Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Carlton Fire
BAER Soils Resource Report
State, Private, and Other Non-Federal
Lands
Contributors:
Scott Bare, Soil Scientist, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Spokane Valley Service Center
Eric Choker, Soil Scientist, Washington State Conservation Commission, Spokane Conservation District
Bill Oakes, Range Specialist, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Eastern Washington Region
Todd Reinwald, Soil Scientist, Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest
Soil Specialist Report
Page 1 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Resource Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 3
Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Vegetation................................................................................................................................................. 7
Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Rangeland Resources ................................................................................................................................ 8
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 9
Risks to Values .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Emergency Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 10
Long-Term Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 15
References .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 19
Treatment Maps ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Soil Specialist Report
Page 2 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Introduction
The Carlton Fire Complex started on July 14th from four lightning caused fires (Stokes, Gold Hikes,
French Creek and Cougar Flat) burning over 250,000 acres, consisting of federal, state, county, tribal,
and private ownership. These fires grew into one larger fire later in July. Hot weather, windy conditions,
and dry fuel moistures coupled with mountainous terrain combined to create high intensity fire
behavior. Several towns were threatened and approximately 300 homes were consumed and critical
infrastructure destroyed.
This report summarizes fire and potential post-fire effects to soil resources, and includes concerns
relative to invasive plants and range lands. It focuses on non-federal burned over lands which comprise
about 167,344 acres. The assessment of fire effects to soil, vegetation, and rangeland resources was
conducted by a multi-jurisdiction team of soil and range resource specialists.
The objectives of this report are to:
1. Evaluate the effects of the fire on soil resources
2. Identify critical soil resource values at high risk of irreversible damage
3. Identify both emergency and long-term treatments that could rehabilitate or protect soil
resources from irreversible damage
Resource Assessment
Soil related resources assessed here and select ancillary issues include a characterization of their
inherent properties and a general description of how they were affected by the fire.
Geology and Soils
The burned area lies in the Columbia Intermontane Province within the Columbia plateau and on the
eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains. The Cascade Mountains, Eastern Slope, is a transitional area
between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the lower lying Columbia Basalt Plateau to the south
and east. It has some of the landforms typical of both the mountains and plateau. The mountainous
areas consist mainly of Pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks cut by younger igneous intrusives mantled
with thick surficial deposits of Pleistocene aged drift and till deposits from the Okanogan Lobe of the
Cordilleran Ice Sheet (USDA 2006, USDA 2008). Major landforms include terraces, moraines, foothills
and mountains. Valley bottoms and riverine systems with their associated floodplains are dominated by
quaternary alluvium.
Dominant soils within the burn area are well drained and have a xeric (dry) soil moisture regime and
mesic (warm) and frigid soil temperature regimes. Mesic soils are present at lower elevations, and
support shrub/steppe plant communities; where forested they occupy south and some west aspects and
support Ponderosa pine/grass and shrub vegetation. Frigid, forested soils are on north and east aspects
and support mixed conifer (Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine) and forb/shrub understory vegetation.
Soils on the terraces, ground moraines, foothills and mountains consist of medium to very coarse
textures of granitic colluvium and residuum and outwash and till derived from mixed sources; but
Soil Specialist Report
Page 3 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
dominantly granitic in origin. Thick deposits of till and outwash overlie bedrock composed of granite,
schist and metasedimentary rock. In areas where the till mantle has thinned; soils have developed in
residuum and colluvium derived mainly from igneous (intrusive), metamorphic and some
metasedimentary rock. The surface of the soils are influenced and mantled with volcanic ash from air
fall events from various sources (dominantly from Mt. Mazama). Generally, the surface textures are
medium and coarse and have moderate and high infiltration. Subsoil textures range from medium to
very coarse and have moderate to very rapid permeability. In subsoils in which a dense layer is present,
permeability is restricted. Surface and subsurface rock fragment content ranges from 0 to over 65
percent and range in size of gravel, cobbles and stones. Many areas within the burn area have rock
outcrop, cobbles, stones and boulders on the soil surface.
Soil depth ranges from less than 20 inches to greater than 60 inches to restrictive layers. Dominant
restrictive layers are unweathered (hard) and weathered (soft) bedrock generally granitic in origin and
dense (compacted), non-cemented subsoil layers formed in till parent materials. Dominant soils are
Haploxerolls, Inceptisols and Andisols and are represented by the Conconully, Kartar and Parmenter soil
series respectively.
The erosion hazard within the fire perimeter varies by soil type. Their texture, structure, rock content,
permeability, and slope are principle factors in their susceptibility to surface erosion. The following table
displays the proportion of relative erosion hazard on the non-federal lands within the fire USDA 2008,
USDA 2010).
Soil Erosion Hazard Rating*
STATE
(acres)
TRIBAL
(acres)
Grand
Total
(acres)
36,739
16,478
150
53,703
183
39,786
32,229
211
72,409
Severe
69
15,602
21,304
5
36,981
Not rated**
78
2,236
1,195
19
3,529
Soil Erosion
Hazard
LOCAL
(acres)
Slight
336
Moderate
PRIVATE (acres)
Grand Total
666
94,363
71,207
386
166,621
**not rated due to non-soil components (miscellaneous land types) such as: rock outcrop, riverwash,
rubble land, badland and water.
Erosion rates were quantified further using an erosion prediction tool known as ERMiT that was
developed by the Rocky Mountain Research branch of the Forest Service (Robichaud et al. 2006). Using
the ERMiT model, overall erosion rates were estimated. These estimates are used for comparative
Soil Specialist Report
Page 4 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
purposes when applying for emergency funding. For non-federal lands, erosion rates were estimated to
be:


