cleveland/icehouse plantations thinning cea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Cleveland/Icehouse Plantations Thinning CE

Soil Report

Prepared by: Tricia Burgoyne

Soil Scientist

for: Pacific Ranger District

Eldorado National Forest

4/12/2016

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Cleveland/Icehouse Plantations Thinning CE, Soil Report

i

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ..................................................................................... 2

National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604) ............................................................... 2 National Soil Management Handbook .................................................................................... 2 Eldorado Forest Plan Consistency (USDA Forest Service 1988). .......................................... 3 Region 5 FSM Soil Supplement 2500-2012-1 ........................................................................ 3

Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis ........................................................................... 4 Resource Indicators and Measures .......................................................................................... 4

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5 Data Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................................... 6 Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy .................................................................................. 6 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ................................................................ 6

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 7 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 7

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 12 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................... 12 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 13

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans .............. 16 References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A. Current Conditions and Direct/Indirect Effects .................................................. 21

Tables

Table 1. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects .................................................... 4 Table 2. Soil map units within the proposed treatment units .......................................................... 8 Table 3. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct/indirect effects ..................... 15


2

Introduction This report evaluates the soil conditions and discloses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives for the Cleveland/Icehouse Plantations Thinning Project. This report includes:

• Analysis Methods and Scale;

• Affected Environment, including current conditions that describe the lasting effects and influence of past land management;

• Environmental Consequences, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects in light of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future events;

The project proposes vegetation treatment on approximately 2,980 acres of federal lands within the Pacific Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest.

The Cleveland/Icehouse Project would comply with the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988) and the Region 5 Soil Quality Standards (USDA 2012a) for long-term soil productivity. The recommended treatments are not expected to adversely affect soil resources because of design criteria and best management practices that will be implemented. These design criteria will help to ensure that resource safeguards will be in place that would prevent adverse effects on the soil resource from occurring.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604) 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 soils, NFMA requires that the Forest Service manage lands so as not to impair their long-term productivity. Further, 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.

National Soil Management Handbook

The National Soil Management Handbook defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, and establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity. In determining a significant change in productivity, a 15% reduction in inherent soil productivity potential will be used as a basis for setting threshold values. Threshold values would apply to measurable or observable soil properties or conditions that are sensitive to significant change. The threshold values, along with areal extent limits, would serve as an early warning signal of reduced soil productive capacity, where changes to management practices or rehabilitation measures may be warranted.

Management activities have potential to cause various types and degrees of disturbance. Soil disturbance is categorized into compaction, displacement, puddling, severe burning, and erosion. Direction was established that properties, measures, and thresholds relative to these disturbance types would be developed at the Regional and Forest levels, known as Soil Quality Standards.

“Long-term plots established with Forest Service Research Units will be needed to establish or validate the correlation between threshold values and significant change.”


3

Eldorado Forest Plan Consistency (USDA Forest Service 1988). • Conserve or improve the inherent long-term soil productivity through the incorporation of soils

information into land management decisions and through soil quality monitoring.

• Maintain at least 40% ground cover on soils with low erosion hazard, 50% on soils with moderate erosion hazard, 60% on soils with high or very high erosion hazard.

• In management areas where soil disturbing activities are practiced, the following requirements will be applied (not all requirements are listed as not all are relevant this project):

o Tractor logging will not be permitted on sloes >35%

o Suspended log yarding shall be used in areas where it is necessary to protect the soil mantle from excessive disturbance

o Skid trail patterns shall be designed to best fit the terrain and factors such as slope, soil stability, and soil moisture should be considered

o Use a limited operating period in areas where it is necessary to prevent compaction, rutting, gullying and excessive erosion

Region 5 FSM Soil Supplement 2500-2012-1 Three soil functions are utilized within Region 5 in order to determine whether national soil quality objectives are being met: Support for Plant Growth Function; Soil Hydrologic Function; and Filtering-Buffering Function. Each function has several indicators with specific desired conditions. These indicators are used to assess the existing condition of a Soil Function. Assessments can be conducted on individual treatment units, entire activity areas, or specially designated land management areas. Each area (predetermined) is given a soil function quality rating of Good, Fair or Poor.

• Good: All the indicators meet the desired condition, and the soil function quality fully meets national objectives to maintain soil quality.

• Fair: The desired condition for some of the soil indicators is Fair, but none are Poor. The soil function quality has been partially met and unless further impacted would be expected to improve from natural recovery.

• Poor: One or more of the indicators are rated Poor. Restoration activities should be considered with future management activities.

If the soil function quality is rated POOR, a separate determination needs to be made as to whether this constitutes a substantial and permanent impairment of the land with respect to the 1976 National Forest Management Act. Again, degree and extent, as well as duration of impacts (short-term or long-term) must be considered, as well as whether the quality of the soil function will naturally recover or if restoration is needed.


