Chapter 2 – Alternatives

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

January 2016

Soil Report

Tobias Ecological Restoration

Western Divide Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest Service

Tulare and Kern County, CA

Written by: Levi E Windingstad

GSA GeoCorp Intern

Reviewed by: Alan J. Gallegos

Southern Sierra Province Geologist

1 | P a g e

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information

in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged

discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at

www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found

online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a

letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email

at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you

require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD)

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Non-Discrimination Policy 1

To File an Employment Complaint 1

To File a Program Complaint 1

Persons with Disabilities 1

Table of Contents 2

List of Tables 3

List of Figures 3

Soils Report 4

Introduction

Regulatory Setting 4

Methodology 6

Analysis Indicators 7

Support for Plant Growth Function 7

Soil Hydrologic Function 7

Filtering-Buffering Function 7

Soil Issue Indicators 8

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area 10

Affected Environment 10

Existing Condition 10

Desired Condition 23

Environmental Consequences 25

Alternative 1 26

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 26

Cumulative Effects 27

Alternative 2 28

Direct and Indirect Effects 29

Cumulative Effects 32

Alternative 3 … 34

Direct and Indirect Effects 34

Cumulative Effects 35

Summary of Effects 37

3 | P a g e

Monitoring 38

References 39

List of Tables

Table 1: Visual Indicator Condition Assessment- pg. 9

Table 2: Profile characteristics of the soils underlying the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project-pg. 12

Table 3: Soil map units, characteristics, associated stands and proposed treatments-pg. 15

Table 4: Inherent soil productivity of undisturbed soils-pg. 18

Table 5: Tobias Ecological Restoration bulk density values of four samples-pg. 20

Table 6: Summary of soil disturbance observed in the field per soil transect-pg. 21

Table 7: Summary of additional site observations per soil transect-pg. 22

Table 8: Summary of effects table-pg. 38

List of Figures

Figure 1. Soil map units and stands within the Tobias Ecological Restoration boundary- pg. 41

Figure 2. Soil transects and soil map units of Tobias Ecological Restoration- pg. 42

Figure 3. Slope map (slope percent) and stands of Tobias Ecological Restoration- pg. 43

Figure 4. Proposed treatments where slope is likely to increase occurrence of soil disturbance within Tobias

Ecological Restoration- pg. 44

List of Appendices

Appendix A Individual Soil Transect Data Sheets – pg 45

4 | P a g e

Soils Report for the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project Area

Introduction

The following information addresses the affected environment or existing pre-treatment condition for soils

within the Tobias Ecological Restoration project area. This report addresses the affected environment of the

project area, environmental consequences of the proposed action to soil productivity (alternatives 1-3),

mitigation to reduce the impacts of the proposed action, and a soil monitoring plan to ensure that Forest

Standard and guidelines are met to maintain soil productivity. Research was conducted by Levi Windingstad

with the help and guidance of Alan Gallegos.

Regulatory Setting

The following law, regulation, and policy provide direction for the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project.

The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473-475). Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to

establish regulations to govern the occupancy and use of National Forests and “…to improve and protect the

forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish

a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a program of land

conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in

controlling soil erosion (reforestation), preserving natural resources, (protecting fish and wildlife, developing

and protecting recreational facilities), mitigating floods, (preventing impairment of dams and reservoirs,

developing energy resources), conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of

navigable streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety, and welfare.

The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531). States that the

National Forests are to be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish

purposes. This Act directs the Secretary to manage these resources in the combination that will best meet the

needs of the American people; providing for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and

conditions; and harmonious and coordinated management of the resources without impairment of the

productivity of the land. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining into perpetuity a high-level annual or

regular periodic output of renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 4321). Declares it is the policy of the

Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of

Americans. The Act requires agencies to analyze the physical, social, and economic effects associated with

proposed plans and decisions, to consider alternatives to the action proposed, and to document the results of

the analysis.

5 | P a g e

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) (as

amended by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) states that the development

and administration of the renewable resources of the National Forest System are to be in full accord with the

concepts for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services as set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960. The Act requires the maintenance of productivity of the land and the protection and, where

appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and water resources. The Act specifies that substantial and

permanent impairment of productivity must be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed

management in the National Forest System. This Act as amended contains the following sections and

provisions pertinent to maintaining a sound soil management program:

Section 3 paragraph 6b. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make, and keep current, a

comprehensive survey and analysis of conditions of, and requirements for, forest and rangelands of

the United States, including a determination of the present and potential productivity of the land.

Section 5. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and maintain on a continuing

basis, a comprehensive and appropriately detailed inventory of all National Forest System lands and

renewable resources.

Section 6 paragraph k. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to identify lands within the

management area which are not suited for timber production.

FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 - Soil Management. Responsible soil stewardship

promotes and sustains biological and hydrologic function on National Forest System lands. Soils are essential

for storing carbon, nutrients, soil biota, and water. Soil and ecological inventories, soil quality assessments, and

monitoring and evaluation are required program elements for soil conservation and protection of ecological

functions. This directive establishes the management framework for sustaining soil quality and hydrologic

function while providing goods and services outlined in forest and grassland land management plans.

FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 - Soil Management R5 Supplement. The Region 5

soil manual supplement direction applies to those lands dedicated to growing vegetation. But it is important

that appropriate erosion control and soil stabilization measures are followed for areas dedicated to other specific

uses such as roads, trails, recreation and administrative sites. Generally these dedicated uses are addressed by

Best Management Practices in the Water Quality Management Handbook (R5 FSH 2509.22, Chapter 10,

Supplement 2509.22-2011-1). Three soil functions will be used by Region 5 for assessment and analysis to

determine if the national soil quality objectives are being met: Support for Plant Growth Function; Soil

Hydrologic Function; and Filtering - Buffering Function.

2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. - provides guidance for regional soil quality standards.

1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP. The LRMP provides guidance for protecting soil productivity through

the implementation of Best Management Practices. Manage to maintain long-term soil productivity.

1990 Sequoia National Forest Mediated Land Management Plan Settlement Agreement (MSA). The 1990 MSA

provides guidance for soil quality standards within the Sequoia National Forest. Many of the objectives are

meant to be derived from soil Management Handbook 2509.18, which has since been superseded by FSM 2550.

6 | P a g e

Methodology

The 17 soil transects completed in the Tobias Ecological Restoration project area were placed randomly within

predetermined spatial constraints to establish an overall representation of the current soil conditions in the

most susceptible areas to soil disturbance. See Figure 2 for locations of soil transects. A soil transect could be

classified into one of four severity classes; D0 – no previous entry, D1 – faint signs of entry, D2 – obvious

signs of entry and D3 – extensive signs of entry. The severity class is determined by the severity of disturbance

types present along a soil transect, each individual transect point will contain seven disturbance type indicators

with a total of seventy indicators collected per transect. Disturbance type indicators include: (1) Wheel Tracks

or Depressions, (2) Penetration and Resistance, (3) Soil Physical Condition, (4) Forest Floor, (5) Mineral Soil,

(6) Erosion and (7) Burning. The soil transect is then rated with the severity class which has the largest

proportion of indicators present.

Additional site data for soil cover, shallow soil, rock outcrop and large woody debris (LWD) was also collected.

Soil cover is the amount of available surface material with the inherent ability to inhibit surface erosion at each

point given as a percent. Shallow soils were noted if the soil contained a profile depth less than 12 inches. Rock

outcrop was noted if the transect point was located on an exposed rock surface. Large woody debris (LWD)

was a tally of any LWD 12’ x 10” present within a 1/10 acre plot around the transect point. The LWD average

is reported as pieces per acre and includes all classes of LWD. The protocol used to collect the field data came

from the Forest Service Displacement Monitoring Protocol. The form used was a modified quick-transect form,

which was modified because the standard protocol does not address data for soil cover, shallow soil, rock

outcrop or LWD.

An Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) assessment was conducted for the proposed project area and the proposed

treatments. EHR rates the potential of land use activities to cause accelerated erosion rates to exceed that of

natural soil formation; low, moderate, high and very high EHR can be assigned. The California Soil Survey

Committee (CCSC) Erosion Hazard Rating System was used to designate the values. The Maximum Erosion

Hazard (MEH) is the EHR value extrapolated to represent disturbed ground cover resulting from unmitigated

proposed treatments. These ground cover conditions include 0-10 percent ground cover and 11-30 percent

shrub and/or tree canopy.

The sensitivity rating of each soil is determined by its susceptibility to a loss in soil productivity by ground

disturbing activities. Soil sensitivity is determined by the thickness of the A horizon, depth to the underlying

bedrock and the EHR rating. A low, moderate or high sensitivity rating can be given.

Soil compaction is a measure of the soils susceptibility to detrimental compaction and presumes the soil is at a

moisture level at which it is most susceptible to soil density increase under heavy equipment operation. The

compaction hazard ratings were determined using the Detrimental Compaction Risk Rating Guide. The hazard

ratings are based on the texture and coarse fragment content of the soil and include low, moderate and high

designations. To establish baseline values for monitoring compaction, four samples were collected and analyzed

to provide bulk density data to be used as a measure of compaction. The soils were collected using a soil

sampling device that extracts exactly 100 cm3 (CV) of soil while retaining the inherent density of soil. The

7 | P a g e

equation used to calculate bulk density (Db) is𝐷𝑏 =(𝑂𝐷𝑊−𝑅𝐹)

[𝐶𝑉−(𝑅𝐹

𝑃𝐷)]

. The soils are analyzed in the lab by measuring

the mass of the entire oven dried sample (ODW) as well as the sieved fraction of the sample greater than 2-

mm in diameter (RF). The density (PD) of (RF) is calculated using displacement as a measure of volume (RV),

thus PD is equal to RF/RV. Soil resource management is achieved by maintaining soil productivity using

indicators described in the Regional Soil Desired Conditions within the FSM 2550 R5 Supplement and

management direction provided in the Forest Standard and Guidelines.

