.45 1

Alternative 3 112.5 0.2 0 0.45 0

Alternative 4 112.5 0.3 0 0.45 0

Hill 22

Existing 27.5 0 0.28

Alternative 2 27.5 4.3 0 0.36 16

Alternative 3 27.5 1.1 0 0.30 4

Alternative 4 27.5 3.8 0 0.35 14

Tamarack Flat

Existing 132.6 0 0.38

Alternative 2 132.6 4.9 0.4 0.4 4

Alternative 3 132.6 1.7 0.4 0.38 1.5

Alternative 4 132.6 7.5 1.7 0.42 7

Mass Wasting. Table 17 displays potential delivered mass wasting volumes. The methodology 

was developed from data on the westside of the Forest and is not generally applicable to this area 

of the Goosenest District. Basically, there will be no mass wasting delivered sediment in the 

project area due to the very gentle slopes and no history of mass wasting occurring in the project 

area. Therefore, the mass wasting volumes displayed in Table 17 should be used for alternative 

comparison purposes only rather than as actual estimated volumes of material delivered to stream 

channels. Table 17 shows that alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could increase mass wasting delivered 

sediment by 0 to 17 percent over a 10-year period, with is a very minor estimated increase for 

most watersheds. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

31

Table 17. Effects of management activities on modeled (GEO) mass wasting by 7th field watersheds 

for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Conditions

Current

Harvest 

& Fire Roads

Risk Ratio

Increase from 

Current 

Delivered sediment (yds % 3

Antelope Well

/decade) 

Existing 400 -- -- 0.18 --

Alternative 2 400 5.3 0.2 0.19 1

Alternative 3 400 0 0 0.18 0

Alternative 4 400 7.6 0 0.19 1

Dock Well

Existing 632 -- -- 0.25 --

Alternative 2 632 105.9 0.7 0.38 17

Alternative 3 632 0 0.7 0.26 0.1

Alternative 4 632 25.2 0.7 0.28 4

Grouse Hill

Existing 714 -- -- 0.22 --

Alternative 2 714 8.4 0 0.22 1.4

Alternative 3 714 0 0 0.22 0

Alternative 4 714 0.7 0 0.22 0.1

Hill 22

Existing 331 -- -- 0.38 --

Alternative 2 331 26.3 0 0.45 7.9

Alternative 3 331 0 0 0.45 0

Alternative 4 331 15.8 0 0.42 4.7

Tamarack Flat

Existing 793 -- -- 0.17 --

Alternative 2 793 5.3 0.2 0.18 1

Alternative 3 793 0 0.2 0.18 0

Alternative 4 793 3.5 0.9 0.18 0.5

ERA. The disturbance index (ERA) is a simplified accounting method (described as a qualitative 

descriptive tool) for tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes; in particular, it 

estimates potential changes in peak runoff flows as they are influenced by ground-disturbing 

activities. This model shows (Table 18) that the existing watershed condition is relatively stable 

and in good condition as indicated by the low risk ratios. Alternative 2 will increase disturbance 

and increase the risk ratios to 0.16, 0.53, 0.25, 0.30, and 0.15 for the project watersheds. The 

largest increase will be for the Dock Well Watershed. Overall these increases are low and they 

should have minimal to no effects on peak flows. The only major difference between the 

alternatives occurs in the Dock Well Watershed where the increase in the risk ratio is 0.42. The 

difference in effects between alternatives in this watershed would probably not be visible.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

32

Table 18. Effects of management activities modeled by ERA disturbance index by 7th field 

watersheds for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

7th TOC Field Watershed %

Harvest 

+ Fire Roads Risk Ratio

Antelope Well

Existing 16.5 41.6 57.1 0.12

Alternative 2 16.5 25 7.1 0.16

Alternative 3 16.5 5.3 7.1 0.13

Alternative 4 16.5 19.1 7.1 0.15

Dock Well

Existing 17 36.6 111.1 0.11

Alternative 2 17 576.6 1.5 0.53

Alternative 3 17 203.3 1.5 0.26

Alternative 4 17 329.1 11.5 0.35

Grouse Hill

Existing 17 270.9 121.4 0.24

Alternative 2 17 26.4 0 0.25

Alternative 3 17 5.2 0 0.24

Alternative 4 17 7.4 0 0.24

Hill 22

Existing 16.5 38.7 44.9 0.14

Alternative 2 16.5 96.8 1.1 0.30

Alternative 3 16.5 47 1.1 0.22

Alternative 4 16.5 83.2 1.1 0.27

Tamarack Flat

Existing 16.5 61.5 126 0.11

Alternative 2 16.5 67.3 0.4 0.15

Alternative 3 16.5 46.4 0.4 0.13

Alternative 4 16.5 111.1 1.7 0.17

Summary. No direct effects are anticipated from this project because there are no stream 

channels within the project area. Overall, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have a very high probability of 

meeting the watershed resource evaluation criteria and therefore maintaining long-term watershed 

condition/quality. This project will meet the LRMP and Basin Plan objectives for suspended 

sediment, settleable materials, turbidity, and water temperature. Overall, this project will not 

significantly decrease short- or long-term watershed condition and water quality. 

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are those caused by the action, but are later in time or further removed in distance, 

but are reasonably foreseeable. Table A-9 (Appendix A) displays the various management

activities, their context, adverse effects, intensity, and determination of their indirect effects on 

the watershed resources. Examples of indirect effects include:
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

33

• Increased snow pack resulting in increased runoff and peak flows caused by vegetation 

removal. Actions that contribute to this effect include timber harvest and fire (wildfire 

and prescribed fire at moderate to high burn intensity). Increased runoff and peak flows 

may occur absent of snow pack. 

• Increased water yield caused by tree removal and land clearing which in turn reduces 

evapotranspiration rates.

• Erosion and sedimentation after logging and following road and landing construction 

activities. This effect can be delayed in time; hence, it is also an indirect effect.

The harvest prescription is thinning with some group selection in alternative 2 and thinning 

prescriptions only in alternatives 3 and 4. Thinning harvest prescriptions have a low impact, as 

the stand structure is not substantially altered. Fuel treatments are not anticipated to cause 

sedimentation to channels because there are no defined channels and no surface connectivity 

between the project units and downstream waters. Compliance with BMPs and WWOS during 

implementation and at the close of the timber sale would ensure that no erosion problems would 

occur. Decommissioning of the existing temporary roads including putting barriers to at the road 

takeoff would be beneficial over the long term as vehicle use including OHV use would be 

eliminated or reduced, allowing the road to revegetate and recover without additional disturbance.

Summary of Indirect Effects. Overall, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not measurably increase 

short- or long-term suspended sediment, settable material, stream turbidity, and water temperature 

in the five 7th field drainages. This project will meet the LRMP and Basin Plan objectives for 

suspended sediment, settleable materials, turbidity, and water temperature.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the sum of direct and indirect effects for past, present, and foreseeable 

future actions. Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) for this project was assessed quantitatively 

and qualitatively. Three quantitative CWE models were used (KNF 2004; Reichert 2006). The 

model results are intended to provide an indication of the potential magnitude of effects 

associated with implementation of alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Combined with an estimate of the 

probability of these effects occurring, this information can be interpreted as the relative risk of 

altering stream flows (ERA Model), surface erosion (USLE Model), or mass wasting (GEO 

Model) attributable to implementation of this project. 

Inference Points and Thresholds of Concern: Much of the CWE assessment of sedimentation and 

hydrologic runoff incorporates model-supported information that accumulates disturbances 

relative to land sensitivity. As disturbances increase (and recover) over time and space, at some 

point, depending on the rate of recovery verses new activities, the risk of initiating or contributing 

to existing cumulative watershed impacts becomes a concern. These model-specific levels are 

defined as “inference points” (or “thresholds of concern” [TOC]) and are used to inform land 

managers of potential risks for a project or activity. A transition exists from lower to higher 

potential risk of adverse effects to beneficial uses (from minor to potentially significant). From a 

management perspective, inference points are intended to represent the center of that transition 

zone. Inference points do not represent the exact point at which cumulative watershed effects 

will occur. Rather, they serve as “yellow flag” indicators of increasing susceptibility for 

significant adverse effects occurring within a watershed.

CWE Analysis. Cumulative effects of past, present, and future activities may increase the risk of 

(1) hydrologic (peakflow) changes, modeled in ERA/TOC; (2) increased rate of sedimentation 

from surface erosion sources, modeled in the USLE; and (3) increased rate of landslides, 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

34

displayed in the GEO Mass Wasting model. The model outputs need to be put in perspective of 

the surface hydrology of the project area as previously discussed. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 occur within five 7th-field drainages—Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse 

Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack Flat. With implementation of either alternative 2, 3 or 4, model 

values increase in each of the drainages. These increases, however, do not push any of the 

drainages to a higher categorical status for any of the models (CWE 2006).

Table 19 displays the current, after project and future actions risk ratios for surface erosion. 

Alternative 2 combined with future actions raises the near future risk ratios to 0.35, 0.75, 0.46, 

0.36, and 0.40 compared to slightly lower risk ratios for alternative 3 and 4. Averaging the 

increases in the risk ratios above current conditions shows that alternative 2 increases the overall 

risk ratios by 0.07. These small differences between alternatives are minor to negligible. These 

risk ratios are not considered elevated since they are mostly well below the 0.80–1.0 threshold of 

concern zone.

Table 15 shows the cumulative risk ratios for mass wasting as determined by the GEO model. 

The model shows that there is basically no difference in effects of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The 

Dock Well Watershed is the only modeled watershed that has a sufficient amount of increased 

modeled delivered sediment to increase the risk ratio from 0.52 to 0.76. The effects of alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 in the other two watersheds are not sufficient enough to change the risk ratios. These 

risk ratios are well below elevated (>0.80) conditions. The modeled sediment increases are 

relatively minor and are not enough to affect channel conditions and water quality. 

Table 15 shows that the near future risk ratios for alternative 2 are increased (0.2) over current 

conditions for Dock Well Watershed and lower (-0.01) for the other watersheds. Alternative 3 and 

4 have a lower near future risk ratios for all five watersheds.