Forest lands Average = 2.77 tons/acre, Maximum = 10.8 tons/acre
Rangelands Average = 3.08 tons/acre, Maximum = 7.8 tons/acre
Soil Burn Severity: Fire effects to soil resources are often identified by Soil Burn Severity (SBS). There are
typically 3 severity categories assessed, and their arrangement and distribution mapped within the
wildfire perimeter. The categories identified on non-federal lands within the Carlton Fire that were
observed can be defined as follows:

High soil burn severity: About 4% of the non-federal lands in the fire were determined to be in
the high soil burn severity category. The canopy and understory were consumed and the litter
layer was only partially consumed. The most severely burned slopes occur where pre-fire
vegetation density and fuels accumulations were highest, within the Carlton fire these were
typically on steep north-facing aspects and at the heads of watersheds. Even under these
conditions, soil structure was intact and unconsumed fine roots were present within the upper 4
inches of the mineral soil surface.

Moderate soil burn severity: About 16% of the non-federal lands in the fire were determined to
be in the moderate soil burn severity category. In range areas with moderate soil burn severity
the vegetation was consumed. Soil structure was intact and unconsumed fine roots were
present within the upper 4 inches of the mineral soil surface.

Low soil burn severity: The majority (70%) of Forest and rangeland soils were determined to be
in the low soil burn severity category. These burned over soils exhibited good surface structure,
contain intact fine roots and organic matter, partially intact litter and duff layers, and are
already exhibiting recovery as grasses and forbes are visibly sprouting.
One factor evaluated in an effort to define the extent of high soil burn severity was water repellency, or
a measure of soil hydrophobicity. Slight to moderate soil hydrophobicity (water repellency) occurred in
both moderate and high soil burn severity under both forest and rangeland. Strong (persistent) water
repellency was observed in some moderate and high soil burn severities. Where observed, the water
repellent layer generally occurred at the soil surface directly below the ash layer and partially consumed
litter layer within 0.5 to 1.0 inch from the soil surface. Water repellent surfaces were also observed in
some unburned areas. The majority of field observations indicated weak (low) repellency at the soil
surface and to depths of 4 inches. Based on data collected in the field, the following was used to develop
the following ratings:

High SBS areas averaged 20 percent strong water repellency.

Moderate SBS areas averaged 10 percent moderate water repellency.