4

Topics and Issues Addressed in This Analysis

Resource Indicators and Measures

Soil Hydrologic Function Soil hydrologic function is the inherent capability of the soil to absorb, store and transmit water within the soil profile. The capability is dependent upon an adequate level of cover to reduce rainfall impact and runoff energy, stable soil structure, and sufficient macro-porosity to permit water infiltration and movement through the soil (USDA 2012a). Soil compaction and soil stability and erosion are indicators that can be used to examine the current and potential changes in soil hydrologic function (Table 1).

Support for Plant Growth Function The soil stores water, nutrients, and provides favorable habitat for soil organisms which cycle nutrients. Chemical, physical, and biological soil processes sustain plant growth which provides forage, fiber, wildlife habitat, and protective cover for watershed protection.

The natural physical structure of the soil provides a favorable environment for root growth. The organic matter on the soil surface and within the mineral soil are major sources of ecosystem nutrients such as nitrogen, essential for plant growth. It is important to realize that surface organic matter levels fluctuate naturally over time. The amount of organic matter is a balance of inputs from vegetation and decomposition rates dependent upon the local climate. Fire and management can decrease surface organic matter temporarily but accumulation resumes with natural vegetative growth within a relatively short time frame (years to decades). Very fine, amorphous organic matter in the mineral soil, referred to as soil organic matter (SOM), has accumulated over long time periods (decades to centuries) from root turnover and the biomass of soil organisms. And because it is not readily subject to burning per se, the organic matter level in the mineral soil is more stable than that on the surface. SOM is a very valuable source of nutrients, increases the available water-holding capacity, and contributes to the formation and stability of soil structure. The conservation of organic matter in the mineral soil and on top of the soil is fundamental to maintaining the Support for Plant Growth function (USDA 2012a; Table 1).

Table 1. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

Used to address

Source

Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Compaction (Soil Structure and Macro-Porosity)

Acres of detrimental soil disturbance

Soil Quality Standards

Region 5 Soil Management Handbook Supplement

Support for Plant Growth Function and Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Stability & Soil Erosion

Acres of proposed treatment with severe/very severe soil erosion potential



Support for Plant Growth Function

Ground Cover (Organic Matter)

Percentage unit Ground Cover (particularly soil organic matter)




5

Methodology During summer of 2015, the major soil types within the proposed treatment areas were surveyed.

For the soil resource, the treatment unit serves as the “analysis area,” as we do not expect activities within units to influence soil characteristics outside of unit boundaries.

Vegetation management has occurred in the Cleveland/Icehouse Project area in the past. Although the intensity of current management differs from that which has historically occurred, and modern practices have allowed managers to reduce the impacts of certain activities, it is essential to examine existing soil quality and to ensure that soil productivity is maintained within desired and ecologically sustainable levels. In order to evaluate soil quality, a site-specific assessment of soil quality indicators was conducted within the analysis area.

The sampling protocol used was the Soil Disturbance Field Guide (Page-Dumroese et al 2009). This soil effects protocol is designed to conform to Regional standards and the Regional standards are designed to comply with the National Forest Management Act and conform to the Soil Quality Standards (SQS) in the Eldorado Land and Resource Management Plan. Soil disturbance classes were determined along transects. Disturbance classes of 2 or 3 were considered detrimental in the analysis except where evidence suggested only short term disturbance with robust recovery. Shallow soil pits were excavated and examined for structure, texture, rupture resistance, rooting depth, rooting abundance and horizon thickness at regularly spaced locations along the transects. General observations were also made for each unit regarding stand type and type of understory vegetation, evidence of past activities including oil and gas development and slope and aspect.

In each unit, the following indicators were examined:

• Percent detrimental soil disturbance: defined as a decrease in soil porosity, or increase in soil bulk density, that impairs site productivity

• Percent Cover by category: Rock, Wood, Vegetation, & Litter;

• Down woody debris (tons per acre);

• Litter and duff depths;

• Percent of rock in the uppermost soil horizon, and;

• Noted slope stability issues, erosion concerns and other soil issues.

All units were not surveyed. The surveys completed were used as a proxy to determine the existing condition of detrimental soil disturbance in the units that were not surveyed. This was done based on the dominant soil map unit within the units.

Aerial imagery and Lidar imagery were also used to examine potential areas of concern. Openings, incised channels and areas with obvious gulley formation were visited in the field. These concern units included: 19, 24, 26, 33, 35, 44, 63 and 65.

Utilizing the soil disturbance data as well as the observations made on units with concerns, each unit was given a soil quality function rating of good, fair or poor (USDA 2012a).


6

Data Assumptions and Limitations The estimate of detrimental conditions found within the project area is likely higher than actual. The field soil survey methodology has been found to overestimate the amount of detrimental soil (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006a; Miller et al. 2010), providing a conservative assessment of existing soil condition. Informal comparisons on the reproducibility of the category calls found that both among a single observer and between observers, the category calls have a variability of 5 to 10 percent (Miller et al. 2010).

As a result existing and estimated values for detrimental soil disturbance are not absolute and are best used to compare differences between alternatives. The calculation of the percent of additional detrimental disturbance from a given activity is also an estimate. This is because detrimental disturbance is a sum of a combination of factors including existing groundcover, soil texture, and timing of operations, equipment used, skill of the equipment operator, the amount of wood to be removed, and sale administration. The estimation of detrimental soil disturbance assumes that BMPs (USDA 2012b) would be implemented and that soil recovery would occur over time.

Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy Site and soil productivity relies on complex chemical, physical, and climatic factors that interact within a biological framework. For any given site and soil, a change in any key soil variable (i.e., bulk density, soil loss, nutrient availability, etc.) could lead to changes in potential soil productivity. Defining the threshold at which productivity is detrimentally disturbed has been the subject of much discussion and controversy. Powers (1990) cites that the rationale for the 15 percent limit of change in soil bulk density was largely based on the collective judgment of soil researchers, academics, and field practitioners, as well as the ability to detect change in productivity through current monitoring methods. Thus the soil quality guidelines are set to detect a decline in potential productivity of at least 15 percent. This does not mean that the Forest Service tolerates productivity declines up to 15 percent; rather it recognizes the complexity of detecting detrimental soils. The 15 percent change in areal extent realizes that timber harvest and other uses of the land result in an unavoidable footprint. This limit is based largely on what is physically possible with the use of harvest and skidding machinery.

Currently, soil quality standards are being studied by a cooperative research project called the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study. The 5-year results were recently published (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b; Flemming et al. 2006; Sanchez et al. 2006). The study is ongoing and provides the best available science to resource professionals. To date there has been no reduction in tree growth noted as a result of compaction or organic removal in plots with soils typical of the analysis area.

Additional controversy surrounds the use of the term ‘irreversible’ in NFMA. NFMA has guidelines that “insure that timber will be harvested from NFS lands only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” The detrimental soil disturbance described in this analysis would not result in substantial and permanent impairment. Detrimental soil damage is reversible if chemical, biological, and physical soil processes (for example organic matter, moisture, top soil retention, and soil biota) are in place and time is allowed for recovery.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the soil resource are the individual treatment units. Soil productivity is a site specific characteristic. Loss of soil productivity in a treatment unit alone will not lead to a loss in soil productivity in an adjacent stand or other areas across a watershed. Assessment of cumulative effects on soil productivity at scales larger than the specific treatment unit boundary (such as the watershed scale) misrepresents the effects of management activities by diluting the site-specific effects across a larger area. In contrast to soil productivity, processes such as


7

erosion regimes and hydrologic functions occur at a watershed scale and have been analyzed as such in the Hydrology Analysis.

The temporal scale for assessing soil resource environmental effects includes both short- and long-term impacts. For the purposes of this analysis, short-term effects are defined as those that occur within about 10 years following proposed vegetation treatments. Long-term effects are defined as those that occur within about 10-20 years or more following proposed vegetation treatments.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The soils within the Cleveland/Icehouse project area are dominated by three different parent material groups: residuum weathered from granitics, residuum weathered from metasedimentary rocks and lahar derived from andesite. The dominant soil textures present within the proposed treatment units are sandy loams to loams with variable amounts of coarse fragments within the soil profile ranging from 5 to 40 percent coarse fragments. Twelve soil map units dominated the proposed treatment units (Table 2).


8

Table 2. Soil map units within the proposed treatment units Soil Map Unit

Acres % of

area Parent material Taxonomy Erosion

Hazard* Compaction

hazard Rutting hazard

Surface Texture Soil Series

108 182 6 residuum

weathered from granite

Coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic

Dystric Xerochrepts

Very severe Low Resistance Moderate

Coarse sandy loam

Chaix_Pilliken coarse sandy loams, 30 to 75 % slopes

135 191 6

residuum weathered from

metasedimentary rock

Loamy-skieletal,

mixed mesic Dystric

Xerochrepts

severe Low Resistance Slight

very gravelly

loam

Hartless very gravelly loam

5 to 30 % slopes

147 174 6 residuum


Fine-loamy, mixed,

mesic Ultic Haploxeralfs

Severe Low Resistance Severe Loam

Holland-Musick loams,

30 to 50 % slopes

149 179 6 residuum


Fine-loamy, mixed,

mesic Ultic Haploxeralfs

Severe Low Resistance Severe Loam

Holland-Pilliken

association, 30 to 50%

153 322 11



Fine-loamy, mixed,

mesic Typic Haploxerults

severe Low Resistance Severe loam Jocal-Hartess,

5 to 30 %

159 73 3 lahar derived from andesite

Medial, mesic Lithic Xerumbrepts

Moderate Low Resistance Moderate

Cobbly sandy loam

Ledmount-rock outcrop

association, 2-30%


Medial, mesic Lithic Xerumbrepts

Very severe Low Resistance Moderate

Cobbly sandy loam

Ledmount-rock outcrop association,

30-75%


9

170 94 3



Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic

Ruptic-Lithic-

Xerochreptic Haploxerults

Very severe Low Resistance Slight Gravelly

silt loam

Mariposa-Jocal complex,

30-75%

172 27 1



Fine-loamy, mixed, mesic,

ruptic-lithic-xerochreptic haploxerults

severe Low Resistance Slight gravelly

loam

Mariposa-Maymen

complex, 30-70 %


Medial-skeletal,

mesic Andic Xerumbrepts

Moderate Low Resistance Slight

Gravelly sandy loam

McCarthy-Ledmount

association, 2-30%


Medial-skeletal,

mesic Andic Xerumbrepts

Very severe Low Resistance Slight

Gravelly sandy loam

McCarthy-Ledmount

association, 30-75%%

192 60 2 residuum


Coarse-loamy, mixed,

mesic Entic Xerumbrepts

Moderate Low Resistance Moderate

Coarse sandy loam

Pilliken coarse sandy loam, 5-

30%

*the erosion hazard rating is based on the exposure of bare soil, these are likely overestimates of actual erosion hazard because the majority of the area has soil cover