Table 19. Comparison of USLE modeled risk ratio values and future delivered sediment by 7th field 

watershed for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

7th Current -field Drainage Risk Ratio

After Project 

Risk Ratio

Foreseeable 

Future 

Actions

yds3 

Road 

Recovery 

/year yds3 

Near Future 

Actions Risk 

/year Ratio

Antelope Well

Alternative 2 0.33 0.35 0 0 0.35

Alternative 3 0.33 0.34 0 0 0.34

Alternative 4 0.33 0.35 0 0 0.35

Dock Well

Alternative 2 0.52 0.76 0 -1 0.75

Alternative 3 0.52 0.59 0 -1 0.59

Alternative 4 0.52 0.66 0 -1 0.65

Grouse Hill

Alternative 2 0.44 0.45 0 0 0.46

Alternative 3 0.44 0.45 0 0 0.45

Alternative 4 0.44 0.45 0 0 0.45

Hill 22
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

35

Alternative 2 0.28 0.36 0 0 0.36

Alternative 3 0.28 0.30 0 0 0.30

Alternative 4 0.28 0.32 0 0 0.35

Tamarack Flat

Alternative 2 0.33 0.37 0 0 0.40

Alternative 3 0.33 0.38 0 -0.3 0.38

Alternative 4 0.33 0.35 0 0 0.35

Table 20. Comparison of GEO modeled risk ratio values and future delivered sediment by 7th field 

watershed for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

7th Current -field Drainage Risk Ratio

After Project 

Risk Ratio

Foreseeable 

Future 

Actions

yds3

Road 

Recovery 

/ yds

Decade

3 Near Future 

Actions Risk 

Ratio

/

Decade

Antelope Well

Alternative 2 0.18 0.20 0 0 0.20

Alternative 3 0.18

Alternative 4 0.18 0.19 0 0 0.19

Dock Well

Alternative 2 0.25 0.38 0 -0.5 0.38

Alternative 3 0.25 0.25 0 -0.5 0.25

Alternative 4 0.25 0.28 0 -0.5 0.28

Grouse Hill

Alternative 2 0.22 0.22 0 0 0.22

Alternative 3 0.22 0.22 0 0 0.22

Alternative 4 0.22 0.22 0 0 0.22

Hill 22

Alternative 2 0.38 0.44 0 0 0.44

Alternative 3 0.38 0.38 0 0 0.38

Alternative 4 0.38 0.42 0 0 0.42

Tamarack Flat

Alternative 2 0.17 0.18 0 -0.1 0.18

Alternative 3 0.17 0.18 0 0 0.18

Alternative 4 0.17 0.18 0 -0.6 0.18

Table 20 shows that the increased cumulative risk ratios as determined by the ERA model for 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are essentially the same for project watersheds. These increases are small 

and will not result in detectable effects on peak flows downstream of the project. The differences 

in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are very small and the differences in their effects would be minimal to 

none.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

36

Table 20 shows that the near future risk ratios for alternative 2 are the same or slightly lower 

(0.01) than implementation of this alternative while alternative 3 shows slightly lower risk ratio 

values (0.01 to 0.02) for all five watersheds. Table 20 shows that the near future risk ratios for 

alternative 2 are slightly higher than those for alternative 3. The main reason for the same or 

lower future risk ratios due primarily to road decommissioning work. 

Table 21. Comparison of ERA modeled risk ratio values and future ERA values by 7th field 

watershed for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

7th Current -field Drainage Risk Ratio

After Project 

Risk Ratio

Foreseeable 

Future 

Actions

Road 

Recovery

Near Future 

Actions Risk 

Ratio

Antelope Well

Alternative 2 0.12 0.16 0 0 0.16

Alternative 3 0.12 0.13 0 0 0.13

Alternative 4 0.12 0.15 0 0 0.15

Dock Well

Alternative 2 0.11 0.53 0 -1.0 0.53

Alternative 3 0.11 0.26 0 0 0.26

Alternative 4 0.11 0.35 0 0 0.35

Grouse Hill

Alternative 2 0.24 0.25 0 0 0.25

Alternative 3 0.24 0.24 0 0 0.24

Alternative 4 0.24 0.24 0 0 0.24

Hill 22

Alternative 2 0.14 0.14 0 0 0.30

Alternative 3 0.14 0.22 0 0 0.22

Alternative 4 0.14 0.27 0 0 0.27

Tamarack Flat

Alternative 2 0.11 0.11 0 0 0.15

Alternative 3 0.11 0.13 0 0 0.13

Alternative 4 0.11 0.17 0 0 0.17

Summary of Cumulative Effects. The surface erosion (USLE) model shows that surface erosion 

is slightly increased, but these increases would probably be within the natural variability of 

sediment transport and turbidity. The cumulative effects of the project on the mass wasting risk 

(GEO model) are the same or mostly reduced due to road decommissioning, except for the 

Tennant-Antelope Creek Watershed, with implementing either alternative 2, 3, or 4, including

future foreseeable actions. All the increases in the risk ratio are no more than 2 percent. The 

cumulative risk ratios as determined by the ERA model are raised 0.04 for Antelope Well, 0.42 

for Dock Well, 0.01 for Grouse hill, 0.16 for Hill 22, and 0.04 for Tamarack Flat. These increases 

are small and would not result in detectable increased effects on peak flows. Project activity 

would not negatively affect channel conditions or water quality. Beneficial uses in the project 

area would not be significantly affected by these small increases in cumulative watershed effects. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

37

Significance Factors

Table A-9 (Appendix A) displays the intensity factors and their applicability to the hydrologic 

resource for alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Tables A-7 and A-9 (Appendix A) provide more detailed 

context and intensity information.

Existing Information

Topographic maps and recent aerial photos were examined and combined with local information 

from knowledgeable district personnel. The 2008 CWE analysis was used.

Background Information

Analysis and Report Time

A total of 2 days were spent in the field evaluating potential hydrologic features and making other 

field observations pertaining to surface hydrologic connectivity. I walked along the un-named 

stream riparian reserve to verify that there is no surface hydrologic connectivity between the 

project area and downstream waters. Also, potential intermittent channels identified on a 1:24000 

quad map in the project area units were field inspected. Field observations found no evidence of 

any past flow in these features. The features on the map were often found to be actually formed 

by the perimeters of lava flow that gives the appearance of a channel on topographic maps. 

Geology

Introduction

Geologic Resource Concerns. Proper consideration of geologic hazards and resources is 

essential to the sound management of National Forest lands. On the Goosenest Ranger District 

the geologic resources and hazards do not have the same emphasis areas as the rest of the Forest. 

Landslide risk is much lower to nonexistent, asbestos is not a risk, but cave resources are 

important. The following concerns pertain to this project: 

1. Protect public health, safety, welfare, and property from geologic hazards (seismic and 

cave) on National Forest System lands. 

2. Protect geologic resources (groundwater and caves) from being adversely affected by 

land management activities. 

Geologic Resource Components

The following measures are designed to provide for geologic resource protection as applied to 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Caves have not been identified in the project area, and may or may not be 

present in the assessment area. If they are encountered, then these measures will be used for their 

protection:

• Several fault zones, rock outcrops, and talus deposits were identified in the project area, 

and caves may be present (cave locations are protected from disclosure to the public by 

the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988). 

• All known lava-tube caves, associated sink holes, or fault caves will be protected by a 

minimum 50 foot no disturbance buffer around the entrance. Some caves may require 

wider buffers, and if so, will be designated by the district cave coordinator or biologist. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

38

(Three caves with sensitive bat habitat will be protected with a 250-foot no disturbance 

buffer).

• Cave entrance buffers will either be flagged in the field prior to implementation or other 

similarly effective measures taken to prevent disturbances there. Subtle cave entrances 

that would be difficult to spot on the ground, such as those which are flush with the soil 

surface, will have the buffers flagged. 

• Fault zones will have no disturbance buffers which coincide with the rock outcrops and 

talus deposits within the fault zone. Since outcrops and talus are easily recognizable, 

they will not be flagged on the ground unless there is a unique circumstance requiring 

this. There will be no tree removal from the outcrop and talus areas. Equipment operators 

would typically avoid the talus and outcrops found in fault zones.

• Equipment will be excluded from cave entrance buffers and outcrops and talus within 

fault zones. This can be accomplished by either flagging the exclusion zones around cave 

entrances, or designating and flagging the equipment road locations after the trees are 

marked. Crossings of fault zones will be allowed, but will be designated or approved in 

the field by the district cave coordinator (Jim Stout is the district cave coordinator) or 

designated representative. Crossings will be where the fault trace is not exposed on the 

surface. 

• Prescribed fire will be allowed to back into cave entrance buffers and fault zones, unless 

otherwise specified by the district cave coordinator or biologist for certain caves. 

Ignition of fuels within entrance buffers and fault zones is not appropriate, unless such 

action is needed to prevent unacceptable damage to vegetation and organic materials 

within or immediately adjacent to a cave entrance. Burning of pack rat middens or other 

accumulations of flammable material within caves or entrance buffers will be avoided. 

Fire will be excluded from the entrance buffers around three caves with sensitive bat 

habitat. 

• Cave locations will not be identified in the EIS, implementation, or sale area map (SAM), 

and confidentiality will be maintained in a manner similar to that used for archaeological

sites.

• New lava tube or fault caves discovered during unit layout and tree marking will be 

identified and protected by the 50-foot mechanical equipment exclusion buffer, but may 

require wider buffers that will be designated by the district cave coordinator or biologist. 

• See also “Wildlife and Biodiversity”.

Note: Project Geologic Map—A geologic map will be generated for the project area which shows 

fault zones likely to contain caves, and also basalt flows which often contain caves.