Low SBS areas and unburned areas had 2.5 percent water repellency.
Water-repellent soils (weak, moderate, and strong repellency combined) are estimated to comprise
about 8,075 acres of the total non-federal burned areas. They are mostly located on the steep upper
slopes of the Benson, Chiliwist, Cow, Finley, Frazier, French, Whitestone drainages. Reduction in
infiltration is estimated to be 2- 7 % of observed samples in the moderate and high soil burn severity
Soil Specialist Report
Page 5 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
burn areas. Infiltration was not reduced in the low burn severity areas, which characterizes the majority
of the non-federal lands in the Carlton fire.
Potential Physical, Chemical and Biological Fire Effects on Soil Resources: Fire effects on soil
productivity range from beneficial to damaging, depending on fire severity, soil type, and site history
(Neary et al, 2005). Adverse fire effects increase as burn severity increases and the effects are often
proportional to the amount of surface litter and soil organic matter consumed. The sensitivity of soils to
fire effects is influenced by soil texture, soil moisture, organic matter content, rock content, soil depth,
depth of surface layer and erosion potential. Important and sensitive soil layers include soils formed
under range vegetation and Ponderosa/grass & shrub sites have soils with thicker, humified layers
compared to the soils formed under a mixed conifer vegetation type. Pre-fire soils in forested areas have
important thick litter and duff layers protecting the mineral soil surface. Soils with a thick volcanic ash
mantle have properties and qualities that are important for soil productivity. Loss of these layers due to
erosion can reduce soil productivity and can contribute to sedimentation.
Physical Effects:
 Loss of litter layer, soil and soil organic matter
 Loss of soil structure
 Hydrophobicity (formation of water repellent layer)
 In extreme cases, destruction of clay minerals
Chemical Effects:
 Increase in pH
 Loss of cation exchange capacity
 Loss of nutrients by volatilization, in fly ash, or by leaching
 Increase plant available N (ammonia) under low severity burns
 Oxidation reactions from extremely severe burning can discolor the surface soil
 Potential for increased release of heavy metals in contaminated soils
Biological Effects:
 Direct mortality of soil micro and macro organisms and loss of their habitat with soil heating
Burning of Duff, Litter, and Soils
Severe Burning of the litter, duff and soil affects soil cover, infiltration, soil micro and macro organisms,
and nutrients:
 Loss of effective ground cover leaves soil susceptible to erosion especially in soils formed in
decomposed granitic materials
 Mortality of some soil organisms and combustion of surface soil organic matter
 Volatilization or release and increased mobility of some soil nutrients
 Debris movement and dry ravel may increase when small organic debris dams are burned out
 Increased water repellent (hydrophobic) soil limits water infiltration. Surface hydrophobicity
significantly increases accelerated runoff and erosion. Additionally, when a hydrophobic layer forms
below a surface layer, the risk of the surface layer “slicking off” is increased.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 6 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Vegetation
Within the fire there are two dominant cover types, forest and rangelands. The two types co-mingle
across much of the area. Forest lands comprise about 35% of the non-federal lands and are made up of
several conifer associations. The lower elevations are dominated by dry site Ponderosa pine plant
communities with a bunchgrass/shrub understory. Mid-elevations are transition zones where Ponderosa
pine and Douglas-fire plant communities are dominant. The upper-most elevations are comprised of dry
site mixed conifer plant communities, which were comprised of various mixes of Ponderosa pine,
Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and western larch depending on the aspect.
About 5% of the forested cover types were considered to have been burned at a high intensity. Fire
intensity on about 19% of the forest was considered to be moderately, and the remaining 76% was
considered to be of low intensity.
Rangelands comprise an estimated 65% of the no-federal lands in the fire. They can be characterized as
shrub-steppe cover types dominated by blue-bunch wheatgrass and antelope bitterbrush plant
communities. They transition into the forest cover types, extending upwards with elevation depending
primarily on aspect. Reestablishment of the antelope bitterbrush on the shrub-steppe plant community
will likely be prolonged where older stands were consumed.
High-fire intensity occurred across about 2% of the rangelands. Moderate burn intensity covered an
estimated 36%, and low intensity burn occurred across the remaining 62%.
Another important cover type that occurs in the area is riparian stringers dominated by mature quaking
aspen stands. Although there is no mapped inventory, they are crucial wildlife habitat, and many of
these were burned over and mortality is nearly complete.
Invasive Species
The burn condition in the state and private lands varied in severity. The majority of the affected land for
State and Private land was listed in the Moderately Burned Severity category totaling 75%, compared to
17% Light Burned Severity, and 8% High Burn Severity. The focus is to treat soils that are in the high and
moderate burn severity where soil erosion may affect critical values, soil productivity, and invasion of
noxious weeds and invasive species.
High soil burn severity areas within the Carlton Fire areas are subject to spread of noxious weed
communities and invasive species. Many of the noxious weed and invasive species have the potential to
out compete native plant communities during post fire recovery. The treatments designed are to protect
sensitive native plant communities and supplement remaining native seed banks that promote native
plant community recovery and reduce the potential for invasion of noxious weeds into areas disturbed
by fire suppression activities and in all burn severity areas.
Invasive Weed species known to occur in and near the Station Fire area
Scientific Name
Soil Specialist Report
Common Name
Class
Page 7 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Bromus tectorum
Verbascum thapsus
Linaria dalmatica ssp.
dalmatica
Linaria vulgaris
Cynoglossum officinale
Euphorbia esula
Cirsium arvense
Carduus nutans
Onopordum acanthium
September 2014
Cheat grass
Common mullein
Dalmatian Toadflax
B
Yellow Toadflax
Houndstongue
Leafy Spurge
Canadian Thistle
Musk Thistle
Scotch Thistle
B
B
B
C
B
B
Well known pathways of weed spread such as roads, trails, and drainages occur within the fire area. In
addition, the area receives frequent strong winds which are capable of spreading weed seeds, and high
levels of use by the public who inadvertently act as vectors for noxious weed spread. Because of dozer
lines, hand lines, roads, and previously infested areas the encompass approximately 256,108 acres of
state, federal, and private land. The newly burned soil is vulnerable to rapid establishment of noxious
weeds and invasive, non-native plants. Add to this the presence of 152.6 miles of new dozer lines, (areas
of soil disturbance), and 26.7 miles of hand lines, and it is clear that without prompt action, the potential
for an explosion of invasive weeds on high and moderately burned soils, along with the dozer and hand
lines is extremely high.
The Washington State Noxious Weed List controlled by the State Weed Control Board. It contains all of
the Statewide Class A noxious weeds.
Class A weeds are of very limited distribution in Washington State and are in a category of mandatory
eradication of the entire plant.
Class B
weeds are more widespread, but need consideration and required control: means required to stop seed
production.
Class C weeds are fairly
widespread and not considered feasible to require eradication. However, it does not mean the species
doesn’t warrant severe concern and eradication action at the local scale.
Washington State Weed Board: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/
Okanogan County Weed board: http://www.okanogancounty.org/nw/
Rangeland Resources
The rangeland and grazeable woodland areas burned were mostly in shrub/bunchgrass (jointed species),
mixed conifer/sod-forming grasses (non-jointed species) and aspen ecotypes. The intensity of the burn
varied from low to high, forming a mosaic pattern with some areas unburned. The high intensity burned
areas showed complete mortality on conifer, aspen, shrubs and all grass and forb species. The
moderate burn killed most of the conifer, aspen and shrubs while leaving some plant crowns of the
grasses alive. Much of the low burn intensity areas occurred in rangeland and open canopy woodlands
with a shrub and grass/forb vegetative component. Brush stubs remained and live root crowns were of
grasses and some forbs were observable. After two rainfall events in August, green up was observed at
many sites, with bunchgrass sprigs growing from burned crowns. This is very promising for plant
Soil Specialist Report
Page 8 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
survival, recovery and rehabilitation, and is an indicator of the inherent resilience of the rangelands that
were burned over.
Ecotypes found within the Carlton Complex Fire.
Common Name
Botanical Name
Bitterbrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation
Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass Shrub Herbaceous Vegetation
Ponderosa Pine/Pinegrass Grazeable Woodland
Ponderosa Pine/Bitterbrush Grazeable Woodland
Mixed Conifer/Pinegrass Grazeable Woodland
Purshia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata
Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata
Pinus ponderosa/Calamagrostis rubescens
Pinus ponderosa/Purshia tridentata
Mixed Conifer/Calamagrostis rubescens
The fire burned over many miles of perimeter/boundary and interior fences of federal, state and private
land. Much of it was destroyed or damaged beyond repair, so were many water developments. A
comprehensive inventory of these developments has not been compiled.
Findings and Recommendations
The multi-agency BAER team underwent a comprehensive exercise to identify critical values at risk.
Native or naturalized plant communities at risk of invasion by invasive or noxious weeds were identified
as critical values where the magnitude of consequence is likely to be major. Soil productivity was also
identified to be a resource likely to be at high risk. Treatments to address these values included both
emergency measures and longer term actions. Longer term actions address critical soil values, however
the magnitude of consequences to them is moderate and less likely.
Treatments and rehabilitation actions were identified and developed using examples and guidance
provided in the Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments Catalog (Napper. 2006). Digital copies
can be located on the internet at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/BAERCAT/lo_res/06251801L.pdf
Risks to Values
The findings of the BAER team September 4 through September 10, 2014. Two major issues exist: (1) the
potential for weeds to spread at a faster rate from existing infestations as a result of the fire, and (2) the
risk of new invasive species introduction. These introductions could come from heavy equipment,
vehicles, fire engines, base camps, firefighting crews. Areas of special concern are along dozer and hand
lines. In addition, post fire operations pose and additional seed source of noxious weeds. There are a
total of 152.6 miles of completed dozer lines and 26.7 hand lines.
Type
State
Private (miles)
Other (inc. other Agencies)
Total (miles)
(miles)
Dozer Lines
46.9
58.7
47.0
152.6
Hand Lines
8.9
.9
16.9
26.7
Soil Specialist Report
Page 9 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Emergency Treatments
See Treatment Maps in the Appendices
It is necessary to conduct noxious weed detection surveys to evaluate the potential for spread from
existing populations and from the activities associated with fire suppression. The following actions are
recommended to reduce the risk of irreversible damage to native vegetation from noxious weed and
invasive species to spread in the burn area:

Conduct weed detection surveys to identify and remove newly discovered infestations adjacent to
existing weed infestations.

Conduct weed detection surveys and remove newly discovered infestations along dozer & hand
lines, and inside and around noted polygons of high and moderate burn severity areas that are
designated for reseeding.

Treat areas with herbicides, mechanical practices.

Seed dozer lines with native seed to discourage repeated ground disturbance and further weed
spread from ORV recreation/ activities.
Map DR-4188 in the Appendix shows the locations of the dozer lines and other fire lines in relation to
the burn area. As of September 10, 2014, there was a total of 152.6 miles of completed dozer lines. The
dozer lines extend far beyond the final burn perimeter as they were built in anticipation of the fire
spreading even further. All dozer lines should be considered contaminated with weed seeds.
Location / (suitable) Sites:
The proposed treatments are designed for dozer and hand lines on state land (only) that were
untreated, where noxious weed pressure is expected to be high on native plant communities. In
addition, the BAER Team proposed sights to enhance soil productivity lessen soil loss down slope and
lower possible future mass flow events in reaches that may affect critical values (personal property, and
infrastructure) in or near proposed seeding sites.
Design/ Construction Specifications:
Native seed mix is to be applied on dozer lines and identified polygons. Seeding to occur in areas
identified by field survey, and severe burn severity and susceptible or known infestation areas. Use seed
mix recommended by local seed company AgTech. Apply Aerial seed mix at a rate of 25 lbs/ac, hand/
broadcasting at a rate of 15 lbs/ac. using the “NRCS Critical Area Planting Standards 342” as a guide.

Seed mix is to be applied to dozer lines by hand or 4-wheeler where applicable.

Seed mix will be applied to polygons identified by aerial application.

Seeding should occur in late fall or early winter to allow seed to naturally stratify.

Application can be broadcast or aerial dropped directly on snow surface.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 10 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014

Seed mix rate determined using NRCS Critical Area Planting Standards 342 as a guide and
consult.

Treatments include 47 acres of dozer lines and 2760 acres of identified polygons within the high
burn severity areas. Areas in polygons are subject to high probability of noxious weed intrusion,
(See map for treatment locations)
Rangeland Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria
Sheep Fescue
Pubescent Wheatgrass
Festuca Ovina
Thynopyrum intermedium spp.
barbulatum
Poa secunda
Poa canbyi
Sandberg Bluegrass
Canby Bluegrass
Quantitiy
%
45
@ Total amount for
Mix
12 lbs
20
5
2 lbs
2lbs
25
5
6 lbs
2 lbs
Quantitiy
%
35
20
20
15
10
@ Total amount for
Mix
9 lbs
5 lbs
5 lbs
5 lbs
1 lbs
Forest land Seed Mix
Common Name
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Mountain Brome
Idaho Fescue
Sherman Big Bluegrass
Canby Bluegrass
Scientific Name
Pseudoroegneria
Bromus Carinatus
Festuca Idahoensis
Poa ampla
Poa canbyi
Purpose of Treatment and Specifications
Wildfire causes disturbance that provides a receptive opportunity for the spread of noxious weeds &
invasive species. Noxious weeds and non native species introduction and spread are of concern in the
Okanogan National Forest that can affect its’ natural biodiversity in the scrublands and forested lands.
The potential for noxious weed invasion, competition, and modification of native plant communities
exists. Treatment is necessary to reduce the establishment and control the spread of noxious weeds
and invasive species. Native communities in both the rangeland and forest land are susceptible the
following: Diffused Knapweed, Dalmatian & Yellow Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Hounds tongue, Musk & Scotch
Thistle, Mullen, and Leafy Spurge. Additional species listed in local area
The BAER team recommends chemical treatment for spaying of noxious weeds & invasive species along
with cultural treatments. A field survey is needed to determine sites along roadsides, when found and in
and near selected polygons.
Noxious weed and invasive plant treatments are often site-specific. They include mechanical, cultural,
chemical or biological control methods. The focus is not on eradication in this situation but control and
Soil Specialist Report
Page 11 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
management until native species come back. The recommended treatments may lessen future
infestations. More than one treatment method may enhance noxious weed control; one such approach
is to use plant competition along with biological controls like Integrated Pest Management (IPM). This
help to restoring disturbed sites to prevent weed reoccurrences and provide competition for the weeds
is essential.
Treatment Methods:




Chemical
Mechanical
Biological Treatments
Cultural Treatment
Chemical
Chemical spaying for noxious weeds and invasive plants is dependent on the size of infestations and site
conditions.
Mechanical
Mechanical Control treatments help disrupt weed growth. Mechanical weed control is the oldest
method used. Treatments often used are tillage, hoeing, hand pulling, cultivation, mulching, and
mowing.
Common Mechanical
Tillage works by disturbing the root system by dislodging or cutting the root system resulting in
desiccation of the plant. Tillage easily controls small weeds and most effective in hot, dry environments.
Often repeat tillage when new shoots emerge (typically every two weeks). This can help to control weed
growth but often take one or two growing seasons.
Mowing is another treatment that reduces annual weed growth. Like tillage it must be performed
numerous times. Mowing however will not prevent seed production as the plants tend flower again
closer to the ground. This has been often noted with Spotted and Diffuse Knapweed. The knapweed
plant will adjust to the level of the mower and go to seed.
Biological Control
Biological control is the use of living organisms to suppress weed populations to an acceptable level. The
insects used are natural enemies of the targeted species that come from the weed's native ecosystem.
The use of biological controls impacts its targeted species in two ways:


Direct Impact - destroys vital plant tissues and functions
Indirect Impact - increases stress on the targeted species to reduce the plants ability to compete
with desirable plants.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 12 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
The use of bio-controls may take several years to become established in order to make an impact on the
targeted species. Using multiple treatments like chemical spaying outside a known boundary along with
IPM’s are often used to keep pests in a targeted area.
Cultural Weed Control
Cultural weed control treatments used with other treatments provide sound practices for land use in a
variety of settings. The planting desirable vegetation, use of goats or livestock along with good grazing
management are known methods of cultural weed control treatments.
The planting of cereal grain crops, grasses, or in combinations that compete for sunlight, water, and soil
nutrients with weeds. Rapid establishment is vital to success providing the best chance to resist noxious
weed and intrusive species invasions. Disturbed sites, roadways, and fence lines are most susceptible
and often where invasions occur first. Invasions start when seeds are brought in by vehicles, or when
soil disturbance occurs from operations.
Note: not all treatments intended for noxious weed or invasive plant eradication.
For more information consult Noxious Weed Control Board or local Cooperative Extension Agent in your
area.
Emergency Treatment Goals
Emergency- Keep out noxious weeds, prevent weed spread, and secondary long term benefit of soil
stabilization. Seeding to occur on infested or sensitive areas to prevent the spread of invasive species,
noxious weeds
Noxious Weed & Invasive Species Treatments
•
Emergency Treatment-
•
No Action
•
Chemical Treatment- 4 wheeler with boom, hand spraying
•
Prevention- noxious weeds & invasive species (chemical spraying, hand pulling, seeding)
•
Erosion Control & Soil Health (Hand seeding, broadcast seeding, aerial seeding)
•
Mechanical- noxious weeds & invasive species (mowing, hand removal)
•
Biological- noxious weeds (species specific)
Emergency Treatment
Aerial Seeding



Seeding to occur on moderate to severe burned areas where the risk of invasion from noxious
weeds and invasive species is high
secondary long term benefit of soil stabilization & soil health
Seeding Areas- Noxious weed and Invasive species
Soil Specialist Report
Page 13 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
























Emergency Treatment: Performed 1st year with secondary long term benefits
Application (Aerial):
$20.00 /ac
Seed Mix: rate (25lbs/ac)
$10.75 lb ($268.75/ac)
“Estimated Cost for Aerial Seeding” (Flight + seed cost)
$290.00 / ac
Frazier Creek 920 ac
$267,000
Cow Creek 560 ac
$162,500
French Creek- (Buckhorn Mountain)
640 ac
$185,600
Finley/Chiliwist (Thrapp Mountain)
640 ac
$185,600
Total Acres
2760 ac Estimated Total Cost $800,700
*(Pending species availability & pricing)
Dozer Line Seeding Treatment
Emergency Treatment 1st Year
Application: (Hand Broadcast & 4-Wheeler)
Dozer line (20’) width
Approx 114 acres
Seed Mix: (15 lbs/ac)
$10.75 /lb ($161.25 /ac)
“Estimated Cost for Seeding”
$18,383
Seed mix prices provided by local company Ag Tech, Okanogan, Washington
*(Pending species availability and pricing)
**See Field Survey Monitoring and Rapid Response for labor & equipment costs














Seed Mix: (15 lbs/ac)
$10.75 /lb ($161.25 /ac)
“Estimated Cost for Seeding”
$513.13
Seed mix prices provided by local company Ag Tech, Okanogan, Washington
*(Pending species availability and pricing)
**See Field Survey Monitoring and Rapid Response for labor & equipment costs
Hand Line Seeding Treatment
Emergency Treatment 1st year
Application: (Hand Broadcast)
Dozer line (3’) width
Approx 3.3 acres
Emergency Treatment- Seeding (Native Seed Mix) on Dozer Lines (20’) width
State Land:
47.0 miles 114 ac
Seeding & Spraying
Private:
59.0 miles 142 ac *
No Action
Other Land:
46.0 miles 111 ac *
No action
Chemical Spraying
Soil Specialist Report
Page 14 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team





September 2014
Field Survey for detection and rapid response to identify sites and
treatment
Dozer lines
Roads
High burn areas
Long-Term Treatments
Long Term- Soil Stabilization, Prevention seeding to occur in order to out compete noxious weeds &
invasive species and erosion control
Long Term TreatmentsChemical Spraying
Field Survey for monitoring and treatment
*Recommend seeding, spraying
Note: Water bars should be addressed by fire suppression repair not BAER considerations water bar
installation on all slopes greater than 15% with 150’.
Field Survey- Monitoring and Rapid Response, Evaluation & Maintenance:
Chemical & Seeding Labor
1 Supervisor (1.5 Months)
$5,000
4 Technicians (3 Months)
$6,000
2 Vehicle Rentals (3 Months)
$9,000
2 Lease (4-Wheeler)
$9,000
Equipment
$1,200
Incidentals
$1,000
*Estimated Cost * (2 year practice)
Emergency
$31,200.00/1 yr
*Kept in house or contracted out*
Long Term
$31,200.00/2 yr
Total $62,400
Chemical TreatmentsEmergency Treatment 1st year with secondary long term benefits
Chemical Applications and Estimations
Application: Chemical Application
**Estimated 1500 ac
Chemicals:
$32.00 /ac
*Estimated Cost for 1500 ac Chemical Application (2 year practice)
Emergency
$48,000/ ac
1 yr
Long Term
$48,000/ac
2 yr
Total $96,000
**Estimated until Field Survey & Rapid Response Team survey occurs
***See Field Survey Monitoring & Rapid Response for labor & equipment costs
Soil Specialist Report
Page 15 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Seeding Rates:
Forested Land: (see addendum) NRCS Seed Planting Guide
Rangeland: (see addendum) NRCS Seed Planting Guide
**Contact local source seed supplier for native mixes
Rangeland Management to Protect Long-term soil productivity and grazing resources: All pastures will
need a period of rest to allow for growth and establishment of forage species. There are areas within
the fire perimeter that did not burn or very low intensity but due to the location of these areas it is felt
best that they be rested also. There is a large unburned island of land, with multiple ownerships,
surrounded by the fire but this is considered outside the fire perimeter. Livestock grazing should be
managed on site specific, location by location basis depending upon unburned infrastructure and
usability.
After the second year of rest (2016), assessment and successful evaluation, grazing should be deferred
till the end of soft dough stage following the critical period for bunchgrasses and could resume during
dormant season of the third year (2017). Recommend following NRCS Range Technical Note 34, Grazing
Management Guidelines, November 2009 for grazing guidelines and strategies.
These standards should be monitored each year and documented to track progress toward meeting the
desired conditions required to return livestock grazing. If more site specific standards are developed for
the individual pastures they will be monitored in the same manor to ensure they are being
implemented.
Variables to work with in Grazing Management:






Time/timing of grazing periods
o Season of use (when)
o Duration or length of grazing periods (how long)
Intensity of grazing (how much) – utilization and residual
Frequency of grazing periods (how often)
Space/Area of landscape
Animal Numbers – stock density, class of livestock, wildlife
Rest/Recovery Periods
Prescribed Grazing is managing the harvest of plants by grazing animals, both livestock and wildlife.
Prescribed Grazing is very much a learning-tool: Plan the grazing – Manage the grazing – Monitor and
evaluate the results – Adjust the grazing plan (adaptive management).
To manage land and natural resources effectively, it is recommended to measure the changes that
occur, evaluate the results, and revise activities, as needed, to move toward desired outcomes. If you
don’t measure carefully, you can’t manage effectively. What to monitor depends upon resources
available, goals and objectives, and action items set out in the conservation plan.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 16 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Long-Term/Effectiveness Monitoring and Short-Term Monitoring: A combination of short-term and longterm monitoring should be utilized whenever possible. Long-term monitoring focused on the objectives
is used to generate a “trend record” while short-term monitoring is used to establish an “annual-use
record” keeping track of the management applied each year and the effects of that management.
A representative key area of each vegetative type/key species burned in the fire should be chosen. An
appropriate assessment for these communities should be conducted in the second year and then yearly
until normal grazing can be resumed. Designated monitoring areas (DMA) in riparian zones should be
established to measure the impacts of the fire on vegetative communities and monitor the condition
and health of streams.
The burned area, now lacking desired vegetation that would normally compete with noxious weeds, is
vulnerable to expansion existing noxious weed sources and other invasive species (e.g., Cheatgrass).
Even in the low intensity burned areas, it will still take at least one growing season (Summer 2015) until
native vegetation can reestablish and compete with existing unburned noxious weed populations.
Noxious weed monitoring should be conducted annually, to include known infestations and to record
new species that may have been introduced during suppression and rehab. This will target areas within
and adjacent to the burned areas. Treatments will be conducted to reduce or prevent further spread of
invasive and noxious weed species. All Dozer and Hand lines within the burn area will be seeded by hand
and then monitored to document recovery needs.
After a discussion with forest and district specialist it was decided that the standards for rehabilitation
was applicable to the entire fire area and the entire area should be rested for the required two years.
Where wildfire has burned within an allotment, burned areas should be evaluated to determine if rest
from livestock grazing is necessary for recovery of desired vegetation conditions and related biophysical
resources. When sagebrush cover types are determined to need rest from livestock grazing following a
wildfire, areas should be rested for a minimum of two growing seasons. Evaluate whether additional
rest is needed after two growing seasons. Base this determination on the following factors: a) The
ecological status of the sagebrush community prior to the wildfire, b) How Long the shrub steppe
community had a density or canopy closure greater than15 percent prior to the wildfire, c) The severity
and intensity of the fire, d) The amount, diversity and recovery of forbs, grasses and palatable shrubs
that are present after 2 years of rest in relation to desired conditions.
The dominate communities within the rangelands are bitterbrush/sagebrush/bunchgrass. In areas other
than shrub steppe cover types, such as ponderosa pine/ mixed conifer/pinegrass and aspen
communities appropriate rest period should be determined. Base this determination on the following
factors: Soil conditions, the amount, diversity and recovery of forbs, grasses and palatable shrubs that
are present after 2 years of rest.
Pasture infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed in the fire will need to be repaired to implement
grazing management strategies. Many miles of fencing will have to be replaced and salvage of damaged
fence material recovered. A high percentage of fencing along pasture boundaries of the burn area will
need prompt replacement to keep livestock from trespassing onto the burned area, and before residual
grazing strategies can resume. It is very important to re-establish control of livestock and carrying
capacity at an optimum, sustainable level to provide a proper recovery timeframe. Replacement of
interior fence will be very important for the maintenance and recovery of rangeland quality, production,
and habitat conservation.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 17 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
References
Napper, Carolyn. 2006. Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments Catalog. San Dimas Technology
& Development Center San Dimas, California. National Technology & Development Program.
Watershed, Soil, Air Management. USDA. Forest Service. 0625 1801—SDTDC December 2006.
http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/BAERCAT/lo_res/06251801L.pdf
Robichaud, P.R.; Elliot, W.J.; Pierson, F.B.; Hall, D.E.; Moffet, C.A. 2006. Erosion Risk Management Tool
(ERMiT) Ver.2006.01.18 [Online at <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/>.]. Moscow, ID: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station [accessed 5 June 2006].
USDA 2010. Soil Survey of Okanongan County Area, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Current data accessed September
7, 2014.
USDA 2008. Soil Survey of Okanogan National Forest Area, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Accessible online at: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/. Current data accessed
September 7, 2014.
USDA 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean,
and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Available online at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf Current data accessed
September 14, 2014.
Soil Specialist Report
Page 18 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
September 2014
Appendices
Treatment Maps
Soil Specialist Report
Page 19 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Soil Specialist Report
September 2014
Page 20 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Soil Specialist Report
September 2014
Page 21 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Soil Specialist Report
September 2014
Page 22 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Soil Specialist Report
September 2014
Page 23 of 24
Carlton Fire Multi-Agency Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team
Soil Specialist Report
September 2014
Page 24 of 24