Soil productivity is evaluated within an Activity Area. An activity Area is the area of land dedicated to growing

vegetation which soil quality standards for soil production are applied. It is that area within a management area

where soil disturbing activities take place and is of practical size for management, sampling and evaluation.

Activity areas include timber harvest units and fuels treatment units within the Tobias Ecological Restoration

Project. System roads and trails and other areas not dedicated to growing vegetation are not included as part of

the activity areas.

Analysis Indicators

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 is a major source 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 season, 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

Soil Hydrologic Function

The 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.

Filtering-Buffering Function

The soil acts as a filter and buffer to protect the quality of water, air, and other resources by immobilizing,

degrading or detoxifying chemical compounds or excess nutrients. The actual effectiveness of the soil filtering

8 | P a g e

and buffering function is dependent upon the particular physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil

types involved, properties of the chemical(s), and the climate or leaching environment.

Soil Issue Indicators

1) Support for Plant Growth Function

A) Soil Stability

B) Surface Organic Matter

C) Soil Organic Matter (SOM)

D) Soil Strength

E) Soil Moisture Regime

2) Soil Hydrologic Function

A) Soil Stability

B) Soil Structure & Macro-porosity

3) Filtering - Buffering Function

A) No indicators are provided; describe any recommendations to prevent undesirable effects to soil micro-

organisms, post-project erosion risk, leaching potential and risk of off-site movement of the chemicals.

In addition a visual assessment of the overall soil function provided from the assessment of various indicators

was completed.

Three ratings for overall soil function quality can be given:

a) Good: If all the indicators meet the desired condition and the soil function quality fully meets nation

objectives to maintain soil quality

b) Fair: If the desired condition for some of the soil indicators if far, but none are poor. The soil function

quality has been partially met and unless further impacted would be expected to improve from natural

recovery.

c) Poor: If one or more of the indicators are rated poor. Restoration activities should be considered with

future management activities.

See Table 1 for a complete description of the visual indicator condition assessment rating system.

9 | P a g e

Table 1: Visual Indicator Condition Assessment

Soil Function Indicator

Indicator Condition

Good

(Meets Desired

Condition)

Fair

(Partially Meets

Desired Condition)

Poor

(Does Not Meet

Desired Condition)

Support for Plant Growth

and Soil Hydrologic Functions

Soil Stability

An adequate level of soil cover is present and

signs of erosion are not visible or very limited in degree and extent. Any existing erosion control measures are effective.

Generally soil cover level is 50% or greater and is well distributed for soil

types capable of supporting this level.

For minor portions of the area, soil cover is

lacking and/or existing erosion control measures are ineffective and there are signs of erosion such as pedestals, sheet, rill, and/or gully erosion

visible.

Major portions of the area lack soil cover

and/or lack effective erosion control

measures. Signs of erosion such as

pedestals, sheet, rill, and/or gully erosion are

common.

Support for Plant Growth

Surface Organic Matter

Throughout the area, the size, amount and

distribution of organic matter present is within

the range of the ecological type and normal fire return

interval.

For minor portions of the area, the size, amount or distribution of organic matter does not meet the desired condition. The

departure can either be a deficiency or excess.

Major portions of the area do not meet the

desired condition. The departure can either be a

deficiency or excess.

Support for Plant Growth

Soil Organic Matter (SOM)

The thickness and color of the upper soil layer is within the normal range of characteristics for the

site and is distributed normally across the area.

Localized areas of displacement may have occurred but it will not affect the productivity for the desired plant

species.

For minor portions of the area, the upper soil layer has been displaced or removed to a depth

and area large enough to affect productivity for

the desired plant species. Generally an area will be considered displaced if more than one-half of

the upper soil layer or 4 inches (whichever is less)

is removed from a contiguous area larger

than 100 sq. ft.

Major portions of the area have had the upper soil layer displaced or

removed to a depth and area large enough to

affect productivity for the desired plant species.

Support for Plant Growth

Soil Strength

Over most of the area the soil strength level is conducive to a favorable rooting environment for the desired plant species.

For minor portions of the area, soil strength has increased in degree and depth such that it limits the growth of desired

plant species.

Over major portions of the area soil strength has increased in degree and depth such that it limits the growth of desired

plant species.

10 | P a g e

Soil Function Indicator

Indicator Condition

Good

(Meets Desired

Condition)

Fair

(Partially Meets

Desired Condition)

Poor

(Does Not Meet

Desired Condition)

Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Structure

and Macro-porosity

Visually soil structure and macro-porosity

(defined here as pores 1mm or larger) are

relatively unchanged from natural condition for nearly all the area.

Signs of erosion or overland flow are absent or very limited in degree and extent. Infiltration

and permeability capacity of the soil is sufficient for the local climate.

For minor portions of the area: soil structure and macro-porosity are

changed; or platy structure and/or increased density

evident; or overland flow and signs of erosion are visible. Infiltration and permeability capacity is insufficient in localized

portions of the area.

Major portions of the area have reduced

infiltration and permeability capacity

indicated by soil structure and macro-porosity changes; or

platy structure and/or increased density; or

signs of overland flow and erosion.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis is bound spatially by the extent of the Tobias Ecological Restoration boundary and temporally by

30-50 years following proposed treatments. See Figure 1 for map of spatial boundary for Tobias Ecological

Restoration project. Soil cumulative effects were analyzed within the treatment unit or the stand. In addition,

soil cumulative effects were assessed as part of the cumulative watershed effects at the HUC 7 watershed scale.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Soils

Soils in the proposed project area vary in their sensitivity to management from soil map unit to soil map unit.

Soils with higher clay contents in combination with increased soil moisture have the highest potential for

reduced soil porosity, soil compaction can occur down to 12 inches deep. Younger soils with less significant

soil profile depths, commonly containing a shallow A horizon, are susceptible to the removal of the overlying

thin A horizon. Soil disturbance is considered by any activity resulting in detrimental soil compaction or loss

of organic matter beyond the thresholds identified in the soil quality standards, soil disturbance can also be

termed as ground disturbing activities.

The geology beneath the soils consists primarily of granitic bedrock (Ross, 1986). The mineral composition of

the regolith is more or less ubiquitous throughout the study area and includes minerals such as quartz,

11 | P a g e

potassium-rich feldspars, plagioclase feldspars, and micas; however, the degree of weathering varies from

residuum to whole rock. This weathering of uplifted granitic bedrock and concomitant geomorphic processes

results in landscape evolution. These geomorphic processes, which primarily include mass wasting (debris

flows, soil creep, rock falls and rock slides) and fluvial (sheetwash, rill erosion and channel erosion and/or

deposition) result in the flux of unconsolidated material throughout the project area. Subsequently, time, slope,

aspect and weathering are the likely driving factors for soil formation variability within the study area.

Concerns for soils in the project area include:

1) There is a concern areas proposed for ground based harvest, specifically tractor skidding within stand

36, contain soils that are highly susceptible to a reduction of soil porosity caused by the compaction

from heavy equipment operating when soils are too moist or wet.

2) There is a concern that ground based harvest systems on slopes that are too steep or are on shallow

soils will displace surface soil horizons that could result in accelerated erosion and/or reduce soil

productivity. Steep ground, exceeding desired thresholds, proposed for treatments are found within

stands16, 21-25, 29-31, 33, 34, 36 and 38. Stands with proposed treatments on units that may contain

shallow soils include stands 8, 16, 17, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 36-38 and 40.

3) There is a concern prescribed fire and tractor piling will reduce soil cover and cause an increase in

accelerated erosion that could result in a loss of soil productivity.

4) There is a concern that mastication on steeper slopes, during increased levels of soil moisture could

lead to a reduction in soil porosity, increased depth of incision into the subsurface soil profile and have

increased amounts of accelerated erosion possibly occurring.

5) There is a concern that significant amounts of soil disturbance proximal to the cable yarding landings

could result in accelerated surface erosion, and long linear gouges beneath cables could result in

removal of soil cover and surface soil horizons which may induce accelerated erosion and/or reduce

soil productivity.

6) There is a concern that prescribed burning and burning of slash piles could lead to nominal damage

from soil heating, which could result in nitrogen loss, exposed mineral soil and the mortality of bacteria,

mychorrhizae, seeds and fine-roots (Busse, Hubbert and Moghadaddas, 2014).

7) There is a concern that the construction of new temporary roads will result in an increase in soil

displacement, compaction and soil productivity.

Within the project area thirteen individual soil series and/or families can be found; Chaix, Chawanakee,

Cieneba, Dome, Holland, Livermore, Monache variant, Nanny, Sirretta, Wind River, Woolstalf, Xerofluvents

and Xerorthents. These thirteen soil series and/or families combine with rock outcrop to form thirteen soil

map units. See Figure 1 Tobias Ecological Restoration Soils Map for location and extent of soil map units. Soil

families in the project area where proposed treatments will occur include; Cieneba, Chaix, Chawanakee, Dome,

12 | P a g e

Holland, Monache variant, Nanny, Sirretta, Wind River and Woolstalf. These soils will be described in more

detail. Soils where treatments are not proposed will not be described any further.

See Table 2 for a complete list of the soil series/families and their soil profile characteristics including taxonomy,

temperature regime (based on mean annual soil temperature, mean summer temperature, and the difference

between summer and winter temperatures, all at 50 cm depth), texture, depth, horizonation, hydrologic group

(ability of soil to accept and transmit water down through the profile; group ‘A’ having the highest rate of water

transmission and group ‘D’ having the slowest rate), and drainage class (rate at which water is removed from

the soil). See Table 3 for a list of soil map units, soil map unit names, unit acres within project area, Erosion

Hazard Risk (EHR), Maximum Erosion Hazard (MEH), soil sensitivity, soil compaction hazard, associated

stand numbers and proposed treatments within map units.

Table 2: Profile characteristics of the soils underlying the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project

13 | P a g e

Soil

Series/Family

Taxonomy Temperature

Regime

Texture Hyd.

Gr.