Affected Environment

The project area contains various lava deposits dominated by Quaternary- and Pliocene-aged 

basalt flows. The project area may contain caves that have not been inventoried. The bedrock is 

basically unweathered and very competent. These flows have been subsequently covered by a 

mantel of volcanic ash and alluvium. The majority of the project area has a low slope stability 

hazard rating with a small inclusion of moderate hazard. Mass wasting is not in evidence due to 

the relatively flat terrane making up the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Geologic Resource Direction. The main source of management direction for maintenance of the 

geologic resources that pertain to this project area is the Klamath NF LRMP. The following 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

39

objectives will be used to evaluate the effects of the project on the geologic resources. These two 

objectives are the only geologic objectives that pertain to the project area.

1. Protect public health, safety, welfare and property from geologic hazards on National 

Forest System lands.

2. Protect geologic resources (groundwater and caves) from being adversely affected by 

land management activities. 

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives as they relate to the geologic resource are not 

pertinent to this project because there are no riparian reserves within the project area as evidence 

by field examination. In addition, no stream channels occur within the project area. 

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for geology and the physical environment (Standards 

and Guidelines 1-1 through 2-11, page 4-19–4-21) were reviewed for applicability to this project. 

The project is not within any geologic special interest areas, there are no known geologic hazards 

in the project area. The project could use local rock pits in the area, but there are no concerns or 

issues related to rock sources for the project. 

Each management activity will be rated for its ability to meet the applicable evaluation criteria by 

using descriptive terms (Low, Moderate and High). A probability rating of Moderate or High is 

just an indicator on the likelihood of the evaluation criteria being met, and does not mean that the 

standard and guideline would not be met. The ratings are more like achievement expectations. A 

rating of Low would imply that there is a strong likelihood that the geologic resource objective 

would not be met.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects

Existing conditions resulting from past disturbances and impacts in the project area include roads, 

logging activities, OHV use, and grazing. Current road density varies from 2 to 4 miles per 

square mile by 7th field watershed (see Table 23 for a more detailed description of existing 

geologic conditions [mass wasting]). Current risk ratios range from 0.17 to 0.38 for the modeled 

mass wasting process. With no action, existing conditions would remain the same and recover 

over time. Effects of road density on the area would remain the same. 

Cave resources, if found during project layout or implementation, would remain the same as 

current conditions. The potential for wildfire to have adverse affects on cave habitat will increase 

with time.

Indirect Effects

There would be no new indirect effects. The project area is dominated by high slope stability due 

to gentle slopes, competent bedrock, and highly permeable soils. Landslide rates would remain at 

its current levels which are minimal to none. Existing landings and roads have little to no cuts 

and fill slopes. OHV use would remain at its current use. Road related runoff and erosion would 

remain the same. The cave resources would remain in their present condition. 

Overall, this alternative will not change the current landslide rates which are very low to none. 

The cave resources would remain in their current condition. Road related runoff and erosion as 

well as OHV use would remain at their current levels. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

40

Cumulative Effects

The existing condition of the five project 7th-field drainages is shown in Table 24. Table 22

shows the existing risk ratios for mass wasting as determined by the GEO model. With no action 

model values would remain the same. These risk ratios are well below elevated (>0.80) 

conditions. 

Existing effects could increase if vegetation increases in density to the point where a future 

wildfire would result in major increases in the slope stability hazard which would negatively 

affect water quality. Beneficial uses in downstream waters could significantly degrade as a result 

of a stand replacing wildfire. 

Table 22. The GEO model risk ratio values by 7th field watershed

7th-field Drainage Current

Antelope Well 0.18

Dock Well 0.25

Grouse Hill 0.22

Hill 22 0.38

Tamarack Flat 0.17

Potential effects on the potential cave resources are minimal to none. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects 

Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the action. If caves are present, 

direct effects relating to lava tube or fault caves includes soil disturbance, ground shaking, and 

disturbance to cave entrances. Soil disturbance could change surface drainage and allow runoff 

and sediment to enter the cave or lave tube. Ground shaking can affect the cave by dislodging 

portions of the cave ceiling thereby creating new openings or disturbing wildlife using the cave. 

Disturbances can change the size and shape of cave entrances as well as cave interiors. Table A-7

(Appendix A) displays the various management activities, their context, adverse effects, intensity 

and determination of their direct effects on the geologic resources. For this project, typical

management activities that would produce direct effects include: 

• Temporary road and landing re-construction including road decommissioning and road 

and maintenance

• timber harvest 

• ground-based tree yarding 

• machine mowing/machine piling

• treatment of slash by underburning and hand piling with pile burning

Ground-based mechanical thinning/yarding has a low potential to affect lava tube or fault 

caves from ground shaking, sediment, and cave entrances due to the 50-foot equipment exclusion 

buffers around the entire cave feature. In addition, three cave features areas will receive 250-foot 

buffers. These undisturbed buffers would act as a sediment filters for potential skid trail erosion. 

Table 23 indicates that new ground disturbance has mostly a high probability of not impairing 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

41

cave habitat and resources because the equipment will be kept far enough away from the cave 

feature by the buffers to prevent adverse impacts. 

Machine mowing/machine piling has a low potential to adversely affect cave features because 

of the equipment exclusion buffers. The undisturbed buffers would act as a sediment filter for 

potential erosion from these treatments. Table 23 indicates that new ground disturbance has 

mostly a high probability of not impairing cave habitat and resources. 

Landings are needed for logging operations. The size of individual landings is guided by safety 

requirements and the amount of material that would be processed and/or stored. Generally, 

landings are kept to the smallest size practical. Landings servicing whole-tree yarding operations 

usually require at least 1 acre. If caves are found, all landings will be kept outside of the cave 

buffers. Table 23 indicates that landings have mostly a high probability of not impairing cave 

habitat and resources. 

Road work/use which will be normal maintenance of existing Forest Service roads, use of 

unclassified roads (23 miles) and re-construction of approximately 3 miles of temporary road has 

a low potential to adversely affect cave resources due to their placement outside of the buffers 

and because there is surface runoff connectivity to the caves. At the end of the project 

approximately 14.5 miles (alternative 2) or 22.6 miles (alternative 3) of existing unclassified 

roads would be decommissioned. Project design measures as described in the BMPs are designed 

to minimize erosion from roads during the project as well as post-project. This activity has a high 

probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 23).

Underburning/hand piling would create little to no ground disturbance outside of the buffers 

and would maintain high levels of soil cover, and therefore, would not produce any measurable 

sediment. Prescribed fire will allowed within the cave buffers as a backing fire. This activity has 

a high probability of meeting all the evaluation criteria (Table 23).

Borax use on cut stumps (>14inches in diameter) would apply less than 1 pound/acre within the 

project area. There should be little or no borax used within the cave buffers. Borax has a low 

toxicity to wildlife and is considered to have minimal to nondetectable effects on various soil 

organisms. Only a minimal amount of borax would enter the soil, mostly as material that 

inadvertently does not land on the cut stump. A borax spill would immediately be scraped up and 

put back into the shaker container. This activity has a high probability of meeting all the 

evaluation criteria (Table 23).
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

42

Table 23. Probability of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meeting the geologic resource evaluation guidelines

Management Activity

Evaluation Standards and Guidelines

1 2

Ground-Based Mechanical Yarding High High

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling High High

Landings High High

Road Work/Use High High

Underburning/Hand Piling High High

Borax Use High High

Table 24 displays potential delivered mass wasting volumes. The methodology was developed 

from data on the westside of the Forest and is not generally applicable to this area of the 

Goosenest District. Basically, there is no mass wasting delivered sediment in the project area due 

to the very gentle slopes and no history of mass wasting occurring. Therefore, the mass wasting 

volumes displayed in Table 24 should be used for comparison purposes only rather than as 

estimated volumes of material delivered to stream channels. Table 24 shows alternatives 2, 3, and 

4 would increase mass wasting delivered sediment by 0.1 to 2.6 percent over a 10-year period, 

which is a very minor estimated increase. 

Table 24. Comparison of sediment sources for the mass wasting model (GEO) by 7th field 

Watersheds for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Conditions

Current

Harvest 

& Fire Roads

Risk Ratio

Increase from 

Current 

Delivered sediment (yds % 3

Antelope Well

/decade) 

Existing 400 -- -- 0.18 --

Alternative 2 400 5.3 0.2 0.19 1

Alternative 3 400 0 0 0.18 0

Alternative 4 400 7.6 0 0.19 1

Dock Well

Existing 632 -- -- 0.25 --

Alternative 2 632 105.9 0.7 0.38 17

Alternative 3 632 0 0.7 0.26 0.1

Alternative 4 632 25.2 0.7 0.28 4

Grouse Hill

Existing 714 -- -- 0.22 --

Alternative 2 714 8.4 0 0.22 1.4

Alternative 3 714 0 0 0.22 0

Alternative 4 714 0.7 0 0.22 0.1

Hill 22

Existing 331 -- -- 0.38 --

Alternative 2 331 26.3 0 0.45 7.9
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

43

Alternative 3 331 0 0 0.45 0

Alternative 4 331 15.8 0 0.42 4.7

Tamarack Flat

Existing 793 -- -- 0.17 --

Alternative 2 793 5.3 0.2 0.18 1

Alternative 3 793 0 0.2 0.18 0

Alternative 4 793 3.5 0.9 0.18 0.5

Summary. No adverse direct effects are anticipated from this project because there are no slope 

stability concerns, the cave resources will be adequately protected from disturbance and potential 

sediment. Overall, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have a very high probability of meeting the geologic 

resource evaluation criteria and therefore maintaining public health, safety, welfare and property. 

The groundwater and cave resources will be adequately protected from potential adverse affects 

by the equipment exclusion buffers. These is no GEO model detectable differences between 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4 regarding their effect on mass wasting rates. 

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed 

in distance, but are reasonably foreseeable. Examples include increased landslide rates which 

could be caused by (a) road and landing cuts or fills; (b) reductions in root support and 

evapotranspiration, or (c) disturbances to soil caused by logging. Reductions in root support and 

evapotranspiration are delayed effects that continue for many years later. Landslide responses are 

often not realized until a large storm occurs, which can be several years after the project activity. 