10

Soil Compaction Past harvesting activities are evident in most of the project area. Some compaction was evident but was mostly concentrated on old roads and landings. Most of the compaction within the harvest units has alleviated over time. Detrimental soil disturbance levels ranged from three to ten percent within the proposed treatment units. Units 64, 66, 67, 69, 71-82, 92 and 93 were rated in Fair functional condition partly due to compaction issues on skid trails and old roads (Appendix A).

All the soils within the proposed treatment units are rated with a low resistance to compaction (Table 2), likely due to the low coarse fragments and finer textured soils present. Approximately 25 percent of the area is rated with a high rutting hazard, 17 percent moderate and 57 percent low rutting hazard. These areas rated with a high rutting hazard likely have higher soil moisture contents for most of the year and sensitive soils. Harvesting under dry soil conditions will reduce the compaction and rutting hazards on these soil types.


11

Soil Stability

Inherent potential for erosion may exist in some areas, given some form of severe disturbance. However, this site is fairly stable at this time. The slopes range from 5 to 35 percent and up to 50 percent in small areas. Ground cover by rock, litter, duff and vegetation was nearly continuous in many places, averaging 93 percent over the units. There was an average of seven percent bare ground in the project area.

The litter layer was generally intact throughout the project area, but was thicker and more effective in the closed canopy forests versus the open shrubby areas. The litter layer was generally loose, but the shallow duff layer was generally tighter and held together by fungal hyphae. This duff layer, provides excellent soil protection. Annual grasses, herbaceous vegetation, and even rock fragments can also be a form of protection and may reduce rain drop impact on soils.

In assessing inherent erosion hazard ratings (EHR) an assumption is made about the ability of a soil, with little or no vegetation cover, to withstand a precipitation event equivalent to the long-term average occurrence of a 2-year, 6 hour storm. The severity of a soil’s erosion hazard can depend on a number of factors including the soil’s texture, water movement within the soil as well as runoff potential, slope length, and (importantly) soil surface cover. Risk ratings can vary from low to very severe with low ratings meaning low probability of adverse effects on soil and water quality if accelerated surface erosion occurs. Moderate erosion hazard ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur. Severe to very severe erosion hazard ratings mean that effects to soil productivity and water quality are likely to occur when accelerated erosion happens. Two soil series that are dominant within the proposed treatment units were assessed for EHR in a more in depth analysis using the R5 Soil Erosion Hazard Rating Form. With 50 cover on slopes 35 percent, the actual EHR for the two dominant soils is moderate, with 70 percent cover, the actual EHR is low on the McCarthy soil series and low-moderate on the Jocal soil series (see Project File).

Approximately 55 percent of the soil types within the proposed treatment stands are mapped with severe or very severe erosion hazard when soils are bared. These soil types are located on steeper slopes with sandy loam to sandy soil textures. Approximately 45 percent of the soils in the project area have a moderate erosion hazard when bared (Table 2). Several stands were rated with an existing functional condition of fair due to erosion (Appendix A). Erosional concerns were noted in units 19, 24, 28, 35, 49, 64, 66, 67 71-82, 92 and 93.

Organic Matter Coarse woody debris (CWD) and organic matter (OM) are good indicators of site resiliency and overall forest health. Organic matter including the forest floor and large woody material is essential for maintaining ecosystem function by supporting moderate soil temperatures, improved water availability, and bio diversity (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). Coarse woody debris amounts are generally good low units surveyed ranging from 0-7 tons/acre. Recommended levels of CWD within Region 5 are 5 logs/acre (USDA 2012a). CWD, both standing (future recruitment) and down is important for site resiliency and recovery. Coarse woody debris also has an effect on erosion, water holding capacity, regeneration and other soil properties. Organic matter (litter and duff layers) averaged 3 cm within the proposed harvest units. The average optimum level of fine organic matter is 21 to 30 percent of the litter and duff layer (Graham et al. 1994), which equates to 2 to 6 centimeters of surface litter and humus, depending on forest type. Optimum levels of fine organic matter relate to ectomycorrhizae fungus, which is a good indicator of healthy forest soil (Graham et al 1994).