Drainage

Class

Chaix Dystric

Xerochrepts

Mesic A: 0-7 inches, sandy loam or

coarse sandy loam

B: 7-25 inches, sandy loam

B Well drained

or somewhat

excessively

drained

Chawanakee Typic

Dystroxerepts

Mesic A: 0-3 inches, coarse sandy

loam

B: 3-10 inches, sandy loam

B Somewhat

excessively

drained

Cieneba Typic

Xerorthents

Thermic A: 0-12 inches, sandy loam

or coarse sandy loam

C Somewhat

excessively

drained

Dome Dystric

Xerochrepts

Mesic A: 0-7 inches, sandy loam or

coarse sandy loam

B: 7-28 inches, sandy loam

B Well drained

Holland Ultic

Haploxeralfs

Mesic A: 0-5 inches, sandy loam

B: 5-9 inches sandy loam

Bt: 9-59 inches, sandy clay

loam

B Well drained

Livermore Typic

Haploxerolls

Thermic A1: 0-5 inches,

stony sandy loam

A2: 5-18 inches,

cobbly sandy loam

B: 18-25, very gravelly sandy

loam

C: 25-29 inches, very

gravelly sandy loam

C Well drained

14 | P a g e

Monache

Variant

Cumulic

Haplaqolls

Frigid A1: 0-16 inches, silt loam

A2: 16-25 inches, silt loam

A3: 25-37 inches, silt loam

and strata of silty clay loam

C: 37-43 inches, silty clay

loam

C Somewhat

poorly

drained

Nanny Typic

Humixerepts

Frigid A: 0-6 inches, sandy loam

B: 6-23 inches, sandy loam

and extremely gravelly fine

sandy loam

C: 23-69 inches, loamy fine

sand and very gravelly loamy

fine sand

B Well drained

Siretta Dystric

Xerorthents

Frigid A: 0-6 inches, coarse sandy

loam

B: 6-28 inches, gravelly

loamy sand

A Excessively

drained

Wind River

(Family)

Ultic

Haploxerolls

Mesic A: 0-12 inches, loam

B1: 12-22 inches, loam

B2: 22-32 inches, gravelly

loam

C: 32-42 inches, very

gravelly sandy loam

B Well drained

or

moderately

well drained

Woolstalf Pachic Ultic

Haploxerolls

Mesic A1: 0-15 inches, gravelly

fine sandy loam

A2: 15-36 inches, very

gravelly fine sandy loam

B: 36-58 inches, extremely

gravelly fine sandy loam

B Well drained

Xerofluvents Xerofluvents Varies Varies A Poorly

drained or

15 | P a g e

excessively

drained

Xerorthents Xerorthents Varies Varies D Well drained

or somewhat

excessively

drained

16 | P a g e

Map

Unit

Map Unit

Name

Acres EHR MEH Sensitivit

y

Compaction

Hazard

Stand Treatments

202 Cieneba-Rock

outcrop

complex, 50

to 75 percent

slopes

2427 Mod. High High Low 3,4,5,11

,18,39,4

0

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication

236 Livermore

family-Rock

outcrop

complex, 30

to 50 percent

slopes

11 Low Moderate Low Low 2,9 None

300 Xerofluvents-

Xerorthents-

Riverwash

association,

sloping

213 Low Low Low Low 3,5 None

302 Wind River

Family-

Monache

Variant,

drained, warm

association,

sloping

466 Low Moderate Low Moderate 8,15,17,

20,40

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication

420 Rock

outcrop-

Cieneba

complex, 50

to 75 percent

slopes

244 Mod. High High Low 5,6,35,3

7

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication

429 Rock

outcrop-

Cieneba-

Chawanakee

complex, 30

1028 Mod. High High Low 3,4,5,8,

9,11,17,

18,19,2

0,28,37,

38,39

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Tractor

Table 3: Soil map units, characteristics, associated stands and proposed treatments

17 | P a g e

to 75 percent

slopes

619 Chaix-Rock

outcrop-

Chawanakee

complex, 30

to 50 percent

slopes

2492 Mod. High High Low 2,4,8,9,

10,11,1

7,21,22,

23,24,2

5,26,27,

28,30,3

5,36,37,

38,40

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Understory

Rx Burn,

Skyline,

Tractor

620 Chaix-Rock

outcrop-

Chawanakee

complex, 50

to 75 percent

slopes

647 Mod. High High Low 6,13,16,

22,23,2

4,25,29,

30,31,3

3,35,36,

37,38,3

9

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Understory

Rx Burn,

Skyline,

Tractor

622 Dome-Chaix-

Rock outcrop

association,

steep

674 Low High Low Low 4,8,10,1

1,17,18,

19,20,2

1,22,23,

24,25,4

0

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Syline,

Tractor

625 Sirretta-Rock

outcrop-

Nanny family

complex, 30

to 50 percent

slopes

86 Mod. High Low Low 16,33,3

4

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Skyline,

Tractor

676 Woolstalf-

Rock outcrop

complex, 30

to 50 percent

slopes

590 Low High Moderate Moderate 2,4,9,11

,12,13,1

9,20,26,

27,30

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Understory

Rx Burn

690 Holland-

Dome-Chaix

association,

302 Low Moderate Low High 8,14,34,

36,40

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Tractor

18 | P a g e

The soils can be categorized as belonging to one of four soil orders; Entisols, Inceptisols, Alfisols or Mollisols.

Entisols are the youngest of the 12 soil orders and are commonly found with a single A horizon overlying a C

horizon. Due to its young age, not enough time has occurred to allow the formation of a mineral rich B horizon.

A less mature soil has few horizons within its profile, commonly only an A horizon, and as a result any

displacement of the A horizon can result in decreased soil productivity in these soils. Those soils within the

project area classified as Entisols include the Cieneba and Sirretta soil series and the Xerofluvent and Xerorthent

soil families.

Inceptisols however are slightly older and have had enough time to allow for the formation of a B horizon in

their subsurface profile. Greater number of soil horizons and an increased depth to bedrock make these soils

less sensitive than the less mature Entisols, with the exception of the Chaix and Chawanakee series. These

shallow to moderately shallow soils form on steep slopes amongst large abundances of rock outcrop. Soils

classified as Inceptisols within the project area include the Chaix, Chawanakee, Dome and Nanny soil series.

The soils within the project area belonging to the Alfisol and Mollisol orders are more developed than the

Inceptisols and the Entisols. Both of these soils have developed distinct sub surface horizons and an increased

depth to bedrock making them generally less sensitive. Soils classified as Mollisols within the project area

include the Livermore, Monache variant and Woolstalf soil series and the Wind River soil family. The only

Alfisol within the project area is the Holland soil series. This soil order is defined by increased illuviation and

eluviation resulting in a concentration of clay minerals within the B horizon. This subsurface accumulation of

silicate clays is referred to as an argillic horizon. The presence of an argillic soil horizon causes these soils to be

more susceptible to compaction when soil moisture contents are high and equipment operations have not been

halted.

Certain soils within the project area are sensitive to management; these soils can have one or a combination of

the following soil sensitivities; soils with a shallow A horizon, soils with a shallow depth to bedrock, soils with

a high compaction hazard rating, soils with a high erosion hazard risk and/or soils containing a large proportion

of rock outcrop. The only soil within the project area with a shallow A horizon is the Chawanakee soil series.

The Holland series is the only soil assigned a high compaction risk rating within the study area. Soil map units

with a high MEH include map units 202, 420, 429, 619, 620, 622, 625 and 676. Soil families and series included

in these map units are the Cieneba, Chaix, Chawanakee, Dome, Nanny, Sirretta and Woolstalf.

moderately

steep

725 Dome-Rock

outcrop-

Chaix

complex, 30

to 50 percent

slopes

1940 Low Moderate Moderate Low 8,9,12,1

3,14,15,

16,20,2

5,27,29,

30,31,3

2,33,34,

40

Hand

Thinning,

Mastication,

Understory

Rx Burn,

Skyline,

Tractor

19 | P a g e

Soil map units including soils with a high sensitivity to management in the project area include map units 202,

420, 429, 619 and 620. These soils are sensitive to management based on the thickness of the A horizon and/or

depth of soil to bedrock. The Cieneba soil series, which is located within map units 202, 420, and 429, includes

a shallow depth to bedrock. The Chawanakee, located within map units 429, 619 and 620, also exhibits a shallow

depth to bedrock, but also contains a shallow A horizon. The shallow depth of the Cieneba and Chawanakee

soil series, combined with the steep slopes the soils form on, results in a susceptible soil to erosion and

disturbance. The sensitivity rating is based upon the potential of ground disturbing activities to reduce the

undisturbed productivity of the soil and can have one of three ratings; low, moderate and high. A low sensitivity

has no potential for a loss of soil productivity under intensive use with appropriate project design measures and

standards and guidelines in place. A moderate sensitivity has a potential for a loss of soil productivity under

intensive use unless appropriate design measures and standards and guidelines are in place. A high sensitivity

rating, the rating most significant, has a potential loss of soil productivity under most soil disturbing activities

unless other enhanced design measures and standards and guidelines are in place. Soils with a high sensitivity

are not well suited for intensive ground disturbing activities.

Soil productivity is the capacity of a soil to produce a certain yield of plants within a specified system of

management. To better understand the soils’ inherent productivity see Table 4 for a list of estimated

undisturbed soil productivity ratings for each soil series and/or family. The productivity is based on a rating

from 1-16 (1-being least productive and 16-being most productive). The rating is an estimate based on the

taxonomic family and soil textural class (Schaetzl et al., 2012).