Other indirect effects include accelerated, vigorous growth in young trees following thinning of 

competing vegetation. 

The harvest prescription is predominately thinning which has a low impact, as the stand structure 

is not substantially altered and prescribed fire. Alternative 2 has a small number of acres of group 

selection which will create small openings. Fuel treatments are not anticipated to alter the 

vegetative structure and density, and therefore, will have little to no effect on mass wasting 

processes. The project area is dominated by high slope stability due to gentle slopes, competent 

bedrock and highly permeable soils. The landings and roads have little to no cuts and fill slopes. 

Decommissioning or closing of the temporary roads including putting barriers to at the road 

takeoff would be beneficial over the long term as vehicle use including OHV use would be 

eliminated or reduced, allowing the road to revegetate and recover without additional disturbance. 

Summary. Overall, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not measurably increase short- or long-term 

changes in the landslide rates. The cave resources will not be adversely affected because the 

equipment exclusion buffers will prevent vibrations and sediment from entering the caves. Also, 

the thinning prescriptions and minimal fire in these buffers will maintain existing internal cave 

habitat (temperature, humidity, moisture). This project will meet the LRMP standards and 

guidelines pertaining to geologic resources in the project area. In addition, the project will meet 

all Federal regulations pertaining to cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those which result from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. They can result from 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

44

individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over period of time. The 

greater the disturbance in a watershed (roads, harvest, fire), the greater the potential for adverse 

cumulative watershed effects. 

Cumulative geologic effects for this project was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. The 

geologic model, which is part of the Forest’s Cumulative Effects Models was used (KNF 2004; 

Reichert 2008). The model results are intended to provide an indication of the potential 

magnitude of effects associated with implementation of the proposed action. Mass wasting 

erosion rates are values derived from studies on the west side of the Forest (Klamath Mountains 

terrane) and do not represent mass wasting erosion rates in the project area. The model 

overestimates mass wasting rates for the project area. The values calculated using the Geo Model 

should be used for relative comparisons and not as an estimate of actual or predicted mass 

wasting erosion. Combined with an estimate of the probability of these effects occurring, this 

information can be interpreted as the relative risk of initiating mass wasting erosion (GEO Model) 

attributable to implementation of this project. 

With implementation of either alternatives 2, 3, or 4, the model values increase slightly in each of 

the drainages (see Tables 24 and 25). These slight increases, however, do not push any of the 

drainages to a higher categorical status (CWE 2008).

Table 25 shows the cumulative risk ratios for mass wasting as determined by the GEO model. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 combined with modeled future actions would maintain risk ratios near 

current conditions project watersheds. These risk ratios are well below elevated (>0.80) 

conditions. The modeled sediment increases are relatively too small to be detectable and are not 

enough to affect channel conditions and water quality.

Table 25. The GEO model risk ratio values by 7th field watershed for alternative 2

7th-field Drainage Current After Project With Future Actions

Alternative 2

Antelope Well 0.18 0.20 0.20

Dock Well 0.25 0.38 0.38

Grouse Hill 0.22 0.22 0.22

Hill 22 0.38 0.44 0.44

Tamarack Flat 0.17 0.20 0.20

Alternative 3

Antelope Well 0.18 0.18 0.18

Dock Well 0.25 0.25 0.25

Grouse Hill 0.22 0.22 0.22

Hill 22 0.38 0.38 0.38

Tamarack Flat 0.17 0.17 0.17

Alternative 4

Antelope Well 0.18 0.19 0.18

Dock Well 0.25 0.28 0.28

Grouse Hill 0.22 0.22 0.22

Hill 22 0.38 0.42 0.42
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

45

Tamarack Flat 0.17 0.18 0.18

Potential cumulative effects on the cave resources are minimal to none. The combined activities 

of mechanical harvesting, canopy reduction, tractor piling/mastication, and/or underburning will 

not have any significant effect on the habitat of any cave within the project area. This conclusion 

is supported by the use of a 50-foot equipment exclusion zone around each cave or cave 

producing feature. Cave entrances are small and the keeping equipment at least 50 feet from

these openings is sufficient to prevent sediment and organic materials from entering the cave or 

blocking the entrances.

Summary. The cumulative effects of the project on the mass wasting risk are not significantly 

increased with implementing either alternative 2, 3, or 4. Mass wasting risk ratios are well below 

elevated (>0.80) conditions. The modeled sediment increases are relatively too small to be 

detectable and are not enough to affect channel conditions and water quality. Caves and cave 

features if found will have no significant adverse cumulative impacts. 

Significance Factors

Table A-9 (Appendix A) displays the intensity factors and their applicability to the geologic 

resource for the proposed action. Tables A-7 and A-9 (Appendix A) provide more detailed 

context and intensity information.

Existing Information

The following Forest geologic data layers were reviewed: bedrock layer, geomorphology layer 

and the Geo 13 interpretative layer. Slope stability hazard was reviewed from the Geo 13 data 

layer. 

Management Direction. The following laws, regulations, management plans, Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) provide the overall direction for geologic 

resource investigations, standards and guidelines and reasons for conducting field investigations: 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; 

• National Forest Management Act of 1976; 

• Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1976; 

• Land and Resource Management Plan-Klamath National Forests; 

• FSM 2880 Geologic Resources and Services; 

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988; and 

• 36CFR Ch. Ii (7-1-94 Edition), Part 290-Cave Resources Management. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

46

References

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

soil. Pp. 36-52. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest 

ecosystems. D.A. Perry, D.A.; R. Meurisse, R.; B. Thomas, B.; [and others] eds. Timber 

Press, Portland, OR.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1993. CRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan 

for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan), with amendments to 2001.

Cole, D.W.; Gessel, S.P.; Dice; S.F. 1967. Distribution and cycling of N, P, K and Ca in a secondgrowth Douglas fir ecosystem. Pp. 197-232. In: Symposium on primary productivity and 

mineral cycling in natural ecosystems. American Association for the Advancement of Science

13th Annual Meeting, New York. University of Maine Press, Orono.

Cromack, K.; Swanson, F.J.; Grier, C.C. 1979. A comparison of harvesting methods and their 

impact on soils and environment in the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 449-476. In: Forest soils and 

land use. Proceedings of the Fifth North American Forest Soils Conference, August 6-9, 

1978. Youngberg, C.T.; ed., Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. 

Foster, C.M.; Lang, G.K. 1994. Soil survey of Klamath National Forest area, California, parts of 

Siskiyou County, California and Jackson County, Oregon. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, Ca.

Franklin, J.F.; Perry, D.A.; T.D. Schowalter, T.D.; [and others]. 1989. Importance of ecological 

diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity. Pp. 82-97. In: Maintaining the long-term 

productivity of Pacific northwest forest ecosystems. D.A. Perry, D.A.; R. Meurisse, R.; B. 

Thomas, B.; [and others] eds. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Klamath National Forest. 2004. Cumulative watershed effects analysis process paper: 

Quantitative models for surface erosion, mass wasting and ERA/TOC. Developed by the

Klamath NF’s watershed staff. On file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, 

CA. 96097. 

Laurent, T. 2001a. Soil cover process paper. On file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane 

Rd., Yreka, CA 96097. 11 p.

Laurent, T. 2001b. Soil erosion processes and the USLE. On file at the Forest’s Supervisors 

Office, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097. 25 p.

Laurent, T. 2006. Effects of ground-based forest harvesting on soil disturbance, bulk density and 

total porosity on the Klamath National Forest. On file at Klamath National Forest, 1312 

Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097. 

Laurent, T. 2006. Soil monitoring data from 1998-2005, Klamath National Forest. On file at 

Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097. 6 p.

Miller, R.E., Stein, W.I.; Heninger, R.L.; [and others]. 1989. Maintaining and improving site 

productivity in the Douglas fir region. Pp. 98-136. In: Maintaining the long-term 

productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. D.A. Perry, D.A.; R. Meurisse, R.; B. 

Thomas, B.; [and others] eds. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

47

Nambiar, Sadanandan E.K. 1996. Sustained productivity of forests is a continuing challenge to 

soil science. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 1629-1642.

Phelps, W.R.; Hodges, C.S. Jr.; Russel T.V. undated. Background document for borax. 

Unpublished USDA-Forest Service document. Cited in Siemers (2003). On file at Klamath 

National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA. 

Powers, R.F. 1989. Maintaining long-term forest productivity in the Pacific northwest: Defining 

the issues. Pp 3-16. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific northwest forest 

ecosystems. D.A. Perry, D.A.; R. Meurisse, R.; B. Thomas, B.; [and others] eds. Timber 

Press, Portland, OR.

Powers, R.F. 1999. On the sustainable productivity of planted forests. New Forests 17: 263-306.

Powers, R.F.; Avers, P.E. 1995. Sustaining forest productivity through soil quality standards: A 

coordinated U.S. effort. Pp. 147-190. In: Powter, C.B.; Abboud, S.A.; McGill, W.B.; eds. 

Environmental Soil Science: Anthropogenic Chemicals and Soil Quality Criteria. Canada

Society of Soil Science, Brandon, Manitoba. 

Powers, R.F.; Tiarks, A.E.; Boyle, J.B. 1998. Assessing soil quality: Practicable standards for 

sustainable forest productivity in the United States. Pp 53-80. In: The contribution of soil 

science to the development of and implementation of criteria and indicators of sustainable 

forest management. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 53. Madison, 

WI.

Powers, R.F.; Miles, S.; Rust, B.; [and others]. 2002. Findings from the 2002 soil quality survey 

at the Iron Canyon Late Seral Reserve unit thinned in spring-summer 2001. 

Reichert, M. 2008. Hi-Grouse WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project cumulative watershed 

effects analysis specialist report. January 30, 2006 version. On file at the Goosenest Ranger 

Districts and Forest’s Supervisors Office, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA 96097.

Siemers, R. 2003. Evaluation of human and ecological risk for borax stump treatments. On file at 

Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairlane Rd., Yreka, CA. 6 p. 