Ground cover class can also have an effect on resiliency and productivity. Ground cover is dependent on soil type, stand density and species composition. The majority of the ground cover in forested areas is


12

vegetation or litter. Region 5 soil quality standards recommend at least 50% ground cover in units with slopes less than 35% and greater than 50% cover where slopes are greater than 35%. Currently bare soil exposed ranges from 3 to 13%, but well within the range of acceptable levels of ground cover to meet Forest Plan and Regional standards. Ground cover and organic matter soil functions were rated Good in all units.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the no-action alternative, no commercial timber harvest or fuel reduction treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. There would be no new disturbance resulting from forest management activities, and existing disturbance would persist. Freeze-thaw processes, weathering, and soil biota would work to slowly break up compaction over time and vegetation would continue to re-establish on the existing infrastructure of trails as their roots become able to penetrate growth-limiting layers of old compaction. Hydrologic function, such as soil drainage, would be maintained at existing rates.

Under the no-action alternative, the forest canopy would not be altered and organic material covering the soil would not be disturbed by management. Soil cover standards would likely continue to be met and the litter/duff layer would likely continue to thicken and increase in continuity. Coarse woody debris levels would also likely continue to increase. As a result, erosion hazards would likely remain low and soil nutrient cycles would be maintained.

The probability of a high-severity fire within the project area during a given timeframe is unpredictable. However, when a fire breaks out, the chances for high-severity fire effects on soils can be much higher in untreated areas with excessively heavy fuel loads compared to those that have been treated, including post-harvest logging slash (Certini 2005, Cram et al. 2006, Graham et al. 2004, and Keane et al. 2002).

Vegetation and fuel treatments would reduce the chance that a wildfire could have as severe an effect on the soils and surrounding private property in treated areas as it could in untreated areas because there would be fewer tons per acre of dead and dying fuels on treated sites.

A high-intensity wildfire would increase the potential for impacts to soils and soil productivity in severely burned areas, especially since the risk of soil erosion increases proportionally with fire intensity (Megahan 1990). Other effects would include the potential loss of organics, loss of nutrients, and reduced water infiltration (Wells et al. 1979). Fires that create very high soil surface temperatures, particularly when soil moisture content is low, almost completely destroy soil microbial populations, woody debris, and the protective duff and litter layer over mineral soil (Hungerford 1991, Neary et al. 2005). Nutrients stored in the organic layer (such as potassium and nitrogen) can also be lost or reduced through volatilization and as fly ash (DeBano 1991, Amaranthus et. al. 1989).

Cumulative Effects Not treating the project area could result in unknown effects on productivity in the future in the event of a wildfire. However, due to a lack of direct and indirect effects as a result of this alternative, no cumulative effects are anticipated at this time. Because of the lack of adverse effects, the forest is likely to continue meeting, or make progress toward Forest Plan standards. By meeting soil quality standards, it is expected that desired conditions pertaining to the soil resource would be achieved.


13

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures (BMP refers to the National Core BMP’s, USDA 2012b)

1) Ground based yarding would not occur on slopes exceeding 35 percent without a site specific environmental analysis by a soil scientist determining that damage is unlikely (BMP 14.07).

2) Skid trails would be placed within the unit in order not to exceed 15 percent of the total unit area. (BMP 14.08). Skid trails would be adequately drained in order to prevent overland water flow. Following implementation, slash would be placed on skid trails to prevent erosion and to discourage ATV use (BMP 14.15). Drainage structures (or slash) would be placed on and skid trails that would be left over the winter to reduce erosion potential during higher flows associated with the spring season (BMP 14.15). If slash were used for overwinter protection, it would be removed before use or obliteration the following summer.

3) Reuse existing skid trails where practical in all units that currently have skid trails and avoid sensitive soils. Within units 5 and 6, skid trail placement should be designated in advance in order to avoid sensitive soils.

4) Avoid road and skid trail placement on shallow soil. These soils were located within the following units: 3, 9, 19, 20, 35, 44, 53, 64 and 87. During project layout, field personnel will identify any additional areas with sensitive shallow soils and these areas should be avoided.

5) Leave all CWD intact if rates are within the range of acceptable fuel levels

6) Landings would be re-vegetated areas of compacted soil would be scarified prior to seeding (BMP 14.11).

7) Organic matter would be left on site so that at least 50 percent of the soil surface is covered with litter and fine woody material. In order to provide this amount of organic matter, masticating or leaving woody material on the ground is preferred over piling woody debris and removing it or burning it within the following units: 19, 27, 28, 29, 48, 50 and 80. Where practicable, maintain 70 percent soil cover on slopes greater than 25% and within units 6, 7, 12, 25, 33, 34, 42, 49, 65, 70, 83, 86, 89, 90 and 91 to reduce soil erosion and increase soil productivity. These units have steeper slopes, potentially unstable ground and long slope lengths to drainages.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2

Soil Compaction Commercial timber harvest treatments are proposed on 1,231 acres and will include whole tree harvesting (Table 3). Localized areas with detrimental levels of soil compaction, displacement, and other physical disturbances would reduce the ability of soils to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide thus affecting the ability of soil organisms to survive. Outside of landings and skid trails, large areas (greater than 100 square feet) with detrimental levels of soil disturbance are not expected because of project design features (for example, the ground would be dry or frozen and designated skid trails would be used or existing skid trails will be reused), standard soil operating procedures, and Timber Sale Contract provisions. In addition, favorable habitat for soil organisms would be maintained outside of designated skid trails as limited soil disturbance is expected off these skid trails. Any reduction of productivity attributable to soil organisms would be short-term (less than 5-years). Mastication treatments are proposed on approximately 2,439 acres. Although performed with ground based equipment, mastication generally


14

occurs over an existing slash mat created during the mastication process. This material on the surface reduces the compaction risk.