Soil Series/Family Productivity

Index

Chaix 7

Chawanakee 7

Cieneba 6

Dome 7

Holland 9

Livermore 13

Monache Variant 14

Nanny 7

Siretta 4

Table 4: Inherent soil productivity of undisturbed soils

20 | P a g e

Soil Series/Family Productivity

Index

Wind River

(Family)

12

Woolstalf 14

Xerofluvents 8

Xerorthents 6

Many land use activities including logging and thinning operations, OHV trail use and road construction have

the potential to cause erosion rates to exceed natural soil erosion or soil formation rates. Accelerated erosion

can lead to a reduction in soil production and can have adverse effects on water quality. If accelerated erosion

continues unimpeded through time, it is likely accelerated erosion will surpass soil formation rates. The Erosion

Hazard Rating is based on long-term average occurrence of 2-year, 6-hour storm events affecting soils with

little or no vegetative cover and can have one of four ratings; low, moderate, high and very high.

1) Low EHR

a. Accelerated erosion is not likely to occur

b. Adverse effects on soil productivity and to nearby water quality are not expected

c. Erosion control measures are usually not needed in these areas

2) Moderate EHR

a. Accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years

b. Adverse effects on soil productivity (especially to shallow and moderately deep soils) and

to nearby water quality may occur

c. Need for erosion control measures should be evaluated for these areas

3) High EHR

a. Accelerated erosion will occur in most years

b. Adverse effects on soil productivity (especially to shallow and moderately deep soils) and

to nearby water quality are likely to occur

c. Erosion control is necessary for these areas to prevent accelerated erosion

4) Very High EHR

a. Accelerated erosion will occur in most years

b. Adverse effects on soil productivity and to nearby water quality are very likely to occur

c. Erosion control is essential for these areas to prevent accelerated erosion

The EHR ratings of the soils in current condition can be characterized as either low or moderate. However,

when the soil cover factors are adjusted to appropriately model disturbed soils (0-10% ground cover and 11-

50% shrub and/or tree canopy), map units 202, 420, 429, 619, 620, 625 and 676 exhibit high EHR ratings.

These values can be seen in Table 3 as the Maximum Erosion Hazard (MEH).

21 | P a g e

Of the 17 soil transects completed in the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project area two of the soil transects

(T-7 and T-14) were evaluated as being entirely of natural condition (D0), fifteen soil transects (T-1, T-3, T-4,

T-5, T-6, T-T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-12, T-13, T-15, T-16, T-17 and T-18) showed faint signs of entry (D1),

nine soil transects (T-1, T-3, T-5, T-6, T-8, T-10, T-16, T-17 and T-18) showed obvious signs of entry (D2)

and four soil transects (T-3, T-8, T-10 and T-17) showed extensive signs of entry (D3). The disturbance ratings

can be attributed to several factors including old skid trails and landings, evidence of fire and OHV trails.

Individually and combined these factors have left visual indicators of past disturbance that has altered the soil

conditions. See Table 6 for the list of the completed soil transects and their corresponding percentage of soil

disturbance. Data for transect T-2 was unable to be collected due to accessibility issues. Points along the

randomly generated transect were surrounded by dense vegetation on moderate to steep slopes which created

unsafe conditions.

Additional site specific observations were taken for percent soil cover, presence of shallow soil (<12” to

bedrock), the presence of bedrock, large woody debris and slope (%). Average soil cover was found to be

86.3%, shallow soil was found at 43.5% of locations, rock outcrops were found at 12.9% of locations sampled,

average LWD was 32.6 pieces per acre and the average slope was found to be 34.8%. See Table 7 for the list of

completed soil transects and the corresponding site observation data.

Bulk density (Db) samples were collected and analyzed at four locations including T-3.2, T-3.4, T-12.10 and T-

17.6. The Db values were determined to be 1.16, 0.99, 0.81 and 0.83 g/cm3 respectively. See Table 5 for

complete data related to bulk density samples.

Sample Number and

Location

Percentage of

Soil Horizon Soil Series

Bulk Density

(Db) (g/cm3)

T-3.2 A=10,

B=90

Chaix 1.16

T-3.4 A=100 Dome/Chaix 0.99

T-12.10 A=100 Chaix 0.81

T-17.6 A=90

B=10

Chaix 0.83

Table 5: Tobias Ecological Restoration bulk density values of four samples

22 | P a g e

Transect ID Disturbance Class Per Transect (Percent Occurence)

Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Disturbance Rating

T-1 72.9% 24.3% 2.9% 0.0% 0

T-2

T-3 80.0% 14.3% 2.9% 2.9% 0

T-4 95.7% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-5 88.6% 7.1% 4.3% 0.0% 0

T-6 88.6% 10.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0

T-7 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-8 78.6% 18.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0

T-9 87.1% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-10 82.9% 4.3% 10.0% 2.9% 0

T-11 98.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-12 97.1% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-13 94.3% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-14 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-15 98.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0

T-16 87.1% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 0

T-17 90.0% 5.7% 2.9% 1.4% 0

T-18 92.9% 2.9% 4.3% 0.0% 0

Average 90.2% 7.1% 2.1% 0.5%

Max 100.0% 24.3% 10.0% 2.9%

Min 72.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Table 6: Summary of soil disturbance observed in the field per soil transect

23 | P a g e

Table 7: Summary of additional site observations per soil transect

24 | P a g e

Desired Condition

Thresholds and indicators have been identified to meet desired conditions for the soil resource. Use of

thresholds and indicators provides a consistent method to analyze, describe and report on soil condition

throughout the region.

Transect ID Transect Average

Soil Cover Shallow Soil Rock Outcrop LWD/Acre Slope

T-1 77.0% 10% 0% 37 40.9%

T-2

T-3 99.0% 10% 10% 36 24.7%

T-4 98.5% 20% 0% 24 35.2%

T-5 71.5% 0% 10% 8 29.3%

T-6 82.0% 30% 0% 53 31.0%

T-7 100.0% 100% 50% 65 44.8%

T-8 83.5% 30% 0% 28 31.7%

T-9 67.5% 90% 30% 100 22.0%

T-10 70.0% 30% 10% 5 29.2%

T-11 90.0% 100% 0% 22 39.0%

T-12 95.9% 70% 40% 18 48.7%

T-13 66.0% 10% 20% 8 43.1%

T-14 94.5% 60% 30% 29 28.0%

T-15 90.0% 70% 10% 38 48.0%

T-16 100.0% 60% 0% 30 21.3%

T-17 84.5% 30% 10% 38 33.7%

T-18 98.0% 20% 0% 15 41.6%

Average 86.3% 43.5% 12.9% 33 34.8%

Max 100.00% 100.00% 50.0% 100 48.7%

Min 66.00% 0.00% 0.0% 5 21.3%

25 | P a g e

The following desired soil conditions are applicable to the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project:

1) Support for Plant Growth Function

A) Soil Stability: An adequate level of soil cover is maintained to prevent accelerated erosion, and erosion

prevention measures are effectively implemented following soil disturbing activities. Effective soil

cover includes organic surface materials, living vegetation less than 3 feet tall (grasses, forbs and low

growing shrubs), surface rock fragments larger than ¾ inch, or where needed applied mulches.

Generally on slopes less than 35%, a minimum of 50% soil cover in a well distributed pattern is needed.

Greater amounts of soil cover are generally needed for steeper slopes and in riparian zones. Some soil

and ecological types may not be capable of producing 50 percent soil cover because of naturally low

productivity, such as areas with shallow soils, serpentinized parent material or low annual precipitation.

B) Surface Organic Matter: The amount of organic material on top of the mineral soil is maintained at

levels to sustain soil microorganisms and provide for nutrient cycling. The size, amount, and

distribution of organic matter maintained on the mineral soil on a long term basis is consistent with

the amounts that occur given the local ecological type, climate, and normal fire return interval for the

area. Organic materials may range in size from amorphous and fine organic matter that makes up the

O Horizon, needles and twigs, to coarser materials such as branches and logs. Generally the desired

condition is most related to finer sizes of organic matter which contain the highest concentration of

nutrients. It is important to note that an excess of organic matter on the mineral soil beyond the

desired condition can pose a risk of adverse soil effects from fire.

C) Soil Organic Matter (SOM): The amount of organic matter within the mineral soil, indicated by the

color and thickness of the upper soil horizon, is within the normal range of characteristics for the site,

and is distributed normally across the area. The upper soil horizon is not displaced or eroded to the

degree or extent that soil productivity is decreased for the desired vegetation.

D) Soil Strength: The soil strength level is conducive to a favorable rooting environment for the desired

plant species. Some level of increase in strength compared to a natural undisturbed condition may not

be undesirable. Consider the findings of the Long Term Soil Productivity study and other current

science in regard to compaction effects on fundamental soil productivity for tree growth and total

biomass production. A depth range of interest for the desired plant species should be used for

assessment (e.g. 4-8 inches depth).

E) Soil Moisture Regime: The inherent soil moisture regime is maintained, especially in wet meadows and

fens. If needed, propose projects that will restore the soil moisture regime. During land management

project analysis evaluate whether the proposed activities will result in changes to the soil moisture

regime, particularly in wet meadows and fens.

2) Soil Hydrologic Function

A) Soil Stability: See desired condition description under Support for Plant Growth Function in table 1.

B) Soil Structure & Macro-porosity: Most of the area has soil structure and macro-porosity (defined here

as pores 1mm or larger) that is similar to the undisturbed, natural condition for the soil type and

26 | P a g e

provides sufficient infiltration and permeability to accommodate precipitation inputs for the given

climate.

3) Filtering - Buffering Function

a) For projects that involve the application of chemicals, such as herbicides, pesticides, or other

supplements (e.g. biosolids), analyze the effects to soil micro-organisms, post-project erosion risk,

leaching potential and risk of off-site movement of the chemicals. When necessary, provide

recommendations to prevent undesirable effects.

Desired conditions #1 through #3 were taken from the FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management

Chapter 2550 – Soil Management

4. Soil loss should not exceed the average rate of soil formation. Maintain sufficient soil cover to prevent

accelerated soil from exceeding the rate of soil formation. Prescribe the kinds 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.