USDA-FS. 1990. Soil erosion hazard rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Ch. 50, R5 FSH 2509.22, R5 Amend. 2. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA-FS. 1995a. Soil quality monitoring. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, R5 Supplement 

2509.18-95-1, Chapter 2 (Effective 6/11/95).

USDA-FS. 1995b. Klamath National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan. USDAForest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 

Wells, C.G.; Jorgensen, J.R. 1979. Effects of intensive harvesting on nutrient supply and sustained 

productivity. Pp. 212-230. In: Impact of intensive harvesting on forest nutrient cycling. State 

University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 

August 13-16, 1979.

Wells, C.G.; Campbell, R.E.; DeBano, L.F.; [and others]. 1979. Effects of fire on soil. USDAForest Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 34 p.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

48

Appendix Tables

Table A-1. Soil map unit information for select representative project management units

Unit 

No.

Landtype 

Map Unit No.

Soil Depths 

(inches)

Soil Productivity

(FSSC)

Surface 

Texture

Erosion Hazard 

Rating 

(Maximum)

Erosion 

Hazard Rating 

(Existing)

Compaction Hazard 

Rating 

Moist Dry

Displace. Hazard 

Rating

2 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

3 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

4 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

7 146 20-60+ 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

9 146 20-60+ 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

12 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

14 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

15 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

16 145, 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

19 145, 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

21 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

22 146, 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

23 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

25 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

28 145 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

30 65 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

32 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

37 104 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

41 402, 105 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

43 402 15-50 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

44 105 15-50 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

45 146 20-60 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

54 105 15-50 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

58 146 15-50 4-5 gsl, gl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

59 105 15-50 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

61 104 60+ 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

65 402 15-50 4-5 vgcosl Moderate Low Severe Slight Severe

Note: gsl = gravelly sandy loam; cbsl = cobbly sandy loam.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

49

Table A-2. Existing site and soil information for selected treatment units

Unit No.

Range in 

Slopes

%

Average 

Slopes

%

Area of Unit 

with <25% 

Slopes 

%

Area of Unit 

with <35% 

Slopes

%

Area of Unit 

with 36-49% 

Slopes

%

Area of Unit 

with >50% 

Slopes

%

2 3-15 9 100 100 -- --

3 4-47 20 20 75 25 --

4 2-12 6 100 100 -- --

7 2-4 3 100 100 -- --

9 2-15 5 100 100 -- --

12 2-4 3 100 100 -- --

14 2-10 4 100 100 -- --

15 3-16 5 100 100 -- --

16 3-35 12 100 100

19 3-35 12 100 100 -- --

21 2-35 9 100 100 -- --

22 2-35 6 100 100 -- --

23 3-15 6 100 100 -- --

25 3-15 6 100 100 -- --

28 3-10 6 100 100 -- --

30 3-45 96 100 100 -- --

32 3-45 12 96 100 -- --

37 2-4 3 100 100 -- --

41 4-50 20 80 15 5 --

43 3-50 14 94 3 3 --

44 2-40 13 97 100 -- --

45 3-16 8 100 100 -- --

54 2-40 13 97 3 -- --

58 2-40 13 97 3 -- --

59 2-40 13 97 3 -- --

61 3-45 12 96 4 -- --

65 3-55 16 92 8 -- --
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

50

Table A-3. Existing soil information for selected treatment units

Unit No.

Range of Existing 

Soil Cover

%

Existing Total Soil 

Cover

(average)

%

Existing Erosion 

Hazard Rating

Existing 

Detrimental 

Disturbance

%

2 70-100 92 Low 0

3 90-100 98 Low 2

4 45-100 91 Low 7

7 50-100 96 Low 8

9 30-100 91 Low 8

12 60-100 92 Low 1

14 60-100 98 Low 4

15 35-100 92 Low 6

16 60-100 98 Low 4

19 60-100 98 Low 4

21 60-100 95 Low 2

22 50-100 95 Low 2

23 70-100 95 Low 2

25 70-100 95 Low 2

28 30-100 89 Low 6

30 25-100 94 Low 4

32 25-100 94 Low 4

37 100 100 Low 0

41 80-100 97 Low 8

43 10-100 83 Low 2

44 10-100 93 Low 2

45 35-100 92 Low 1

54 10-100 83 Low 2

58 10-100 83 Low 2

59 10-100 83 Low 2

61 25-100 94 Low 4

65 80-100 97 Low 8

Note: Cover retention of 70% on slopes <25% equates to a Low erosion hazard rating. Cover retention of 80%+ on slopes 

26-35% generally equates to a Low erosion hazard rating.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

51

Table A-4. Existing CWD amounts, decomposition class and distribution throughout selected 

treatment units

Harvest Unit No.

Existing CWD 

(>20 in. dia)

Logs/Acre

CWD Decomposition Class (%)

1 2 3 4 5

2 0

3 4 -- 18 18 55 9

4 3 -- -- 67 33 --

7 4 -- -- 33 67 --

9 9.1 -- 50 25 25 --

12 1.2 -- -- 100 -- --

14 1.8 -- -- 33 67 --

15 4.8 -- 17 33 33 17

16 2.0 34 -- 66 -- --

19 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25

21 4.4 -- 80 -- 20 34

22 1.3 -- -- 50 50 --

23 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25

25 9.8 -- 31 44 19 6

28 1.2 -- -- 100 -- --

30 2.2 -- 33 33 -- 34

32 10.8 -- 13 45 39 4

37 3.2 -- -- 100 -- --

41 5.3 -- -- 100 -- --

43 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14

44 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14

45 4.8 -- 17 33 33 --

54 4.7 43 43 14

58 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14

59 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14

61 10.8 -- 13 44 39 4

65 5.0 -- -- 40 60 --

Note: Poor: 0-33% of plots containing 1-3+ logs/plot; Medium: 34-66% of plots containing 1-3+ logs/plot; High: 67%+ of 

plots containing 1-3+ logs/plot.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

52

Table A-5. Post-fuels treatment erosion hazard rating (EHR) and recommended soil cover

Unit No. Existing EHR*

LRMP Minimum Post-Treatment Soil 

Cover

%

Post-Treatment 

EHR*

1 Low 70-80 Low

2 Low 70-80 Low

3 Low 70-80 Low

4 Low 70-80 Low

5 Low 70-80 Low

6 Low 70-80 Low

7 Low 70-80 Low

8 Low 70-80 Low

9 Low 70-80 Low

10 Low 70-80 Low

11 Low 70-80 Low

12 Low 70-80 Low

12 Low 70-80 Low

13 Low 70-80 Low

14 Low 70-80 Low

15 Low 70-80 Low

16 Low 70-80 Low

17 Low 70-80 Low

18 Low 70-80 Low

19 Low 70-80 Low

20 Low 70-80 Low

21 Low 70-80 Low

21 Low 70-80 Low

21 Low 70-80 Low

22 Low 70-80 Low

23 Low 70-80 Low

24 Low 70-80 Low

25 Low 70-80 Low

25 Low 70-80 Low

26 Low 70-80 Low

28 Low 70-80 Low

29 Low 70-80 Low

30 Low 70-80 Low

32 Low 70-80 Low

34 Low 70-80 Low
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

53

Unit No. Existing EHR*

LRMP Minimum Post-Treatment Soil 

Cover

%

Post-Treatment 

EHR*

35 Low 70-80 Low

35 Low 70-80 Low

37 Low 70-80 Low

40 Low 70-80 Low

41 Low 70-80 Low

43 Low 70-80 Low

44 Low 70-80 Low

45 Low 70-80 Low

45 Low 70-80 Low

46 Low 70-80 Low

48 Low 70-80 Low

49 Low 70-80 Low

50 Low 70-80 Low

51 Low 70-80 Low

52 Low 70-80 Low

53 Low 70-80 Low

53 Low 70-80 Low

54 Low 70-80 Low

55 Low 70-80 Low

56 Low 70-80 Low

58 Low 70-80 Low

59 Low 70-80 Low

61 Low 70-80 Low

62 Low 70-80 Low

63 Low 70-80 Low

65 Low 70-80 Low

65 Low 70-80 Low

65 Low 70-80 Low

66 Low 70-80 Low

* EHR = Erosion hazard rating. Cover retention of 70% on slopes <25% equates to a Low erosion hazard rating. Cover 

retention of 80%+ on slopes 26-35% generally equates to a Low erosion hazard rating.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

54

Table A-6. Direct effects of management activities on the soil resource for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Management Activity

Type of Potential 

Adverse Effects Intensity Determination

Mechanical Harvesting Soil disturbance; loss of 

organic matter; 

compaction

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment; 

experience

Biomass Removal Soil disturbance; no 

significant impacts

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment; 

literature review

Machine Mowing Soil disturbance; no 

significant impacts

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment; 

monitoring data

Machine Pile/Burn piles Soil disturbance; no 

significant impacts

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment; 

monitoring data

Hand Pile/Burn Piles Very minor soil 

disturbance; no 

significant impacts

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment; 

monitoring data

Underburning Increased erosion, loss 

of fine organic matter, 

loss of CWD

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Professional judgment 

monitoring data

Dozer Fire Lines Soil disturbance; loss of 

fine organic matter

Partially adversely 

affected ground 

Professional judgment; 

experience

Landings Loss of productive 

ground

Partially adversely 

affected ground 

Professional judgment; 

experience

Borax Reductions of some soil 

microorganisms

Not significantly 

increased or 

affected

Literature review

CWD Disturbance to existing 

CWD logs

Not significantly 

affected

Professional judgment; 

experience

Note: Not significantly affected or increased: Affects of disturbance on soil productivity is not above natural variability. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

55

Table A-7. Direct effects of management activities on the hydrologic and geologic resources for 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Management Activity

Type of Potential 

Adverse Effects Intensity Determination

Thinning Reduced vegetation 

density

Low; not significant Professional 

judgment

Group Selection Small openings, 1–4 

acres; conifer removal.

Effects are not significant Professional 

judgment & field 

assessment

Ground-based Yarding Soil disturbance and 

compaction; loss of 

organic matter

Low to Moderate 

disturbance from yarding; 

with application of design 

features, i.e., WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Machine Mowing; 

Machine Pile/Burn Piles

Reduction of organic 

material; loss of fine 

organic matter

Low to Moderate; not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Landings, New 

Construction, 

Decommissioning

Soil disturbance and 

compaction; loss of 

organic matter; local 

openings for new 

landings up to 0.5 acre

Moderate to High 

disturbance from use; with 

application of design 

features, i.e., effects are 

not significant

Professional 

judgment

Road Use, Construction, 

Opening Existing 

Temporary Roads

Minimal to no cuts and 

fills, some vegetation 

clearing, surfacing 

blading

Moderate to High 

disturbance; with 

application of design 

features, WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Road Decommissioning; Cleaning of culverts, 

blading, ditch clearing, 

clearing

Moderate disturbance; 

with application of design 

features, i.e., WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Road Maintenance Cleaning of culverts, 

blading, ditch clearing, 

clearing

Low disturbance; with 

application of design 

features, i.e., WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Hand Pile/Burn Piles Reduction of organic 

material; loss of fine 

organic matter

Low; not significant Professional 

judgment

Thinning in Plantations Reduction in vegetation 

density; minor soil 

disturbance

Minimal to Low; with 

application of design 

features WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Water Drafting Sedimentation to 

stream, erosion at 

water access, leakage 

of fluids from water 

truck

Low, with application of 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

56

Table A-8. Indirect effects of management activities on the soil resource for alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Management Activity

Type of Potential 

Adverse Effects Intensity Determination

Mechanical Harvesting Loss of nutrients; 

erosion; reduced fertility

Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; experience

Biomass Removal Loss of nutrients; 

erosion; reduced fertility

Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; literature 

reviews

Machine Mowing Slightly increased 

erosion

Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; monitoring 

data

Machine Pile/Burn Piles Slightly increased

erosion; loss of 

nutrients

Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; monitoring 

data

Hand Pile/Burn Piles Very minor increased 

erosion; loss of 

nutrients

Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; monitoring 

data

Underburning Loss of nutrients Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; experience

Dozer Fire Lines Loss of nutrients; 

erosion

Partially adversely 

affected ground 

Professional 

judgment; experience

Landings Increased erosion; 

Reduced productivity 

Partially adversely 

affected ground

Professional 

judgment; experience

Borax Changes in soil 

microorganisms; 

changes in nutrient 

cycling

Not significantly affected Literature review

CWD Slight fertility reduction Not significantly affected Professional 

judgment; experience

Note: Not significantly affected: Reductions in biomass growth and/or nutrient loss not above natural variability. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

57

Table A-9. Indirect effects of management activities on the hydrologic and geologic resources 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Management Activity

Type of Potential 

Adverse Effects Intensity Determination

Thinning Minor short-term 

reduction in root 

support and 

evapotranspiration

No effect on slope 

stability, not significant

Professional 

judgment

Group Selection Isolated increased 

openings and 

accumulated snowpack 

possibly yielding higher 

runoff rates; local loss 

of all root support and 

ET; increased landslide 

potential

Low potential for effect 

due to no unstable lands 

in units; effects are not 

significant 

Professional 

judgment & field 

assessment

Ground-based Yarding Changes in soil 

permeability, increases 

in compaction, and 

changes in runoff 

patterns; potential to 

channel water

Low to Moderate effects 

from yarding; with 

application of design 

features, SMZs, WWOS 

and BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Machine Mowing; 

Machine Pile/Burn Piles

Small changes in soil 

permeability, slight soil 

compaction

Negligible impact; effects 

are not significant

Minimal influence on 

slope stability

Landings, New 

Construction, 

Decommissioning

Large changes in slope 

hydrology; openings 

and accumulated 

snowpack possibly 

yielding higher runoff 

rates; sedimentation to 

roads 

Low impact; existing 

landings are stable; new 

landings are on stable 

landforms; minimal 

potential for effects on 

runoff based on location 

outside of RRs; with 

application of design 

features; WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Road Use, Construction, 

Opening Existing 

Temporary Roads

Large changes in slope 

hydrology; changes in 

water flow and routing, 

increase drainage 

network; increased 

surface erosion

Low impact; all of the 

roads are stable; with 

application of design 

features, WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant 

Professional 

judgment

Road Decommissioning Restoration of slope 

hydrologic patterns; risk 

of post project erosion 

or mass wasting

Low impact; with 

application of WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant; water barring, 

post decommissioning 

effects are not significant; 

large beneficial effect in 

long term

Professional 

judgment

Road Maintenance Reduction in stream 

crossing fill failure; 

positive drainage 

improvements; potential 

for erosion if material is 

sidecast if grading is 

not done properly

Low impact; with 

application of WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

58

Management Activity

Type of Potential 

Adverse Effects Intensity Determination

Hand Piling and Burning 

Piles

Minimal influence on 

slope stability

Negligible impact; effects 

are not significant

Professional 

judgment

Thinning in Plantations Sedimentation to 

streams; small local 

decrease in root 

support and ET; made 

up by tree release in 

the short term

Minimal intensity; with 

application of design 

features WWOS and 

BMPs, effects are not 

significant

Professional 

judgment

Water Drafting Sedimentation to 

stream, erosion at 

water access, leakage 

of fluids from water 

truck

Low to moderate; with 

application of BMPs, and 

stabilization or 

decommissioning of site 

and access, effects are 

not significant

Professional 

judgment
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

59

Appendix A: Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs)

[Prepared by Michael McNamara; April 8, 2008]

Best management practices (BMPs) are measures certified by the State Water Quality Board and 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective way of protecting 

water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution. Effective application 

of the Region 5 U.S. Forest Service BMPs has been found to maintain water quality in 

conformance with the Water Quality Objectives in the North Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board Basin Plan. These practices have been applied in timber sales and road 

construction projects across the Klamath National Forest over the last 25 years have been found 

to be effective in protecting water quality. 

The Region 5 Forest Service BMPs have been monitored and modified since their original 

implementation in 1979 to make them more effective. Numerous onsite evaluations by the North 

Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board have found the practices to be successful in 

maintaining water quality and protecting beneficial uses.

The Forest monitors the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs on randomly selected 

projects each year. BMP effectiveness requirements were met on 90–100 percent of the sites 

sampled in 2000–2008. The success rate for effectiveness has been in the high 80s and 90s each 

year since 1993. Results of this monitoring can be found on the Klamath National Forest 

webpage.

The complete list of BMPs was evaluated and the following BMPs were determined applicable to 

the Hi-Grouse Project. These BMPs would be implemented as part of the Hi-Grouse Project 

during implementation of the proposed action. A description of the objective of each BMP is 

included, as well as how this practice would be implemented in this project. These BMPs assist 

the TSA in implementing the specifications, BT provisions of the Timber Sale Contract (TSC). 

Where applicable, BT provisions of the TSC (April 2008 issue) are referenced under the BMP 

description. In addition, the EA contains a detailed description of specific measures—Resource 

Protection Measures—that would be implemented to prevent resource damage. Watershed 

specialists in fisheries, soils, and geology along with the ID Team developed the BMPs for this 

project.

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process: Requires the ID Team to incorporate water quality 

and hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process. 

• A hydrologist and soil scientist were assigned to the project and participated in the 

interdisciplinary process for this project.

• Project-wide as well as site-specific water quality protection measures were developed 

and incorporated into the project as part of the project design features.

• These project design features are incorporated into the timber sale contract and sale area 

map.

• The following are overall guiding principles that were used to formulate the more sitespecific project design features:

o Skidding equipment and tractor piling would be generally restricted to slopes <35

percent.

o Track mounted masticators/mowers can operate on slopes up to 35 percent. 

o Existing landings and skid trails would be reused whenever practical.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

60

o Tractor skidding would be restricted to designated skid trails.

o Temporary roads would be blocked and hydrologically restored after use but prior to 

first winter after use. Hydrologically restored includes reshaping road prism to be 

self-maintaining (for example, leaving no structures that move water and could fail, 

outsloping, ripping of the roadbed, seeding, straw mulching, etc.). The amount of 

work to be done is site-specific and would be included in the roads contract package 

for this project.

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: Requires the ID Team to consider methods of 

reducing water quality impacts, maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and 

watershed conditions that are incorporated into the design of harvest units.

• Project soil scientist and hydrologist field inspected and verified existing conditions 

within the project area and adjacent areas as necessary per their resource. Unit design 

parameters were developed from these onsite field inspections.

• No new constructed (full bench) skid trails would be built.

BMP 1.3 – Determination of Surface Erosion Hazard for Timber Harvest Unit Design: 

Identify high erosion hazard areas in order to adjust resource protection measures to prevent 

downstream water quality degradation.

Surface soil erosion hazard is determined by evaluating four site factors: soil erodibility, runoff 

production, runoff energy, and percent soil cover. Based on field review, the Forest soil scientist 

determined the surface erosion hazard for each treatment unit and prescribed logging systems and 

soil cover recommendations based upon the soil’s erosion hazard. 

• Post-treatment soil cover to be met before the fall rainy season is prescribed by unit in the 

project soils report (Laurent 2006). 

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps (SAM) and Project Maps for Designating Water Quality 

Protection: This ensures that areas with watershed concerns (streams, wetlands, unstable land) 

would be identified as part of the timber sale contract to assist the purchaser and TSA in applying 

protection methods. The following items are identified on the SAM. 

• Harvest unit boundaries. 

• All protected stream courses identified as SMZs, would be illustrated on the sale area 

map (SAM). The width of the SMZ protection zone would be prescribed for each stream. 

• Water drafting sites would be located on the SAM at Forest Service designated sites 

where water quality impacts can be controlled and minimized. 

• Sources of rock for road aggregate riprap and borrow material. 

• The following items may be identified on a separate project map and/or harvest activity 

cards for use by the TSA. 

• Specified temporary roads and landings.

BMP 1.5 – Limiting Operating Period of Timber Sale: To ensure that the purchasers conduct 

their operations, including erosion control work, road maintenance work, in a timely manner 

within the time specified in the timber sale contract. There is no specific limited operating period 

(LOP) specified for watershed protection, although there are several LOPs for wildlife. 

• When stormy weather is predicted, TSAs would be onsite to insure that winterization 

procedures are implemented in a timely fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

61

operations. Operations would not resume until suitable weather, soil, and forecast 

conditions exist.

• The timber sale contract would be used to guide operations, especially haul, during 

periods of wet weather. Earth scientists would be available upon request by the TSA to 

examine field conditions to determine when the soil and/or roads have dried out enough 

to enable operations to resume without risk of watershed impacts. The earth scientist 

would make recommendations to the TSA who would provide direction to the timber sale 

contractor as to when operations may resume.

• Landings and roads may be rocked and graded as necessary to prevent off-site erosion, 

and to disperse water.

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Designation: Designates zones along 

riparian areas, streams and wetlands that would minimize potential for adverse effects from 

adjacent management activities. 

• This BMP only applies to the water drafting site along Antelope Creek located on private 

land outside of the project area. 

• There are no SMZs within the project area. 

• The SMZ as the drafting site includes the stream channel, stream banks (bank full flow), 

riparian vegetation and extends from 20 to 50 feet beyond the riparian vegetation and/or 

bank full flow zone. 

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground: To minimize erosion and sedimentation 

resulting from ground disturbance of tractor and ground-based logging systems. 

• The erosion hazard rating, percent slope distribution and soil displacement rating were all 

used to evaluate tractor units for their response to using ground-based mechanical logging 

systems. The Forest soil scientist field reviewed each tractor log unit in order to verify 

that they were reasonable to tractor log from a soil resource perspective. The erosion 

hazard rating was also a factor in determining the reasonableness of tractor use.

• Skidding equipment (track or rubber tired) and tractor piling would be generally 

restricted to slopes <35 percent. 

• Track mounted masticators or mowers can operate on slopes up to 45 percent.

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: Designs tractor skid patterns to best fit the terrain to 

better control potential runoff by avoiding over-steepened areas, designating tractor crossings, 

and minimizes skid patterns in sensitive areas to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

• The purchaser and timber sale administrator (TSA) would locate skid trails jointly or the 

purchaser would identify skid trails subject to the TSA’s approval prior to use. 

• The 35 percent slope limitation, the general topography within the unit, riparian areas and 

presence of existing skid trails are all factors that are considered in laying out skid trails. 

• Reuse existing skid trails when ever practicable. 

• Refer to BMP 1.1 and 1.2 for skidding and skid trail practices.

• All skid trails would be water-barred to minimize soil erosion following the guidelines in 

the timber Sale Administration Handbook (61.42d – Exhibit 01, R5 Supplement 2409.15-

94-3, p. 2).

• Skid trails that intersect Forest Roads would be obliterated at the intersection by 

reshaping the slope, mulching with weed-free straw or slash the first 25 feet of the skid 

trail (from the intersection).
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

62

BMP 1.11 – Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting: Protects the soil mantle from 

excessive disturbance and maintains the integrity of the streamside management zone and other 

sensitive watershed areas.

• Ground-based skidding will use one-end suspension (suspend the lead end of logs) to 

minimize soil disturbance.

BMP1.12 – Log Landing Location: To locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way 

as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water quality degradation. 

• Existing landings would be reused whenever possible. 

• New and old landings would be selected for use that involves the least amount of 

excavation, and the least erosion potential.

BMP 1.13 – Erosion Prevention and Control Measures during Timber Sale Operations: 

Ensures that the purchaser’s operations shall be conducted reasonably to minimize soil erosion. 

• Erosion control measures (BMPs) are discussed during the pre-operations meeting with 

the purchaser and the Forest Service. They are updated throughout the operations phase 

of the timber sale.

• Storms may temporarily suspend operations to insure BMP compliance and to avoid 

adverse impacts to beneficial uses (fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation etc.).

• See BMP 1.5 for TSA responsibilities and measures when stormy weather is predicted.

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control: The objective of this BMP is to 

reduce erosion and prevent subsequent sedimentation from log landings. The timber sale contract 

provides for erosion prevention and control measures on all landings. 

• See BMP 1.1 and 1.12. 

• Landings would be shaped to disperse drainage, eliminate ponding of water, and direct 

runoff away from watercourses/swales at the time of preparation for use. Rock armoring 

of fills, silt fences, straw bales, etc., may be used as necessary direct water to areas of 

suitable drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Any landings used during wet weather that have the potential to deposit sediment in 

channels/swales will use any of the above mentioned erosion control measures to 

minimize erosion and control runoff.

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Employs preventative measures, during the 

operations phase of the project, such as water bars, mulching, spreading slash, or chipping to 

reduce water concentration and erosion. 

Erosion control measures on skid trails are two-fold: (1) prevent road or landing runoff from 

concentrating onto skid trails and (2) control potential runoff on skid trails. Erosion control 

measures such as aggregate surfacing, scarifying, road and road-edge reshaping, and construction 

of drainage ditches would be used to divert water away from skid trails. On skid trails, waterbars 

are used to disperse runoff from concentrating to a volume that will cause rilling/gullying. 

Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials spread on that portion 

as needed. 

• Waterbar spacing is based on the percent slope of the skid trail, soil texture and erosion 

hazard rating for the unit. The spacing distances are located in the Sale Administrators 

Handbook. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

63

• Place water bar outlets, whenever possible, where concentrations of slash or other organic 

materials occur to disperse runoff and trap sediment before it can reach a drainage 

channel. 

• See BMP 1.1, 1.2 and 1.10 for skid trail measures.

• Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials spread on that 

portion where needed as determined by the SA as needed. 

• Skid trails that may direct runoff onto roads or landings would have the first 25 feet 

covered with fine slash or weed-free straw (achieving 90 percent soil cover). 

• Application of BMP “yardsticks” to ensure compliance with BMPs. 

• Skid trails that intersect Forest Roads would be obliterated at the intersection.

• Road runoff would be prevented from draining onto skid trails or landings by either 

reshaping the road prism, constructing cross drains or dips, or constructing water bars. 

• Unless otherwise agreed, within the operating area, a minimum of 6 inches of machine 

compacted snow is required for over-the-snow logging or the soil should be frozen to a 

depth of 6 inches for logging operations to occur.

• Harvesting and skidding operations during wet conditions would follow the following 

guidelines: 

Cut-to-Length System—Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a harvester 

may occur when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Limit harvester to one or two passes 

over the same piece of ground. The forwarder would stay on designated skid trails 

covered with a minimum of 6 inches of slash. 

Feller/Buncher System—Movement of material to the designated skid trails by a track 

laying feller/buncher may occur when the track does not create ruts >6 inches deep. A 

feller/buncher would be limited to one or two passes over the same piece of ground. 

Skidding equipment would stay on designated skid trails. Skidding would cease when 

>10 percent of a skid trail is rutted with ruts >6 inches deep.

Traditional Tractor Logging—Skidding may occur by conventional high-ground-pressure 

equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is restricted to the 

designated skid trails. Endlining would be used to move material to the designated skid 

trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may, by agreement, leave 

designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. 

BMP 1.19 – Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection: Protects the natural flow of streams and 

reduces the delivery of sediment and other pollutants into streams. Conduct management actions 

within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values. 

• Service landings would be located away from stream courses. 

• Straw bales, rocking, and containment dikes would be used as needed at designated water 

drafting sites to capture any spilled water and prevent runoff and sedimentation into 

streams.

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: Requires periodic inspection of erosion 

control structures to assess maintenance needs and effectiveness. This is accomplished during the 

operations and post-operations phase of the project; this ensures the adequacy of erosion control 

measures. 

• Same as BMP 1.5.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

64

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26. 

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Erosion Control Measures before Timber Sale Closure: To ensure 

the adequacy of required erosion control work on timber sales. This is accomplished during the 

post-operations phase of the project during the contract final inspection. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage.

• At project completion, permanent water-bars would be installed as necessary on all skid 

and temporary roads.

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs 

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26.

BMP 1.25 – Modification of the Timber Sale Contract (as needed): Allows contract language 

to be modified to add or increase protection of water quality not identified in the planning 

process.

• Modifications are not expected at this time, but this BMP is retained to illustrate that 

contract alteration would occur if needed to insure maintenance of water quality, 

especially if unforeseen circumstances and impacts occur.

BMP 2.1 – General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads: To locate and design 

roads with minimal resource damage. 

• Temporary roads needing re-construction would be relocated on existing skid trails, skid 

roads, and existing openings to the greatest extend possible.

BMP 2.2 – Erosion Control Plan: The objective is to limit and control sedimentation through 

effective planning prior to the initiation of construction activities and through effective contract 

administration. An erosion control plan would be agreed to during the pre-operations meeting 

between the Forest Service and the purchaser. The plan is implemented during the operations 

phase of the project. 

• Resource protection measures are incorporated into the proposed action by the ID Team

and these actions are then incorporated into the contract specifications and provisions. 

Examples of resource protection measures include such items as shaping landings, 

temporary and skid roads for drainage; and use of rock as necessary to obtain suitable 

haul bases on Forest Service roads.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.3 – Timing of Construction Activities: The objective is to minimize erosion by 

conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. This is accomplished during the operation 

phase of the project by the contract administrator, engineer and earth scientist. 

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

• All landing and temporary road construction and development work would be conducted 

during appropriate periods of weather and soil moisture to ensure BMPs are met and 

adverse impacts to beneficial uses are avoided. Forecast periods would also be of a 

suitable length to allow completion or winterization of the task undertaken before 

precipitation events occur.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

65

BMP 2.4 – Stabilization of Road Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas (Preventative 

Practices): To improve road slope stabilization by applying mechanical and vegetative measures. 

This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project.

• See BMP 2.3 for measures pertaining to landing and road construction and development. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage at the time of construction. Rock armoring and 

silt fences with straw bales would be used as necessary to direct water to suitable areas of 

drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Road construction, maintenance and landing construction and enlargement generally is on 

gently sloping ground, so there would be no large cuts, fills or spoil areas. Measures to 

control erosion from large fills and cuts during operations are not anticipated to be 

necessary.

• Roads would be rocked as necessary.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.7 – Control of Road Drainage (Preventative Practices): To minimize erosive effects of 

water concentrated by road drainage features; to disperse runoff from disturbances within the road 

clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded areas; to minimize erosion of the road 

prism by runoff from road surfaces and from uphill areas. See BMPs 2.5 and 2.6 for measures 

that would be applied. 

BMP 2.8 – Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction: To minimize sediment 

production.

• The roads to be opened and constructed in this project are temporary roads that do not 

require a pioneer road. 

BMP 2.9 – Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing 

Projects: To minimize erosion and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. 

• The road and landing construction in this project is minor in scope. Individual temporary 

roads and landings would be completed in one season. If a temporary road includes a 

stream crossing, then the road would be used when the stream is dry. If a road or landing 

is needed for more than one season, then crossing, road and landing stabilization 

measures would occur before the nest rain season—see BMPs 1.13 and 1.20. 

BMP 2.10 – Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills): To construct embankments with 

materials and methods which minimize the possibility of failure and subsequent water quality 

degradation. In general, problems arise due to improper compaction, incorporation of slash or 

organic matter, or use of inappropriate placement methods. 

• Temporary road re-construction and landing construction and enlargement generally is on 

flat to gently sloping ground, so there would be no to minimal cuts, fills or spoil areas. 

Equipment compaction is anticipated to be adequate. 

BMP 2.11 – Minimization of Sidecast Material: The objective is to minimize sediment 

production originating from material side cast during road construction or maintenance. This is 

accomplished during the design phase of the project by the contract inspector.

• Minor blading would occur on temporary roads used by the project. Side-casting of soil 

during blading operations would be minimal due to the low gradient slopes on which the 

temporary roads are located.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

66

• Sidecasting during road maintenance and clearing operations should not extend beyond 

the clearing limits of any road, or into any SMZ. 

• During road blading, loose material should be incorporated back into the road prism and 

utilized in the road subgrade to the maximum extent possible, or deposited at designated 

disposal sites. 

• Existing road berms should be removed and utilized in the road subgrade as part of 

outsloping, or placed at designated disposal sites.

BMP 2.12 – Servicing and Refueling of Equipment: The objective is to prevent pollutants, such 

as fuels and lubricants, from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, impoundments, or 

natural and man-made channels which lead into them. This is accomplished through the use of 

designed and designated refueling areas. 

• Appropriate fuel containment systems would be in place at each service landing/site.

• Servicing and refueling areas would be outside of SMZs.

BMP 2.21 – Water Source Development Consistent with Water Quality Protection: The 

objective is to limit and mitigate the effects of water source development through the planning of 

impoundments and withdrawals. 

• One water drafting site has been specifically designated by the ID Team. Water could be

pumped directly from the sources, or a fold-a-tank could be set up outside of SMZ and 

water could be pumped by hose to the tank, and from the tank to the truck. 

• Drafting sites are existing sites and rocking of approaches would be used as required; all 

boards and black plastic would be removed after use. Straw bales, rock surfacing, and 

containment dikes would be used at all locations where the possibility of water spill or 

overflow would result in sediment being moved toward the creek, ditch or lake.

BMP 2.22 – Maintenance of Roads: The objective is to limit sedimentation and erosion by road 

drainage maintenance and road surface protection. This is accomplished during the operations 

phase of the project and the post-operations final inspection. 

• Spot rocking would used as necessary if small and isolated portions of the road system do 

not adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road is capable of haul, provided haul 

over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as sediment moving 

off-site towards channels.

• TSAs would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and condition of the roads.

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite; see 

BMP 2.23.

BMP 2.23 – Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials: The objective is to reduce 

road-related erosion through treatment of the road surface, usually through spot rocking and dust 

abatement. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project.

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite.

• Same as BMP 2.22. See also BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations 

during wet or potential stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

67

BMP 2.24 – Traffic Control during Wet Periods: The objective is to reduce damage to road 

drainage and limit sedimentation from roads during wet periods. This is generally achieved by 

increased surfacing and/or road closures during the operations phase of the project. 

• Spot rocking would used as necessary if small and isolated portions of the road system do 

not adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road is capable of haul, provided haul 

over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as sediment moving 

off-site towards channels.

• TSAs would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and condition of the roads.

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

BMP 2.25 – Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage: The objective is to 

minimize the impact of snowmelt runoff on road surfaces and embankments and to consequently 

reduce the probability of sediment production resulting from snow removal operations. 

• Snow would be removed in a manner that protects roads and adjacent resources.

• Snow berms would be removed where they result in accumulation or concentration of 

snowmelt runoff on the road and on erosive fill slopes.

• Snow berms would be installed in locations that would preclude the concentration of 

snowmelt runoff and serve to rapidly dissipate melt water.

• Damage to the road surface from snow removal would be repaired by the purchaser, 

contractor, or other party responsible. This would include replacing lost surface material 

with similar quality material and repair of any damaged structures as soon as possible and 

as agreed to by the Forest Service.

BMP 2.26 – Obliteration or Decommissioning of Roads: The objective is to reduce sediment 

generated from temporary roads, unneeded system (classified) and non-system (unclassified) 

roads by obliterating or decommissioning them at the completion of the intended use. This is 

accomplished during the post-operations phase of the project. This BMP applies to all temporary 

roads, and other non-system (unclassified) roads proposed for decommissioning: 

• Crossings are removed and the natural drainage restored.

• Roads are to be drained by measures such as re-contouring or outsloping to return the 

road prism to near natural hydrologic function.

• Roads and associated disturbed surfaces would be stabilized through appropriate 

treatment such as tillage, ripping, fertilization, and/or revegetation.

• Road take-offs would be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle access.

BMP 2.27 – Restoration of Borrow Pits and Quarries: The objective is to protect water quality 

by minimizing sediment production from borrow pits and quarry sites. This is accomplished 

during the operations and post-operations phase of the project.

• Excavated areas would be sloped and graded to ensure proper drainage, and general 

borrow source areas smoothed and stabilized.

• Seeding and/or mulching may be required as determined by an earth scientist.

BMP 5.2 – Slope Limitations Mechanical Equipment Operation: To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems and tractor piling 

operations.
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

68

• Same as BMP 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations for ground-based logging, tractor piling,

and fuel mastication.

BMP 5.4 – Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas: The objective is to protect water quality 

by minimizing soil erosion through the stabilizing influence of vegetation. This is accomplished 

during the operations and post-operations phase of the project. 

• All harvest openings would be promptly replanted.

BMP 5.5 – Disposal of Organic Debris: The objective is to prevent surface erosion with 

associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity when conducting slash and excessive 

fuel removal operations. 

• Project generated slash would be removed to landings as biomass chips.

• Hand pile and pile burning, machine mowing/mastication, and underburning would be 

used to reduce the fine fuel component. Specified soil cover recommendations would be 

used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention.

• Machine mowing/mastication and machine piling are mechanical treatments that reduce 

slash. Slope limitations for mechanical equipment as well as specified soil cover 

recommendations would be used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention. 

See BMPs 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations.

BMP 5.6 – Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations: The objective is to prevent soil 

compaction, rutting, and gulling that may result in increased sedimentation and turbidity.

• This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project by monitoring performed 

by the project earth scientist as requested by the TSA.

• See BMP 1.17 for harvesting and skidding operations during wet or over snow 

conditions. 

• Same as BMPs 1.20 and 2.22 for measures to employ when wet weather is forecast, and 

following a period of stormy weather. 

BMP 5.8 – Pesticide Application According to Label directions and Applicable Legal 

Requirements: The objective is to avoid water contamination by complying with all label 

instructions and restrictions for use. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for ensuring timber sale contract specifications pertaining to 

treatment of stumps, are met and would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations to 

ensure that label directions and legal requirements are followed.

BMP 5.9 – Pesticide Application Monitoring and Evaluation: The objectives are to monitor 

whether pesticides have been applied safely, restricted to intended target areas, and have not 

resulted in unexpected non-target effects. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for implementation monitoring of Sporax application, and would 

document and provide early warning of any accidental spills and potential water 

contamination. 
Watershed Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

69

• The purchaser is responsible for notification and reporting of releases of reportable 

quantities of hazardous substances caused by employees or contractors, directly or 

indirectly as a result of operations in the sale area.

BMP 5.10 – Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning: The objective is to reduce contamination of 

water by accidental pesticide spills. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• See BMP 5.9. 

BMP 5.11 – Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide Containers and Equipment: The objective 

prevent water contamination from the cleaning or disposal of pesticide containers. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• Cleanup and disposal of containers would follow directions on the manufacturer’s label. 

BMP 6.1 – Fire and Fuels Management Activities: The objective is to reduce the effects of 

wildfires on water quality by informing the public, and the development of access plans, fuel 

breaks, and fuel reduction programs. 

• The district fuels and fire specialists have determined acceptable levels of slash to retain 

on the site following harvest activities and also have identified areas and methods to 

remove standing slash of a sub-merchantable size, that otherwise would create an 

unacceptable fire risk.

• On-going fire management work maintains fire access plans and restricts public 

activities, such as woodcutting, on days when fire weather predictions indicate significant 

risk from such activities in the Hi-Grouse Project area.

BMP 6.2 – Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions: The objective 

is to provide for water quality while achieving management objectives of prescribed fire. This is 

done during the planning phase of the project.

• Burn plans would incorporate appropriate burn parameters (such as fuel moisture, 

weather, etc.) into the burn prescriptions in order to meet the recommended cover 

amounts.

BMP 6.3 – Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects: Minimize soil 

erosion, ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. 

• Hand and machine piles would burn under controlled settings to contain fire spread.

• Waterbars would be installed on hand and machine created fire lines where needed.

• Recommended levels of post-burn soil cover are designed to minimize potential 

sediment.