Nearly all forest plants have a strong dependence on mycorrhizal fungi for extracting nutrients and moisture from the soil. In all alternatives, microorganisms would continue to populate the soil, contributing towards site productivity through nutrient cycling and reforming soil aggregates. Any project effects would not be adverse to soil productivity because nutrient replenishment, forest floor, and humus stores would remain on the site (Busse et al. 2009).

Compaction on skid trails, landings and temporary roads can indirectly lead to decreased water infiltration rates, leading to increased overland flow and associated erosion and sediment delivery to stream. Increased overland flow also increases intensity of spring flooding, degrading stream morphological integrity and low summer flows. Compaction indirectly leads to decreased gas exchange, which in turn degrades sub surface biological activity and above-ground forest vitality.

The potential for a soil function indicator to be adversely affected by the proposed action is moderate on approximately 747 acres of area proposed for commercial treatment. Reusing existing skid trails and approving skid trail layout prior to implementation will ensure that the soil functions will remain intact in Good or Fair condition.

Soil Stability and Soil Erosion Approximately 55% of the area proposed for treatment is rated with a severe/very severe erosion hazard rating when soils are bared. The proposed actions will not bare soil completely and design features will ensure that where soils have higher erosion hazards, soil cover will be 70% or greater of the given treatment unit ensuring that soil erosion hazards are reduced. Surface cover will be most important in commercial harvest units where whole tree yarding will occur and no mastication. This will occur on approximately 212 acres. Mastication will produce sufficient ground cover to protect the soil from erosion on the remaining acres where whole tree harvesting is proposed.

In accordance with Regional and Forest Plan Standards, ground cover following treatments will be at least 50%. Ground cover should be 70% on units with higher erosion hazards and where slopes are greater than 25% (Soil design feature 7). Units 19, 24, 28, 35, 49, 64, 66, 67, 71-82, 92 and 93 are currently in Fair condition in regards to soil function partly due to erosional features found within the units. Increased organic matter and ground cover of coarse and fine woody material will ensure that these units remain in their current condition or improve condition.

Ground Cover (Organic Matter) Harvest operations remove biomass and site organic matter and thus affect nutrient cycling. Generally, nutrient losses are proportional to the volume of biomass removed from a site. Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees, and additional nutrients are lost if the litter layer and woody debris are removed. Whole-tree harvesting, which extracts larger amounts of biomass, especially nutrient-rich foliage, compared to conventional sawlog or thinning operations, removes a larger amount of the nutrients from the site. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site will vary with forest types and particular site conditions (Grier et al. 1989). The amount of nutrients present in the trees will also vary with stand age and development of the humus layer (Grier et al. 1989). Moreover, the greater the proportion of nutrients stored in trees, the greater the potential for site degradation and declines in productivity after harvesting operations. The data suggests that nutrient losses from whole-tree harvesting are considerably greater when compared to conventional sawlog harvesting for all nutrients. Calcium losses were particularly large for whole-tree harvesting due to the high concentrations of calcium present in the wood fiber of twigs, branches, and boles (Adams 1999, Mann et al. 1988).


15

Potential indirect long term effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease (Garrison and Moore 1998, Garrison-Johnston 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnston et al. 2003 and 2004). Precipitation and weathering of rocks will continue to make additional nutrients available on site. Annual needle, leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality will continue to recycle nutrients as well.

In accordance with Regional and Forest Plan Standards, ground cover following treatments will be at least 50%. Ground cover should be 70% on units with higher erosion hazards and steeper slopes (Soil design feature 7). Units 19, 24, 28, 35, 49, 64, 66, 67, 71-82, 92 and 93 are currently in Fair condition in regards to soil function partly due to erosional features found within the units. Increased organic matter and ground cover of coarse and fine woody material will ensure that these units remain in their current condition or improve condition.

Table 3. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 2 direct/indirect effects Resource Element Resource Indicator

Measure

Alternative 2

Direct/Indirect Effects

Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Compaction (Soil Structure and Macro-Porosity)

Acres of commercial treatment (% of total area)

1,231 (41%)

Support for Plant Growth Function and Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Stability & Soil Erosion

Acres of proposed treatment within severe/very severe soil erosion potential (%of total area)

1,453 (55%)

Support for Plant Growth Function

Ground Cover (Organic Matter)

Percentage unit Ground Cover (particularly soil organic matter)

At least 50%, 70% on steep sites with high erosion hazards

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Cumulative effects include a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of human activities. For activities to be considered cumulative their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed actions. For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the unit because effects on soils are site specific. Past activities are considered as the current condition of the soil resource (refer to the Affected Environment section above).