5. Soil porosity should be at least 90 percent of total porosity found under natural conditions.

6. Soil organic matter in the upper 12 inches of the soil is at least 85 percent of the total soil organic matter

found under natural conditions for the same or similar soils. Detrimental displacement is the loss of either

5 cm (2 inches) or one-half of the humus-enriched top soil (A-horizon), whichever is less, from a 1 meter

square area or larger.

7. Surface organic matter is present in the following forms and amounts.

a. Fine organic matter occurs over at least 50 percent of the area and is well distributed. Fine organic

matter includes plant litter, duff, and woody material less than 3 inches in diameter.

b. Large downed woody material should be well-distributed and at minimum 5 logs per acre

representing the range of decomposition classes. Desired logs are at least 20 inches in diameter

and 10 feet long.

Desired conditions #4 through # 6 were taken from 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment-

Appendix F- Regional Soil Quality Standards

Environmental Consequences

The project proposal could affect soil productivity in the Tobias Ecological Restoration Area by reducing 1)

soil cover, 2) soil porosity, 3) large woody debris (LWD) and 4) disturbance of surface soils.

1) One soil physical property that can be affected by the proposed action is porosity, the space between

individual soil particles. Soil hydrologic function is primarily dependent on the size and arrangement of soil

27 | P a g e

pores, or pore geometry. Soil pore geometry also controls the transmission of air through soils, which is critical

for plant growth. When porosity is decreased, the soil becomes denser, making it more difficult for roots to

penetrate. Maintenance of natural soil porosity is important for maintaining healthy native plant communities

and for maintaining the hydrologic function of the soil. Severe losses of porosity through soil compaction

decrease the water and air available to plant roots, creating droughty and/or anaerobic conditions as well as

inhibiting root growth. Soil hydrologic function is usually impaired as water storage capacity, infiltration and

permeability decrease, as a consequence increasing runoff and the subsequent potential for erosion and

cumulative watershed effects.

Soil compaction diminishes soil porosity, and decreases the transmission of water, nutrients and air to roots.

Severe compaction can inhibit root growth when the soil becomes too dense for roots to penetrate easily.

Finally, compaction decreases infiltration and hydraulic conductivity, the movement of water into and through

soils, which in turn increases surface runoff and erosion potential. Severely compacted soils could take at least

50 years to recover. Bulk density (ratio of soil mass to soil volume) and soil strength (penetration resistance)

are two widely accepted indirect means of measuring changes in porosity in the field. Qualitative indicators of

compaction include platy soil structure, loss of soil structure (e.g. puddling), impressions or ruts in the mineral

soil surface, and in some cases, redoximorphic features that indicate a recent change in soil aeration.

Redoximorphic features are soil properties associated with wetness that results from reduction and oxidation

of iron and manganese compounds after saturation and desaturation with water. Both quantitative and

qualitative indicators will be used to describe compaction.

Use of heavy equipment, especially rubber tired skidders, for logging and tractor piling could compact soils, in

the upper 12” of the soil profile. Soil compaction can have a detrimental effect on soil productivity on fine-

textured soils that are moist or at optimal soil moisture conditions for soil compaction. Soil compaction is not

a concern in coarse textured soils. In fact, soil compaction has been found to have an increase in soil

productivity by increasing the available water holding capacity of the soil (Powers, et al 2008). Soils have been

classified into sensitive and non-sensitive soils types for the purpose of identifying soils that are susceptible to

detrimental soil compaction. Soil porosity should be at least 90 percent of total porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand)

found under natural conditions. A ten percent reduction in total soil porosity corresponds to a threshold for soil bulk density that

indicates detrimental soil compaction.

2) Soil productivity is dependent on the amount of soil organic matter available to prevent significant short or

long-term nutrient cycle deficits, and to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Soil organic

matter should include fine organic matter and large woody debris.

a. Fine organic matter provides soil nutrients and protects the soil by providing soil cover. Soil cover

or the lack of soil cover can affect soil productivity by removal of surface soils from accelerated erosion.

Accelerated erosion is erosion that occurs at a rate over and beyond normal, natural or geological

erosion, primarily as a result of human activity. Soil loss should not exceed the rate of soil formation

(approximately the long-term average of 1 ton/acre/year). Sufficient soil cover should be maintained

to prevent accelerated soil erosion from exceeding the rate of soil formation. Ground cover will be at

least 50% on ground slopes less than 35% and on slopes greater than 35%, ground cover will be at

least 60% (Busse, Hubbert, Moghaddas, 2014). Replenishment of fine organic matter to preexisting

conditions could occur in less than 10 years as forests shed their needles and leaves and accumulate on

the forest floor.

28 | P a g e

b. Large organic matter or large woody debris, provides habitat for soil micro-organisms including

fungus, soil insects and soil bacteria. All of these organisms are critical for soil health and soil

productivity. The loss or reduction of large woody debris in a forest could last anywhere from 10 to

50 years, depending on the number of decadent trees or snags that are left in the stand after treatment.

At least 5 well distributed logs per acre, representing the range of decompositions classes, should be

left on the forest floor after the proposed action is completed.

3) Soil productivity can be reduced or impacted from displacement of surface soils. Surface soils include

valuable amounts of organic matter and nutrients that are critical for productive soils. Surface soils can be

disturbed by logging and mastication equipment operating in the forest, by tractors piling slash, cable yarded

logs creating linear gouges and by construction of roads and skid roads from excavation of the soil to construct

a road or skid trail prism. The surface area of new roads will result in a loss of soil productivity for that area.

4) Disturbance of surface soils by tractor and cable logging and mastication equipment could result in reduced

soil productivity. The Sequoia LRMP provides direction for avoiding tractor logging on sustained slopes that

exceed 35%. There are no slope limitations for mastication equipment in the LRMP. Mastication equipment

can operate on slopes greater than 35% slopes under normal, dry soil moisture conditions. During times of

increased soil moisture content mastication equipment operating on slopes greater than 35% will cause

additional soil disturbances, increasing the likelihood of soil compaction and the formation of ruts and track

incision. Cable yarded logging has the potential to create significant amounts of soil disturbance just below the

landings and blind-lead situations can generate large amounts of soil displacement where turns of logs create

long, linear gouges. Partially suspended logs should be monitored to reduce impact of gouging.

Alternative 1: No Action

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the

project area. No ecological restoration activities would be implemented to accomplish the purpose and need.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1, soil conditions will not change from the current existing condition barring the

implementation of approved OHV trail standards. Currently both percent soil cover and large woody debris

(LWD) meet the regional soil standard and guideline threshold values. As previously discussed two of the soil

transects (T-7 and T-14) were evaluated as being entirely of natural condition (D0), fifteen soil transects (T-1,

T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-12, T-13, T-15, T-16, T-17 and T-18) showed faint signs of entry

(D1), nine soil transects (T-1, T-3, T-5, T-6, T-8, T-10, T-16, T-17 and T-18) showed obvious signs of entry

(D2) and four soil transects (T-3, T-8, T-10 and T-17) showed extensive signs of entry (D3). The disturbance

ratings can be attributed to several factors including old skid trails and landings, evidence of fire and OHV

trails. Any signs of erosion appeared to be recent and related to motorbike trails. However, observing the

individual transects as a whole results in all 17 transects exhibiting a disturbance class equal to natural condition

(D0).

29 | P a g e

Road decommissioning would not occur on 11.29 miles of forest roads and 19.16 acres of forest soils would

not be in production as compared to Alternatives B and C. The proposed roads for decommissioning would

continue to be in the Forest Road system and should be evaluated on a periodic basis and possibly be maintained

to prevent soil resource damage. These roads include: 24815A, 24824A, 24825A, 24825B, 24834A, 24835C,

24837, 24837A, 24845, 24845A, 24846A, 24880A, 24880B, 24880C, 24883A, 24880 and 24883.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative soil effects have been addressed under the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) section under the

Hydrology Section but are also based on evaluation within the activity area at the stand level. The CWE

Assessment uses the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) Model, which quantifies disturbance based on the degree

of soil disturbance, as compared to an acre of road and measured relative to disturbance in a given watershed.

ERAs reflect changes to Soil Hydrologic Function, and are an indicator of rutting potential, erosion potential

and loss of water control. See Tobias Ecological Restoration Project CWE Analysis for a full description of

assessment and assumptions including lists of past, present and future foreseeable actions. The Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region (R5) methodology is used to determine the overall disturbance footprint. The

disturbance footprint is a semi-quantitative measure of acres of detrimental soil disturbance and hence an

approximation of change in Soil Quality as defined by the R5 Soil Desired Conditions. The Tobias Ecological

Restoration Project includes twelve subwatersheds; 9CK-South Fork Ant Canyon, 9CM-Unnamed, 9CO-

Stormy Canyon, 9DA-Dry Meadow Creek, 9DB- Tyler Meadow Creek, 9DC-Schultz Creek, 9DD- Deep Creek,

9DE- Girl Scout Camp, 9DJ- Baker Creek, 9DM- South Bull Run Creek and 9DN- Unnnamed. The following

list denotes which subwatersheds and soils within, (ERA) under the no action alternative, are likely to be

disturbed; 9DA (66), 9DB (75), 9DD (8), 9DJ (27), 9DL (18), 9DE (7), 9DC (5), 9DM (4), 9DN (0), 9CO (0),

9CK and 9CM (0). Of these values, none exceed the TOC, so no cumulative watershed effects are anticipated.

The ERA’s from existing disturbances do not exceed 3% of the watershed area in total soil disturbance.

Therefore, cumulative soil effects from past disturbances are not present based on the ERA Model. For details

on the Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis see the project hydrology report (Courter, 2015).

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Compliance with the Sequoia National Forest LRMP Management Standard and Guidelines is built into the

design measures of the project. With implementation of the project design features, this alternative is in full

compliance of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 –

Watershed and Air Management, and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

Alternative 2: Commercial and Non-Commercial Treatment Proposal

30 | P a g e

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

1. Maintain a 100 foot wide buffer of 90% soil cover below rock outcrops that have the potential to

generate runoff into management activity areas and cause erosion, especially in stands 6, 8, 10, 13,

15-17, 20-25, 27, 29-31, 33-38 and 40. (FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550

– Soil Management).

