soil specialist report

SOIL SPECIALIST REPORT

Sagehen Project Tahoe National Forest

Truckee Ranger District

January 16, 2013

Prepared by: Sharon Falvey

East Zone Hydrologist Tahoe National Forest

Sagehen Project Soils Specialist Report January 16, 2013

1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides an analysis of the effects of the Sagehen Project on short-term and long-

term soil quality in the project area. The purpose of the report is to introduce existing conditions

based on field observations into the project record and to provide evidence of adequate analysis

of the potential impacts to soil resources from the action alternatives within the project record for

the Sagehen Project Environmental Assessment (EA).

The report describes the soil for the project activity areas, provides an assessment of current soil

conditions within the activity area, analyzes the potential effects that the action alternatives

might have on the soil resource, and specifies mitigation in the form of management

requirements that would minimize adverse effects on soil quality.

The report includes:

the regulatory framework and applicable standards and guidelines used to evaluate soil

condition and the potential impacts of proposed treatments;

a description of the indicator, metrics and methods used to assess the effects of the

project on soil resources;

a description of the affected environment, including a listing of the soils in the project

activity area, a map showing the distribution of soil maximum erosion hazard rating for

the activity area, and an assessment of soil current condition in the activity areas as

affected by past land management activities, and relevant natural processes,

an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives on

the soil resource.

This document cross references additional supporting documents including:

Sagehen Project Environmental Assessment, Standard Management Requirements (SMRs),

Appendix A associated with this proposed action.

2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

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

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

objectives and standards and guidelines applied to project activities and managing the soil

resource.

Specific measures, indicators, and thresholds are established through this regulatory framework.

They are used in assessing soil condition, to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on the

soil resource- what gets looked at, why, and interpretation of what it means to soil quality and

site productivity.


2

2.1 LAW, REGULATION, AND POLICY

2.1.1 National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) recognized the fundamental need to

protect, and where appropriate improve, the quality of soil, water, and air resources. With respect

to soil, NFMA requires that the Forest Service manage lands so as not to impair their long-term

productivity. Furthermore, activities must be monitored to ensure that productivity is protected.

This law led to subsequent regulation and policy to execute the law at various levels of

management.

2.1.2 National Soil Management Handbook

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

productivity, and establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity. Although a new FSM was

approved in 2010, the direction is that the SQS in The Tahoe National Forest LRMP is binding

until Forest Plan revision is completed. With this in mind, the SQS from the preceding National

Soil Management Handbook used to develop the Forest Plan Revision is presented in this

section. This guidance sets the definition for a threshold of areal extent of detrimental effects at

15 percent for a reduction in inherent soil productivity. These values apply to measurable or

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

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

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

warranted.

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

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

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

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

Standards (SQSs).

2.1.3 Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement

The Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement establishes Regional objectives for the

Soil Management Program and Regional Soil Quality Analysis Standards (SQAS). These

analysis standards are intended to help guide direction in forest plan development to determine if

ecosystem health and long-term productivity are being maintained.

In the discussion of Soil Quality Standards (FSH2509.18,2.2.1), the handbook states “Prescribe

the kind and amounts of soil cover that would not elevate wildfire risk or severity to the point

that fuel management and soil quality objectives cannot be met. If there is no viable alternative

for providing soil cover without elevating the risk of adverse wildfire effects, prescribe minimum

soil cover needed to avoid detrimental soil loss.”

The soil quality standards are currently being assessed following the hand book direction stating

that “Long-term plots established with Forest Service Research Units will be needed to establish

or validate the correlation between threshold values and significant change.” Results from

current literature provided by these studies are incorporated into this analysis and are used to

inform the significance of these soil property changes.


3

2.2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1990)

established the Forest SQS per the National Soil Management Handbook direction and the R5

Soil Management Handbook direction. The Forest SQS are described within the LRMP as

Standard & Guideline (S&G) #55 presented below. The Regional Forester’s letter (February 5,

2007), specific to soil management, reaffirmed that the standards and guidelines in Forest Land

and Resource Management Plans provide the relevant substantive standards to comply with

NFMA.

2.2.1 Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standard and

Guideline #55

The Tahoe National Forest LRMP (USDA 1990), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment Record of Decision, hereafter referred to as SNFPA, (USDA 2004), provides

direction for maintaining long-term soil productivity through standards and guidelines for three

soil characteristics: soil porosity, soil cover, and soil organic matter (LRMP, pages V-36 through

V-38). When the standard and guideline for these three soil characteristics (described below) are

met on at least 85 percent of an activity area, the soil is considered to be in an acceptable

condition, without significant impairment to soil productivity. An activity area is the area where

soil-impacting activity has occurred, or is planned to occur, and includes landings, skid roads and

trails, and temporary roads, but does not include system roads. The LRMP notes that it may be

difficult to achieve this standard and guideline during fire salvage; rehabilitation, or recovery

activities including reforestation of brush fields. It may also be difficult to achieve in areas where

existing plant communities have developed inadequate cover or duff, or where resource

objectives are in direct conflict. In these situations, a soil scientist will work with the project

interdisciplinary team to develop site-specific management prescriptions that approximate this

standard and guideline, and do not result in a significant reduction in soil productivity (LRMP,

page V-36).

Standard for Soil Porosity (LRMP, pg. V-36)

Maintain at least 90 percent of the total soil porosity found under natural conditions, as measured

at 4 to 8 inches below the soil surface over at least 85 percent of the activity area.

Standard for Soil Cover (LRMP, pp. V-36 – V-37)

The soil is considered to be in acceptable condition after a land-disturbing activity when the

effective soil cover on an activity area is (1) the minimum amount shown in the following table,

or (2) the minimum amount prescribed for a specific site by a qualified earth science specialist

after an on-site investigation The minimum effective soil cover prescribed for a specific site can

vary from the values shown in the table due to local differences in slope, micro relief, surface

rock fragments, detachability, and other factors that vary within soil types

When less than 85percent of an activity area is in an acceptable soil condition as defined above,

restoration treatments will be implemented to bring effective soil cover levels up to the minimum

standard. Restoration treatments will be completed prior to any seasonal period of precipitation


4

or runoff. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, mulching with straw or woodchips,

scattering concentrations of slash, or seeding grasses or forbs.

Table 1: Minimum Percent Effective Soil Cove r (ESC) by Slope Group and Soil Group

Slope (percent)

< 35percent 35 to 50 percent > 50percent

Soil Group A

Soil Group B

Soil Group C

Soil Group D

70 percent ESC

50 percent ESC

40 percent ESC

30 percent ESC

80 percent ESC

60 percent ESC

50 percent ESC

40 percent ESC

90 percent ESC

75 percent ESC

65 percent ESC

55 percent ESC

Soil Group A: These soils are highly erodible, have developed from granitic parent material,

have a short timber rotation length, and are at lower elevations on the westside of the Forest.

Included are the Hoda, Holland, Hotaw, and Musick series

Soil Group B: These soils have developed from a variety of parent materials. Their erodability,

geographic location, and climate vary, and they have short to moderate timber rotation lengths.

Included are the Aiken, Boomer, Boomer Variant, Chaix, Cohasset, Delleker, Dubakella, Euer,

Euer Variant, Forbes, Fugawee, Horseshoe, Hotaw Variant, Huysink, Jocal, Jocal Variant, Jorge,

Kinkel Variant, Lorack Variant, Mariposa, McCarthy, Ponto Variant, Putt, Sattley, Sierraville,

Sites, and Trojan series.

Soil Group C: These soils have developed from a variety of parent materials. Their erodability,

geographic location, and climate vary, and they have moderate to long timber rotation lengths.

Included are the Aspen Variant, Bucking Variant, Chaix Variant, Crozier, Haypress, Hurlbut,

Jorge Variant Kyburz, Ledford, Ledford Variant, Neer, Smokey, Tahoma Variant, Tallac, Tinker,

and Zeibright series.

Soil Group D: These soils occur primarily in the true fir zone, have low erodability and have

long timber rotations. Included are the Ahart, Bucking, Ceiio Variant, Lorack, Smokey Variant,

Tahoma, Umpa, Waca, and Windy series.

Guidelines for Soil Organic Matter (LRMP, pp. V-37 – V-38)

(1) Maintain Large Woody Material

The objective of this guideline is to maintain soil productivity and nutrient cycling by

maintaining woody residues in timber harvest units while allowing the merchantable logs to be

removed.

Within the LRMP, large woody material retention is recommended at a rate of 5 of the largest

downed logs/acre. Preference is for large cull logs 20 inches or more in diameter and more than

40 cubic feet in volume. Where possible, logs should be evenly distributed throughout the

activity area and in contact with the soil. Logs should be in a range of decomposition classes as

defined in USDA Handbook 553, page 80 (Thomas 1979), except that at least two logs per acre

should be in class 1 or 2. A total volume of 200 to 800 cubic feet of smaller logs, merchantable

wood, or other woody material may be substituted when sufficient large logs are not available.


5

Hardwood residues, which have a much shorter residence time, should be considered for

retention when conifer residues are absent or in short supply. Large woody material is considered

part of effective soil cover under the Standard for Soil Cover.

The activity area for large woody material guideline does not include roadsides and ridges

designated for fuel reduction in Practice P1: Areas emphasizing fire prevention in developed

areas, areas of concentrated recreation use and during periods of significant activities (USDA

1990).

(2) Maintain Forest Duff

Forest duff helps maintain long-term soil productivity by; (1) providing a source of organic

matter and nutrients, (2) providing habitat for soil micro-organisms, and (3) providing mulch that

conserves soil moisture.

The goal is to maintain a minimum of 20 percent of the undisturbed forest duff evenly distributed

throughout the activity area. Undisturbed duff is duff that has not been displaced or moved, its

natural structure is intact, including a well-decomposed layer at the interface with mineral soil,

the thickness of its well-decomposed layer has not been reduced, and its surface may be charred

by fire, but not consumed.

Undisturbed forest duff has the capacity to absorb soil being displaced and transported by sheet

erosion. Undisturbed forest duff is also a source of organic matter, nutrients, and microbial

habitat.

Forest duff is considered part of effective soil cover under the Standard for Soil Cover. Because

of its special qualities, forest duff may be used to reduce the requirements of the soil cover

standard as follows:

Where more than 20 percent of undisturbed forest duff is maintained, the effective soil cover

required under the soil cover standard may be reduced by 5 percent for each 10 percent of

undisturbed duff over 20 percent. This applies only to Soil Groups B, C, and D in the

Standard for Soil Cover.

2.2.2 Sagehen Project Management Area Direction There is no soil specific management direction related to soils in the project area.

2.3 CURRENT SCIENCE AND MONITORING

Direction exists at virtually all levels to consider past monitoring, new information, and current

science in the evaluation of resource management practices and the decision making framework.

Current science helps inform the relevance of the impact on the soil resource evaluated. As such,

this has become part of the overall framework for evaluating soil impacts, and further informs

the soil effects assessment.

2.3.1 Long-Term Soil Productivity Study

The Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSPS) was borne in direct response to NFMA and the

National Soil Management Handbook to help validate and refine indicators and thresholds used

in the SQAS. This effort was cooperatively undertaken by Forest Service Research and the

National Forest System, and is an ongoing nation-wide experimental study.


6

An extensive world-wide literature review was first conducted looking for real evidence of

productivity declines and causes, beyond anecdotal and confounded studies. Where productivity

declines were well documented, the causal factors commonly reported were compaction and/or

organic matter removal from the site.

An experimental design was developed by Robert Powers and others1 to investigate factors

related to long-term productivity. In brief, the study design involves three levels of compaction

(none, intermediate, and severe) and three levels of organic matter removal (bole only, whole

tree, and whole tree plus all forest floor), in factorial combinations for nine treatments. Sites

were clearcut, treatments applied, and then planted with native conifer species. In addition, plots

were split in half, where competing vegetation was controlled in one half but not the other. Some

sites had additional “mitigation plots” where they were impacted and then rehabilitated by means

such as subsoiling, to test effectiveness of rehab methods. Conclusions from the Ministry of

Forestry indicate landings tilled with a winged subsoiler can be successfully rehabilitated

(Plotnikoff, 1999).

It is important to note with LTSP that “severe compaction” was experimental - approximately

90-95 percent of the area was heavily compacted (everywhere but stumps). Both in terms of

extent and severity this greatly exceeds impacts of typical harvest operations; severity may be

typical of landings. Intermediate compaction would be more typical in severity to well-used skid

trails, though again much more extensive than typical operations (90-95 percent area). In terms

of organic matter removal, vegetation treatment and fuel reduction projects such as the proposed

action would be typified by whole tree plus some forest floor removal.

California has 12 such study plot installations, more than any other Region, established from

1991 to 1998. California installations were purposely placed on a variety of major forest soils, to

investigate relationships on different soil types. Total aboveground productivity has been

measured at 5-year intervals. Results from the recent 5- and 10-year studies, show soil

compaction in sandy soil has resulted in increased productivity due to increases in plant-

available water. Finer textured soil, however, have shown decreased productivity resulting from

compaction and loamy textured soil showed no change. Growth tends to be reduced by

compaction on clayey soil due to loss of aeration from decreased porosity (Powers et.al, 2005).

These studies have shown that effects to soil productivity from compaction vary based on texture

even when standards are exceeded.

Literature by Greacen and Sands (1980) and Gomez et al. (2002) suggests that compaction may

increase water-holding capacity without unduly hampering soil aeration with some coarser

textured soil. Compaction risk is also reduced for soil with large rock fragments and higher rock

content. Moisture content is one of the most important factors influencing soil compaction (Page-

Dumroese et al., 2006). Operations over dry soil minimize the potential for changes in porosity.

2.3.2 Monitoring and Impacts of Ground-Based Thinning:

Findings were reported related to disturbance monitoring following ground based thinning in a

Seral Reserve (no measured existing disturbance) and mixed conifer forest (Iron Canyon late

1 Powers et al.1989.


7

seral reserve) over loam/clay loam soil and within an activity area with residual disturbance from

a previous entry. Disturbance as compaction severity (10 percent reduction in porosity) or extent

(15 percent) was not exceeded in the seral reserve but, results showed pre-existing disturbance

impacts are compounded by additional thinning. Pre-existing disturbance can remain measurable

over decades and thus is an accumulative impact (in areal extent and severity) and can influence

pre-existing disturbance for future harvests (Young 2005).

Data from the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) 2010 monitoring report suggest

there may be direct effects to soil porosity since each entry into an activity area adds a small

amount of compaction; multiple entries needed to complete treatments make the activity areas

susceptible to increased compaction. The results from the HFQLG 2010 monitoring report

showed that somewhere around 9 percent of activity areas changed from meeting the compaction

standard to not meeting the compaction standard. The HFQLG studies made two conclusions 1)

most activity areas that exceed the standard post-treatment start with high compaction extent

nearing the Forest LRMP standard and, 2) there was not a large amount of change between pre-

treatment and post-treatment compaction for most activity areas.

2.3.3 Large Woody Material

Large woody material is described per the LRMP as having a preference toward a 20 inch

diameter and 10 foot long log, when sufficient large logs are not available smaller logs,

merchantable wood, or other woody material may be substituted. Therefore, the definition of

downed wood and applicable science for this indicator would include smaller woody debris, and

larger woody material such as the 1,000 hour fuels.

A study conducted by Spears et al., 2003 determined that woody debris contributes little to soil

biology and nutrient cycling, or that the effect is obscured because all soils have been affected by

woody debris at some time. While this study was conducted in Oregon with soils comparatively

rich in organic matter, it may illustrate the short-term cycling may not be as important to

productivity for soils as previously mentioned. Some suggestions are made that woody material

may be more important in low productivity soils.

Another finding conducted at the Black Mountain Experimental Forest concludes the large wood

retains more soil moisture under brown cubical rot of large wood. Further benefits include three

times more soil Nitrogen (N) mineralized beneath coarse woody debris than other cover types.

Assuming coarse woody debris cover is no more than 1 percent N, gain is 75 grams/acre/year in

mineral soil and is as good or surpassed by other vegetation types when extent is considered.

Large wood does provide habitat for fungi.

A study conducted by Stephens, 2001 shows the variation in fuel loads between a Jeffry pine

stand and an adjacent Upper Montane Stand for fire history plots. The mean fire return interval

for the Jeffry pine and Upper Montane fire plots were 9 and 24.7 years respectively. The study of

fuels including the 1,000 hour fuels was approximately 15 percent of the 1,000 hour fuel found

in the Upper Montane fire plot. This study illustrates that fire frequency and fuelbed

characteristics are linked.


8

2.3.4 Duff and Burn Prescriptions This section takes applicable information directly from (USDAFS, 2012). While this information presents

the components that may affect the amount of duff retained, there was no relationships presented as to the

amount of duff remaining following application of fire.

Duff is generally composed of two distinct layers: an upper fermentation layer of organic

material, including branchwood, cones, and bark in the early stages of decomposition and a lower

humus layer of mostly indistinguishable organic matter. The humus layer, or lower duff, is in an

advanced state of decomposition and is dark brown to black in color.

When using prescribed burn practices the lower duff is primarily consumed by smoldering

combustion. Moisture content is most important, with the probability of sustained smoldering

combustion inversely related to duff moisture content. Studies have shown that lower duff burns

independently of surface fuels below 90 percent moisture content. Conversely, duff rarely burns

above a moisture content of 120 percent. In controlled laboratory burning of lower duff from a

ponderosa pine dry mixed conifer stand in the southern Klamath Mountains, smoldering

combustion was halted at moisture contents exceeding 102 percent moisture content, and was

variable below that threshold. Mineral content is secondarily important through its interaction

with moisture content; higher levels of mineral content in the duff require drier duff in order for

consumption to occur. Higher fuel moistures reduce the potential fire intensity that would heat the

soil. Soil moisture also creates a buffer to soil heating. The depth that heat penetrates the soil is

largely dependent on soil moisture.

2.3.5 Pile Burning

Burning when soils are dry increases the likelihood of elevated soil heating regardless of fuel

type (Frandsen and Ryan, 1986; Hartford and Frandsen, 1992; Valette et al.1994; Campbell et

al., 1995) due to the low heat capacity of dry soils or the lower energy requirement needed to

heat air-filled pores compared with water-filled pores (Jury et al., 1991). Preliminary results of

studies in the Tahoe Basin determined project area piles generally take up less than 15 percent of

the treatment area and the overall effect of pile burning on soil productivity is not extensive. Soil

heating can occur up to a four inch depth when piles contain large bole wood. Large bole wood

included numerous pieces greater than 15 inches in diameter. Bulk density is increased under all

burn piles and infiltration is decreased in large (numerous pieces greater than15 inches) and

mixed burn piles (greater than 15 inches mixed with medium to small sizes) (Hubbert et.al,

2010). While no specifics on pile burning and hydrophobicity were conducted in this study a

study on length of hydrophobic effects suggest a weakening of fire-induced soil hydrophobicity

after 3 months and that fire-induced soil hydrophobicity persists for at least 22 months to a lesser

degree (Huffman et.al, 2001).

2.3.6 Region 5 Best Management Practice Evaluation Process (BMPEP) (Monitoring) (25,

T04, T06)

Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been designed primarily to protect water quality.

Several of the BMPs (F25, T04, T06) protect water quality by preventing erosion. Therefore, the

implementation and effectiveness monitoring results for these BMPs is relevant to protecting soil

productivity.

Prescribed Burning through Regional BMPEP Monitoring (F25)

The Regional BMPEP Monitoring summary occurring from 2003-2007 resulted in 190 sites

across the region monitored for prescribed burning. Data results using two assessment measures


9

show: 1) 83 percent effectiveness, and 5 percent ineffective (the results rate BMPs as successful

or not based on whether individual responses indicate departures) and 2) 100 percent

implementation and 98 percent effectiveness. Based on the record there was one case where the

result was assessed to have adverse effects extending to a stream for a period extending beyond 5

days. So with the exception of 1 site in 190, the BMPEP results show a high rate of protection of

water quality. Furthermore when the BMP is appropriately implemented, protection of water

quality resources was measured at 100 percent (USDA FS PSR, 2009).

Regional BMPEP Monitoring: Landings (T04)


across the region monitored for protection of water quality. Results from that data set show 1) 90

percent implementation, and 93 percent effective (the results are expressed as rates BMPs as

successful or not based on whether individual responses indicate departures) and 2) 94 percent

implementation and 98 percent effectiveness (USDA FS PSR, 2009).

Timber Sale Erosion Control through Regional BMPEP Monitoring (T06)


across the region monitored for Erosion Control (TO6). Results from that data set show1) 92

percent effectiveness, and 0 percent ineffective (the results rate BMPs as successful or not based

on whether individual responses indicate departures), and 100 percent implementation and 100

percent effectiveness. Out of 24 sites monitored all the BMPEP results show a high rate of

protection of water quality. Data show that when the BMP is appropriately implemented

protection of water quality resources results (USDA FS PSR, 2009).

2.3.7 Underburning of Masticated Fuels

Treatment of masticated fuels is fairly recent, and prescribed underburning following mastication

is a relatively new activity. Mulch depths of 7.5 centimeters (3 inches) can result in lethal soil

temperatures killing roots and creating biological damage at 10 centimeters (4 inches) (Busse

et.al, 2005). Damaging temperatures can be limited to the surface 2 to 5 centimeters (0.8 inches

to 2 inches) in the mineral soil when soil moisture was high. Soil moisture is the primary

determinant of downward heat transfer during burning of high woody fuel loads. Busse found

that burning, when soil has greater than 20 percent volumetric moisture minimizes lethal root

heating and limits damaging temperatures to the surface 2 to 5 centimeters in the mineral soil

(Busse et. al., 2010). Soil surface damage varies in extent and depth with variation of depth of

masticated fuels above 7.5 centimeters (3 inches). Results indicate that most plant roots will be

unaffected by the burning of masticated woody fuels in moist soils under typical spring burn

conditions in the western United States. Burning heavy fuel loads when soils are moist (greater

than 20 percent volumetric moisture) should limit damaging temperatures to the surface 2 to 5

cm in the mineral soil. On the other hand, prescribed burning when soil moisture is low, may

produce considerable soil heating.

Another study conducted by Knapp (2011), found that little heat from burning masticated fuels

appeared to penetrate deeply into the mineral soil. Litter and the 1-hour woody fuels were most

readily consumed whereas larger wood and duff contained considerable moisture and were less

completely consumed during late spring-early summer burns. It should be noted that when the


10

average duff moisture was above 30 percent, prescribed burning was found to lead to incomplete

consumption.

2.3.8 Aspen Restoration and Soil Organic Matter

Shepperd, 2006 provides various descriptions of the soil/water and nutrient interactions and

states “The cyclic relationship between soil nutrients and the accompanying understory of aspen

stands provide annual leaf litter that enhance the nutrient cycles as the organic matter

decomposes” and concludes, “This process is the foundation for development of soil water

holding capacity of the habitat.”(N.V. DeByle and R.P. Winokur 1985).

3 METHODS

3.1 Indicator, Metrics and Methods

Through direction outlined in the Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement and the

National Soil Management Handbook, Standard and Guideline #55, within the Tahoe National

Forest LRMP was developed. The SNFPA Record of Decision (2004) did not include language

that supersedes this direction; therefore, the LRMP standard and guideline are the indicator and

metrics used to assess the effects of the project on soil resources; and are the means to maintain

ongoing long-term soil productivity. Standard and Guideline #55 identifies one indicator,

“productivity”, and three metrics “soil porosity”, “soil cover”, and “soil organic matter”.

The LRMP direction sets guidelines for soil properties and soil conditions that have been

indicated to maintain productivity. Key soil functions can be maintained when the three metrics

for productivity: 1) soil porosity, 2) soil cover, and 3) soil organic matter are met over an activity

area. Soil disturbance is considered “detrimental” if the thresholds described for these standards

are exceeded. Subsequent impairment of soil functions may be at risk, if standards are not met.

Both severity and extent of detrimental disturbance are important considerations that must be

evaluated together to assess potential adverse impacts on the activity area soil resource. As such,

detrimental disturbance can be allowed on a small portion of an activity area without affecting

productivity. Current science section 2.3.1 Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSPS), further

informs risk to productivity.

Note that the activity area is the scale at which impacts are ultimately assessed, defined as the

area where soil disturbing activities take place, such as a timber harvest unit in a sale area or a

burn area within a prescribed burn project; system roads, trails, and other areas not dedicated to

growing vegetation (other dedicated uses) are not included as part of an activity area.

3.1.1 Standard for Soil Porosity

Maintain at least 90 percent of the total soil porosity found under natural conditions, as measured

at 4 to 8 inches below the soil surface over at least 85 percent of the activity area.

If the standard for porosity is exceeded in severity and extent, information from the LTSPS is

applied and the risk of effects on soil productivity is conducted based on the impacted soil

texture. Based on the LTSPS, reduced productivity from porosity exists only over fine textured

soil.


11

Porosity Methods:

Sampling is conducted using a tile spade where each site is characterized as to whether it is

detrimentally compacted or not. A couple of sites within each activity area with no evidence of

previous mechanical activity are sampled to establish a baseline to represent the undisturbed

condition. Compaction data is collected at each sample point by excavating 8 to12 inches deep

and 4 to 6 inches wide with a soil spade. The soil from 4 to8 inches deep is observed and

manually manipulated to assess whether detrimental compaction exists. Undisturbed soil would

typically offer little resistance to spade penetration. It is usually loose and has a fine granular

structure. Detrimental compaction has moderate to high resistance to spade penetration compared

to the undisturbed sites. It also commonly exhibits platy structure. The tilth and friability of the

soil are noticeably reduced. It may appear blocky or massive as opposed to loose and granular in

the undisturbed site. The project record describes the transect method for collecting data and

contains data sheets used. The summary of each data point along the transect is used to estimate

the extent of detrimental compaction.

3.1.2 Standard for Soil Cover

The guidelines presented above in Section 2.2.1, set the minimum standard for percent effective

soil cover. Additional measures are included in the Sagehen Project Environmental Assessment,

Standard Management Requirements (SMRs), Appendix A. Monitoring further informs success.

Where accelerated onsite erosion is observed additional remedies to control erosion are provided.

Soil Cover Methods:

Soil cover data is collected by observing the soil cover within a one square foot area at the toe

point. The percentage of organic cover (at least ½ inch thick) per the R5 Soil Quality Standards

(SQS) is estimated as to whether it is 50 percent or more cover (yes) or less than 50 percent

cover (no) over the grid area. This is translated into the percentage of plots having 50 percent or

more cover (i.e.: if 75 percent of the plots had over 50 percent cover the activity area is evaluated

as having 75 percent cover). The dominate type of soil cover is also identified and recorded.

Categories include: CO-undisturbed duff and litter (O horizon); C2-rock; C3-vegetation or shrub

canopy less than two feet above the soil surface; C4-bare soil; C5-larger woody debris (logs,

stumps). The project record describes the transect method for collecting data.

3.1.3 Standard for Organic Matter as Large Woody Material and Forest Duff

3.1.3.1 Standard for Large Woody Material Within the LRMP for soils, large woody material retention is recommended at a rate of 5 of the

largest downed logs per acre with a preference for large wood greater than 20 inches diameter

and ten feet long. Other woody material may be substituted when sufficient large logs are not

available with a total volume of 200 to 800 cubic feet per acre of smaller logs, merchantable

wood, or other woody material. The LRMP recognized there would be times when these

standards would not be met particularly for plantations and when providing site preparation for

reforestation. As discussed in the Appendix H (pg. H-5) of the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for the LRMP, the standard for downed wood is based on the application of general

principals and was considered a prudent starting point. Large woody debris requirements were

developed from a position statement for the Siskiyou National Forest (USDA, 1987). However,


12

as this forest is located in the Cascade Range, the ecosystem is not similar to the eastern districts

of the Tahoe National Forest.

Based on current literature, and recent findings on fire return intervals for some of the east side

forests, the guideline of 5 trees per acre may be high for some east side forest types. The primary

objectives in some locations of east side forest types, is to meet fuels reduction needs. As

discussed in Appendix H (pg. H-6) of the EIS for the LRMP, the requirement for large woody

material is waived in areas designated as fuel breaks.

Current science informs this position and is based on more frequent fire return intervals. As

presented by Stephens, 2001, the findings suggest there is a link between fuel bed, species and

fire frequency. For instance there is a decreased presence of 1,000 hour fuels (3 inches or

greater) in Jeffry pine, having a shorter fire return interval than an upper montane forest.

Qualifiers found in the guidelines for Soil Organic Matter of the LRMP recognize the large

woody material does not include roadsides and ridges designated for fuel reduction under

Practice P1 (Areas emphasizing fire prevention in developed areas, areas of concentrated

recreation use and during periods of significant activities).

The minimum standard for large woody material includes the smaller logs, merchantable wood,

or other woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet per acre and this equates to

approximately 2.3 to 10 tons per acre depending on density.

Information in the direct and indirect effects section applies the standards to Alternative 1 and

Alternative 3 slightly differently based on the proposed actions, site conditions, and these

guidelines. Because the proposed action has an emphasis on downed wood for Martin species the

wildlife criteria was used to develop the proposed action plan and the basis of that criteria is

based on a minimum criteria of downed wood at 5 downed logs, 15 foot diameter and10 feet

long. These lengths were designated a minimum, however: the proposed alternative also

proposed leaving the 5 largest trees. With additional downed wood the basis of the proposed

action with a 15 foot diameter and 10 feet length objective meets the minimum standards for

soils when considering that it includes the largest available downed wood and other woody

material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet per acre.

Large Woody Material Methods:

Existing conditions were determined using observations and data were obtained from point data

previously collected by UC Berkley and compiled by Scott Conway, Vegetation Management

Officer. Valiant (2008) provides the following description regarding the design of the UC

Berkeley vegetation plots in the Sagehen Basin and more information on the source data and

methods can be found in the Silviculture Specialist Report for the Sagehen Project(Conway,

2012). The data used include large logs (greater than 15 feet in diameter and greater than10 feet

long).

Post implementation monitoring follows standard Forest Service procedure using the transect

method. At every fifth sample point along the transect a 37-foot radius sample area

(approximates a tenth acre plot) is estimated. The numbers of down logs by decomposition class


13

1-5 that are at least 20 inches in diameter and 10 feet long are recorded. Since the distance

between samples varies based on activity area width, where unit size is small, it may be

necessary to sample every sixth or seventh point instead of every fifth point to make sure that the

1/10th

acre plots are at least 75 feet apart so that they do not overlap. The project record describes

the transect method for collecting data and contains data sheets to be used. When downed logs at

the 20 inch diameter size are not present across the site the data would be collected using the

applicable Photo Series for quantifying forest Residues. See section 6.2.1.3 Organic Matter

Changes from Vegetation Management for more detail on how these standards were applied to

the action alternatives.

3.1.3.2 Standard for Forest Duff

The goal is to maintain a minimum of 20 percent of the undisturbed forest duff evenly distributed

throughout the activity area. Undisturbed duff is duff that has not been displaced or moved, its

natural structure is intact, including a well-decomposed layer at the interface with mineral soil,

the thickness of its well-decomposed layer has not been reduced, and its surface may be charred

by fire, but not consumed. Appendix H of the EIS for the LRMP recognized it may not be

possible to maintain forest duff under plantations until they are mature enough to provide needle

cast.

Forest Duff Methods:

Prior to implementation, transect data determine existing cover components as undisturbed duff

and litter, vegetation that contributes duff, and larger woody debris. These data describe existing

conditions for forest duff.

After implementation, transect data may be collected across an activity area. Disturbed areas,

along a transect, would be identified as categories N-no displacement, D1 –slight disturbance

duff and A horizon in place, D2- disturbance evident duff displaced: D3- duff and part of A

horizon removed or slash and A horizon mixed, D4 A horizon gone. The percent disturbed area

would be assessed with categories D2, D3, and D4 where the recent activities caused the

displaced duff. Percent disturbance would be calculated based on these transect data. The project

record describes the transect method for collecting data.

3.2 SOIL RESOURCE INFORMATION

Soil information for the project area was obtained from two sources: the Tahoe National Forest

Soil Resource Inventory (1994), and field observations of the project area (2004-2011).

3.2.1 Soil Resource Inventory

Soil maximum erosion hazard rating information, by operational activity area, is illustrated in

Soil and Water Resource Map 1. To simplify the soil map unit characteristics, the major soils in

each soil map unit were determined based on the percent present within the soil map unit. Where

soil mapping units included one or two soil families comprising over 30 percent of the map unit

they were included as major soil types for that operational soil activity area.


14

3.2.2 Field Observations

The purposes of field work were to: (1) validate the soil survey mapping, (2) gather information

on site-specific soil properties, (3) assess current soil conditions as affected by past management

activities, (4) determine level of mitigation measures and (5) develop predictions on soil

response to the proposed treatments.

Activity areas were selected to be sampled in order to describe existing conditions. Selection of

activity areas to be sampled is based primarily on risk for exceeding compaction (proposed

action where heavy equipment is used, areas with recent entries, or legacy compaction) and the

frequency with which the soil type occurred within the proposed activity area areas. Soil type,

slope, proposed activities, and past activities were used to refine the sample selections and obtain

representative site conditions. When soils were sampled, surrounding units with similar soils

were observed to determine if the sampling was representative. Where an activity area is

observed to have potential for more compaction, additional transects were made or the unit is

selectively sampled. Dave McComb, Soil Scientist, completed soil sampling. Sites were also

visited by Sharon Falvey, East Zone Hydrologist. Summary information from field data is

available in the project record.

Field observations confirming soil type and general site conditions were completed during

interdisciplinary team meetings. Areas with concerns identified were noted and detailed remedial

actions to address those issues were incorporated into the Standard Management Requirements

(SMRs) in Appendix A of the Sagehen EA.

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.2 SOIL EXISTING CONDITONS

Productivity

4.2.1 Soil Porosity (Compaction)

Field observations of detrimental compaction on proposed units are well below threshold.

Measured transects found 33 percent of the sample areas had no compaction, and areas with

observed compaction from transect measurements ranged from an extent of 3 percent to a high of 8

percent along the transect. Within the general project area detrimental compaction was typically

observed along historic features and older access routes. All of the unit activity areas were visited

and site observations conclude they currently meet the Tahoe LRMP soil porosity standard.

Measured unit results showed no compaction to up to 8 percent detrimental compaction.

4.2.2 Effective Soil Cover (Erosion)

On all proposed activity areas observed there were soil cover quantities sufficient to prevent soil loss due

to erosion. Data from measured activity area transects showed a range of 80 to 97 percent effective soil

cover. No accelerated erosion or sediment movement was observed on any proposed activity areas

surveyed that would indicate a loss in soil productivity. In the general project area outside of activity

areas, some erosion and sediment movement was observed (as sheet flow merging to concentrated

flows) in areas where Wyethia (W. heleniodes) vegetation dominates, and along roads and where road


15

drainages concentrate and discharge downslope of the road particularly where multiple roads converge.

Data from soil transects measuring soil cover can be found in the project record.

4.2.3 Organic Matter

Large Woody Material Large woody material data is assessed for existing conditions by emphasis area. Existing

conditions were determined using observations and the data were obtained from point data

previously collected by UC Berkley. The UC Berkley data use logs greater than 15 feet in

diameter and greater than10 feet long as minimum criteria to estimate large logs per acre. Valiant

(2008) provided the description regarding the design of the UC Berkeley vegetation plots in the

Sagehen Basin and more information on the source data and methods can be found in the

Silviculture Specialist Report for the Sagehen Project(Conway, 2012).

A data summary that included data conversions to comparable units were calculated by Scott

Conway, Vegetation Management Officer for UC Berkley data that overlap proposed action

activity areas. These data were then averaged by emphasis area, first using all data, then by

removing the data from the plantations (46, 87) and natural regeneration areas (76, 98, 99) that

may skew the data in the natural stands. It should be recognized that the observed data have high

variability and therefore, the average obtained would not be likely to be observed over every

acre, but may be more representative of an average at a landscape scale. As can be seen in Table

2 below there are no logs recorded for emphasis area 8. However; downed logs and a total

volume of 200 to 800 cubic feet per acre of smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody

material meeting the minimum requirements were observed in the emphasis area and general

activity area during field visits.

Table 2: Large Wood: Existing Conditions

Emphasis Area

Average Logs per acre

(>15 inches diameter and

> 10 feet long

Average Logs per acre (>15 inches diameter

and > 10 feet long removing data from

plantation and regeneration activity area 46,87

and 76, 98, 99 respectively

1 21.6 logs/acre 26 logs/acre

2 12 logs/acre 12 logs/acre


5 5 logs/acre 6.5 logs/acre


7 8.6 logs/acre 10.6 logs/acre

8* 0 logs/acre 0 logs/acre

*Downed logs and a total volume of 200 to 800 cubic feet per acre of smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other

woody material meeting the minimum requirements were observed during field visits to these activity areas.

Forest Duff Transect results representative of the project area showed forest duff varied from 65 percent to

90 percent. Transect data for plantations in proposed activity area 46 have 85 percent duff. The

transect running through the uplands of previously treated areas in activity area 213 showed 65

percent duff. Transects running along the western margin in activity area 213 showed 73 percent


16

duff. Other transects in proposed activity areas such as activity areas 38 and 39 show 90 percent

existing duff.

4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOIL INFORMATION

Geologically, the project area is comprised of Cenezoic Sedimentary and Cenezoic volcanic

rock. The landscape is formed through glacial deposits and tertiary pyroclastic rock and volcanic

mudflow.

The order 3 soil survey information is used to describe activity area soil (USDAFS 1994). There

are nine major soil types within the activity area for the proposed action. See Map 1: Sagehen

Activity Area Soil, available in the project file, presenting the major soil by activity area and

identifying maximum erosion hazard rating. The reason for identifying the major soil is to define

the dominate characteristics found at the activity area level since all map units at the order three

scale result in small areas of other soils contained in the map unit. For this document, the major

soils is a term used to describe the dominate soil in the mapped soil unit (order three soil series)

and any co-dominate soil present at greater than or equal to 30 percent presence within the

mapped soil unit. Where present the co-dominate soil is hyphenated. These soil units were

originally attributed based on their presence in the project area and were further segmented based

on activity area.

Waca Series are formed in residuum and weathered from andesitic mudflow and rhyolitic tuff.

Jorge soils formed from residuum from volcanic flow rock of andesite, basalt and latite.

Fugawee, and Fugawee Altered and Terraced soil is formed in residuum weathered from basic

igneous rocks principally latite and andesite flows. Tahoma series are formed in residuum

weathered from basic volcanic rock. Trojan series are formed in residuum and weathered from

andesitic and basaltic conglomerate and breccia.

Fugawee, Sierraville, Tahoma and Jorge soil are Alfisols. Waca soil is an Inceptisols and Trojan

soil is a Xeroll. Soil textures vary from sandy loam to loam; the Waca soil have 15 to 45 percent

gravel and Fugawee, Tahoma, and Jorge can vary between 3 to 60 percent cobble and stone or

rock fragment. Soils are very deep to moderately deep and mostly well drained with the

exception of wet soil types described below.

Soil survey, monitoring data, and field observations are used to describe the affected soil and

existing conditions in the project area. The internet website Web Soil Survey can be used to view

the soil mapping for the area based on the order three soil mapping conducted for the Tahoe

National Forest (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app (USDAFS, 1994). Also, see the project

record for the mapped soil location for unit activity areas and the Maximum Erosion Hazard

Rating (MEHR) associated with those soils on Map 1: Sagehen Project Area Soils Alternative

1,and Map 2: Sagehen Project Area Soils Alternative 3. Maximum Erosion Hazard Rating. The

Order 3 survey data was available by Geographic Information System (GIS) layer built from the

information from the Tahoe National Forest Soil Survey (USDAFS, 1994). The mapped unit soil

symbols associated with the Major Soil in the soil series are presented in the following

paragraphs by alternative. Other available information considered included an Order 2 mapping

of soils was completed by Hanes and Poff (1989) for the Sagehen basin; however, the order three


17

soil survey was utilized as it is the most recent science and basic soil survey information was

available in digital form.

Under Alternative 1 (2,653 treatment acres), the activity areas are comprised of approximately

47 percent Fugawee-Tahoma and altered soil (FTE, FTEA, FTF), 17 percent Fugawee (FVE,

FRE and FME) with a component of altered and terraced Fugawee soil (FRE5 and FRF6) in the

plantations on both the north and south slopes). Additionally, there are approximately18 percent

Jorge (JTE, JTF and JWF) 10 percent Sierraville (SIE), and 7 percent Waca (WAF, WDF and

WEE) soil. There is a minor component of Aquolls/Borolls (1 percent) and less than 1 percent

combined presence of Trojan (TTF) and Tallac (TBE) soil in the proposed activity areas. The

Aquolls/Borolls (AQB) are all located within units proposed for hand pile and pile burning or

under burning only, and these are located primarily near the southern flank of the Sagehen

Creek. There are small inclusions of Cryumbrepts, wet soil and the Aquolls and Borolls

associated with wet springs and meadow areas in other activity areas.

Under Alternative 3 (1,132 treatment acres), the units are comprised of approximately 69.6

percent Fugawee-Tahoma and altered soil (FTE, FTEA,FTF), 16 percent Fugawee (FVE, FRE

and FME) with a component of altered and terraced Fugawee soil (FRE5 and FRF6) in the

plantations on both the north and south slopes). Additionally, there are approximately 11 percent

Jorge (JTE, JTF and JWF), and 1.5 percent Sierraville (SIE). There is a minor component of

Aquolls/Borolls (AQB) (2.2 percent). The Aquolls/Borolls are all located within activity areas

proposed for hand pile and pile burning or under burning only, and these are located primarily

near the southern flank of the Sagehen Creek. There are small inclusions of Cryumbrepts, wet

soil and Aquolls/Borolls also associated with wet springs and meadow areas.


18

5. Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives are being analyzed in detail for the Sagehen Project: the Proposed Action

(Alternative 1), the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and the Non-Commercial Funding

Alternative (Alternative 3). The primary difference between alternative 1 and alternative 3,

where area treatments remain the same in the subset of units treated, is in the size of material

removed. Under alternative 3, the suppressed cut, used for hand treatment removes the majority

of trees less than ten inches dbh in the units proposed for treatment. There would be no designed

DCA or ESO. The prescription is focused on removing 12 inch dbh or smaller with occasional

trees of 18 inches dbh removed in the mechanically thinned units. Table 3 summarizes the

treatment acreages; Table 4 displays the road work, and a summary of the restoration activities

under the proposed alternative(s). More detail can be obtained in the Sagehen Project proposed

action and Environmental Assessment.

Table 3. Sagehen Project: summary of proposed treatment acreages by alternative.

Treatment Alternative 1 (acres) Alternative 2 (acres) Alternative 3 (acres)

Mechanical Thin/ Grapple Pile and Burn 635 0 0

Mechanical Thin/ Grapple Pile and Pile

Burn/Underburn

82

Mechanical Thin/ Underburn 496 0 0

Underburn 116 0 84

Mechanical Thin/ Lop & Scatter,

Mastication, Underburn

661 0 661

Hand Thin/ Pile Burn/ Underburn 248 0 248

Mechanical Thin, Lop & Scatter,

Mastication

315 0 45

Hand Thin/ Pile Burn 94 0 94

Aspen Restoration – Mechanical Thin 1 0

Aspen Restoration – Hand Thin, Hand

Pile, burn

5 0 0

Total Treatment Acres 2,653 0 1,132

Table 4. Sagehen Project: summary of proposed road activities by mileages for the alternatives.

Road work Alternative 1 (miles) Alternative 2 (miles) Alternative 3 (miles)

Road construction (temporary with

follow-up decommissioning)

3.8 0 0

Road decommissioning 1 0 0

Road maintenance 22.4 0 7.2

Restoration Actions: Alternative 1 Only

Road 11-5, Action 1: Approximately one mile of this road would be obliterated following its use

for vegetation treatment activities.


19

Road 11-5, Action 2: On the section of the 11-5 road which passes through the bottom end of a

fen (300 feet), the road and its associated culvert system would be removed and full restoration

measures improving the hydrology through the fen will improve approximately three acres of

hydrology surrounding the fen.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

6.1 BOUNDING OF EFFECTS ANALYSIS

For the soil resource assessment, the analysis area is bounded by the project activity areas (unit

based assessment), where the potential ground disturbing activities are proposed. The effects are

bounded in time with the past and present actions assessed through the existing condition. The

proposed action alternatives for soil resource are the foreseeable future actions which, by

definition, include planned activities that are reasonably foreseeable and have sufficient detail to

be analyzed.

6.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Environmental effects are assessed with the assumption that the management requirements

included in the SMRs are implemented as prescribed. Management requirements provide

measures that aim to prevent adverse effects to the soil resource and to ensure the standards for

soil resources are attained. Some management requirements incorporate mitigation measures to

be conducted in conjunction with operations for treating unavoidable undesired effects.

Direct and indirect effects are determined largely based on literature and past monitoring results

in context with the metrics outlined under section 2.2 Management Directions, and the

Standards and Guidelines above. Standard and Guideline #55 identifies one indicator,

“productivity”, and three metrics “soil porosity”, “soil cover”, and “soil organic matter”.

Professional judgment based on monitoring, and current science informs the direct and indirect

effects on the soil resource from the proposed alternatives.

In this document the direct and indirect effects are presented for three activity categories;

Vegetation Management (silvicultural and fuels prescriptions), Temporary Roads (Alternative

1 only) and Restoration Activities (Alternative 1 only). Each of the three metrics is assessed for

each activity category for the alternatives considered.

The alternatives considered in this analysis include Alternative 1; the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2: the No Action Alternative, and Alternative 3: the Non-Commercial Funding

Alternative. The primary difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 (for the same

treatment activity area) is in the size of material removed. For the purpose of measuring the

metric for porosity, effective cover or organic matter as duff there is no notable change in the

Non-Commercial Funding Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action Alternative. There

would be a difference in downed logs as there would not be added criteria to increase the

minimum requirements for wildlife objectives. This is described further in S&G #55 and is

presented below in section 6.2.1.3.


20

6.2.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

6.2.1.1 Soil Porosity: Effects from Vegetation Management

Each entry can result in incremental decreases in soil porosity, but the potential for a decrease in

porosity does not extensively result in detrimental compaction (a decrease of 10 % of natural soil

porosity conditions). Under 2.3.2 Monitoring and Impacts of Ground-Based Thinning

(Current Science and Monitoring) above, each proposed action has a variable potential for

additional decreases in porosity (degree).

Activities that rely on manual (hand thin, hand pile burning, and underburning) treatment only,

are not considered to have the same potential to affect porosity. There is some potential to affect

porosity through changes in bulk density after pile burning where bolewood greater than 15

inches is present in numerous pieces. However, since hand pile materials are generally smaller

with less than 14 inch pieces the majority of piles will not have numerous pieces greater than 15

inches. Therefore; the majority of assessment areas of concern for change in porosity are focused

on activities using mechanical equipment. The potential for compaction can vary based on the

type of equipment. Low ground pressure equipment often used for mastication and grapple piling

can have significantly lower incremental changes in compaction. Differences for the potential

acres of direct and indirect effects to soil porosity between alternatives are presented in Table 5.

Table 6 lists the general effects that may occur as a result of mechanical activities.

Multiple factors result in the potential variability of effects to decreases in soil porosity. This

variability is based on many factors including soil type. Some additionally heavily weighted

influencing factors are soil moisture, equipment used, and operator skill. The greatest control

over limiting the extent of detrimental compaction is obtained through: 1) operating over dry

soils, 2) reuse of exiting skid trials, 3) limited equipment tracking over the general operating area

(fewer than 3 passes of heavy equipment off of main trails), and 4) mitigating impact through

subsoiling in heavy traffic areas. Thus, some of the more critical protection measures that

minimize detrimental compaction in degree and extent include: 1) equipment limitation of

operations and dry soil requirements SMR (3) for uplands and SMR (4) and SMR (5) for

operations within the RCA (this also eliminates operations over areas with an equilibrated water

table at two feet), 2) to prevent cumulative additions of areas of soil deformation, reuse of

existing skid trails SMR (6) and landing systems SMR (10) where ever practical and when other

resource damage can be limited and 3) subsoiling of compacted areas according to SMR (12)

which is designed to mitigate areas of heavy compaction over landings and skid trails.

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect to Soil Porosity from Vegetation

Management

A summary of the acres affected that will have a decrease in porosity over portions of the

activity areas are presented in Table 6. Within the activity area higher risk areas are mostly found

over skid trials, landings, and areas of heavy use of equipment tracking. Only a small portion of

these high use areas would be considered detrimentally compacted even though those higher use

areas will typically cover approximately 15 percent of the activity area unit.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

There would be decreased porosity across mechanical treatment units with a potential for some

of the 2,190 acres to incur some degree of decreased porosity. The highest risk areas for

detrimental compaction are over skid trials, landings and heavily tracked areas. Assuming proper


21

implementation of SMR (3) for uplands and (4) and (5) within the RCA where the equipment

operations meet the operability criteria for dryness, the degree of detrimental compaction

exceeding 10 percent becomes primarily tied to heavily compacted landings and converging skid

trails near the landing. Where low levels of legacy compaction exist, these heavy tracked areas

tend to be below the threshold in extent. With SMR (12), the sub-soiling of some heavy use areas

mitigate compaction by lifting and fracturing the compacted soil. To prevent cumulative

additions of areas of soil deformation, reuse of existing main skid trails SMR (6) and landing

systems SMR (10) are required where ever practical and where other resource damage can be

limited.

Direct and indirect effects results in a potential for some of the mechanical treatment activity

area acres to incur some degree of decreased porosity. However levels of detrimental compaction

in degree or extent are designed to meet S&G#55 with proper implementation of the combination

of SMRs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11) and (12). Even high use areas at greatest risk for

detrimental compaction (estimated to be approximately 15 percent of the activity area or 329

acres) do not typically exceed the threshold in degree over the full extent of the activity area. Of

the 2,190 acres 976 acres in this action alternative activity area use the combination of thinning

and mastication and could potentially have fewer acres exposed to the heavy tracking where

mastication only occurs. Additional small areas of pile burning can increase bulk density but this

preliminary data (Hubbert et.al, 2010) did not provide a range of change that could be related to

the S&G for porosity. With implementation of the SMRs associated with this metric, S&G #55

for porosity would be met for the entries under this action alternative.


22

Table 5: General Potential Effects Related to Porosity for Proposed Activities

Proposed Action Activity Effects

1) Mechanical Thin and Aspen Restoration(Alt 1) Mechanical Thin

The greatest potential for decreases in porosity would occur over skid trails, landings, and heavy use areas of

equipment tracking. Small incremental decreases in soil porosity may occur in the general activity area where

equipment operates. However, areas with less than three passes are not likely to attain the degree or extent

defined as detrimental compaction in a single entry. Landings are typically detrimentally compacted in degree

over some portion of the area and are assessed for compaction following implementation. Landings and skid

trails that converge at the landings are sub-soiled as described in SMR (12) to increase infiltration and mitigate

the extent of compaction found in heavy use areas. See the additional mitigations listed above.

2) Grapple Pile and Pile

Burn;

Grapple piles can have concentrated equipment activities where piles are created that can decrease soil porosity;

however; equipment used are typically low ground pressure equipment so the degree of incremental changes in

porosity are of a low degree and may not attain levels defined as detrimental compaction (10% change in

porosity from natural soils). Similarly, areas with less than three passes are not likely to attain levels defined as

detrimental compaction. Piles are more likely to have bolewood and burn piles may burn hot enough to affect

bulk density but, this information was not related to soil porosity in the related study (Section 2.3.5). See

additional mitigations listed above.

3) Lop & Scatter, Mastication

Where mastication occurs prior to mechanical thinning or is the only mechanical treatment, the potential for

decreases in porosity is reduced because masticated material can cushion activities and minimize soil

compaction. It is impossible to estimate where decreases in porosity may occur in an activity area; however,

potential for decreases in porosity is lower over the general activity than for areas of mechanical thinning

particularly for areas treated exclusively by mastication. Since the mastication equipment is typically low

ground pressure equipment, main access routes are not likely to result in detrimental compaction in extent or

degree.

4) Pile Burning During burning of piles high temperatures and heat duration are mostly limited to the surface and 5 and 10 cm

depths beneath piles containing large bolewood (numerous fuels greater than 15 inches). Repellency at the soil

surface may occur under the large and mixed piles (fuels greater than 15 inches mixed with smaller fuels). Bulk

density increases under pile burn sites and infiltration is reduced on large and mixed pile burns, density but, this

information was not related to soil porosity in the related study (Section 2.3.5). Hand piles tend to be filled with

finer burn materials and thus are not likely to result in detrimental effects, but some increases in bulk density

and reduced infiltration could occur due to soil repellency. Repellency tends to begin to decrease after 3 to 22

months. Larger burn piles with large bole wood associated with thinning and grapple piling are more likely to

result in areas having reduced infiltration due to potential for larger fuels in the piles. (Note: impacts from

landings are combined in the assessment under mechanical thinning and similarly the impacts from grapple pile

burning are assessed under the grapple pile and burn impacts above).


23

Table 6: Comparison of Alternatives

Activity Areas Susceptible to Direct and Indirect Effects to Soil Porosity*

Proposed Action

Treatment

Activity

Alt. 1

(acres)

Activity Areas

Alt 1

Alt. 2

(acres)

Alt. 3

(acres)

Activity Areas

Alt 3

Mechanical

Thin/Grapple Pile

and Pile Burn;

Thin/Grapple Pile

and Pile

Burn/Underburn;

(Table 5 combined

effects of actions 1,

2, and 4).

717

33 (118 acres)

35 (63 acres)

36 (101 acres)

156 (84 acres)

163 (82 acres)

213(268 acres)

0 0 NA

Mechanical Thin;

Aspen

Restoration(Alt 1)

(Table 5 actions

1and 4).

1 85 EA-8 (1

acre)

Mechanical Thin;

Mechanical

Thin/Underburn;

(Table 5 combined


and 4).

496

34 (68 acres)

38 (210 acres)

73 (144 acres)

89 (34 acres)

90 (40 acres)

0 0 NA

Mechanical Thin/

Lop & Scatter,

Mastication and

Mechanical Thin/

Lop & Scatter,

Mastication/

Underburn

(Table 5 combined


3, and 4).

976

46 EA 5,6,7 :

(574 acres)

76 EA 5,6,7

(87 acres)

85 EA 5,6

(63 acres)

87

(207 acres)

99 EA 5, 6

(45 acres)

0 706

46 EA 5,6,7

(574 acres)

76 EA 5,6,7

(87 acres)

99 EA 5, 6

(45 acres)

Total 2,190 0 706

*While these areas are the total activity areas susceptible to decreases in porosity, the actual extent and

degree of decreased porosity that results in detrimental compaction is significantly smaller and

unpredictable. However, detrimental compaction is most likely to occur over some smaller portion of the

heavy use areas that would consist of less than 15% of the activity area.

EA-stands for the subunit emphasis area. More information on the subunit emphasis area can be found in

the Sagehen proposed action.


24

Alternative 2: No Action Alternative.

No detrimental disturbance that would affect existing levels of soil porosity is predicted to occur

from the no action alternative.

Alternative 3: Non -Commercial Funding. There would be decreased porosity across mechanical treatment units with a potential for some

of the 706 acres to incur some degree of decreased porosity. The highest risk areas for

detrimental compaction are over skid trials, landings and heavily tracked areas. Assuming proper

implementation of SMR (3) for uplands and (4) and (5) within the RCA where the equipment

operations meet the operability criteria for dryness, the degree of detrimental compaction

exceeding 10 percent becomes primarily tied to heavily compacted landings and converging skid

trails near the landing. Where low levels of legacy compaction exist, these heavy tracked areas

tend to be below the threshold in extent. With SMR (12), the sub-soiling of some heavy use areas

mitigate compaction by lifting and fracturing the compacted soil. To prevent cumulative

additions of areas of soil deformation, reuse of existing main skid trails SMR (6) and landing

systems SMR (10) are required where ever practical and where other resource damage can be

limited.

Direct and indirect effects results in a potential for some of the mechanical treatment activity

area acres to incur some degree of decreased porosity. However levels of detrimental compaction

in degree or extent are designed to meet S&G#55 with proper implementation of the combination

of SMRs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11) and (12). Even high use areas at greatest risk for

detrimental compaction (estimated to be approximately 15 percent of the activity area or 106

acres) do not typically exceed the threshold in degree over the full extent of the activity area.

Because this action alternative uses the combination of thinning and mastication fewer acres may

be exposed to the heavy tracking where mastication only occurs. Additional small areas of pile

burning can increase bulk density but this preliminary data (Hubbert et.al, 2010) did not provide

a range of change that could be related to the S&G for porosity. With implementation of the

SMRs associated with this metric, S&G #55 for porosity would be met for the entries under this

action alternative.

6.2.1.2 Effective Soil Cover (ESC): Effects from Vegetation Management

Soil cover monitoring results from past actions show that soil productivity is maintained when

minimum effective soil cover standards are met on the East Side Forests (Current Science 2.3.6).

Thus soil erosion is largely prevented. Each proposed action has a variable potential for reducing

existing soil cover to the point where the site may not provide effective erosion control and can

lead to sediment transport. Differences between alternatives are provided in Tables 8A and 8B.

Table 7 lists the general effects that may occur as a result of proposed action activities.

The most effective protection measures that provide for effective soil cover include: The

elements of an erosion control plan as described in SMR (22) which includes provisions for

effective erosion control/ground cover requirements SMR (16) (17), mulching skid trails SMR

(8), erosion prevention SMR (16), timing of erosion control SMR (22), and burn prescription

requirements (18). Other SMRs contained in the Sagehen Project Environmental Assessment,

Standard Management Requirements (SMRs), Appendix A. include additional provisions that

contribute to attaining ESC. With implementation of the SMRs associated with this metric, S&G

#55 for ESC would be met for the entries under this action alternative.


25

Table 7: General Potential Effects Related to Effective Soil Cover (ESC) for Proposed Activities

Proposed Action Activity Direct and Indirect Effects

1) Mechanical Thin

Variable results in depth of cover would occur over the activity area. Areas with increases in slash and needle cast can occur in units due to breakage and other areas would see reductions in cover particularly occurring over skid trails, landings, and in landing burn piles. Monitoring on recent projects shows that generally activity areas would meet minimum SQS for ESC (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6 - F25, T04, T06). Risk for areas with reduced ground cover is primarily limited to landings, since needle cast may only be available on the perimeter to re-supply ground cover until re-vegetated. Some landing burn piles do not result in complete combustion and remaining fuels are redistributed as ground cover, or in some cases chips will be scattered across the landing. Management requirements that maintain minimum ESC include SMR (22) erosion control plan, erosion control measures/groundcover requirements SMR (16) and (17), mulching of skid trails SMR (8), erosion prevention SMR (16), timing of erosion control SMR (22).

2) Grapple Pile and Pile Burn

Risk for areas with reduced cover is primarily limited to large burn piles, since needle cast may only be available on the perimeter to re-supply ground cover. With smaller scattered piles, the extent of low ground cover would be less than 15 percent. Some piles do not result in complete combustion and remaining fuels are redistributed as ground cover. Since the burn pile areas tend to be scattered and discontinuous they do not typically result in soil erosion. Monitoring on recent projects shows that generally activity areas would meet SQS for ESC (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6, F25, T04, T06). Management requirements that maintain minimum ESC include erosion control measures/ground cover requirements SMR (16) and (17), mulching of skid trails SMR (8), erosion prevention SMR (16), timing of erosion control and erosion control plan SMR (22), and burn prescription requirements SMR (18).

3) Aspen Restoration: Mechanical Thin

Variable reductions in existing soil cover from end lining and skid trails and landings use would occur. A portion of the Aspen Restoration area would be end lined to the road. Monitoring on recent projects shows that generally activity areas would meet SQS for ESC (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6 – F25, T04). Management requirements that maintain minimum ESC include erosion control measures/ground cover requirements SMR (16) and (17), mulching of skid trails SMR (8), erosion prevention SMR (16), timing of erosion control and erosion control plan SMR (22).


Mastication results in redistribution of ladder fuels to ground fuels increasing soil cover over large portions of the activity area. Thus the activity area would likely exceed minimum ESC requirements for both percent soil cover and extent. Risk for developing ineffective soil cover is unlikely.

5) Mastication Underburn

Underburning of masticated units is relatively new. Little underburning of masticated units have occurred on the district. However, the Truckee District fuels officer Linda Ferguson has experience in successful implementation of burning masticated fuels (personal communication, February, 2012). Risk for negative impacts as soil erosion is low. Final disposition of the site would result with areas where existing soil cover would be increased in locations while fuels consumption could decrease to levels of existing cover or reduced cover in some locations. The minimum ESC would be met across the extent of the activity area, and would be exceeded in degree in some locations.


26

Table 7: General Potential Effects Related to Effective Soil Cover (ESC) for Proposed Activities

Proposed Action Activity Direct and Indirect Effects

6) Underburn It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area would result in surface fire effects through underburning. Heavier fuels may burn hotter and variable reduction in existing cover across the activity area would occur. Monitoring results show that generally activity areas meet minimum ESC (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6, F25, T04, T06). Typically areas treated will retain adequate canopy cover that can quickly restore ground cover. Needle cast will improve areas of low soil cover either by the fall season or within a year or so. Monitoring on recent projects shows that generally activity areas would meet SQS for ESC, so no substantive negative impacts from soil erosion are expected (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6, F25).

7) Hand Thin/ Pile Burn; Aspen Restoration (Hand Thin, Hand

Pile and Burn)

Variable reductions in existing soil cover would occur. Existing levels of effective soil cover may be reduced under burn piles. The extent would be less than 15 percent of the activity area (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.4). Some piles do not result in complete combustion and unburned fuels remain as ground cover. Since the burn pile areas tend to be scattered and discontinuous they do not typically result in soil erosion. Typically areas with canopy cover recover with needle cast by the fall season or within a year or so. Monitoring on recent projects shows that generally activity areas would meet SQS for ESC so no negative impacts from soil erosion are expected (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6, F25).


27

Table 8 A: Comparison of Alternatives

Maximum Potential Acres Exposed to Variable Decreases in Existing Effective Soil Cover*

Proposed Action Treatment Activity

Alt 1 Acres

Activity Areas Alt 1

Alt 2 Acres

Alt 3 Acres


Mechanical Thin/Grapple Pile and Pile Burn (Table 7 combined effects of actions 1 and 2).

635

33 (118 acres) 35 (64 acres)

36 (101 acres) 156 (84 acres)

213 (268 acres)

0 0

N/A

Mechanical Thin/Grapple Pile and Pile Burn/Underburn (Table 7 combined effects of actions 1, 2, and 6).

82

163 (82 acres)

0 0

N/A

Mechanical Thin/Underburn (Table 7, combined effects of actions 1 and 4).

496

34 (68 acres) 38 (210 acres)

73 (144 acres)

89 (34 acres) 90 ( 40 acres)

0 0

N/A

Aspen Restoration Mechanical Thin (Table 5, effects of action 3).

1

85

0 0

N/A

Underburn (Table 7 effects of action 6).

116

39 (32 acres) 46 EA-4

(47 acres) 47 (33 acres)

76 EA-4 (4 acres)

0 84

46 EA-4 (47 acres)

47 (33 acres) 76 EA-4 (4 acres)

Hand Thin/Pile Burn/Underburn (Table 7, combined effects of action 7 and 6).

248

61 (20 acres) 100 (120 acres) 282 (108 acres)

0 248


Hand Thin/Pile Burn (Aspen Restoration –Alt1) Hand Thin, Hand Pile and Pile Burn (Table 7 effects of action 7).

99

80 (5 acres) 91 (9 acres)

98 (63 acres) 99 EA -1,2,4 (22 acres)

0 94

91 (9 acres) 98 (63 acres) 99 EA -1,2,4 (22 acres)


28

Table 8 A: Comparison of Alternatives

Maximum Potential Acres Exposed to Variable Decreases in Existing Effective Soil Cover*


Alt 1 Acres


Alt 2 Acres

Alt 3 Acres


Total 1,677 0 426

EA-stands for the subunit emphasis area. More information on the subunit emphasis area can be found in the Sagehen proposed action.

* While these acres would see a potential change in existing ESC, with implementation of the SMRS minimum ESC is expected to be attained after each action is implemented.

Table 8 B: Comparison of Alternatives

Maximum Potential Acres Exposed to Variable Decreases and Increases in Existing Effective Soil Cover

Mechanical Thin, Lop & Scatter, Mastication (Table

7, combined effects of actions 1, and 4).

315

85 EA – 5,6 (63 acres)

87 (207 acres) 99 EA -5,6, (45 acres)

0 45 99 EA -5,6, (45 acres)

Mechanically Thin, Lop & Scatter, Mastication, Underburn (Table 7, combined effects of actions 1, 4 and 5).

661

46 EA-5,-6,-7 (574 acres)

76 EA – 5,6,7 (87 acres)

0 661

46 EA-5,-6,-7 (574 acres)

76 EA -5,6,7, (87 acres)

Total 976 0 706


Implementation of any part of the activity without completion of the whole action can cause variability. In particular, stages of increased ground fuels may be present for some time after thinning in some units(estimated 1-5 years) prior to final implementation of phases of the proposed action such as grapple piling or underburning.

* While these acres would see a potential change in existing ESC, with implementation of the SMRS minimum ESC is expected to be attained after each action is implemented.


29

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect Effects to Effective Soil Cover from

Vegetative Management

A summary of the acres potentially affected that could have a decrease in existing soil cover is

presented in Table 8A above. Table 8B displays acres that could potentially have both increases

and/or decreases from the existing soil cover. The minimum ESC would be attained to maintain

productivity after each action is implemented. Because each of these activities within an activity

area may be separated by a few to several years, ground cover commonly accumulates prior to

implementation of the phase of the prescription. Additionally, in cases where grapple piling is

prescribed there are potentially areas of heavy pockets of ground cover that may be present after

thinning and prior to any follow up prescription.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action.

Existing levels of ground cover would have the potential to be reduced over portions of 1,677

activity area acres. Areas with ground cover levels reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn

piles. Areas with scattered burn piles will occur over a portion of 1,060 activity area acres. The

Tahoe Basin determined project area hand piles generally take up less than 15 percent of the

treatment area and we know through experience not all piles would reduce existing cover to bare

mineral soil (Section 2.3.5). Additionally, areas of heavy equipment use can affect ground cover

and usually occur on skid trails, landings and turning zones. This heavy equipment use area is

typically found over approximately 15 percent of the activity area associated with mechanical

thin prescriptions. However, only a small portion of these areas are reduced below effective soil

cover after implementing SMRs. The SMR requirement to meet ESC is to attain the minimum

requirements for erosion control prior to the winter season. There are a potential 2,190

mechanically thinned activity area acres that may incur some mechanical equipment disturbance.

Out of these 2,190 mechanical thin acres, 976 acres are also exposed to variable potentials for

increased ground cover in masticated portions of these units. There would also be areas with

reduced levels of pre-existing ground cover across portions of a potential 1,516 activity area

acres through underburning. It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area

prescribed for underburning would actually be underburned. Because each entry by type of

action within an activity area may be separated by a few to several years, ground cover

commonly accumulates prior to implementation of the phase of the prescription.

As presented in Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6 above, the BMPs (F25, T04, T06) were

shown to be effective in protecting water quality by preventing erosion, thus soil cover is shown

to be effective by controlling erosion. This monitoring shows that when the standards are met the

extent of reduced soil cover is commonly adequate to control erosion. Although multiple actions

may result in various degrees of change in existing soil cover, over the sequence of

implementation the SMRs applied after each implementation sequence bring the site back to

minimum standards. ESC requirements are designed to meet or exceed S&G#55. With

implementation of the SMRs associated with this metric, the S&G for ESC will be met for the

entries under this action alternative.

Alternative 2: No Action

There are no actions that will affect effective soil cover.


30

Alternative 3: Non -Commercial Funding. Existing levels of ground cover would have the potential to be reduced over 426 activity area

acres (1,251 fewer acres than Alternative 1). Areas with ground cover levels reduced to mineral

soil can occur in burn piles. Areas with scattered burn piles will occur over a portion of 342

activity area acres (722 fewer acres than Alternative 1). The Tahoe Basin determined that project

area piles generally take up less than 15 percent of the treatment area and not all piles would

reduce cover levels to mineral soil (Section 2.3.5). Other areas of heavy equipment use

(mechanical equipment) can affect ground cover and usually occur on skid trails, landings and

turning zones. This heavy equipment use area is typically found over approximately 15 percent

of the activity area associated with mechanical thin disturbance. However, only a small portion

of these areas are reduced below effective soil cover after implementing SMRs. The SMR

requirement to meet ESC is to attain the minimum requirements for erosion control prior to the

winter season. There are a potential 796 activity area acres that may incur this type of

disturbance (1,484 fewer acres than Alternative 1). The 706 mechanical thin acres will also be

exposed to variable potentials for increased ground cover in masticated portions of these activity

areas. It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area would undergo under

burning resulting in areas with decreased ground cover across a potential 906 activity area acres

(610 fewer acres than Alternative 1). Some areas of low ground cover may be created through

under burning. There are 661 of these acres that are exposed to variable potentials for decreases

or increases in existing ground cover in the underburned mastication units (942 fewer acres than

Alternative 1).

As presented in Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.6 above, the BMPs (F25, T04, T06) were

shown to be effective in protecting water quality and preventing erosion, thus activity areas

meeting minimum ESC are shown to be effective in controlling erosion. Although multiple

actions may result in various degrees of existing soil cover over the sequence of implementation,

the SMRs applied after each implementation sequence bring the site back to minimum standards.

ESC requirements are designed to meet or exceed S&G#55. With implementation of the SMRs

associated with this metric, the S&G for ESC will be met for the entries under this action

alternative.

6.2.1.3 Organic Matter Changes from Vegetation Management

Forest Duff

Duff would have the potential to be reduced over the activity area acres. Areas with duff levels

reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn piles, or areas of hot underburning. Other areas of

heavy equipment use can affect duff and usually occur on skid trails, landings and turning zones.

For units proposing to be underburned it is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity

area would undergo underburning resulting in areas with surface char of duff across those

portions of the activity area. Surface char that is not consumed is not considered disturbed duff.

(3.1.3.2 Standard for Forest Duff). Areas of no silviculture treatments including most Dense

Cover Areas (DCAs) combined with undisturbed areas would result in maintaining at least 20

percent undisturbed duff across the activity area. The general effects on forest duff from


31

vegetation management are included in Table 9 below. The extent of the impact is designed to

meet S&G#55 and productivity would be maintained.

Findings related to underburning of masticated fuels show that when spring and early summer

burns have duff with moisture levels above 30 percent little duff is consumed. For most site

conditions it will be desirable to char the top layer of duff. Similarly, when allowing a backing

fire into fens, meadows or perennial systems such as springs, measures to ensure duff moisture

levels are high enough to minimize impacts of burning peat and other wet system soil organic

matter would be implemented. The ignition plan for burning around fens, springs and hydric

systems will be limited to times when the system is not undergoing lengthy and extreme drought

conditions, but decisions would be based on site specific conditions (SMR 18).


32

Table 9: Direct and Indirect Effects to Forest Duff

Proposed Activity Actions Effects

1) Mechanical Thin and Aspen Restoration(Alt 1) Mechanical Thin

Variable intensities of disturbance would reduce existing duff depth. Areas of heavy equipment use can affect duff and usually occur on skid trails, landings and turning zones. With designed areas of exclusions including DCAs, and with operationally undisturbed areas and resource exclusion areas, units typically exceed the 20 percent undisturbed duff across the activity area. In aspen treatment activity areas as the aspen expand, soil organic matter would improve due to the relatively quick decay process associated with deciduous Aspen leaves. Indirectly soil duff would increase with the increase of Aspen expansion and health (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.8).

2) Grapple Pile and Pile Burn

Variable intensities of disturbance would reduce existing duff depth. Areas of heavy equipment use can affect duff. Minimizing turning, and maintaining operations off steep slopes reduces duff disturbance (SMR 3). The objective of grapple piling is to pick up larger fuels and allow the finer materials and duff to remain in place. Areas with duff levels reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn piles. Burn pile areas tend to be scattered and discontinuous. With designed areas of exclusions including DCAs, and with operationally undisturbed areas and resource exclusion areas units, maintain the 20 percent undisturbed duff across the activity area.


Under mastication activities areas of duff typically would be retained below the masticated materials and would result in maintaining more than 20 percent undisturbed duff across the activity area. Additions of masticated material could result in increasing cover that may hide duff or previously disturbed areas.

4) Mastication, Underburn

Variable intensities of disturbance would result. It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area would

undergo underburning. This results in areas with surface char of duff across portions of the activity area and randomly

smaller areas where the duff may have consumption to bare soil. As described in section 3.1.3.2 above, surface char is not considered disturbed duff unless fully consumed. Additions of masticated material could result in areas increasing cover that may hide duff or previously disturbed areas. The results for underburning of masticated fuels show when spring and early summer burns have duff with moisture levels around 20 percent limits damaging temperatures and little heat penetration occurs to surface soils during late spring and early summer burns. (Current Science and Monitoring 2.3.7). With little heat penetration to duff at the soils surface little affect to existing duff would occur.

5) Underburn It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of a prescribed burn activity area would be affected by prescribed underburning

resulting in a mosaic of areas with surface char of duff and random areas where the duff may be consumed to bare soil. As described in section 3.1.3.2 above, surface char is not considered disturbed duff unless consumed. Based on the monitoring results from prescribed burning through regional BMPEP monitoring (F25), and based on observations per Randy Westmoreland, Tahoe NF East Side Soil and Water Resource Manager; on an activity area basis, undisturbed duff is maintained over more than 20 percent across the activity area (personal communication, 2010).


33

Table 9: Direct and Indirect Effects to Forest Duff

Proposed Activity Actions Effects

6) Hand Thin/ Pile Burn and Aspen Restoration – Hand Thin, Hand Pile and Pile Burn

Areas with duff levels reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn piles. The burn pile areas tend to be scattered and discontinuous; piles generally take up less than 15 percent of the treatment area. With designed areas of exclusions including DCAs, and with operationally undisturbed areas and resource exclusion areas activity areas maintain greater than the 20

percent undisturbed duff across the activity area. While the aspen activity area here will be treated using hand thinning, the

existing soil characteristics are already influenced by a surrounding stand of aspen, so the change in soil duff in this stand would not be as notable as for the mechanically treated aspen activity area. Hand falling large trees may disturb duff where trees are dragged to a skid trail. The measures to repair drag lines are included in SMR (17). These areas are dispersed and infrequent and typically only used in areas near wet features. The activity area would not exceed the standards for forest duff.


34


Maximum potential acres exposed to variable decreases in existing forest duff*


Alt 1 Acres


Alt 2 Acres

Alt 3 Acres


Mechanical Thin/Grapple Pile and Pile Burn (Table 9 combined effects of actions 1 and 2) and Mechanical Thin/Grapple Pile and Pile Burn/Underburn (Table 9 combined effects of actions 1, 2 and 5).

717

33 (118 acres) 35 (64 acres)

36 (101 acres) 156 (84 acres)

213 (268 acres)

0 0 N/A

Mechanical Thin/Underburn (Table 9, combined effects of actions 1 and 4).

496

34 (68 acres) 38 (210 acres)

73 (144 acres)

89 (34 acres) 90 ( 40 acres)

0 0 N/A

Aspen Restoration Mechanical Thin (Table 9, effects of action 3).

1

85

0 0 N/A

Mechanical Thin, Lop & Scatter, Mastication (Table 9, combined effects of actions 1, and 4).

315

85 EA – 5,6 (63 acres)

87 (207 acres) 99 EA -5,6, (45 acres)

0 135 99 EA -5,6, (45 acres)

Mechanically Thin, Lop & Scatter, Mastication, Underburn (Table 9, combined effects of actions 1, 4 and 5).

661

46 EA-5,-6,-7 (574 acres)

76 EA – 5,6,7 (87 acres)

0 574

46 EA-5,-6,-7 (574 acres)

76 EA -5,6,7, (87 acres)

Underburn (Table 9 effects of action 6).

116

39 (32 acres) 46 EA-4

(47 acres) 47 (33 acres)

76 EA-4 (4 acres)

0 80

46 EA-4 (47 acres)

47 (33 acres) 76 EA-4 (4 acres)

Hand Thin/Pile Burn/Underburn (Table 9, combined effects of action 7 and 6).

248


0 247 61 (20 acres)

100 (120 acres) 282 (108 acres)


35


Maximum potential acres exposed to variable decreases in existing forest duff*


Alt 1 Acres


Alt 2 Acres

Alt 3 Acres


Hand Thin/Pile Burn (Aspen Restoration –Alt1) Hand Thin, Hand Pile and Pile Burn (Table 9 effects of action 7).

100

80 (5 acres) 91 (9 acres)

98 (63 acres) 99 EA -1,2,4 (22 acres)

0 94

91 (9 acres) 98 (63 acres) 99 EA -1,2,4 (22 acres)

Total 2,654 0 1,130


* While these acres would see a potential change in existing Forest Duff with implementation of the SMRS minimum ESC is expected to be attained.

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect Effects to Forest Duff from Vegetation

Management

Reductions in duff would be expected to occur at differing levels across activity areas. The acres of

activity area potentially affected by reduction in duff are presented by alternative in Table 10.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action.

Existing levels of duff would have the potential to be reduced over portions of 2,654 activity area

acres. Areas with duff levels reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn piles. Areas with scattered

burn piles will occur over a portion of 1,066 activity area acres. Other areas of heavy equipment use

can affect duff and usually occur on skid trails, landings and turning zones. This disturbance is

typically found over 15 percent of the activity area associated with mechanical disturbance, but not

all of the area is considered to have affected the duff to mineral soil. There are approximately 2,190

activity area acres that may create disturbed duff from thinning. Of those mechanically thinned

acres there are 975 acres that are exposed to variable potential increases in long-term duff

development and the potential for disturbed duff is decreased where mastication occurs prior to

thinning. It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area prescribed with

underburning would result in areas with surface char of duff across 1,507 activity area acres. Some

areas of disturbed duff may be created through underburning; however, it is not considered

disturbed duff unless it consumes the duff and exposes the mineral soil. Areas of exclusions due to

operability or inclusion for DCAs combined with the areas meeting the undisturbed duff description

would result in maintaining 20 percent undisturbed duff across the activity areas. Monitoring has

shown adequate levels of duff are maintained after implementing these activities. With

implementation of the SMRs associated with this metric, the S&G for forest duff will be met for the

entries under this action alternative.


36


There are no actions that will affect existing forest duff.

Alternative 3: Non -Commercial Funding. Existing levels of duff would have the potential to be reduced over 1,130 activity area acres (1,255

fewer acres than Alternative 1). Areas with duff levels reduced to mineral soil can occur in burn

piles. Areas with scattered burn piles will occur over 344 activity area acres (722 fewer acres than

Alternative 1). Other areas of heavy equipment use (mechanical equipment) can affect duff and

usually occur on skid trails, landings and turning zones. This disturbance is typically found over

approximately 15 percent of the activity area associated with mechanical thinning. There are a

potential 709 activity area acres that may incur this type of disturbance (1,948 fewer acres than

Alternative 1) and these areas are also to be treated by mastication. If mastication occurs prior to

thinning the potential for disturbing existing duff is further reduced.

In areas that are underburned it is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of an activity area would

undergo under burning resulting in areas with surface char of duff across a potential 902 activity

area acres (605 fewer acres than Alternative 1). Some areas of disturbed duff may be created

through under burning; however, it is not considered disturbed duff unless it exposes the mineral

soil. Areas of exclusions due to operability or inclusion for DCAs combined with the areas meeting

the undisturbed duff description would result in maintaining 20 percent undisturbed duff across the

activity area. While the various proposed actions have more than one entry that may reduce areas of

existing duff depth, there are few activity as a whole which tend to remove duff to the extent that it

is reduced to mineral soil over a large extent of the activity area, therefore, the proposed action is

expected to meet requirement limits for disturbed duff and result in maintaining 20 percent

undisturbed duff across the activity areas. Monitoring has shown adequate levels of duff are

maintained after implementing these activities. With implementation of the SMRs associated with

this metric, the S&G for forest duff will be met for the entries under this action alternative.

.

Large Woody Material from Fuels Treatment and Vegetation Management

The proposed action alternative, Alternative 1, has based the desired conditions for large woody

material on the desired conditions for wildlife. Thus the criteria for downed wood was created for

each emphasis area, so under the assessment for Alternative 1 the results are presented by emphasis

area.

The emphasis area objective criteria, based on wildlife needs differ slightly from the soils standards

for large downed wood. As described in the methods section above, the wildlife criteria are

designed to retain the largest available logs accepting a minimum 15 inch diameter log that is at

least 10 feet in length. The soil standard relies on a preference for a 20 inch diameter log at least 10

feet in length.

In order to quantify the proposed actions intent in meeting large woody material three categories

were developed; 1) exceeds the large woody material standard, 2) meets the intent for large woody

material in downed logs, and 3) meets the intent for large woody material having adequate smaller

logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material.


37

The criteria for Alternative 1 are based on the following logic:

Meets the large woody material standard in logs: Where the 5 largest logs (at greater than15

inch diameter and 10 feet in length) also meet the standard for 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet per

acre, (additional smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material), these 5 logs per acre

will be considered to meet the intent for large woody material.

Exceeds the large woody material standard: Where the objective is in excess of the 5 largest

logs (at greater than 15 inches in diameter and 10 feet in length), the activity area will be considered

to exceed the standard. The target for Emphasis Areas 1 and 2 is to retain 15 to 20 of the largest

logs per acre.

Meets the large woody material standard as other woody material: Where less than 5 logs per

acre (the largest logs greater than 15 inches in diameter and 10 feet in length) are to be retained, the

activity area acres meet large woody material guidelines primarily based on retaining adequate

smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic

feet per acre particularly when no large logs are available (this volume equates to approximately 2.3

to 10 tons per acre depending on density).

The objectives by emphasis area were reviewed to see how many acres would exceed large woody

material retention, meet large woody material (based on retaining 5 of the largest pieces at least 15

inches in diameter and 10 feet long), or acres that meet large woody material based on retaining

adequate smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to

800 cubic feet per acre when no large logs are available (approximately 2.3 to 10 tons per acre

depending on density).

The criteria for Alternative 3 are based on the following logic:

For Alternative 3 the objective is to meet the S&G #55, so the consideration is limited to 5 downed

logs where large downed wood criteria can be met based on availability, or based on other woody

material. These objectives (based on retaining 5 of the largest pieces at least 20 inches in diameter

and 10 feet long where available, or retention of adequate smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other

woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet per acre when no large logs are

available (approximately 2.3 to 10 tons per acre depending on density). Much of the area will only

meet the merchantable wood, or other woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet

per acre when no large logs are available (approximately 2.3 to 10 tons per acre depending on

density) as the larger wood pieces are unavailable over many of the activity areas prescribed under

this alternative.


38

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect Effects to Large Woody Material from

Vegetation Management


Emphasis Area 1 (Activity Area 33, 35, 38, 61, 98, 99, 100, 156,163 and 213) result in a total of

453 acres where the large woody material objective exceeds the standard with the intention of

averaging 15 downed logs/acre.

Emphasis Areas 2 and 4 (Activity Area 33, 35, 36, 38, 46, 61, 73, 76, 89, 91, 98, 99, 100, 213 and

282) have a total of 276 acres where large woody material exceeds the standards. On 173 acres the

objective is to attain an average of 10 downed logs/acre in Activity Area 33, 35, 36, 38, 46, 73, 76,

89, 99, 100, and 213. On 103 acres the objective is to attain an average of 20 downed logs/acre in

Activity Areas 61, 91, 98, 99, 100, 213, and 282.

Emphasis Area 5 has 1,028 acres (Activity Area 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 73, 76, 85, 87, 98,

99, 100, 163, and 213) where the objective is to meet the standard for an average of 5 downed

logs/acre.

Emphasis Area 6 and 7 have 890 acres that meet large woody material with adequate tons/acre of

and smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material. The emphasis for these areas for fire

and fuels.(Activity Area 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 46, 73, 76, 85, 87, 89, 90, 99, 100, 163, 213 and 282).

Emphasis Area 8 has 6 acres where the objective is to meet the large woody material with adequate

tons/acre and smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material. The emphasis is on aspen

restoration. The activities, particularly in activity area 80 where there are 5 acres of hand treatment,

would not result in changing the exiting downed large wood.

In addition to the requirement for downed wood there are requirements for creating short snags in

emphasis areas 1 through 6 subunits with silvicultural prescriptions that include existing DCAs.

These subunits are located outside the Sagehen Project’s plantations. To create short snags,

approximately two live trees per acre of DCA, greater than 15 inches dbh, would be cut at a height

of ten to 20 feet above the ground. White fir would be the preferred cut species. Felled portions of

these cut trees would be retained on site. These proposed activities have the capability of

supplementing downed wood to meet objectives on 725 acres.

Based on the objectives for large downed wood, Alternative 1 would exceed large wood criteria

over 729 acres in emphasis areas 1, 2 and 4. It would meet the large wood criteria over 1,028 acres

in emphasis area 5, and meet the objective for tons per acre through smaller logs, merchantable

wood, or other woody material on 896 acres in emphasis areas 6, 7, and 8. It should be recognized

that these objectives are based on data that have high variability and therefore the average obtained

over an activity area would not be likely to be observed over every acre, but should be expected to

be clumpy and variable based on existing conditions. There would be cases where increases in

downed logs would occur in emphasis areas 1 through 6 through short snag creation in DCAs. Some

existing downed logs would be decreased from areas where grapple piling and fuels objectives are

designed to reduce fuel loading. With implementation of the SMRs associated with this metric, the

S&G for large woody material will be met for the entries under this action alternative.


39


There are no actions that will affect existing large woody material.

Alternative 3: Non -Commercial Funding.

Acres that would be treated are less likely to have large changes to the existing downed wood

because the treatment area is limited primarily to plantations that are already low in downed wood

volumes. Hand thinning would not create an extensive effect on large downed wood but, prescribed

underburning in hand thinning units could consume some logs. There are 993 acres that will

undergo underburning and may reduce some existing downed wood. There are 574 activity acres

prescribed for underburning in masticated acres. There are 80 acres that will undergo underburning

only and may reduce some existing large down wood; however, the minimum down wood

objectives would meets the intent for large woody material having adequate smaller logs,

merchantable wood, or other woody material. With the redistribution of fuels from ladder to ground

fuels it is expected these areas will easily meet the objective in masticated and masticated and

underburned treatment areas. With implementation of SMR (39), large wood will be lined to

achieve objectives and 30 % of the activity area that remain unburned would also contribute to

downed wood retention. There are 94 acres of hand pile and pile burn acres that would not be

expected to affect existing pieces of large downed wood and is designed to meet the S&G # 55 for

large wood with areas meeting the large downed wood (through existing pieces) and some of those

areas meeting the objective for tons per acre through smaller logs, merchantable wood, or other

woody material.

Based on the proposed action for Alternative 3 large woody material would not be changed over

1,521 acres as compared to Alternative 1. Acres that would be treated are less likely to have large

changes to the existing downed wood because the treatment area is limited primarily to plantations

that are already low in downed wood volumes. Hand thinning would not affect large downed wood

but, prescribed underburning in hand thinning units could consume some logs. A total of 1,131

acres would meet the objective for large wood primarily by meeting tons per acre through smaller

logs, merchantable wood, or other woody material. With implementation of the SMRs associated

with this metric, the S&G for large woody material will be met for the entries under this action

alternative.


40

6.2.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS TEMPORARY ROADS

6.2.2.1 Soil Porosity: Effects from Temporary Roads.

There would be detrimental compaction on temporary roads over 3.8 miles on approximately 5.5

acres (with no need for a borrow site) for a period of approximately 5-years until the road is put to

bed. Temporary roads are required to be designed to minimize construction length and width (SMR12) and

also follow the provisions of traffic control wet periods SMR(20). Following use they are sub-soiled,

roadside berms with mineral soil are pulled back in, and drainage is provided to create a hydrologically

neutral state (SMR 21). Sub-soiling lifts and fractures the soil rather than turning the soil, as occurs when

tilling. This results in reduced mixing of the soil maintaining any developed structure of the soil. Most of

these sub-soiled temporary roads start showing signs of some vegetative recovery after 5 years. Provisions

that require decommissioned roads to be sub-soiled are included in SMR (21). Compaction from

temporary roads are assessed for the hydrologic properties in the Water Resource Effects ERA analysis.

6.2.2.2 Effective Soil Cover: Effects from Temporary Roads

There would be 3.8 miles of temporary road built on approximately 5.5 acres (with no need for a

borrow site) having decreased effective soil cover for a period of approximately 5-years until the

road is put to bed. Post operation requirements include pulling the berm where duff and soil was

displaced during construction back onto the road bed. Provisions that require effective soil cover and

mulching as needed to prevent erosion are included in SMR (21)).

6.2.2. 3 Organic Matter: Effects from Temporary Roads.

There would be 3.8 miles of temporary road built on approximately 5.5 acres (with no need for a

borrow site) having decreased duff and large woody material for a period of approximately 5-years

until the road is put to bed. Requirements include pulling the berm where duff and soil was

displaced and adding wood chips or mulch from landings and the adjacent project to supplement

loss of duff. Over the long-term these materials will contribute to future duff development. Roads

are often blocked using available large woody debris over the first 200 feet. Thus, SMR (21) is

included to retain some available large woody material for this purpose. As the temporary roads are

linear features, the adjacent trees are likely to add to downed wood presence across this feature over

the mid-term.

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect Effects to Effective Soil Cover, Porosity

and Organic Matter from Temporary Roads


Loss of productivity would occur through detrimental compaction (porosity), loss of effective soil

cover, and loss of organic matter from temporary roads on 3.8 miles, over approximately 5.5 acres

until decommissioned. The road compaction is estimated to persist for about 5 years. Following use

they are sub-soiled, and any roadside berms with mineral soil is pulled back, drainage is provided to attain a

hydrologically neutral state (SMR 21). Sub-soiling lifts and fractures the soil rather than turning the soil, as

occurs when tilling. Most of these sub-soiled temporary roads start showing signs of some vegetative

recovery after 3 years. Effective soil cover and mulching requirements along with requirements to provide

drainage and pull berms allow these lands to be entered into productivity within a minimum of 8 years (5

years operation period and 3 years to begin vegetative recovery) but, may not achieve pre-existing

productivity levels for several more years.


41


There are no proposed temporary roads under this alternative. Productivity will not be affected from

this action.

Alternative 3: Non - Commercial Funding

There are no proposed temporary roads under this alternative. Productivity will not be affected from

this action.

6.2.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS SITE-SPECIFIC WATERSHED

RESTORATION

Site Specific Watershed Restoration

Within the proposed action the following two watershed improvements are proposed under

Alternative 1.

Road 11-5, Action 1: Approximately one mile of this road would be obliterated following its use

for vegetation treatment activities.

Road 11-5, Action 2: On the section of the 11-5 road which passes through the bottom end of a fen

the road and its associated culvert system would be removed and full restoration measures

improving the hydrology through the fen will be implemented.

6.2.3.1 Soil Porosity: Effects from Restoration Activities

The action described in the proposed action (Alternative 1) for Road 11-5, Action 1 and Action 2

would result in reduced compaction over 1.3 acres following re-contouring of the road bed. During

the restoration the equipment would be primarily contained within the existing road bed so there

would be little potential for expanding the existing compaction during construction. Any staging

area would occur over previously disturbed landings, or roads and would be restored by reducing

compaction where needed.

6.2.3.2 Effective Soil Cover: Effects from Restoration Activities

The action described above for Road 11-5, Actions 1 and 2 would result in short-term disturbance

and replacement of soil cover over 1.3 acres. As re-contouring of the road bed occurs under

Action1, mulch and large wood from the adjacent activity area would be applied to the re-contoured

landscape. Additional mulch would be applied where needed to control erosion as described under

SMR(22).

Road 11-5; Action 2, would incur a short term disturbance and replacement of soil cover over

approximately a tenth of an acre. Where feasible, adjacent vegetation would be used within the

activity area to acquire small plugs to supplement seeding and mulch (these sources would come

from non-sensitive areas outside of the fen within the activity area as shown on the Sagehen Project

Proposed Action Map 1). The timing of transplanting and provisions for effective soil cover is

nearly immediate in relation to re-configuring the landscape and providing mulch and planting.

Native vegetation would probably begin to re-establish within 1 year because of the inherent

moisture of the site. SMR (21) will be used to ensure soils are stabilized.


42

6.3.3. 3 Organic Matter: Effects from Restoration Activities.

It is estimated that in combination with the aspen treatment (conifer removal), the fen and wetland

soil and organic matter in the area surrounding the fen could be improved over approximately three

acres over the long term. This is based on the processes associated with wet anaerobic sites and

organic matter cycling as described in section 2.3.8 under Current Science and Monitoring.

Comparison of Alternatives for Direct and Indirect Effects to Effective Soil Cover, Porosity

and Organic Matter from Restoration Activities


Under the proposed action for Road 11-5 described above, approximately 300 feet of this road

which currently crosses through a fen and aspen stand, would be removed. Restoration actions

would be designed to restore porosity, effective cover and organic matter thus restoring productivity

over these acres in the long-term. It is estimated that in combination with the aspen treatment

(conifer removal), the fen and wetland soil and organic matter in the area surrounding the fen could

be improved over approximately three acres.


There is no proposed restoration under this alternative. Productivity will not be affected from this

action.

Alternative 3: Non - Commercial Funding

There is no proposed restoration under this alternative. Productivity will not be affected from this

action.


43

7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are determined largely based on literature and monitoring results. For the soil

resource cumulative effects is the assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed

action alternatives in context with the existing conditions. Detrimental cumulative effects to the soil

resources use the threshold metrics outlined under section 2.2: Management Directions, and

Standards and Guidelines. To have a potential effect on the indicator; productivity, the threshold in

degree and extent for the metrics (porosity effective soil cover and organic material) would first

need to be exceeded.

The cumulative effects assessment area for the soil resource is bounded in space within the

proposed activity areas, where a potential for soil disturbing activities take place. The analysis is

further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could

persist as detectable effects and may be short- term or long-term in nature. Past effects are

accounted for based on the existing conditions or present time, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions are those proposed actions assessed within this document. There are no other future

foreseeable actions in addition to the Sagehen Project within the resource activity area (unit)

boundaries. A larger history is provided in the disturbance layer in the Watershed Resource

Specialist Report. In general, cumulative soil effects are identified to have a potential negative

impact when data shows detrimental soil disturbance could exceed Forest Plan standards and

guidelines in terms of extent, severity and longevity.

Alternative 1: Cumulative Effects Determination Proposed Action.


Porosity

Areas with decreased porosity can remain on the landscape over the long-term and with each entry

can incrementally increase the degree and extent of the detrimentally affected area. However, the

proposed action is not predicted to exceed the standard and guideline #55 when BMPs/SMRs are

implemented. As presented in Science and Monitoring 2.3.2 above, the Herger Feinstein Quincy

Library Group studies provide two conclusions regarding detrimental effects from changes in

porosity measured as compaction: 1) most activity areas that exceed the standard post-treatment

start with a high compaction extent nearing the Forest LRMP standard, and 2) there was not a large

amount of change between pre-treatment and post-treatment compaction for most activity areas. For

the Sagehen Project S&G#55 is expected to be attained because: 1) existing levels of compaction

are considered to be moderate to low (well under the 15 percent threshold in extent), and 2) the

potential for incremental changes in degree (up to 10% decrease in porosity) do not necessarily

equate to an increase in extent of area that exceeds the threshold (in degree or extent).

Existing results from sampled activity areas show 33 percent of the activity areas sampled show no

detrimental compaction (10 percent decrease in porosity) and activity areas with detrimental

compaction ranged from a low of 3 percent to a high of 8 percent in extent. In addition, sub-soiling

(as mitigation for decreased porosity) improves infiltration and vegetative growth on these

previously compacted soils. The sub-soiling is typically completed on the heavy use areas (landings,

and skid trails converging at the landings) most likely to exceed the threshold.


44

The potential for a decrease in porosity (degree) can incrementally occur over small portions of the

activity area. Since no activity area is predicted to exceed the threshold in extent, an assessment of

risk to productivity based on texture is unnecessary. The proposed action alternative combined with

existing conditions support a conclusion that the extent of the impact is designed to meet S&G#55

and productivity would be maintained for porosity. There would be a potential for a small

incremental portion of 2,190 acres to decrease porosity (in degree) over the affected activity areas.

Effective Soil Cover

Existing conditions within activity areas have effective soil cover that meet the S&G #55, so no

areas of special concern were identified based on existing condition. Data from measured activity area

transects showed a range of 80 to 97 percent effective soil cover. No accelerated erosion or sediment

movement was observed on any proposed activity areas surveyed that would indicate a loss in soil

productivity.

The proposed action alternative combined with existing conditions support a conclusion that the

extent of the impact is designed to meet S&G#55 and productivity would be maintained for ESC.

There is the potential to reduce existing cover in degree and extent over small portions of activity

areas across 1,677 acres, but ESC would be maintained. Additionally, there would also be periods

of increased ESC during some intermediate steps on some units particularly for thinned areas

designated for grapple piling following thinning. There would also be potential increases in existing

ground cover over 976 acres in mastication units.

Because ground cover accumulates seasonally, the cumulative effect of reduced existing cover is

expected to be short lived. The proposed action alternative maintains productivity through effective

erosion control.

Organic Matter

Forest Duff

Transect results representative of the project area showed forest duff varied from 65 percent to 90

percent. Transect data for plantations in proposed activity area 46 have 85 percent duff. The transect

running through the uplands of previously treated areas in activity area 213 showed 65 percent duff.

Transects running along the western margin in activity area 213 showed 73 percent duff. Other

transects in proposed activity areas such as activity area 38 and 39 show 90 percent existing duff.

There is the potential to reduce existing duff levels in degree and extent over small portions of

activity areas after each entry on 2,654 acres. Of those acres there are 975 acres that are exposed to

variable potential increases in long-term duff development and the potential for disturbed duff is

further decreased where mastication occurs prior to thinning. Contrastingly, existing duff would be

reduced in degree and extent over small portions of activity areas following prescribed burning on

1,507 acres.

Upper layers of organic material, including branchwood, cones, and bark are quickly restored to the

forest floor in the years following implementation. Retention of soils duff in the early stages of

decomposition are added to over the long term through these processes. Undisturbed forest duff and

sites would maintain a minimum of 20 percent of the undisturbed forest duff evenly distributed


45

throughout the activity area; therefore, S&G #55 would be attained and cumulative effects to

productivity are not expected from the proposed actions related to reductions in existing duff.

Large Woody Material

The minimum observed average for activity area logs meet the 5 downed logs/acre criteria

described under existing conditions. The exception was in aspen restoration sites, however; these

areas are small and based on the site visit most have adequate downed wood or adequate attain

requirements for other woody material at a rate of 200 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet per acre in the

area. Additionally, wind fall after treatment in aspen stands is commonly observed (personal

observation) adding to the downed wood component one to three years following treatment. Areas

of heavy fuels will see areas with reduced downed wood within grapple pile units. While

underburning can reduce levels of existing large downed wood in upper decay classes, 993 acres

that will undergo underburning and another 80 acres that will undergo underburning only may

reduce some existing downed wood. However, following underburning the cycling of large downed

wood could be enhanced in some thinned and un-thinned units in areas where conifers are

negatively fire affected. This effect is predicted to be limited and there could be lag time before

snags fall and contribute to the large woody material. Current science suggests woody material may

not be as important to soil productivity as previously thought. Still the proposed action is expected

to enhance large woody material in some low volume areas, and since it is demonstrated that S&G

#55 would be attained for large woody material. No decrease in productivity would be expected

from reduction in large wood under the proposed action.

Temporary Roads

While it is recognized temporary roads disrupt productivity of the soils. The temporary roads may

extend beyond an activity area or serve more than one activity area and; therefore, cannot be tied

specifically to an activity area to assess general changes in productivity. However, loss of

productivity would occur through detrimental compaction (decreased porosity), loss of effective soil

cover, and loss of organic matter from temporary roads on 3.8 miles, over approximately 5.5 acres

until decommissioned. These lands would be re-entered into productivity within about 8 years (5

years operation period and 3 years to begin vegetative recovery) but may not achieve pre-existing

productivity levels for several more years.

Watershed Restoration

There would be approximately 1 mile of road template (approximately 4.5 acres) restored. An

existing road bed will be decommissioned, re-vegetated, and mulched. The restoration will allow

these lands to be available for re-entry into productivity. These lands outside of the restored fen

would be entered into productivity within about 8 years (5 years operation period and 3 years to

begin vegetative recovery) but, may not achieve the potential productivity levels for several more

years.

It is estimated that in combination with the aspen restoration treatment (conducted as conifer

removal), the fen, and wetland soil and organic matter in the area surrounding the fen, could be

improved over approximately three acres over the long term. This improvement is based on the

processes associated with wet anaerobic sites and organic matter cycling as described in section

2.3.8 under Current Science and Monitoring.


46

Alternative 2: Cumulative Effects Determination No Action Alternative.

No detrimental disturbance that would affect productivity is predicted to occur from the no action

alternative. No actions are proposed and existing conditions meet S&G#55. So there would be no

variation in existing trends for cumulative effects to the soil resource in severity or extent for

effective soil cover (erosion control), soil organic matter (forest duff or large woody material) or

porosity that would affect soil productivity or contribute to soil erosion.

Alternative 3: Cumulative Effects Determination Non -Commercial Funding.


Porosity

Areas with decreased porosity can remain on the landscape over the long-term and with each entry

can incrementally increase the degree and extent of the detrimentally affected area. However, the

proposed action is not predicted to exceed the standard when BMPs/SMRs are implemented. As

presented in Science and Monitoring 2.3.2 above, the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group

studies provide two conclusions regarding detrimental effects from changes in porosity as

compaction: 1) most activity areas that exceed the standard post-treatment start with a high

compaction extent nearing the Forest LRMP standard, and 2) there was not a large amount of

change between pre-treatment and post-treatment compaction for most activity areas. For the

Sagehen Project S&G#55 is expected to be attained because: 1) existing levels of compaction are

considered to be moderate to low (well under the 15 percent threshold in extent), 2) the potential for

incremental changes in degree (up to 10% decrease in porosity) do not necessarily equate to an

increase in extent of area that exceeds the threshold (in degree or extent).

Existing results from sampled activity area show 33 percent of the activity areas sampled show no

detrimental compaction (10 percent decrease in porosity) and activity areas with detrimental

compaction ranged from a low of 3 percent to a high of 8 percent in extent. In addition, sub-soiling

as mitigation for reduced porosity improves infiltration and vegetative growth in compacted soils.

This action is typically completed on the heavy use areas (landings, and skid trails converging at the

landings) most likely to exceed the threshold.

The potential for a decrease in porosity (degree) can incrementally occur over small portions of the

activity areas. Since no activity area is predicted to exceed the threshold in extent, an assessment of

risk to productivity based on texture is unnecessary. The proposed action alternative combined with

existing conditions support a conclusion that the extent of the impact is designed to meet S&G#55

and productivity would be maintained for porosity. There would be a potential for a small

incremental portion of 706 acres to decrease porosity (in degree) over the affected activity areas.

Effective Soil Cover

Existing conditions within activity areas have effective soil cover that meet the S&G #55, so no

areas of special concern were identified based on existing condition. Data from measured activity area

transects showed a range of 80 to 97 percent effective soil cover. No accelerated erosion or sediment

movement was observed on any proposed activity areas surveyed that would indicate a loss in soil

productivity.


47

The proposed action alternative combined with existing conditions support a conclusion that the

extent of the impact to soil resources is designed to meet S&G#55 and productivity would be

maintained for ESC. There is the potential to reduce existing cover in degree and extent over small

portions of activity areas after each entry on 1,195 acres, but ESC would be maintained. Out of the

1,195 acres, there would also be potential increases in existing ground cover over 706 mastication

acres with 661 of those acres exposed to underburning following mastication.

Because ground cover accumulates seasonally, the cumulative effect of reducing the existing cover

is expected to be short lived. The proposed action alternative maintains productivity through

meeting minimum ground cover requirements for effective erosion control.

Organic Matter

Forest Duff

Transect results representative of the project area showed forest duff varied from 65 percent to 90

percent. Transect data for plantations in proposed activity area 46 have 85 percent duff. The transect

running through the uplands of previously treated areas in activity area 213 showed 65 percent duff.

Transects running along the western margin in activity area 213 showed 73 percent duff. Other

transects in proposed activity areas such as activity area 38 and 39 show 90 percent existing duff.

Upper layers of organic material, including branchwood, cones, and bark are quickly restored to the

forest floor in the years following implementation. Retention of soils duff in the early stages of

decomposition are added to in the long term through this process. Undisturbed forest duff and sites

would maintain a minimum of 20 percent of the undisturbed forest duff evenly distributed

throughout the activity area; therefore, S&G #55 would be attained and cumulative effects to

productivity are not expected.

Large Woody Material

The minimum observed average for activity area logs meet the 5 downed logs/acre criteria

described under existing conditions. Areas of heavy fuels will see areas reduce existing downed

wood. Since current science suggests woody material may not be as important to soil productivity

as previously thought, and since the proposed actions are expected to meet minimum requirements

for large woody material and meet S&G #55 under Alternative 3. Cumulative effects to productivity

are not expected from this action alternative.

Summary

Maintained Productivity Area

For activity areas treated and not related to temporary roads or restoration under Alternative 1, and

for all activity areas under Alternative 3 the Standard and Guideline #55 is predicted to be met for

porosity, ESC and organic matter, over proposed activity areas, thus based on the direction for soils

laid out in the LRMP cumulative effects to productivity are not expected from the proposed actions

for fuels reduction and silvicultural vegetative activities.

Loss of Productivity


48

Under Alternative 1 activities associated with temporary roads will reduce productivity over the

mid-term on Loss of productivity would occur through detrimental compaction (decreased

porosity), loss of effective soil cover, and loss of organic matter from temporary roads on 3.8 miles,

over approximately 5.5 acres until decommissioned. These lands would be re-entered into

productivity within about 8 years (5 years operation period and 3 years to begin vegetative

recovery) but may not achieve pre-existing productivity levels for several more years. No

temporary roads are proposed under Alternative 3.

Restored Productivity

Under Alternative 1, there would be approximately 1 mile of road template with approximately 4.5

acres restored. An existing road bed will be decommissioned, re-vegetated, and mulched. The

restoration will allow these lands to be available for re-entry into productivity. These lands outside

of the restored fen would be entered into productivity within about 8 years (5 years operation period

and 3 years to begin vegetative recovery) but, may not achieve the potential productivity levels for

several more years. It is estimated that in combination with the aspen restoration treatment

(conducted as conifer removal), the fen, and wetland soil and organic matter in the area surrounding

the fen, could be improved over approximately three acres over the long term. No restoration

activities are proposed under Alternative 3.


49

6 REFERENCES

British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, December 1989, Developing Timber Harvesting

Prescriptions to Minimize Site Degradation- Interior Sites, Land Management Handbook,

Field Guide Insert.

Busse, M.D., C. Shestak, E. Knapp, G. Fiddler, and K. Hubbert. 2005. Lethal soil heating during

burning of masticated fuels: effects of soil moisture and texture. International Journal of

Wildand Fire. 2005. 14 267-276.www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf.

Busse M, et.al. 2010. Soil Physical Properties Regulate Lethal Heating during Burning of Woody

Residues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74:947–955. Published online 4 March 2010

doi:10.2136/sssaj2009.0322 Received 31 Aug. 2009

Campbell, G.S., J.D. Jungbauer, Jr., K.L. Bristow, and R.D. Hungerford. 1995. Soil temperature and

water content beneath a surface fire. Soil Sci. 159:363–374.

Debyle, N.V. 1985c. Wildlife. In: DeByle, N.V.; Winokur, R.P., eds. Aspen: ecology and

management in the western United States. GTR-RM-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 135-152.

Frandsen, W.H., and K.C. Ryan. 1986. Soil moisture reduces belowground heat flux and soil

temperatures under a burning fuel pile. Can. J. For. Res. 16:244–248.

Gomez, G.A., Powers, R.F., Singer, M.J., Horwath,W.R., 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth

of young ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci.

Soc.Am. J. 66, 1334–1343.

Greacen, E.L., Sands, R., 1980. Compaction of forest soils. Areview. Aust. J. Soil Res. 18, 163–

189.

Hanes R. and Poff, R. 1989. Descriptive Legend for the Soil Survey of the Sagehen Area, Tahoe

National Forest Area, California.

Hartford, R.A.; Frandsen, W.H. 1992. When it’s hot, it’s hot … or maybe it’s not (surface flaming

may not portend extensive soil heating). International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2: 139–144.

Hubbert K., M. Busse, S. Overby, C. Shestak. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Poster Presentation.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/r9_pile_burning_effects.shtml

Huffman, E.L. et.al. 2001. Strength and persistence of fire-induced soil hydrophobicity under

ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Colorado Front Range. Hydrol. Process. 15, 2877–2892

(2001) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.379.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/r9_pile_burning_effects.shtml


50

Jury, W.A., Gardner, W.R., and Gardener, W.H. 1991. Soil Physics. John Wiley and Sons.

Powers, Robert F., David H. Alban, Gregory A. Ruark, Allan E. Tiarks, Charles B. Goudey, Jerry F.

Ragus, Walter E. Russell, 1989. Evaluating Timber Management Impacts on Long-Term

Soil Productivity: A Research and National Forest System Cooperative Study. On file, PSW

Redding.

Powers, Robert F., et.al. 2005. The North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Experiment:

Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (2005) 31-

50.

Powers, Robert. 2005, Presentation USDA FS Soils Conference, Redding CA. 2005. Unpublished.

Shepperd, Wayne D. et.al. 2006. Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra

Nevada Final Report, Collaborative Work Agreement between USDA, Forest Service Lake

Tahoe Basin Management Unit and USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station January 20, 2006.

Spears et.al. 2003. The influence of decomposing logs on soil biology and nutrient cylcling in old

growth mixed coniferous forest in Oregon, U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 2193–2201 (2003)

Stephens, S. 2001. Fire history differences in adjacent Jeffry pine and upper montane forests in the

eastern Sierra Nevada. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10, 161-167.

Thomas, Jack W. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and

Washington. USDA Forest Service Ag. Handbook No. 553.

HFQLG, 2011. 2010 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report, Feburary 2011. Unpublished.

HFQLG, 2008. 2007 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report, January 2008. Unpublished.

HFQLG, 2006. 2005 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report, March 2006. Unpublished.

Knapp, E. et al. 2011. Behavior and effects of prescribed fire in masticated fuelbeds. International

Journal of Wildland Fire 20,932-945.

Page-Dumroese D. S., Martin F. Jurgensen, Allan E. Tiarks, Felix Ponder, Jr., Felipe G. Sanchez,

Robert L. Fleming, J. Marty Kranabetter, Robert F. Powers, Douglas M. Stone, John D.

Elioff, and D. Andrew Scott. 2006. Soil physical property changes at the North American

Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Can. J. For. Res.

36: 551–564.

Plotnikoff, M., Schmidt, M., Bulmer, C., and Curran, M. 1999. Forest productivity and soil

conditions on rehabilitated landings: interior British Columbia. Extension Note 40. British

Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria, B.C.

USDA Forest Service 1090. Soil erosion hazard rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook,

CH.50, R-5 FSH2509.22, R5 Amend. 2. PSW Region, Vallejo, California.


51

USDA Forest Service 1987. Forest position statement Siskiyou National Forest. Forest management

team notes of May 27, 1987. (unpublished report on file at Grants Pass, Oregon).

USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific

Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service. Nevada City, CA.

USDA Forest Service, 1994. Soil Survey, Tahoe National Forest Area California. Pacific Southwest

Region, USDA Forest Service in cooperation with USDA Soil Conservation Service and

Regents of the UC Agricultural Experiment Station.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final

Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Nevada City, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Tahoe National Forest and Lake

Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

USDA Forest Service, 2001, Water Quality Protection on National Forests in the Pacific Southwest

Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2003-2007. Pacific Southwest

Region, Vallejo, California.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (NT&DP) National Technology &Development Program. December 2008.

0877 1807—SDTDC. December 2008.Soil and Water Road-Condition Index Desk

Reference U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

USDA FS PSWR (United States Deparment of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest

Region). 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact

Statement Record of Decision. Region 5, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service PSWR 2009, Water Quality Protection on National Forests in the Pacific

Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program, 2003-2007. Pacific

Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service, RMRS. 2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry

mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 331 p.

USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. 2012. Silviculture Specialist Report. Sagehen Project

Tahoe National Forest. Truckee Ranger District. Unpublished. May 9th, 2012

Valette, J.-C., V. Gomendy, J. Maréchal, C. Houssard, and D. Gillon. 1994. Heat transfer in soil

during very low-intensity experimental fi res: The role of duff and soil moisture content. Int.

J. Wildland Fire 4:225–237.

Valiant, Nicole, UC Berkeley 2008: Sagehen Experimental Forest Past, Present, and Future: An

Evaluation of the Fireshed Assessment Process


52

Weingart, B. 2007. Retional Forester’s Letter to Forest Supervisors: Use of R5 Soil Management

Handbook, R5 Suplement No. 2509, 18-95-1, February 5, 2007.

Young D. 2005, Presentation USDA FS Soils Conference, Redding CA. 2005. Unpublished.

3332

31

6 54

7 8 9

161718

N A T I O N A L

SI E

RR

AV

I LL

ET

RU

CK

EE

S A G E H E N H I L L S

R i v e r

RO

AD

S A G E H E N

S a g e h e n

Spring

GagingStation

Univ of CalifWildlife Exper Sta

7084

7104

6738

BM6210

6518

6708

6502

6688

6424

6650

BM6173

6596

6395

BM6506

BM 6555

BM6681

6986

11-10

89-36

89-34

89-38

89-36

8989-36

260

878-1

89-4007-10

878-2

351

89-36-12

89-36-12-3

89-36-12-3-5

87-34-16

89-35-5

89-34-20

89-36-4-4

89-36-4

89-36-4-6

89-36-10

89-36-8

89-36-4-2

89-40-20-15

89-40-20

89-40-20

89-40-20-10

07-10-50

89-36-4-8

14 13

11 12

12

3536

S I E R R A V I L L E

T R U C K E E

R A N G E R

R A N G E R

D I S T R I C T

D I S T R I C T

S I E R R A C ON E V A D A C O

L A K E

Ind

ep

en

de

nc

e

SecretMeadow

GagingStation

Sa g e h e n

C r e e k

S A G E H E N R O A D

SAGEHEN CG

7122

7214

7357

7188

6839

7416

7078

7080

7696 7722

350-25

350

351

351-10

351

11-2

1111

11-4

11-6

11-6

1111-8

11-10

11-10

11-10

11-10-2

11-6-6

11-6-7

11-6-411-6-6-2

11-6-2

11-5

11-5-2

46

87

213

36

282

10085

163

90

7376

99

34

98

35

80

156

89

6191

33 3839

47

47

|ÿ89

FtE

JtF

FtE

FtF

FrE

JtF

FrE

FrE

FrE5

WaF

JtE

FtE

SiE

SiE

WdF

FtF

JtE

FtE

FtE

JtESiE

FtESiE

SiE

FtF

FtF

FtF

FrE5

JtE

JtE

JtE

JwF

WeE

JtE

JtE

FtF

SiE

SiE

TtF

FvEFvE

FrF6

AQB

FvEFtE

FmE

SiE

AQB

FvE

TtF

FvE

TbE

FvE

FtE

WeE

FtE

WdF

FvE

AQB

AQB

FTEA

USDA Forest ServiceTahoe National Forest


Sagehen Project

December 14, 2012

Soils Map 1Alternative 1

0 0.5 10.25

Miles

Scale = 1:24,000Data Source: Tahoe National Forest Geospatial Database.Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD83, GRS 1980.This map is reproduced from geospatial informationprepared by USDA Forest Service. Using GIS productsfor purposes other than those for which they wereintended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.

"Legend.

AQBFmEFrEFvEFrE5FrF6FtEFTEAFtF

.

.JtEJtFJwFSiETbETtFWaFWdFWeE

*Reference: USDA Forest Service, 1994. Soil Survey,Tahoe National Forest Area, California. Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service in cooperation with USDA Soil Conservation Service and Regents of the UC Agricultural Experiment Station.**Tahoe National Forest Erosion Hazard Rating: Soil type WeE is moderate, all other soil types within project units are High.

National ForestNon-National Forest

Unit Boundary & Number98

High Erosion Hazard Rating**

Order III Soils Series*

Moderate Erosion Hazard Rating**

3332

31

6 54

7 8 9

161718

N A T I O N A L

SI E

RR

AV

I LL

ET

RU

CK

EE

S A G E H E N H I L L S

R i v e r

RO

AD

S A G E H E N

S a g e h e n

Spring

GagingStation

Univ of CalifWildlife Exper Sta

7084

7104

6738

BM6210

6518

6708

6502

6688

6424

6650

BM6173

6596

6395

BM6506

BM 6555

BM6681

6986

11-10

89-36

89-34

89-38

89-36

8989-36

260

878-1

89-4007-10

878-2

351

89-36-12

89-36-12-3

89-36-12-3-5

87-34-16

89-35-5

89-34-20

89-36-4-4

89-36-4

89-36-4-6

89-36-10

89-36-8

89-36-4-2

89-40-20-15

89-40-20

89-40-20

89-40-20-10

07-10-50

89-36-4-8

14 13

11 12

12

3536

S I E R R A V I L L E

T R U C K E E

R A N G E R

R A N G E R

D I S T R I C T

D I S T R I C T

S I E R R A C ON E V A D A C O

L A K E

Ind

ep

en

de

nc

e

SecretMeadow

GagingStation

Sa g e h e n

C r e e k

S A G E H E N R O A D

SAGEHEN CG

7122

7214

7357

7188

6839

7416

7078

7080

7696 7722

350-25

350

351

351-10

351

11-2

1111

11-4

11-6

11-6

1111-8

11-10

11-10

11-10

11-10-2

11-6-6

11-6-7

11-6-411-6-6-2

11-6-2

11-5

11-5-2

46

282

10076

9998

6191

47

47

|ÿ89

JtF

FrE

FrE

SiE

FtF FtE

FtE

FtF

FtF

FtF

FrE5

FtF

FvEFvE

FrF6

AQB

FvEFtE

FmE

AQB

FvE

FtE

FtE

AQB

AQB

FTEA

USDA Forest ServiceTahoe National Forest


Sagehen Project

December 14, 2012

Soils Map 2Alternative 3

0 0.5 10.25

Miles

Scale = 1:24,000Data Source: Tahoe National Forest Geospatial Database.Projection: UTM Zone 10, NAD83, GRS 1980.This map is reproduced from geospatial informationprepared by USDA Forest Service. Using GIS productsfor purposes other than those for which they wereintended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.

".

AQBFmEFrEFvEFrE5FrF6FtEFTEAFtFJtFSiE

*Reference: USDA Forest Service, 1994. Soil Survey,Tahoe National Forest Area, California. Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service in cooperation with USDA Soil Conservation Service and Regents of the UC Agricultural Experiment Station.

**Tahoe National Forest Erosion Hazard Rating: All soil types within Alternative 3 project units are High.

National ForestNon-National Forest

Unit Boundary & Number98

High Erosion Hazard Rating**

Order III Soils Series*Legend

soil specialist report

Documents