Mechanical Treatments and Prescribed Fire Treatments Harvesting and prescribed fire activities would not overlap in time and space with past, ongoing, or foreseeable projects except where past disturbance has occurred. Existing soil conditions are discussed above and existing condition includes current detrimental soil disturbance. There are no other thinning activities proposed within the current proposed units; therefore no cumulative effects from thinning or prescribed fire will occur.

Wildfire and Fire Suppression On small wildfires, disturbance from fire suppression activities is usually limited to hand tools; most hand fire-line construction has only minor (insignificant) impacts to the soil resource. Machine line using heavy equipment is also built during wildfire suppression. These machine lines are rehabilitated following suppression activities. During fire suppression, closed roads may be reopened for access and


16

incorporated as fire line. As part of the post-fire work, the areas of disturbance are rehabilitated and the roads returned to their previous condition in most cases.

Road Maintenance and Decommissioning All developed roads built in the past have a long term effect on soil productivity due to compaction and displacement. Their maintenance for residence access, recreation, and forest management calls for ongoing use, which results in compaction and displacement through the project area.

Road maintenance includes culvert installation, blading, and brushing, which typically improves drainage and decreases erosion from water channeling down the road surface in the long run. For a detailed analysis and information on roads and related issues, please see the specialist’s report on hydrology.

Decommissioning of roads would improve previously impacted road beds through decompaction, addition of organic material, revegetation of bare areas, and weed control. Although rehabilitation through decompaction and/or re-contouring cannot assume complete reversal to natural conditions, efforts initiate a long-term recovery process. Anticipated results would also provide for improvements in hydrologic function that otherwise may be prolonged as soil compaction persists.

Recreation Disturbance from general motorized use and recreational access has been occurring and will continue throughout the units indefinitely. We anticipate no changes in the existing recreation profile. Other recreational activities that occur off the developed roads, such as the gathering of miscellaneous forest products and hunting, are occurring in the project area. Closing skid trails in this area following treatment should prevent this occurrence and should not have additional effects on soils in the project area. Cumulative effects to soils from recreational vehicle use are not expected. See the Recreation Specialist Report for further discussion on recreational vehicle use.

Noxious Weed Treatments Areas of disturbed soil provide an optimal location for weed establishment and subsequent invasion (DiTomaso 2000). Weeds establish quickly and can increase erosion, deplete soil moisture, and alter nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Because the roots of noxious weeds are often deeper than native grasses, they also contribute less organic matter near the soil surface (Sperber et al. 2003). Weeds will be sprayed along skid trails and at landings. Refer to the Weeds Report for additional details.

Noxious weed monitoring and treatment would therefore occur as needed and would follow guidelines established in the Eldorado National Forest Invasives EA (USDA 2013). Effects to soil resources were analyzed in the document and its adaptive strategy. No additional effects to soils beyond what was analyzed for and disclosed in the document are expected to occur.

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The proposed action will meet Region 5 Soil Quality Standards and the Eldorado Land and Resource Management Plan. Cover will be maintained on at least 50% of a proposed treatment unit and on at least 70% of a proposed treatment unit with severe to very severe erosion hazard. Ground based logging will not occur on slopes greater than 35%. Soil Function Quality ratings are not rated as Poor in any of the proposed treatment units. Project design features will ensure that these standards are met and that no extraordinary circumstances exist.


17

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

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

Amaranthus, M. P.; J. M. Trappe and R. J. Molina. 1989. Long-term forest productivity and the living soil. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. D. A. Perry, ed: 36 and 48.

Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, W.E. Hopkins, W.H. Johnson, G.M. Riegel, G.O. Fiddler, A. W. Ratcliff, and C.J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1171-1185.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1-10.

Cram, D., T. Baker, and J. Boren. 2006. Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Research Paper RMRS-RP-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p.

DeBano, L. F. 1991. The effect of fire on soil properties. In: Proceedings—Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils. Harvey, A. and L. Neuenschwander, compilers. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 151-155.

Flemming, R.L., R.F. Powers, N.W. Foster, J.M. Kranabetter, D.A. Scott, F.Ponder, S. Berch, W.K. Chapman, R.D. Kabzems, K.H. Ludovici, D.M. Morris, D.S. Pge-Dumroese, P.T. Sanborn, F.G. Sanchez, D.M. Stone and A.E. Tiarks. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on 5-year seedling performance: a regional comparison of Long-Term Soil Productivity sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 529-550.

Garrison, M. T. and J. A. Moore. 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review. In: Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Garrison-Johnston, M. T., J. A. Moore and G. J. Niehoff. 2001. Cooperative Supplemental Report 98: 5.

Garrison-Johnston, M. 2003. Geologic controls on tree nutrition and forest health in the Inland Northwest. Presented at GSA Ann. Mtng, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.

Garrison-Johnston, M., T.M. Shaw, L.R. Johnson, and P.G. Mika. 2004. Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative, Presentation at the Potassium Meeting, IPNF, Coeur d’Alene, ID, April 23.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13p.

Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, and T.B. Jain. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. 52p.