2. Conduct mechanical equipment operations (mechanical thinning and biomass removal equipment,

log skidders and tractor-piling operations) when the soil is sufficiently dry in the top 12 inches to

prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity (soil compaction) or soil disturbance. “Maintain 90% of

the soil porosity over 85% of an activity area (stand) found under natural conditions.” (FSM 2500

– Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil Management)

3. Subsoil and water bar skid roads and trails in areas where soil compaction exceeds 15% of a

treatment area. (FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil Management)

4. Limit mechanical operations, where sustained slopes exceed 35%, except where supported by on-

the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation.

5. Maintain 50% soil cover over all treatment areas on slopes less than 35% and 60% on slopes greater

than 35%. Where shrub species predominate, attempt crushing before piling to create small woody

fragments left scattered over the site for soil cover and erosion protection. This design measure is

a form of erosion control and adheres to Best Management Practices 1.13 and 1.14. Erosion-control

work required by the contract will be kept current. At certain times of the year this means daily, if

precipitation is likely, or at least weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend.

6. Maintain at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD). LWD should

be at least 12 inches in diameter and 10 feet long or in the largest size classes representing the range

of decomposition classes (1,2,3) as defined in the (SNFPA ROD S&G 10).

7. Limit tractor piling on slopes >25% and use a grapple piler.

8. Soil disturbance from cable yarding that is greater than or equal to 10 feet long and six inches deep

in top soil (as opposed to litter or duff) would be rehabilitated to replace soil and provide a minimum

of 60% ground cover.

31 | P a g e

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fuels Reduction Treatments

Commercial Treatments

Areas planned for commercial fuels reduction treatments include tractor (ground-based skidding), skyline (cable

yarding) and off-road skyline yarding. Temporary roads both new (3.73 miles) and reconstructed (1.51 miles)

will be created to facilitate the commercial treatments. Approximately forty-seven existing landings and seven

hot deck areas have been identified. The location and amount of landings used may differ depending on

operator needs. Each of these activities has varying potential to produce adverse effects on soil resources via

mechanical disturbance, soil compaction and reduced soil cover.

Road construction will consist of 3.73 miles of new temporary roads and 1.51 miles of reconstructed existing

temporary roads. The acreage of the proposed road construction was estimated based on the measured length

and an estimated width (14 ft. wide bed+2 ft. wide cut+10 ft. wide fill above and below road) of 26 feet.

Assuming an average width of 26 feet, the new road construction will disturb approximately 11.76 acres of

previously undisturbed soils within stands 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 31. Construction of these new roads will result

in soil displacement and compaction. Reconstruction will involve vegetation clearing and road blading of

approximately 1.51 miles or approximately 4.8 acres of soils within stands 4, 8, 9, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37

and 38. When applicable it is best to use old temporary roads and old skid trails to minimize the impacts to soil

resource. If soil compaction becomes evident among 15% of the treatment area then subsoiling of the

temporary roads, skid trails and/or landings will need to be completed. Of the soil transects only 10.5% of

points surveyed exhibited resistance to penetration and 3.5% showed soil structural indicators of compaction.

Therefore, the likelihood of soil compaction exceeding 15% of a treatment area is minute, but is most likely to

occur on Holland soils, specifically in stands 36 and 40 where temporary road reconstruction, skid trails and

landings are proposed.

Ground based harvest removal operations will occur on slopes less than 35% and on small areas (<10%)

between 35 and 50 percent slopes. Mechanical equipment operations should be conducted (mechanical

thinning and biomass removal equipment, log skidders and tractor-piling operations) when the soil is

sufficiently dry in the top 12 inches to prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity (soil compaction) or soil

disturbance. Maintain 90% of the soil porosity over 85% of an activity area. In areas planned for commercial

thinning, a minimum of 50% ground cover should be left on the ground to prevent accelerated erosion. Where

shrub species predominate, attempt crushing before piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over

the site for soil cover and erosion protection. If slopes are greater than 35%, soil cover should be at least 60%

(Busse, Hubbert and Moghaddas, 2014). Soil cover includes organic surface materials, living vegetation less

than 3 feet tall (grasses, forbs and low growing shrubs), surface rock fragments larger than 34⁄ inch or where

needed applied mulches. If ground cover (50% on slopes less than 35% and 60% on slopes greater than 35%)

is not provided on disturbed ground, when intense precipitation occurs, accelerated erosion is likely to occur

after October 15, leading to a decrease in both soil productivity and water quality. High precipitation events

could occur after October 15 when the Tobias area starts is winter operating season and possibly in the summer

when concentrated summer convection storms could occur. Coarse fragments of organic material must also

be retained and/or added to avoid a decrease in soil productivity; at least five well-distributed logs per acre as

32 | P a g e

large woody debris (LWD) should remain post treatment. LWD should be at least 12 inches in diameter and

10 feet long or in the largest size classes representing the range of decomposition classes. A 100 foot buffer of

90% soil cover will be provided around rock outcrop to prevent accelerated erosion of the adjacent soils from

rapid runoff from rock outcrops. The presence of rock outcrop was verified during field reconnaissance in

stands 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 34 and 36. For stands including proposed ground-based treatments an aerial photo

analysis was used to detect rock outcrop proximal to proposed ground-based treatments. The analysis revealed

that stands 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-17, 21-25, 27, 29-31, 33-38 and 40 all contain visible rock outcrop. During times

of increased soil moisture, increased amounts of soil disturbance will occur and an increased risk of soil

compaction in soils with high clay contents will possibly occur. The only unit proposed for treatment with high

clay content includes stand 36, which is proposed for tractor skidding on the Holland family soil. Soils must

retain soil moisture content below 14% during ground based harvest operations to minimize the potential of

detrimental soil disturbance and/or compaction. Although unlikely, areas where soil compaction exceeds 15%

of a treatment area, skid roads and trails must be subsoiled and water barred. A loss in soil productivity could

occur in areas where sensitive soils are located during most soil disturbing activities if design measures are not

followed.

Ground based treatments proposed on slopes greater than 35% have an increased risk of detrimental soil

disturbance. See Figure 3 for a slope map of Tobias Ecological Restoration project. See Figure 4 for a map of

proposed treatments that may result in increased erosion as a result of exceeding slope thresholds. Stands

including proposed treatments on slopes greater than 35% include 16, 21-25, 29-31, 33, 34, 36 and 38. If the

current proposed treatment plan is followed, all proposed ground based treatment areas, except for stand 24,

encompass areas less than the desired threshold of 10% area. Areas located on steep 25% - 35% slopes where

skidding may be adverse (uphill skidding) could result in increased amounts of ground disturbance. An

estimated 125 acres of soil with an average slope of 20% will be affected by adverse skidding. Stands with

potential adverse skidding include 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 38. Within the stands, adverse skidding

is most likely to occur in areas where skidding to destination roads or landings is uphill from the felling area-

the associated landing numbers include6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45.

Landings with average slopes greater than 20% include 8, 10, 17, 24, 36, 38, 40 and 45. Adverse skidding should

be avoided to minimize ground disturbance, but if necessary resulting detrimental soil effects should be

mitigated. Mitigation includes maintaining soil cover to meet the standard of 50% cover on slopes less than

35% and 60% on slopes greater than 35% as well as reshaping any slopes with ruts greater in depth than 6

inches.

Skyline cable yarding is proposed on approximately 355 acres. This treatment will occur on slopes greater than

35% and is intended for uphill yarding distances less than 1,000 feet. The landings will be located along existing

roads and proposed temporary roads at each skyline set, which will be spaced approximately 150 feet apart. Fan

sets on ridge points, where volume is concentrated, could require larger landing areas, up to 14⁄ acre, to

accommodate hot decking and/or swing skidding for material handling.

Off-road skyline yarding is proposed on approximately 42 acres within stands 21, 22, 31 and 33. The off-road

skyline treatment includes the operation of a yarding machine that would operate from skid trails. The cut trees

would be tractor swing skidded to the landings located adjacent to existing or proposed temporary roads. This

treatment includes the excavation of approximately 1610 feet (0.31 miles) of twelve foot wide off-road yarder

access trails. These trails would be excavated on 25 to 35 percent side slopes to accommodate yarder and skidder

travel.

33 | P a g e

Cable yarding systems generally result in much less site and soil disturbance than ground-based logging;

however, significant amounts of soil disturbance are still likely proximal to the cable yarding landings, hot decks

and/or fan sets on ridge tops which could result in accelerated surface erosion and compaction (Robichaud,

MacDonald and Foltz, 2010; Laffan et al., 2000; and Reeves et al., 2011). Furthermore, long linear gouges

beneath cables could result in removal of soil cover and surface soil horizons which may induce accelerated

erosion and/or reduce soil productivity. The high traffic areas, should only be used when soil moisture content

is below 14-16%. Any loss in surface cover should be maintained to meet the standard of 50% cover on slopes

less than 35% and 60% on slopes greater than 35%. Any linear gouges caused by dragging of cable yarded logs

greater than or equal to 10 feet long and six inches deep in top soil (as opposed to litter or duff) would be

rehabilitated to replace soil and provide a minimum of 50% ground cover.

Piling of slash and subsequent burning will result in short term losses in soil productivity of approximately 4.7

percent (2034 ft2) of every acre that is machine and hand piled and burning is implemented. This value is based

on 18, 12-foot diameter piles per acre. Therefore, based on all 1,839 proposed piling acres, a maximum estimate

of 86 acres of soil will be disturbed. This loss in productivity beneath the burn piles is likely to inhibit plant

growth for a 2 to 3 year minimum. To minimize effects to soil, burning of piles should occur when soil is moist

(at least 20 percent moisture by volume) and piles should contain a mixture of fuel sizes as this generally does

not produce excessive soil temperatures or changes in soil functioning (Busse, Hubbert, and Moghaddas, 2014).

This is not required as a design measure, but should be attempted during pile burning planning.

Non-Commercial Treatments

Areas planned for non-commercial fuels reduction treatments include 385 acres of understory prescribed

burning, 2,158 acres of masticating, 1,239 acres of hand thinning and 11.29 miles of road decommissioning.

Any prescribed burning should be maintained at a low to moderate burning severity to avoid complete forest

floor consumption and mineral soil damage. When possible, burn when soils are moist (>20 percent by volume)

to limit heat penetration. Prescribed fire at low burn intensities will maintain the required 50% soil cover to

minimize soil loss and fine root mortality (Busse, Hubbert, and Moghaddas, 2014).

Hand thinning will have zero to minimal adverse effect on the soil so long as the soil cover is maintained at the

minimum 50% for slopes less than 35% and 60% for slopes greater than 35%.

Masticator equipment reduces erosion potential by increasing soil cover and generally causes little soil

disturbance and compaction. Masticating equipment normally does not result in compacted soils because the

equipment has a lower ground pressure than conventional logging equipment. In addition the masticator creates

a bed of chips, which acts like a carpet the masticator travels over reducing the ground pressure on the soils

below. Mastication on steeper slopes (>35%) is proposed in stands 2, 4, 6, 8-22, 25-38, and 40 and could result

in the formation of soil troughs where the masticator is traveling straight up or down steep slopes. These

troughs could be sites of concentrated flow and could create rill and gully erosion if adequate erosion control

is not provided. These troughs should be reshaped or adequate erosion control should be provided to prevent

accelerated erosion. Additionally the number of turns the masticator takes needs to be minimized to reduce the

soil disturbance which occurs when tracked equipment rotates. Areas planned for mastication pose little risk of

reducing soil productivity if BMP’s are implemented.

34 | P a g e

Most mastication treatments will be on slopes less the 45%; however some areas with slopes in excess of 45%

will be treated. Additional soil disturbances will occur in these areas above 45%, most commonly deep tread

incision and increased occurrences of soil compaction. Short sections of steep slopes, where equipment travels

from vegetation patch to vegetation patch during mastication activity is acceptable, but longer sections of steep

slopes need to be minimized on slopes greater than 45%.

Road Decommissioning

Road decommissioning would occur on 11.29 miles of forest roads, the roads selected for the decommissioning

are forest roads 24815A, 24824A, 24825A, 24825B, 24834A, 24835C, 24837, 24837A, 24845, 24845A, 24846A,

24880A, 24880B, 24880C, 24883A, 24880 and 24883. Based on an average width of 14 feet, 19.16 acres of

forest soils will be brought back into production after the restoration is complete. Soil productivity will not be

restored to pre-road conditions because topsoil is not being restored. However, soil productivity will be

increased over existing condition. Once the restoration is completed proper BMPs will need to be implemented

to reduce the likelihood of accelerated erosion from occurring.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative soil effects have been addressed under the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) section under the Hydrology/Water Quality Section. See the discussion in the Action Alternative 1, Soil Cumulative Effects section for additional discussion on soil cumulative effects.

In addition to the CWE analysis, a review of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to take place within the project area concluded the actions are not anticipated to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to the soil resource. The soil’s support for plant growth function, soil hydrologic function and filtering-buffering function would be maintained and minimal soil disturbance will occur. This is due to implementation of project design features and implementing BMPs (Best Management Practices) for this and any forthcoming projects within the project area. However if project design features and BMPs are not followed, ensuing detrimental effects to the soil resource will occur.

Cumulative soil effects include detrimental soil disturbance within a spatial scale bound by the extent of the treatment area or the stand level and a temporal scale of 30 to 50 years. The data from research on the subject shows that soil compaction and organic matter (OM) removal are important drivers in many ecosystem processes, and the maintenance of adequate soil porosity and OM content is important for continued site productivity and ecological function (Jurgensen and others 1997; Powers and others 2004). Specific long term consequences, within the temporal scale of 30 to 50 years, of OM removal remain uncertain; however, within a 10 year duration significant and universal declines in soil carbon concentration above 20-cm and reduced nitrogen availability related to surface OM removal were found (Powers et al, 2005). Furthermore, research suggests that soil carbon concentrations within a 10 year span depend only slightly on the decomposition of surface OM but primarily depend on the decay of the fine root fraction of the soil (Powers et al.. 2005). Thus, prescribed burning and burning of slash piles must remain within the low to moderate burn severity thresholds to avoid detrimental losses in soil carbon.

35 | P a g e

The discussion of soil compaction over a 30 to 50 year time span involves several topics including: (1) effect of compaction on soil productivity, (2) effect of compaction on infiltration rates and (3) density recovery time. Results of research on the topic of soil productivity and compaction indicate that soil compaction treatments do indeed increase density, but soil productivity decreases in compacted clayey soils and increases in compacted sandy soils (Powers et al., 2005). The sandy texture of the soils within the treatment areas, with the exception of the Holland soil, will be nominally susceptible to compaction and resulting adverse cumulative effects of soil productivity. The Holland soil is the most susceptible of all soils in the proposed treatment areas to compaction and adverse productivity effects. The clayey subsurface horizon found at a depth of approximately 8-60 inches is susceptible to compaction; however, it is important to note that compaction rarely exceeds a 12-in depth (USDA FS, 1980). The primary cumulative effect of compaction on sandy soils within the project area will likely be a decrease in infiltration rates which often results in an increase in surface runoff and erosion rates. Considering compaction recovery rates of approximately fifty years for sandy soils, both productivity and infiltration rates should be considered (USDA FS, 1985).

Cumulative effects of soils related to road construction include removal of the surface horizons which results in detrimental effects that span beyond the 30 to 50 year temporal scale. The removal of surface horizons will affect both the soils ability to support plant growth and hydrologic function. The exact amount of time required for soil formation is a complex matter that requires an in-depth analysis not pertinent to this project. However, the relative age of soils can be estimated based on the thickness and number of horizons. Therefore, it is generally maintained that the greater the thickness and intensity of horizonation the more mature is the soil (Jenny, 1941). As stated previously, the project area includes soils ranging in maturity, but a majority of the proposed roads will be constructed on Entisols which are moderately young soils with moderately developed subsurface horizons. The removal of surface horizons from these soils, as a result of new temporary road construction, would result in detrimental and irreversible effects to approximately 11.76 acres of previously undisturbed soils that would extend beyond the 50 year time span, regardless of mitigation.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Compliance with the 1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP Management and 1990 MSA is built into the design

measures of the project. With implementation of the project design features, this alternative is in full compliance

of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 – Watershed and Air

Management, and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

Alternative 3: Non-commercial Treatment Proposal

36 | P a g e

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

1. Maintain a 100 foot wide buffer of 100% soil cover below rock outcrops that have the potential

to generate runoff into management activity areas and cause erosion, especially in stands 6, 8, 10,

13, 15-17, 20-25, 27, 29-31, 33-38 and 40. (FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management,

Chapter 2550 – Soil Management).

2. Maintain 50% soil cover over all treatment areas on slopes less than 35% and 60% on slopes

greater than 35%. Where shrub species predominate, attempt crushing before piling to create

small woody fragments left scattered over the site for soil cover and erosion protection.

3. Any areas with high burn severity need to be evaluated for soil damage and treated if appropriate.

This could include adding cover to the site with high burn severity. Areas with high burn severity

over 1 acre in size will be evaluated for ground cover requirements and ground cover will be

applied if it does not meet the standard.

4. Soil disturbance from mastication that is greater than or equal to 10 feet long and six inches deep

in top soil (as opposed to litter or duff) would be rehabilitated by hand to replace soil and provide

a minimum of 50% ground cover.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fuels Reduction Treatments

Non-Commercial Treatments

Areas proposed for understory prescribed burn is approximately 384 acres. Hand thinning is proposed on

approximately 1,636 acres and mastication is proposed for 2,878 acres. Any prescribed burning should be

maintained at a low to moderate burning severity to avoid complete forest floor consumption and mineral soil

damage. When possible, burn when soils are moist (>20 percent by volume) to limit heat penetration.

Prescribed fire at low burn intensities will maintain the required 50% soil cover to minimize soil loss and fine

root mortality (Busse, Hubbert, and Moghaddas, 2014). Prescribed fire on highly erosive soils may require

additional water control features to minimize accelerated erosion and the formation of ruts and gullies.

Hand thinning will have zero to minimal adverse effect on the soil so long as the soil cover is maintained at the

minimum 50% for slopes less than 35% and 60% for slopes greater than 35%.

Masticator equipment reduces erosion potential by increasing soil cover and generally causes little soil

disturbance and compaction. Masticating equipment normally does not result in compacted soils because the

equipment has a lower ground pressure than conventional logging equipment. In addition, the masticator

creates a bed of chips, which acts like a carpet the masticator travels over reducing the ground pressure on the

37 | P a g e

soils below. Mastication on steeper slopes (>35%) is proposed in stands 2, 4, 6, 8-22, 25-38, and 40 and could

result in the formation of soil troughs where the masticator is traveling straight up or down steep slopes. These

troughs could be sites of concentrated flow and could create rill and gully erosion if adequate erosion control

is not provided. These troughs should be reshaped or adequate erosion control should be provided to prevent

accelerated erosion. Additionally the number of turns the masticator takes needs to be minimized to reduce the

soil disturbance which occurs when tracked equipment rotates. Areas planned for mastication pose little risk of

reducing soil productivity if BMP’s are implemented.

Most mastication treatments will be on slopes less the 45%; however some areas with slopes in excess of 45%

will be treated. Additional soil disturbances will occur in these areas above 45%, most commonly deep tread

incision and increased occurrences of soil compaction. To avoid adverse soil disturbance, the soils would need

to have soil moisture content at or below 14% to minimize the potential of detrimental soil disturbance. Short

sections of steep slopes, where equipment travels from vegetation patch to vegetation patch during mastication

activity is acceptable, but longer sections of steep slopes need to be minimized on slopes greater than 45%.

Piling and subsequent burning will result in short term losses in soil productivity to approximately 5.8 percent

(2512 ft2) of every acre that pile burning is implemented. This value is based on 50, 8-foot diameter piles per

acre. Therefore, based on all 1,516 proposed piling acres, a maximum estimate of 87 acres of soil will be

disturbed. This loss in productivity beneath the burn piles is likely to inhibit plant growth for a 2 to 3 year

minimum. To minimize effects to soil, burning of piles should occur when soil is moist (at least 20 percent

moisture by volume) and piles should contain a mixture of fuel sizes as this generally does not produce excessive

soil temperatures or changes in soil functioning (Busse, Hubbert, and Moghaddas, 2014).

Road Decommissioning

Road decommissioning would occur on 11.29 miles of forest roads, the roads selected for the decommissioning

are forest roads 24815A, 24824A, 24825A, 24825B, 24834A, 24835C, 24837, 24837A, 24845, 24845A, 24846A,

24880A, 24880B, 24880C, 24883A, 24880 and 24883. Based on an average width of 14 feet, 19.16 acres of

forest soils will be brought back into production after the restoration is complete. Once the restoration is

completed proper BMPs will need to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of accelerated erosion from

occurring.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative soil effects have been addressed under the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) section under the

Hydrology/Water Quality Section. See the discussion in the Action Alternative 2, Soil Cumulative Effects

section for additional discussion on soil cumulative effects.

In addition to the CWE analysis, a review of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to take place within the project area concluded the actions are not anticipated to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to the soil resource. The soil’s support for plant growth function, soil hydrologic function and filtering-buffering function would be maintained and minimal soil disturbance will occur. This is due to implementation of project design features and implementing BMPs (Best Management Practices) for this and any forthcoming projects

38 | P a g e

within the project area. However if project design features and BMPs are not followed, ensuing detrimental effects to the soil resource will occur.

Numerous soil impacts can occur from hand thinning and burning treatments, but the impacts can be quite

variable, depending on both manageable factors and inherent site sensitivity factors, which together dictate the

severity and extent of compaction and burn severity. Manageable factors include equipment configuration and

use, decisions on fuel arrangement and moisture levels, light-up sequence, and resulting fire behavior, all timed

to take advantage of seasonal soil conditions to minimize impacts. Inherent site sensitivity depends on soil

texture and mineralogy, coarse fragment content and arrangement, and organic matter levels and rooting,

among other factors. No cumulative effects of compaction or burning related to hand thinning treatment are

expected if mitigation measures are followed.

Non-commercial thinning operations (without yarding) have small, short-lived impacts on runoff and sediment

production, even when operations extend over large areas. Low and moderate severity burns have much smaller

effects on runoff and sediment yields. If areas are burned at low severity, the potential for increasing peak flows

and erosion rates is relatively small. However, if prescribed fires are conducted under dry duff moisture

conditions and larger areas are burned at high severity, there is a much greater risk for significantly increasing

runoff and erosion rates.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Compliance with the Sequoia National Forest LRMP Management Standard and Guidelines is built into the

design measures of the project. With implementation of the project design features, this alternative is in full

compliance of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 –

Watershed and Air Management, and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

Summary of Effects

39 | P a g e

Table 8: Summary of effects table

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Soil Stability

An average of 86.3% soil

cover meets desired

conditions of 50% cover for

slopes less than 35% and

60% cover for slopes greater

than 35%. All of the soils

exhibit a low or moderate

EHR.

Soil cover must be retained at

50% for slopes less than 35%

and 60% for slopes greater

than 35%. Soil map units

429,619, 620, 622 and 625

exhibit high MEH. Design

features and mitigation

measures must be followed to

meet desired condition.

Soil cover must be retained at

50% for slopes less than 35%

and 60% for slopes greater

than 35%. Design features

and mitigation measures must

be followed to meet desired

condition.

Surface & Soil

Organic

Matter

An average of 32.6 pieces of

LWD/acre meets desired

condition of 5 LWD/acre. Six

locations (3.5 %) showed

possible signs of surface and

subsurface soil mixing.

Construction of new roads

will remove organic matter

and mix surface and

subsurface soil horizons of

approximately 11.76 acres of

soils. Decommissioning of

roads returns approximately

19.2 acres of soil to

production. Design features

and mitigation measures must

be followed to meet desired

condition.

Decommissioning of roads

returns approximately 19.2

acres of soil to production.

Design features and

mitigation measures must be

followed to meet desired

condition.

Soil Strength,

Structure, &

Macro-

Porosity

3.5% of locations showed

structural evidence of

compaction. Sandy texture of

most soils results in soils less

susceptible to compaction

and subsequent adverse

effects.

The Holland soil in stand 36

is most susceptible to

compaction. All other soils

(sandy textured) are not likely

to incur detrimental effects

from compaction. Design

features and mitigation

measures must be followed to

meet desired condition.

Holland soil in stand 36 is

most susceptible to

compaction. All other soils

(sandy textured) are not likely

to incur detrimental effects

from compaction. Design

features and mitigation

measures must be followed to

meet desired condition.

Filtering &

Buffering

Function

Not applicable since

chemical treatments are not

prescribed.

Not applicable since chemical

treatments are not prescribed.

Not applicable since chemical

treatments are not prescribed.

Soil Moisture

Regime

All soils retain inherent

moisture regime.

All soils retain inherent

moisture regime with

compliance of design features

and mitigation measures.

All soils retain inherent

moisture regime with

compliance of design features

and mitigation measures.

40 | P a g e

Monitoring Recommendations

Monitoring of soil conditions would be conducted on a selection of activity areas to determine if soil standards

and guidelines and soil management objectives are being met. Seventeen soil transects have been established in

the Tobias Ecological Restoration Project area to determine existing soil conditions. Three of these soil

transects should be repeated after treatment is implemented. An additional soil transect should be established

in treatment unit 36, which is a Holland soil unit. Soil data was not collected in treatment unit 36, because the

brush was so thick that the area was in accessible.

Monitoring would be accomplished in accordance with the National Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring

Protocol (USDA FS, 2009). Soil monitoring would be conducted along transects according to the protocol after

the proposed treatments. Soil monitoring should be designed to determine the extent of detrimental soil

compaction from mechanical treatments. Soil cover should be determined from both mechanical treatment and

prescribed fire. After implementation of the proposed action, pre-treatment soil transects should be re-

established in activity areas and post-treatment soil transects should be repeated along the same transects that

were established for the pre-treatment soil transect. Timing for conducting post-treatment soil transects is

important to determine soil cover after prescribed fire, especially soil cover condition going into the following

winter.

41 | P a g e

References

Busse, M.D.; Hubbert, K.R.; Moghaddas, E.E.Y. 2014. Fuel Reduction Practices and Their Effects on Soil

Quality. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, February. PSW-GTR-241.

Courter, Joshua, 2015. Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project Hydrology Report, Sequoia National

Forest Open-File Report, Western Divide Ranger District, Springville, CA. 71 pages.

Hanes, R.O.; Plocher, S.E.; Martynn, D.Z. 1981. Soil Survey of Sequoia National Forest Area, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Open File Report.

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation: A system of quantitative pedology. Dover Publications, Inc., New

York, New York.

Jurgensen, M.F.; Harvey, A.E.; Graham, D.S.; Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Tonn, J.R.; Larsen, M.J.; Jain,

T.B. 1997. Impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity, and health of

inland northwest forests. Forest Science. 43: 234-251.

Laffan, M.; Jordan, G.; Duhig, N. 2001. Impacts on soils from cable-logging steep slopes in northeastern

Tasmania, Australia, Forest Ecology and Management, V. 144, pg. 91-99.

Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Curran, M.P.; DeHart, S.M. 2010. Cumulative Effects of Fuel

Treatments on Soil Productivity, Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western

United States, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR-231.

Reeves, D.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Coleman, M. 2011. Detrimental Soil Disturbance Associated with Timber

Harvest Systems on National Forests in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. RMRS-RP-89.

Robichaud, P.R.; MacDonald, L.H.; Foltz, R.B. 2010. Fuel Management and Erosion, Cumulative

Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States, USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR-231.

Ross, D.C. 1986. Reconnaissance Geologic Map of Basement Rocks Along the White Wolf-Breckenridge-

Southern Kern Canyon Fault Zone, Southern Sierra Nevada, California, USGS, Bulletin 1651, Plate 1.

Schaetzl, R.J.; Krist, F.J. Jr.; Miller, B.A. 2012. A taxonomically based ordinal estimate of soil productivity

for landscape-scale analyses. Soil Science. 177: 288-299.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1980. Predicting soil compaction on forested

land. Final Project Report Under Cooperative Agreement Number 228, Equipment Development

Center. Missoula, MT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1985. Soil disturbance and compaction in

wildland management. Earth Resources Monograph 8, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest

Region, 155 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1988. Sequoia Nation Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sequoia National

Forest.

42 | P a g e

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1990. Sequoia National Forest Land

Management Plan Settlement Agreement, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sequoia

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. January.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2006. Detrimental compaction risk rating

guide, Region 5, Version 1. Vallejo, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009a. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring

Protocol, Volume I: Rapid Assessment. Gen. Tech. Report WO-82a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009b. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring

Protocol, Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection. Gen. Tech. Report WO-

82b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. FSM 2500 R5 Supplement- Watershed

and Air Management, Chapter 2550-Soil Management, Sierra National Forest Supervisors Office,

Clovis, CA.

43 | P a g e

Figure 1. Soil map units and stands within the Tobias Ecological Restoration

boundary.

44 | P a g e

Figure 2. Soil transects and soil map units of Tobias Ecological Restoration.

45 | P a g e

Figure 3. Slope map (slope percent) and stands of Tobias Ecological Restoration.

46 | P a g e

Figure 4. Proposed treatments where slope is likely to increase occurrence of soil

disturbance within Tobias Ecological Restoration.