Grier, C.C., K.M. Lee, N.M. Nadkarni, G.O. Klock, and P.J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A review. PNW-GTR-222. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.


18

Hungerford, R.D., M.G. Harrington, W.H. Frandsen, K.C. Ryan, and G.J. Niehoff. 1991. Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In: Proceedings – Mgtmt. And productivity of western montane forest soils. USDA FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. p. 32-50.

Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, and others. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. General Technical Report. RMRSGTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agr., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p.

Mann, L.K., D.W. Johnson, D.C. West, D.W. Cole, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, H. Riekerk, C.T. Smith, W.T. Swank, L.M. Tritton, and D.H. Van Lear. 1988. Effects of whole-tree and stem-only clearcutting on postharvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth. Forest Science 34: 412-428.

Megahan, W.F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in western-Montana forest ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western-Montana Forest Soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 146-150.

Miller, R.E., J.D. McIver, S.W. Howes, and W.B. Gaeuman. 2010. Assessment of soil disturbance in forests of the interior Columbia River basin: A critique. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech Report PNW-GTR-811. 154 p.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Abbot, T. Rice, J, Tirocke, S. Farley, and S. DeHart. 2006a. Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Post-fire Logging in the Inland Northwest. Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 605-613.

Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. F. Jurgensen, A.E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F.G. Sanchez, R.L. Fleming, J.M Kranabetter, R.F. Powers, D.M. Stone, J.D. Elioff, and D.A. Scott. 2006b. 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.

Page-Dunroese, D, S. Deborah, A.A. Abbott, and T.M. Rice. 2009. Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol: Volume 1: Rapid assessment. WO-GTR-82a. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 31 p.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2010. Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the Western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25 (1): 5-11.

Powers, R.F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of forest lands? Establishing guidelines through a network of long term studies. Paper presented at Symposium of Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils, Boise ID, April 10-12, 1990. 13p.

Sanchez, F.G., A.E. Tiarks, J.M. Kranabetter, D.S. Page-Dumroese, R.F. Powers, P.T. Sanborn and W.K. Chapman. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal and soil compaction on fifth-year mineral soil carbon and nitrogen contents for sites across the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 565-576.


19

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Land and Resource Management Plan, Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Forest Service Manual 2500-2012-1. Supplement. Soil Management Handbook. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 11p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 177 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Eldorado National Forest: Eradication and Control of Invasive Plants Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Placerville, CA.

Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C. Froelich and D.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil: A State of the Knowledge Review. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-7. p.26


20


21

Appendix A. Current Conditions and Direct/Indirect Effects

Unit Acres Current % DSD

Current Indicator Condition

(Good, Fair or Poor)

Notes Logging System

Biomass Treatment

Brush Treatment

Potential for Indicator Change based on Proposed

Action (Low, Moderate, High)

If potential is moderate or high,

what project design feature will

mitigate that change

1 4 4 Good whole tree masticate masticate Low

2 3 4 Good whole tree none masticate Low

3 36 4 Good none none masticate Low

4 42 4 Good whole tree remove masticate Low

5 21 6 Fair whole tree none none Moderate Soil Design Feature 3 and 7

6 190 3 Good whole tree none none Moderate Soil Design Feature 3 and 7

7 67 3 Good masticate none Moderate Soil Design Feature 7


9 173 4 Good none remove masticate Low

10 1 4 Good whole tree none none Low


12 27 4 Good whole tree remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7

13 39 4 Good whole tree none none Low

14 24 4 Good none masticate masticate Low


16 36 4 Good whole tree remove none Low


18 24 5 Fair none remove masticate Low

19 56 5 Fair erosion none remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7


22





Biomass Treatment

Brush Treatment










24 6 4 Fair bare ground and erosion none masticate masticate Low

25 14 4 Good whole tree masticate masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7



28 17 3 Fair erosion whole tree remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7



31 5 3 Good none none hand cut/pile Low


33 14 3 Good none none masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7


35 2 4 Fair Gulley present, shallow rocky

soils none none masticate Low

36 2 4 Good none none none Low



39 11 4 Good whole tree masticate none Low

40 29 4 Good whole tree masticate none Low


23





Biomass Treatment

Brush Treatment












47 4 3 Good none remove none Low


49 49 3 Fair Open areas with

bare soil present

none none hand cut/pile Low




53 198 5 Fair none remove masticate Low









64 54 7 Fair compaction and erosion none remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature

3 and 4


24





Biomass Treatment

Brush Treatment






65 100 4 Good none remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature 7

66 29 7 Fair compaction and erosion none remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature

3

67 7 7 Fair compaction and erosion whole tree remove masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature

3 68 7 3 Good whole tree masticate masticate Low

69 48 6 Fair compaction and erosion whole tree masticate masticate Moderate Soil Design Feature

3


71 64 7 Fair compaction and erosion none masticate masticate Low

72 77 7 Fair compaction and erosion none masticate none Low


3




3

77 17 7 Fair compaction and erosion none masticate masticate Low Soil Design Feature

3


3



7


25





Biomass Treatment

Brush Treatment








3













cleveland/icehouse plantations thinning cea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents