Ringo Vegetation Management Project...

Ringo Vegetation Management Project EIS

Soil Resource Report

Prepared by:

Sarah Hash

Soil Scientist

for:

Crescent Ranger District

Deschutes National Forest

May 16, 2016

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.)

Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS

i

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3 Resource Indicators and Measures .......................................................................................... 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 4

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 6 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 6 Geology, Landforms and Topography..................................................................................... 6 General Distribution and Characteristics of Soils ................................................................... 7 Inherent Soil Productivity ...................................................................................................... 11 Sensitive Soils ....................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................. 14 Management Direction .......................................................................................................... 17

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 17 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 17 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................... 18 Effects Common to Alternatives B and C ............................................................................. 18 Alternative B – Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 35 Alternative C ......................................................................................................................... 38

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................. 41 Land and Resource Management Plan .................................................................................. 41 Region 6 Soil Quality Standards ........................................................................................... 42 Federal Law ........................................................................................................................... 43

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 43 Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans .......... 43 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 44

Summary of Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... 45 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. 47 References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 50

Tables

Table 1 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to the soil resource ................... 4 Table 2 - General Soil Groups and Their Relative Extents in the Ringo Project Area ................... 9 Table 3 - Sensitive Soil Types in the Ringo Project Area ............................................................. 12 Table 4 - Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ........................................ 14 Table 5 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Areas Common to Both Action Alternatives .... 28 Table 6 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects Common to Action

Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 33 Table 7 - Resource indicators and measures for Alternative B ..................................................... 36 Table 8 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects for Alternative B ............... 37 Table 9 - Resource indicators and measures for Alternative C ..................................................... 38 Table 10 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects For Alternative C ............ 39 Table 11 - Summary comparison of environmental effects to soil resources ................................ 46 Table 12 - Unit Treatments, DSC Estimates, and Subsoiling Estimates for Each Alternative ..... 61


ii

Figures

Figure 1 - General Soil Groups in the Ringo Project Area .............................................................. 8 Figure 2 - Sensitive Soil Types in the Ringo Project Area ............................................................ 13 Figure 3 - Guide to Detailed Soil Maps ......................................................................................... 51 Figure 4 - Ringo Soils Map 1 ........................................................................................................ 52 Figure 5 - Ringo Soils Map 2 ........................................................................................................ 53 Figure 6 - Ringo Soils Map 3 ........................................................................................................ 54 Figure 7 - Ringo Soils Map 4 ........................................................................................................ 55 Figure 8 - Ringo Soils Map 5 ........................................................................................................ 56 Figure 9 - Ringo Soils Map 6 ........................................................................................................ 57 Figure 10 - Ringo Soils Map 7 ...................................................................................................... 58 Figure 11 - Ringo Soils Map 8 ...................................................................................................... 59 Figure 12 - Ringo Soils Map 9 ...................................................................................................... 60


3

Introduction The long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems depends on the productivity and hydrologic functioning

of soils. Ground-disturbing management activities directly affect soil properties, which may adversely

change the natural capability of soils and their potential responses to use and management. A detrimental

soil condition often occurs where heavy equipment or logs displace surface organics or reduce soil

porosity through compaction. Detrimental disturbances reduce the soil’s ability to supply nutrients,

moisture and air that support soil microorganisms and vegetation growth. The biological productivity of

soils is tied to the amount of surface organic matter and coarse woody debris retained or removed from

affected sites. Since forest soils are a non-renewable resource as measured by human lifespans,

maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity must be an integral part of National Forest management.

Therefore, an evaluation of the potential effects on soil productivity is essential for integrated

management of forest resources.

Project Description

The Ringo project area encompasses approximately 38,000 acres on the Crescent Ranger District of the

Deschutes National Forest in Klamath and Deschutes Counties. The project area is located about five air

miles west of Crescent, Oregon and 35 miles southwest of Bend, Oregon in Township (T) 22S Range (R)

8E, T22S R9E, T23S R8E, T23S R9E, T24S R7E, T24S R8E, and T25S R7E. The project seeks to

protect and enhance quality habitat for key wildlife species (including the northern spotted owl, white-

headed woodpecker, and big game species), to allow for safe and effective wildfire response, to maintain

developed and dispersed recreational opportunities, and to contribute to local and regional economies by

providing timber, firewood, and other forest products. The Action Alternatives seek to accomplish these

goals through a variety of thinning, improvement cut, meadow enhancement, slash treatment, and

underburning activities.

This report summarizes the potential effects to short- and long-term soil productivity resulting from the

proposed and connected actions within the Ringo project area. Actions addressed in this report include

those associated with proposed tree thinning activities, slash treatments including machine piling,

mechanical fuels reduction including mowing and/or mastication, and prescribed burning. System road

usage and temporary road construction are also addressed. All of these activities are examined in this

report because they are potentially ground-disturbing management activities that may adversely affect soil

properties and capability. The effects analysis section assumes that the project design criteria, mitigations,

best management practices, and operating restrictions specified in Chapter 2 of this Environmental

Analysis are fully implemented. These measures are designed to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential

impacts and to ensure that the project would comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.

Issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, and analyze the environmental

effects of management activities. The soils resource is not directly tied to the purpose and need of the

project or key issues identified through the scoping process, and was not used to formulate any of the

alternatives for this project. However, some scoping comments did raise soil resource concerns,

particularly in the context of adequately protecting soils from road construction, ground-based logging,

and pile burning impacts. Plans and projects must include provisions for mitigating ground disturbances

where activities are expected to cause resource damage that exceeds Regional and LRMP standards and

guidelines.

Interpretations and descriptions contained in this specialist report rely heavily on local information

derived from the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen 1976) and digital spatial

data in the Forest’s corporate Geographic Information System (GIS). These sources were used along with

topographic maps, aerial photographs, silvicultural reports, field-based reconnaissance and sampling, and


4

agency directives to characterize local conditions and analyze the likely environmental consequences of

the Alternatives.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Maintenance of soil productivity is an important objective for management of National Forest lands.

Ground-disturbing management activities directly affect soil properties, which may adversely change the

natural capability of soils and their responses to use and management. Heavy equipment may displace,

compact, and/or rut the soil. The removal of trees and other vegetation can potentially cause adverse

changes in organic matter levels. Prescribed fire or pile burning may also affect the continuity of surface

organics and/or quantities of coarse woody debris and potentially result in severely burned soils. These

detrimental disturbances may reduce the soil’s ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air that support

soil microorganisms and vegetation growth.

Table 1 - Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to the soil resource

Resource Element Resource Indicator

Measure

(Quantify if possible)

Used to address:

P/N, or key issue?

Source

(LRMP S/G; law or policy, BMPs, etc.)?

Detrimental soil disturbance

The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments

Percentage of treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC

No

Forest Plan S&G SL-1 and SL-3

FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1

Coarse woody debris and surface organic matter

The amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter retained to provide ground cover, maintain soil climate, serve as microbial habitat, and a supply a long-term source of nutrients.

Professional judgment/qualitative assessment of sufficiency; percent effective groundcover or tons per acre retained

No

Forest Plan S&G SL-6

FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1

Methodology

Soil types within the planning area are mapped in the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory

(SRI) (Larsen 1976). A broad-scale initial GIS-based analysis was used to identify potentially-sensitive

soil types, to determine erosion risk ratings, inherent site productivity, and other potential limitations, and

to determine the likely extent of existing detrimental soil condition. Priority stands were chosen for field

evaluation and validation of soil mapping units, slopes, hydrologic characteristics, and other features.

Appropriate map changes were made to reflect field observations. For the Ringo project, soil mapping

changes consisted only of minor line adjustments due to the scale of original mapping. With updated and

validated soil mapping, pertinent management interpretations should be more accurate and therefore

provide high confidence when determining levels of risk. This report provides management

interpretations to reflect the existing and likely ground conditions at the time of activities considering best

management practices (BMPs), project design criteria (PDCs), mitigation measures, and operating

restrictions as outlined in Chapter 2.

The extent of detrimental soil impacts persisting from previous management activities was characterized

via transect sampling and general field observations. Stands were chosen for field study based on


5

proposed treatment type and past harvest history, and selection focused on stands where a mechanical

overstory treatment is proposed. Transect monitoring was accomplished using the Forest Soil

Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) (Page-Dumroese, Abbott, and Rice 2004), a statistically

robust rapid assessment method for evaluating the likely extent and severity of soil disturbance. Photos

and relevant field notes were also taken for the 23 units assessed, and are available along with unit data

sheets in the project record. Field data and observations were used, along with documented harvest

history and air photo/GIS data analysis, to make estimates of existing DSC for units that were not visited

due to time and resource constraints. The Existing Condition section provides more details on how

existing levels of DSC were determined.

Field reconnaissance was conducted during the summer and fall of 2015. Approximately 25 total field

days were spent investigating site-specific soil conditions and conducting disturbance monitoring.

Investigations were focused on potential treatment units and haul routes, and examined landforms, soil

types, and site conditions (physical properties, existing disturbance, hydrologic conditions, topography,

road conditions, streamcourses, wet areas, and restoration opportunities). Specific harvest and road

development concerns associated with the proposed action were examined, including:

seasonal high water tables

displacement and compaction hazard

near-surface rock content and depth to bedrock

surface organic (O horizon) and topsoil (A horizon) thicknesses

surface erosion and delivery potential

unique features such as rock outcrops, wet areas, wetlands, seeps and springs

proximity to riparian areas

potential effects to soil productivity and hydrologic conditions

Field notes regarding specific concerns and recommendations were taken. These observations, notes, and

maps are available in the Project Files.

In general, the field investigations confirmed most of the SRI mapping and characterization of landforms

and soils. The proposed actions for each unit (treatment type, road development, operating season) were

considered, and used to inform site-specific recommendations, design criteria, mitigations, and best

management practices that are included in this report.

Post-activity estimates of detrimental soil condition were generated by considering the likely extent of

detrimental impacts from past harvest history and the likely increase in the extent of impacts from the

proposed treatments (see the Resource Indicator or Measure 1: Detrimental Soil Disturbance –

Management-Related Disturbances section below for more information about assumptions for

disturbances resulting from different harvest prescriptions). FSDMP monitoring data was used to validate

those assumptions and collect more information about the persistence of soil impacts from historic

harvests. Where predicted extents of DSC exceed 20% after the proposed activities, required soil

restoration treatment acreages were calculated to meet Deschutes LRMP S&Gs and Regional Soil Quality

Standards.

Information Sources

This analysis draws heavily on notes and monitoring data collected during the 2015 field season

(available in project files) and professional knowledge of the project area. Discussions with

silvilculturists, soil scientists, wildlife biologists, and other forest resource specialists also supplemented

this work. Other formal data sources consulted include:

Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen, 1976)

Soils Specialist Report, Davis Fire Recovery EIS (Sussman, 2004)


6

Soils Specialist Report, Five Buttes EIS (Cope, 2007)

National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) digital aerial photos

Forest Service Corporate GIS layers – FACTS (Forest Activities Database), LiDAR Hillshade

and Digital Elevation Models (and derivatives thereof), Deschutes SRI, transportation/roads

layers, National Hydrologic Dataset flowlines, Fire History, and others

Other references (scientific literature), with citations provided in-line with report text

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Forest activities database (FACTS) data is likely incomplete for this project area. While 226 of the 363

proposed treatment units had full or partial overlap with spatial records from the FACTS database, many

units which showed signs of past harvest activity (e.g. skid trail/landing/roading patterns observed in the

field or on aerial photos or LiDAR hillshades, large stumps and young stand conditions) did not overlap

with FACTS records. Personal field observations, geospatial data analysis, and input from other

interdisciplinary team members was used along with available FACTS data to inform the likely harvest

history and develop DSC estimates.

Affected Environment

Climate

The climate of the area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Data logged at the

Crescent Lake Junction NOAA Cooperative Station (WRCC 2016), which is located just west of the

project area at about 4,800 feet of elevation, shows an average annual precipitation of 31 inches rain

equivalent, with much of that falling as snow from November to April (about 170 inches of average

annual snowfall). Elevation and landforms vary substantially within the project area; the prominent

buttes receive more rain and snowfall (the upper elevations of Davis Mountain receive as much as 50

inches of rain equivalent) while the lower-elevation flats receive less. Most weather systems are driven

by large moist air masses coming in from the Pacific Ocean that drop their moisture as they cross the

mountains. East of the Cascade crest, precipitation amounts decline rapidly. Summer thunderstorms are

infrequent but can produce large amounts of rain in a short time period, and these events offer the greatest

potential for surface soil erosion of disturbed areas. Snowmelt appears to primarily contribute to

subsurface recharge, as there are no perennial streams draining from any of the prominent peaks.

Geology, Landforms and Topography

The Ringo Project Area is located in the central Oregon Cascades, which is relatively young

physiographic province formed by volcanic eruptions that have occurred over the last 15 million years.

Prominent buttes in the planning area—Davis Mountain, Ringo Butte, Hamner Butte, and Odell Butte—

are stratovolcanoes. The volcanic rocks resulting from these older eruptions form the basement rocks of

the entire area, and higher portions of the landscape are still dominated by these volcanic rocks. Outcrops

are common on the prominent buttes. Lower-lying areas have been filled in by tens to hundreds of meters

of glacial outwash (mixed cobbles, gravels and sands) produced during glacial melt periods. The last

glacial maximum (Crescent and Odell Lakes, just west of the project area, are products of this glaciation)

occurred about 22,000 to 18,000 years ago, with substantial melt periods lasting for several thousand

years more. Then, around 7,700 years ago, the entire area was covered by as much as ten feet of volcanic

ash and pumice from the eruption of Mt. Mazama (present-day Crater Lake), which is located about 40 air

miles to the south. The blanket of Mazama material varies in thickness depending on landscape position

and aspect, with eroding areas having thinner mantles (some shoulder positions may lack a Mazama cap

entirely) and accumulating areas having much thicker deposits. Following the Mt. Mazama eruption, a


7

period of active volcanism emplaced the Black Rock lavas, some of the youngest basalt flows in the area

(believed to be less than 6,000 years old). These lavas are found just south of Hamner Butte and east of

Odell Butte (on both the north and south sides of Crescent Creek). Since they are younger than the Mt.

Mazama event, they lack any soil cover and are mostly barren of vegetation.

General Distribution and Characteristics of Soils

The Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Larsen, 1976) catalogs the descriptions

and distribution of different soils mapped in the project area. They can be grouped into general categories

based on parent materials and landform. In general, soils across the project area have developed in

relatively young volcanic materials, mostly coarse ash and pumice from the Mt. Mazama eruption.

Because soils are young, they have undergone little biogeochemical weathering and development. Buried

soils that underlie the ash and pumice are associated with glacial outwash, glacial till, andesitic and

basaltic lavas, and cindery colluvium. Crescent Creek flows through a deep, narrow canyon just north of

Odell Butte in the far southwest part of the project area. Where it leaves the canyon and can access a

broader floodplain, fine-textured organic-rich alluvial soils have developed on top of the Mazama ash

deposits. Another area of alluvial soils are found at the far south end of Wickiup Reservoir, in the

northern end of the project area. All of these alluvial soils may have high water tables for all or most of

the year. Table 2 summarizes general soil groups and their relative proportions in the project area, while

Figure 1 shows the mapped extent of the general soil groups in the project area. Figures 3 to12 in the

Appendix show maps of the general distribution of specific SRI mapping units in relation to treatment

units.


8

Figure 1 - General Soil Groups in the Ringo Project Area


9

Table 2 - General Soil Groups and Their Relative Extents in the Ringo Project Area

General Soil Group SRI Mapping Units Total Acres / % of

Project Area

Barren lava flows 1 1,610 acres / 4%

Wet meadows 5 278 acres / 1%

Barren cinder cones 9 30 acres / <<1%

Steep, narrow draws 10 73 acres / <1%

Lodgepole basins / frost pockets 15 100 acres / <1%

Volcanic ash and pumice over cinders,

slopes >25%

83, 9T 315 acres / 1%

Volcanic ash and pumice over glacial till

and outwash, slopes <30%

43, 96, 9F, 9M, PG 4,653 acres / 12%

Volcanic ash and pumice over mixed glacial

and volcanic materials, slopes <30%

PJ 979 acres / 3%

Volcanic ash and pumice over volcanics,

slopes <30%

85, 97, 98, 7E, PM 24,663 acres / 66%

Volcanic ash and pumice over volcanics,

slopes >30%

84, 8A, 9A, 9C, 9Z, HM, PN 4,672 acres / 13%

Total 37,373 acres / 100%

Coarse ash and pumice materials that comprise most surface soils (>97%) in the project area are primarily

air-born tephra that was ejected from Mt. Mazama (now Crater Lake) and deposited over a vast area in

the Pacific Northwest around 7,700 years ago. On average, depth of the ash and pumice varies from three

to ten feet, although shallower phases occur on steep slopes and where bedrock is at or near the surface.

Mazama-derived surface soils in the project area are non-cohesive (loose) gravelly coarse sands and

pumiceous loamy sands. Bulk density is comparatively low, so they are highly porous and easily worked

by fine roots. They are highly permeable, have high infiltration rates, and are generally well-drained.

While surface soils are fairly homogeneous across the project area, buried soils and subsurface deposits

vary substantially and can dramatically affect the function and capability of a given soil type. The

majority of the project units are underlain by volcanic materials (mostly basaltic/andesitic lavas and

tuffaceous rocks of varying ages, but may include some rhyolites and breccias) and the remaining units

are underlain by glacial materials (primarily outwash sands and gravels, but may include some areas of

compacted glacial till).

Soil moisture regimes in the project area are xeric (wet winters, but dry for most of the growing season,

found at lower elevations) aquic (periodically saturated with groundwater, found along Crescent Creek

and South of Wickiup Reservoir, or ustic (still moisture-limited, but receives more moisture during the


10

growing season than the xeric moisture regime, found at higher elevations on buttes). Soil temperature

regimes are cryic or frigid (staying cold at depth). Buried soils are quite variable, but tend to be coarser-

textured and gravelly or rocky. On volcanic landforms, the degree of development and character of the

buried soil varies. On older lava plains surfaces, well-developed finer-textured soils may have had

adequate time to form prior to Mazama burial. These finer-textured layers may hold plant-available water

long into the growing season after the overlying Mazama ash and pumice has dried out. On younger

volcanic surfaces, buried soils may be thin and cobbly or may not be present at all. On glacial outwash

plains, buried soils tend to be sandy, gravelly, or cobbly and may have stratified layers of various sizes.

Permeability is generally very rapid in this material, but if a strong textural contrast exists at the Mazama

ash-glacial outwash interface, drainage may be impeded. Glacial outwash is infertile (low water-holding

capacity and low nutrient status) so soils with glacial outwash in the rooting zone are often lower

productivity land types. Glacial till is uncommon within the project area, generally being found at higher

elevations where glacial ice accumulated to tremendous thicknesses and compacted the underlying

material. Where underlying glacial till is compacted, permeability in the buried soil may be markedly

slower than that of the topsoil. This may be beneficial, as water may be perched in the profile where tree

and plant roots can access it for longer into the growing season.

Depth of the A horizon (organic matter enriched topsoil) in the Mazama ash rarely exceeds three to four

inches in depth on this part of the forest, regardless of vegetation type, and is often only poorly-defined by

either texture or color. Because of the proximity to the source, the Mazama deposits are coarser textured

here than on other parts of the Forest. Organic matter enrichment and chemical weathering generally

occur at a very slow rate, particularly in a water-limited ecosystems. Despite their low volume

proportional to the overall soil profile, A horizons are critical for water-holding and nutrient storage and

release. Most of the fine root mass is found in the thin A horizon.

Depth of undisturbed organic (O) horizons (comprised of relatively undecomposed litter and partially

decomposed duff) is variable. On ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites there is typically about 2 inches

of litter over 2 to 3 inches of duff or humus (accumulations may be greater on high productivity mixed

conifer sites, or where fire has been excluded for decades on ponderosa pine sites). On lodgepole pine

sites organic horizon depths are less on average, with about 1 to 2 inches of litter over 1 to 2 inches of

humus (under tree drip lines, depths are often greater). While decomposition of organic layers is slower

on the colder lodgepole pine sites, they also tend to produce less litter. The short needles of lodgepole

pine and firs also pack together more closely and are compressed by snowpack. Litter layers are

important for surface soil protection (against wind and water erosion and mechanical impacts), moisture

storage and retention, moderation of temperature flux, nutrient cycling, and beneficial microorganism

habitat. Maintenance of surface organics is likely the most crucial soil-related objective for protecting

long-term soil productivity in the Ringo project area.

The ash mantled soil groups in the project area provide a number of important ecosystem services. They

serve as productive growing media, store and cycle nutrients, provide habitat for beneficial soil macro-

and microfauna (including important symbiotic fungal species), filter and store water, moderate

hydrologic pulses and heat fluxes, decompose and store organic matter, and support and regenerate forest

and understory cover. Sensitivity, resilience, and operational limitations vary across the project area.

Some areas are unsuited for timber production or have unique values and characteristics that warrant

exclusion of harvest activities. Variations are largely tied to landscape position/slope, elevation, soil

depth, climatic conditions, and parent material, and make some soil types more sensitive and less resilient

to disturbance. These areas are described in the Sensitive Soil Types section below.


11

Inherent Soil Productivity

The suitable lands database for the Deschutes National Forest LRMP identifies areas of land which are

considered to be suitable for timber production using criteria affecting reforestation potential (FSH

2409.13). This data was developed to designate a broad-scale timber base area for forest-wide planning

purposes. Project level planning requires that lands proposed for harvest have their suitability verified

based on the criteria outlined in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12). Lands that do not meet

these criteria are considered unsuitable or partially suitable for timber harvest due to regeneration

difficulties or the potential for irreversible damage to resource values from management activities. All

proposed treatment units within the Ringo project area are considered suitable. Furthermore, inherent soil

productivity can be measured as the Cubic Foot Site Class (Mean Annual Increment in cubic feet/year) for

primary tree species growing on undisturbed or minimally disturbed sites. While this is a timber-centric

measure, these volume indices provide valuable baseline information regarding soil productivity potential

for each soil type in the Deschutes Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen, 1976). On the Deschutes National

Forest, site classes range from Very Low (Site Class 7) to High (Site Class 4). Soil types having Site

Class 7 are considered unsuited for forest production because the mean annual increment is generally less

than 20 cubic feet per year. Most soil types in the Ringo project area have high or moderate productivity

ratings.

Sensitive Soils

Certain soil types in the planning area are considered sensitive soil types. Sensitivity is a measure of both

a soil’s resistance, or degree of response to disturbance, and its resilience, or ability to recover after

disturbance. On sensitive soil types, the magnitude of impairment resulting from treatment impacts may

be greater and expected recovery rates may be slower than on non-sensitive soils. If it is expected that

healthy soil function may be diminished after disturbance, protection or restoration actions may be

warranted when planning landscape treatments. The Deschutes National Forest LRMP (1990) provides

guidance on soil types that must be considered sensitive in the planning process (Appendix 14, Objective

5, p. Appendix 14-2). Criteria for sensitive soils include: slopes over 30%, frost pockets, seasonal or

year-long high water tables, fine sandy loam or finer surface textures that will compact, extremely rocky

soils, and/or high or extreme erosion hazard ratings. SRI mapping units in the Ringo project area that are

considered sensitive, along with concerns and opportunities for these soil types, are displayed in Table 3

and Figure 2 below. Deschutes LRMP guidance requires that the use of mechanical equipment be

regulated in sensitive soil areas to protect the soil resource (LRMP S&G SL-5). Specific design criteria

were developed for operations on sensitive soil types where they occur in activity units (see Project

Design Features section below). Proposed treatments on sensitive soils are discussed under the Direct

and Indirect Effects sections for the Action Alternatives.


12

Table 3 - Sensitive Soil Types in the Ringo Project Area

SRI Unit Description Concern Treatment

Unit(s) Where Present

Total Acres in Project Area (% of Project Area)

1 Barren lava flows No soil cover present None 1,610 (4%)

5 Wet meadows High water tables; unsuited for timber production

None 531 (1%)

9 Barren cinder cones High displacement and erosion hazard; unsuited for timber production

None 30 (<<1%)

10 Narrow draws and drainage dissections with steep side slopes

Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard

None 73 (<1%)

15 Lodgepole basins High frost hazard limits regeneration success

120, 121, 130, 131

100 (<1%)

43 Nearly level glacial outwash plains, commonly near drainages

High water tables, spring surface flooding ; high puddling/rutting hazard

33, 247, 248, 249,250, 251, 252, 253, 254

200 (<1%)

83 High elevation cinder cones

Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard; low to unproductive landtype for timber

156, 158 281 (<1%)

84 Low-productivity steep sideslopes on volcanoes

Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard, low to unproductive landtype for timber

352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358,

359, 360 823 (2%)

8A Low-productivity steep sideslopes on volcanoes


None 42 (<<1%)

9T Steep, smooth slopes of cinder cones

Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard

242 33 (<<1%)

HM (complex of SRIs 84 and 85)*

Low-productivity steep sideslopes on volcanoes


None 119 (<1%)

Slopes over 30% not

falling within another

sensitive SRI Unit

Miscellaneous areas where slope exceeds 30 percent

High displacement and erosion hazard

6, 8, 127-129, 132, 210, 212, 213, 215, 217, 222, 223, 269, 273-284, 289, 291, 292, 297, 298, 302, 304, 306, 308, 309, 311, 313-315, 325, 326, 328- 339, 345-360

1,785 (5%)

TOTAL 5,627 (15%)

*Complex mapping unit, only one component is a potentially-sensitive soil type


13

Figure 2 - Sensitive Soil Types in the Ringo Project Area


14

Existing Condition

Soil quality is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem

boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and

support human health and habitation (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Many soil

properties that drive soil quality are dynamic—they can change in space and time depending on how a

soil is managed. Management choices can affect soil organic matter quantity, continuity and rate of

decomposition, soil structure, soil depth, infiltration rates, and water and nutrient holding capacity. Soils

respond differently to management depending on both the static and dynamic properties of the soil and

the landscape setting. Ground-disturbing management activities (i.e., timber harvest, road-building,

recreational use and livestock grazing) have caused some adverse changes to soil quality in previously

managed areas, especially where mechanical disturbances removed vegetative cover, displaced organic

surface layers, or detrimentally compacted the soil. The following measures were used to evaluate the

existing condition of the soil for each individual activity area planned for treatment

Table 4 - Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Existing Condition

(Alternative A)



Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC

207 of 363 project units (5,282 acres) currently meet LRMP S&Gs for

acceptable soil productivity (less than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition). 156 of the 363 project units (3,770 acres) currently exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a

detrimental soil condition). See Table 12 in the Appendix for individual unit

estimates.



Professional judgment/qualitative assessment of sufficiency; percent effective groundcover or tons per acre retained

Monitoring data and best professional judgment suggest that all of the

proposed activity units currently meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse woody debris for the ecosystem services described herein.

Resource Indicator or Measure 1: Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Natural Events

There are no known natural or management-related landslides within the planning area. The high

permeability of ash- and pumice-derived soil types in the project area precludes the build-up of hydraulic

pressures needed to trigger landslides. Localized areas of ravel or sloughing are found on steep slopes

(generally greater than 50%) and are most likely to be found in steep canyons (SRI 10) or around high

elevation rock outcroppings. They are of limited in extent in the project area and generally do not occur

within treatment units.


15

The 2003 Davis Fire burned a total of 21,000 acres on the Deschutes National Forest, with about 8,400

acres falling within the Ringo project area (mostly on the east-facing slopes of Davis Mountain and

Hamner Butte). This area was largely burned during a wind-driven high-intensity fire period that resulted

in high tree mortality and extensive litter, duff and crown needle consumption (Sussman, 2004). Some

portions, adjacent to the 6230, 6224, and 6220 roads, were impacted during burnout operations that

primarily underburned through stands, removing some smaller-diameter fir and ponderosa pine due to

bole and crown scorch. Fire severity, which is a more accurate representation of potential effects to soils,

is generally interpolated from fire intensity based on observed ground conditions. Though complete

consumption of litter and duff was noted through much of the fire area, high soil infiltration rates and low

consumption of large woody debris suggested only low and moderate soil burn severity ratings (moderate

ratings tended to occur on slopes exceeding 25% where fire intensity was moderate or high). Only

incidental amounts of detrimentally-burned soils resulted from the Davis Fire, as documented by post-fire

observations of soil color change and depth of char within all fire intensity/severity classes (Sussman,

2004). Construction of machine and hand containment line contributed a minor amount of DSC, but

these impacts were mitigated by pulling back displaced soil and surface organics. Because fine surface

cover was temporarily reduced or eliminated, post-fire erosion rates were likely elevated for some time;

though the presence of large (1,000-hour) fuels provided surface roughness to prevent substantial

overland flow or rill and gully formation. Erosion rates generally decrease rapidly to near-baseline levels

within two to four years of wildfire (Robichaud and Brown, 1999). The vast majority of the fire area is

now stabilized (due to vegetation regeneration, litter fall, and woody debris recruitment), though erosion-

induced losses may have contributed somewhat to overall levels of DSC. Recovery of surface organics,

large quantities of deadfall, snag danger, and dense brush regeneration all made DSC assessments within

the Davis Fire difficult to impossible. Soil condition analysis for units within the Davis Fire drew heavily

from the Soils Specialist Report for the Davis Fire Recovery EIS (Sussman, 2004) and from FACTS data

for salvage operations and other activities that have occurred since that time.

Management-Related Disturbances

The degree, extent, distribution and duration of soil disturbance can vary with size and type of equipment

used for forest vegetation management, the volume and type of material being removed, frequency of

entries, soil type, and the soil conditions present when the activity takes place (Froehlich, 1976; Adams

and Froehlich, 1981; Gent et al., 1984; Snider and Miller, 1985; Clayton et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1986;

Page-Dumroese, 1993). Much of the area was clearcut beginning in the 1930s, while more recent

management has focused on forest health and hazardous fuels reduction. Soil Monitoring on local

landtypes and similar soils have shown that for modern-day thinning operations, typically around 20% of

an activity area can be detrimentally disturbed by ground-based harvest systems (Deschutes Soil

Monitoring Reports, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2010). Disturbance levels for historic harvests may

be much higher (Froehlich, 1979; Laing and Howes, 1983; Zaborske, 1989), having detrimentally

impacted up to 40% of the unit area. Prior to the 1980s, soil quality standards, best management practices

(BMPs), and mitigation measures either didn’t exist or were less robust for limiting and containing

detrimental soil impacts than they are today. The degree of ground disturbance was most often greater

than what is acceptable by modern standards. The majority of historic harvests were partial removal and

regeneration prescriptions that caused more soil disturbance than modern thinning prescriptions both

because the volume removed was greater and because equipment usage was more intensive throughout

the harvest area. Forest-wide monitoring data has shown that historic intermediate harvest prescriptions

(e.g. selection cut, partial overstory removal) generally resulted in 20-25% detrimental soil conditions.

Regeneration harvest prescriptions (e.g. shelterwood, overstory removal) cause slightly more detrimental

soil conditions (25-30%), while thinning prescriptions result in less (15-20%). Because not all

previously-impacted trails and landings can be reused (due to emerging resource concerns or because of

stand changes), successive thinning entries are expected to result in an increase in detrimental soil

conditions of 5-10%. Natural recovery from historic impacts has occurred to varying degrees depending


16

on the inherent productivity and resilience of the sites, but residual impacts remain and are detectable in

all of the previously harvested stands. Forest-wide monitoring has shown detrimental soil conditions

most commonly associated with timber harvest and plantation establishment include heavy compaction,

displacement of topsoil, excessive removal of organic materials, mixing of soil horizons, and a minor

degree of severely burned soils (for definitions see Forest Service Handbook, section 2520.8-1, 1998).

Heavy compaction and displacement were nearly always observed where there were old roads, landings,

primary skid trails, recreational trails, or where repeated passes of heavy equipment had occurred.

Severely scorched soils were occasionally observed on landings where slash was burned. In addition to

timber harvest, fuels treatment projects, including brush mowing and prescribed burns, have been

implemented over the past two decades to reduce fuel loadings and encourage a fire-resistant forest

structure.

Overlap of proposed treatment units with previously disturbed areas (data acquired from the FACTS

database), aerial photo and LiDAR analysis, and field monitoring data were used to determine existing

disturbance classes for the project area. These are displayed in Table 12 of the Appendix. 156 of the 363

project units (3,769 acres of 9,052 potential treatment acres) are currently predicted to exceed the 20%

threshold set forth in the Regional Soil Quality Standards.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2 – Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

The amount and distribution of downed coarse woody debris (CWD) has been affected by past forest

management activities and by insect and disease cycles. Lower-elevation ponderosa pine stands

historically had very little CWD and litter accumulation, likely because of repeated, low-intensity fires

that burned much of the forest floor, consumed down wood, and killed small trees. Lodgepole pine stands

experienced longer fire return intervals and likely built up greater amounts of CWD between major fires

as a result of cyclical pathogen and insect attacks, though most of it was likely consumed during large

fires. Mixed conifer stands also experienced longer fire return intervals. CWD, even in limited amounts,

plays many important roles. It is crucial for retaining moisture and moderating soil temperature. It serves

as a long-term reservoir for nutrients. It provides surface roughness and complexity that disrupts surface

flow and minimizes erosion. It creates microsites that support vegetative diversity. It also provides

habitat for a diverse array of fungi and macro-/micro-invertebrates that improve soil structure and quality,

cycle organic carbon, and facilitate nutrient cycling. However, existing CWD amounts are often much

higher than what is optimal from a fuels treatment and fire protection standpoint. It is crucial to evaluate

the ecosystem services afforded by ample CWD against the need to decrease fuels to acceptable levels,

particularly in the wildland urban interface, where public health and safety are driving concerns.

Quantities of CWD are currently sufficient throughout the project area, and in some areas (particularly

lodgepole pine stands) are quite high due to stand disturbance (insect and disease mortality, wind events,

etc). Research studies that used mycorrhizal fungi as a bio-indicator of productive forest soils

recommend retaining a minimum of 5-10 tons/acre of CWD (greater than three inches in diameter) on dry

ponderosa pine sites and 10-15 tons/acre on mixed conifer and lodgepole pine sites (Graham et al. 1994,

Brown et al. 2003). While there is not a soils-specific S&G for CWD, the Deschutes LRMP S&G SL-6

(Effective Ground Cover and Surface Soil Erosion Standard), which can be met through CWD and finer

surface organics, is easily met throughout the majority of the project area. Wildlife resource Standards

and Guides that speak to CWD recruitment and maintenance are considered sufficient for soils

productivity concerns (requiring 15-20 pieces per acre of 8-inch diameter/8-foot length for lodgepole pine

areas and 3-6 pieces per acre of 12-inch diameter/6-foot length for ponderosa pine areas).

Conserving surface litter (e.g. organic materials such as leaves, twigs and branches less than three inches

in diameter) is also crucial for protecting mineral soil from erosion, buffering against mechanical impacts,

supplying nutrients to growing vegetation, and supporting native populations of soil microorganisms.


17

Current levels of coarse woody debris and surface litter were not cataloged for site-specific locations

throughout the planning area. Data collected using the FSDMP monitoring protocol for soil condition do

show the relative proportion of bare soil areas and whether fine or coarse woody debris were on the

surface at each monitoring point. It is believed, based on this data and on professional observations and

judgment, that adequate amounts of surface litter currently exist to provide erosion protection and provide

nutrients and habitat for vegetation and microorganisms.

Management Direction

Desired Condition

The Deschutes LRMP specifies that the primary goal for managing the soil resource is the maintenance or

enhancement of long-term site productivity. This is primarily achieved by leaving a minimum of 80

percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity potential following land management

activities (Forest Plan page 4-70, SL-1 and SL-3. The Region 6 Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2500, R-6

supplement 2500-98-1) define detrimental soil conditions that can reduce long-term site productivity.

S&G SL-4 directs the use of rehabilitation measures when the cumulative impacts of management

activities are expected to result in detrimental soil conditions on more than 20 percent of an activity area.

Desired future conditions for the soil resource include limited detrimental soil impacts across the

landscape in order to maintain normal site functions associated with soil, plant and water interactions, and

the maintenance of biomass on the soil surface after management activities to provide nutrient input, soil

climate moderation, and biotic habitat for the system. Desired conditions also entail the promotion of

vegetative and organic litter cover on the soil surface to reduce erosion losses from overland flow events

that might impair the productivity of the soil resource. Adequate supplies of coarse woody debris are

retained without compromising fuel management objectives and risking soil damage from large-scale

stand-replacement wildfire.

A more detailed summary of Deschutes LRMP guidance, Regional Soil Quality Standards, and applicable

Federal Laws is provided in the Regulatory Framework section later in this document.

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

The magnitude and duration of potential effects, both physical and biological changes in soil productivity,

depend on the intensity of site disturbance, the time and location of activities, and the inherent properties

of the volcanic ash-influenced soils within the activity areas. Direct effects occur at the same time and

place as the soil-disturbing actions. Soil displacement and compaction from equipment operations are

examples of direct effects. Indirect effects occur some time after or some distance away from the initial

disturbance. Surface erosion resulting from increased runoff on compacted areas is an example of an

indirect effect. Cumulative effects include the sum of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable soil-

disturbing actions within the activity areas proposed with this project.

The potential for detrimental changes to soil physical properties was quantitatively analyzed by the extent

(surface area) of temporary roads, log landings, and designated skid trail systems that would likely be

used to facilitate stand treatments within the proposed activity areas. Professional judgment was used to

evaluate changes in the amount and composition of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter. This

analysis also considered the effectiveness and probable success of implementing the soil mitigation and

resource protection measures which are designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially adverse

impacts to soil productivity.


18

Alternative A – No Action

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the management activities proposed in this document would not take

place. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would not increase above existing levels because no

additional land would be removed from production to build temporary roads and logging facilities. Soil

quality would not be diminished further, but would remain compromised where roads, trails, and

unrehabilitated landings and skidding routes exist. The existing amount of detrimentally disturbed soil

associated with system roads, nonsystem roads, and existing logging facilities is included in Table 12 in

the Appendix. 156 of the 363 potential activity units (3,769 acres of 9,052 potential treatment acres) are

currently believed to have detrimental soil conditions in excess of 20%. Although disturbed soils would

continue to slowly recover naturally from the effects of past management, the current levels of

detrimental soil conditions would likely remain unchanged for an extended period of time. This

alternative would defer opportunities for soil restoration treatments that reduce existing impacts and help

move conditions toward a net improvement in soil quality.

There would be no new temporary roads created, and no closed roads temporarily re-opened.

Opportunities for restoration treatment on nonsystem spurs to be used as temporary roads would be

foregone, and many of these routes would remain in use. Road maintenance and repair would continue at

the current level and improvements to primary haul routes or problem sites would only be pursued on a

site-by-site basis as needed. Opportunities for soil restoration on existing logging facilities within those

156 units that currently exceed Forest Plan standards for DSC would not be implemented.

Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter

In the absence of an extreme wildfire, effective ground cover (fine surface organic matter and CWD)

would persist and gradually increase where it is lacking due to previous disturbance. Needle-fall, seed,

and detritus from live trees would contribute to the recruitment and maintenance of litter, duff, and soil

organic material. In forested stands, CWD will accumulate through natural mortality and windfall. Trees,

brush, forbs, fungi, and non-vascular plants would gradually begin reoccupying bare sites except on

surfaces occupied by open roads and some once-used landings. Organic inputs and biological processes

that maintain and cycle soil nutrients essential for plant growth would continue to function and develop at

current levels. In the long term, fuel loadings will continue to increase, thereby increasing the potential

for an uncharacteristic, high intensity wildfire. Although hazardous fuels have been reduced in some

previously managed areas, fire exclusion has resulted in undesirable vegetation conditions and excessive

fuel loadings in other portions of the planning area (see Fire and Fuels section). Alternative 1 would

defer fuel reduction opportunities at this time and these high fuel loadings would persist.

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures Common to Action Alternatives

Protecting and conserving soil resources is a crucial long-term objective when managing National Forests.

Direction contained in Forest Service Manual 2550, specific to each Region, translates into specific

standards and guidelines that are defined in the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) of

individual National Forests. Generally, these objectives are aimed at maintaining or enhancing long-term

site productivity so that the inherent capability and function of soil resources to support forest or range

plant communities and provide for ecosystem services (e.g., nutrient cycling or water storage) is enduring.

National level policy, Region 6 guidance, and Deschutes National Forest LRMP standards and guides are

summarized in the Regulatory Framework section. Achieving these objectives requires practices that are


19

implemented at the project level when activities are taking place. Referred to as Best Management

Practices (BMPs), these are typically standard operating procedures intended to either avoid or minimize

unwanted impacts (i.e., detrimental soil disturbance). They may become even more refined at the site-

level, where project design features (PDFs) are tailored to particular conditions and specific features of

the local landscape. Broad-scale conservation objectives and site-level design and protection measures

are intended to contain the extent and severity of detrimental soil impacts that can occur as a result of

ground disturbing activities. Together these are the principle means for protecting and conserving soil

resources so that long-term site productivity is assured. The effects analysis for the soil resources

assumes that all BMPs and PDFs for all resources are fully implemented.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Best Management Practices (BMPs) adapted from the National Best Management Practices for Water

Quality Management of National Forest System Lands – Volume 1 (USDA Forest Service 2012) will be

implemented as appropriate and are incorporated by reference. Specifically-applicable BMPs are:

Fire-2. Use of Prescribed Fire (p. 54)

Road-2. Road Location and Design (p. 107)

Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction (p. 110)

Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance (p. 111)

Road-5. Temporary Roads (p. 114)

Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning (p. 115)

Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage (p. 120)

Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing (p. 123)

Veg-2. Erosion Prevention and Control (p. 131)

Veg-3. Aquatic Management Zones

Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations (p. 134)

Veg-6. Landings (p. 136)

Veg-7. Winter Logging (p. 137)

Veg-8. Mechanical Site Treatment (p. 139)

BMPs are standard conservation practices that have proven effective in protecting soil and water resource

values during land management activities. They are considered standard operating procedures and apply

to all activities. They are assumed to be readily implementable and have a high probability of success

when correctly implemented. While these are considered standard operating procedures on all projects

occurring on National Forest lands, local variations of many of these have evolved to adapt to specific

ground conditions, Regional guidance, and LRMP direction. Where a site-specific design based on a

documented BMP is needed, it is listed in the Project Design Features section below.

Project Design Features

Roads and Skidding Network

1. Minimize the erosive effects of concentrated water through the

proper design and construction of temporary roads (Road BMP R-

7). Place temporary roads to avoid or minimize cut and fill

construction.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Temporary roads are

low-standard roads that allow short-term access for timber removal

or other stand treatments. Properly designed and maintained

All harvest units.


20

drainage features prevent erosion and transport of sediments from

the road prism itself and mitigate the potential for off-site impacts

from concentrated flow and sediment transport. Avoiding cuts and

fills minimizes the amount of bare sediment exposed and subject to

erosion and makes rehabilitation easier.

2. Ensure that water control structures (water bars or slash surfacing,

as approved by the Sale Administrator) are installed and maintained

on skid trails that have gradients of 10 percent or more; Ensure

erosion control structures are stabilized and working effectively

(LRMP SL-1; Timber Management BMP T-16, T-18).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Overland flow on skid

trails is rarely observed on the coarse-textured highly-porous soils

on the Forest. Properly designed and maintained drainage features

prevent erosion and transport of sediments from the trail prism itself

and mitigate the potential for off-site impacts from concentrated

flow and sediment transport.

All harvest units.

3. Conduct regular preventive road maintenance on all haul routes to

avoid deterioration of the road surface and minimize the effects of

erosion and sedimentation. Required post-haul maintenance and

storm-proofing/winterizing should be accomplished as soon as

possible after haul has been completed on each road segment (Road

BMP R-18, R-19).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Success is driven

by whether maintenance is kept current and relies on contract

administrator oversight. Much road damage results from high-

intensity late summer thunderstorms, and completing post-

haul/winterizing work as soon as possible instead of waiting until

the end of normal operating season helps guard against damage from

these events.

All harvest units.

4. Use old landings and skidding networks whenever possible.

Designate locations for new yarding and transportation systems

prior to the logging operations, including temporary roads, spur

roads, log landings, and primary (main) skid trail networks (LRMP

SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Veg-4 and Veg-6).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Reusing existing

networks helps keep detrimental soil disturbances below acceptable

thresholds specified in Regional and LRMP guidance. Where

resource concerns warrant relocating skidding networks (e.g., skid

trails in swale bottoms, impacting wetlands, or running through

archaeological sites), the Sale Administrator will help identify

suitable locations that minimize resource impacts.

All harvest units

5. Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary skid trails,

except where converging at landings, to minimize soil impacts.

Closer spacing due to complex terrain must be approved in advance

by the Timber Sale Administrator. Mai skid trails spaced an average

of 100’ apart limit soil impacts to 11% of the unit area. For activity

units larger than 40 acres that can accommodate wider spacing

All harvest units


21

distances, it is recommended that main skid trail spacing be to 150

feet on average to reduce the amount of detrimentally disturbed soil

to 7% of the unit area (Froehlich, 1981; Garland, 1983).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective (flat, non-complex

topography) to moderately effective (sloping, rocky, or complex

topography). Layout is straightforward where there are minimal

landscape/topographical constraints or resource avoidance areas that

limit where skid trails can be placed. Where rock outcrops, wet

soils, avoidance areas, steep slopes, unit shape, or orientation of

existing skidding network necessitates closer spacing,

rehabilitation/restoration of excessive detrimental soil impacts may

be necessary.

6. Avoid skidding in the bottoms of draws, swales, drainageways, or

ephemeral channels. Cross perpendicular to the feature, if required

(crossings will be approved by the Sale Administrator). Apply

appropriate buffers to ephemeral and intermittent channels as

specified in the hydrology/fisheries report. If drainageways are

found in units not listed here, they will be treated the same (BMP

Veg-4).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly Effective. Low-lying landscape

areas are natural water collection points and recharge areas.

Avoiding drainage features with heavy equipment prevents

compaction that can limit infiltration and result in standing water or

concentrated flow, which can result in surface soil erosion and

decrease the amount of plant-available water in soil profile. Buffers

on stream channels both prevent stream-adjacent disturbances and

provide physical barriers to surface sediment delivery from more

distant disturbances.

Units 6, 7, 8, 69, 70, 98, 99,

109, 124, 126, 141, 145, 165,

198, 268, 269, 270, 274, 275,

276, 278, 289, 290, 294, 298,

303, 306, 307, 308, 311, 314,

315, 316, 318, 319, 326,

3267, 328, 331, 334.

Prescribed Burn Operations

7. Protect Soils and Water during prescribed burn operations – Comply

with all applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and Best

Management Practices in burn plans, which shall be completed

before the initiation of prescribed fire treatments in planned activity

areas. Include soil moisture guidelines to minimize the risk of

intense fire and adverse impacts to soil and water resources from

prescribed burning (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; Timber BMP T-2, T-3 &

T-13; BMP Fire-2).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Post-burn monitoring

on the Deschutes National Forest has shown that prescribed burn

operations very rarely result in detrimental soil conditions from

heating/burning (only where logs or stumps are consumed).

All prescribed burn units.

8. Particularly on slopes greater than 20%, plan ignition patterns and

manage fire intensity to limit intense upslope heating and full litter

consumption (BMP Fire-2).



22

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. When fire fronts

move upslope, rising heat ahead of the fire front dries and cures

fuels (including surface soil organic matter), making it more

combustible. Greater consumption of surface organics is expected

on steeper slopes. Closely-spaced ignition patterns may result in

lower intensity and less consumption, though behavior on the

ground is difficult to predict and will be greatly affected by

atmospheric conditions and fuel and soil moistures.

9. Construct fireline to the minimum size and standard necessary to

contain prescribed fire and meet overall objectives. Consider

alternatives to ground-disturbing fireline such as wet line or rock

outcrops wherever possible (BMP Fire-2).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Replacing topsoil and

reestablishing surface cover on machine-built fireline will minimize

erosion potential and discourage vehicle or foot travel.

All prescribed burn units

Retaining Coarse Woody Debris/Down Wood

10. Retain adequate supplies of large woody debris (greater than three

inches in diameter) to provide organic matter reservoirs for nutrient

cycling and microbiotic habitat following completion of all project

activities (LRMP SL-1). It is recommended that a minimum of 5 to

10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris (CWD) be retained on dry

ponderosa pine sites and 10 to 15 tons of CWD per acre be retained

on mixed conifer sites.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately to highly effective. While

standards from the Natural Fuels Photo Series can be used to

illustrate desired amounts of CWD for different species and stand

conditions, appropriate implementation will depend on the

interpretation of equipment operators, with close oversight by the

contract administrator.

All proposed activity areas

11. Minimize disturbance and piling of decaying large woody debris

during fuel treatments to retain adequate organic matter reservoirs

for nutrient cycling and maintenance of long-term site productivity.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. In general, there is

ample large woody debris present within the units to meet the

desired conditions. With contract administrator oversight and

inspection, retention levels can easily be achieved to meet both

wildlife and soil resource objectives.


12. Avoid direct lighting of stumps and large woody debris greater than

9 inches in diameter during prescribed burn operations.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. During prescribed

burn operations, lighting crews generally avoid direct-lighting large

wood and stumps. However, burn and creep patterns will vary

within each unit depending on wind speed and direction, fuel

moistures, topography, etc., and some wood will still be consumed.



23

Maintaining Duff Layer

13. Strive to maintain fine organic matter less than 3-inches in diameter

(commonly referred to as the duff layer) over at least 65 percent of

an activity area following both harvest and post-harvest operations.

Adjust minimum amounts to reflect vegetative capabilities if the

potential natural plant community on site is not capable of

producing fine organic matter over 65 percent of the area (LRMP

SL-6; Fuels Management BMP F-2; Timber Management BMP T-

13).

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. When skidding patterns

are appropriately constrained and off-trail travel adheres to project

design requirements, duff retention goals are easily achieved.

Monitoring of prescribed burns on the Deschutes National Forest

has shown that adequate duff is retained post-burn.

All proposed activity areas.

Minimizing the extent of new soil disturbance from mechanical treatments

14. Restrict grapple skidders to designated areas (i.e., roads, landings,

designated skid trails) at all times, and limit the amount of traffic

from other specialized equipment off of designated areas. Harvester

machines will be authorized to make no more than two passes on

any piece of ground to accumulate materials.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly to Moderately Effective.

Constraining rubber-tired skidders to primary skid trails limits the

amount detrimental compaction resulting from multiple passes.

Harvester travel off of primary skid trails should not result in

detrimental compaction. Research has shown that at it takes three to

five passes to result in detrimental soil compaction (Froehlich and

McNabb, 1983) and this has been confirmed locally through Forest

soil condition monitoring (Craigg, 2000; Hash, 2011) (highly

effective). Limiting pivots and turns away from primary skid trails

greatly decreases the amount of detrimental displacement, though

site-specific stand conditions may require limited off-trail

maneuvering (moderately effective).


15. Implement one or more of the following design elements as

appropriate for further avoiding or reducing detrimental soil impacts

from project activities. Options include using some or all of the

following:

Restrict grapple pilers to designated routes used for harvest

operations where post-harvest fuel loads are predicted to be

moderate or low. Limit the amount of traffic from other

specialized equipment off of designated areas, including

harvester shears, excavators used for mechanical shrub

treatments or grapple pilers in units where post-harvest fuel

loads are predicted to be high, to no more than two equipment



24

passes on any site-specific area to accumulate or process

materials.

Avoid equipment operations in units with slopes greater than

15% during times of the year when soils are extremely dry and

subject to excessive soil displacement.

Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil

moisture, as evidenced by saturated mineral soil or equipment

tracks sinking deeper than normal during dry or frozen

conditions. An indication of potential detrimental disturbance is

the appearance of ruts greater than six inches deep.

Operate equipment over a sufficient amount of frozen ground or

compacted snow to protect mineral soil when feasible.

Equipment operations should be discontinued when frozen

ground begins to thaw or when equipment begins to cause

severe rutting damage (BMP Veg-7).

Recommend full suspension yarding to minimize cumulative

soil resource damage if winter logging conditions are not

available.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately to highly effective. These

techniques have demonstrated effectiveness at limiting soil

disturbance on local ash- and pumice-derived soil types. All require

close oversight from the contract administrator to be successful.

16. Where feasible, pile fuels (both hand and machine piles) on logging

facilities (i.e. skid trails and landings) that already have detrimental

soil conditions in order to minimize additional soil impacts within

activity areas.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Piling on existing

disturbances will limit the amount of additional detrimental soil

conditions incurred as a result of burn damage, though fuel loadings

and logistics will often require piles scattered within the unit.


17. Where machines must leave primary logging facilities to achieve

piling objectives, turns and pivots will be constrained to primary

skid trails (if present) to limit soil displacement. Operators shall

plan travel paths to make full use of the machine’s capability (e.g.,

using full boom reach of machine) to limit ground disturbance and

minimize number of off-trail passes needed to achieve treatment

objectives. No more than two passes will be made on any given

piece of ground.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Successful

implementation requires close oversight by the Sale Administrator

to make sure fuels reduction objectives are met while minimizing

soil disturbance.


18. Mastication treatments to reduce brush and fuel loadings shall

implemented to minimize soil disturbance as follows:

When using a boom-mounted masticating head, operator shall

plan off-trail travel paths to make full use of the machine’s



25

capability (e.g., using the full boom reach of the machine) to

limit ground disturbance and minimize the number of off-trail

passes needed to achieve treatment objectives.

When using a machine with a drum-type fixed masticating head,

work in long, linear swaths to the extent practicable to avoid

unnecessary pivoting and turning, which results in soil

displacement damage.

Machines shall make no more than two passes over any piece of

ground (when not on primary skid trails or landings).

Detrimental soil impacts resulting from mastication shall be

isolated and infrequent (less than 5% of the unit area).

Detrimental impacts include total removal of surface organics

and topsoil, churning/mixing of topsoil with subsoil, rutting

greater than six inches deep, and heavy compaction.

Unless otherwise specified to meet wildlife or other resource

objectives, limit treatment to 80% of the unit area, leaving 20%

in both untreated islands of 0.5 to 2 acres in size and in isolated

pockets of smaller size equally distributed through the unit.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Mastication and

other understory treatments result in varying degrees of soil

disturbance depending on the type of machinery used. Fixed-head

machines that require machinery to travel over every piece of

ground to be treated result in more soil disturbance, while boom-

mounted machines can take advantage the machine’s reach to

directly disturb less ground. Successful implementation requires

close oversight by the Sale Administrator to make sure fuels

reduction objectives are met while minimizing soil disturbance.

19. For slopes greater than 30 percent falling within activity units

(LRMP SL-1, SL-3 & SL-5; BMP Veg-4.):

Use advanced logging systems where treatment is planned for

units with sustained slopes greater than 30%. Advanced logging

systems may include a variety of techniques including, but not

limited to, cable yarding or use of harvester-forwarder systems

where adequate protection against soil compaction and

displacement can be demonstrated.

Small inclusions of slopes greater than 30% within ground-

based harvest units will be prioritized for leave areas within

units. Exceptions for areas that make up less than 10 percent of

an activity area would be subject to Forest Service approval.

Directional hand falling of trees on slopes greater than 30% that

cannot be reached by shears from designated skid trails is

permitted. Leading end suspension is required when cabling or

skidding material.

Any temporary road development on slopes greater than 30%

will require Forest Engineer input and approval.


Slopes over 30% present or

likely in Units 6, 8, 127-129,

132, 210, 212, 213, 215, 217,

222, 223, 269, 273-284, 289,

291, 292, 297, 298, 302, 304,

306, 308, 309, 311, 313-315,

325, 326, 328- 339, 345-360.


26

Skid trails or yarding corridors on slopes greater than 30% used

by the purchaser shall be reclaimed by applying appropriate

erosion control measures such as the placement of slash in

conjunction with, or in place of, waterbars for rehabilitation.

Any slopes >30% discovered during layout in units not listed

here will have the same protections and requirements.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Limiting ground-

based equipment on slopes over 30% protects soils with the greatest

erosion and displacement hazard ratings.

20. Reclaim all machine-built fire lines by redistributing displaced

topsoil and unburned woody debris over the disturbed surface.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Reestablishing surface

cover prevents fire lines from being used as travel corridors, limits

the potential for surface erosion, and reestablishes surface

conditions that are conducive to plant growth.


21. Apply restoration treatments (subsoiling or other suitable restoration

techniques, such as scarification and surface cover placement) to

primary logging facilities in order to meet LRMP standards or

reduce overall impacts. Units with prior entries and elevated

existing detrimental conditions are likely to need subsoiling

restoration treatments of previous impacts to meet LRMP standards

for soil productivity.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately to highly effective.

Subsoiling is an effective treatment for reducing compaction levels

below detrimental thresholds on pumice and ash soils (Craigg,

2000). Placement of fine slash or other organic materials may need

to accompany subsoiling to establish effective groundcover, reduce

surface crusting, and moderate soil microclimate for successful

natural revegetation.

Both Action Alternatives:

Units 1-8, 10, 13, 14, 20, 27,

28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 42, 44, 45,

49, 51-53, 55-60, 62, 63, 69-

73, 76, 81, 83-85, 88-91, 93,

100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107,

111-114, 116-131, 133-142,

144-150, 152, 154, 156-183,

186-221, 225-227, 229, 231-

234, 237, 241-245, 247, 250-

252, 256-261, 264, 269-273,

275-283, 287-289, 292, 293,

295-299, 301-318, 323, 325-

328, 331, 337, 338, 340-342,

345-352, 354, 356, 357, 362,

363.

Alternative C only: Units 32,

34, 35, 38.

22. Rehabilitate all temporary roads created for the current entry. This

may include utilizing excavator bucket teeth to loosen compacted

soils to a minimum depth of 16 inches or pulling slash and woody

materials over treated surfaces to establish effective ground cover

protection where available. Subsoiling of temporary roads may

occur as a post-sale area improvement activity where conditions are

appropriate.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Temporary roads

are considered to be a short-term commitment of soils resources,

and must be rehabilitated after use. Reestablishing natural contours,

decompacting surfaces, and reestablishing surface cover will

decrease erosion risk and encourage rapid natural revegetation.

All harvest units requiring

temporary road. Temporary

roads planned in units 34, 40,

69, 70, 103, 104, 125, 127,

128, 142, 143, 146, 153, 154,

156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 184,

185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192,

198, 199, 200, 206, 207, 208,

227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233,

234, 236, 237, 247, 250, 251,

253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258,

259, 265, 266, 267, 268, 284,

285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 292,

293, 295, 315, 316, 317, 318.


27

Effective closure/obliteration is essential to discourage vehicle use

and repeated disturbance.

To protect sensitive soils

23. Where high water tables are present (saturated conditions within two

feet of the soil surface, presence of riparian vegetation) all

treatments will be conducted by hand. Machines may be permitted

to reach in from upland areas, where feasible. The sale

administrator, in consultation with the soil scientist, may allow

mechanical operations only when water tables are low enough and

soil is dry enough to avoid resource damage. Alternately, operating

machinery over sufficient snow, frozen ground, or slash mats may

be acceptable to limit detrimental soil disturbance.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Highly effective. Limiting equipment

operations on saturated or wet soils will avoid detrimental soil

conditions resulting from rutting, puddling, and compaction on those

soil types with an increased risk.

Units 33, 247, 248, 249, 250,

252, 253, 254. If other wet

areas are discovered, the same

protections will apply.

24. Use some or all of the following avoidance/minimization measures

to protect sensitive frost pocket soil types (mapped as SRI 15 in this

project area) as feasible (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, and SL-5):

Avoid placing landings in these areas to the extent

practicable.

Avoid routing temporary roads through these areas. If

temporary roads are necessary, they should be decompacted

with a minimum of 75% organic surface cover (e.g. fine

slash) applied after use, where material is available onsite.

Prioritize for leave areas

Minimize topsoil and organic layer displacement within

units by limiting machine pivots and turns to primary skid

trail and landings.

Anticipated Effectiveness: Moderately effective. Because frost

pocket soil types have low resistance to and resilience from impacts

(particularly displacement and organic cover disruption), it is

advisable to limit large-scale disturbances like landings and temp

roads. However, where total avoidance isn’t feasible, reclamation

through decompaction and retention/application of surface organics

improves soil recovery by moderating temperature flux.

Portions of units 120, 121,

130, 131.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed management activities include commercial and non-commercial harvest of forest stands

combined with fuel reduction treatments to reduce stand densities and hazardous fuels. The same types of

treatment and machinery would be used for both Alternatives (see EIS, Alternative Descriptions), but the

overall extent and location of some treatments would vary between Alternatives. Stands that are being

proposed for treatment and common to each of the Action Alternatives (8,449 acres in 348 activity units)

comprise about 23 percent of the total planning area and 94 percent of the total treatment acres.

Overstory treatments are proposed on 7,693 acres in 321 units, while underburns (with no overstory

harvest) are proposed on 756 acres in 27 units. Much of the proposed treatment area in both Action

Alternatives has been treated previously. For this reason, the potential for increasing the extent of


28

detrimental soil conditions in many of the stands proposed for treatment is high for the two Action

Alternatives.

While actual overstory treatments may vary between the two alternatives for specific units (e.g. HIM

under Alt B and MLT under Alt C) the effects to soils are assumed to be comparable because the same

machinery and harvest patterns would be used. Trees would most likely be harvested mechanically with

track-mounted harvesters, and whole trees skidded to landings with rubber-tired grapple skidders. Some

activity areas where slopes predominantly exceed 30% may be harvested with advanced logging systems

or with techniques that limit soil displacement (including, but not limited to, cable yarding systems,

harvester-forwarder systems using slash mats for ground protection). Thinning of noncommercial

material would either be accomplished manually using chainsaws or with the use of low ground pressure

machinery. Activity-generated slash would either be machine piled and burned at landings or removed

and utilized. Mechanical shrub and small tree treatments (mowing or mastication) and machine piling

may follow harvest activities. Many units are planned for prescribed fire to reduce fuel loadings and treat

understory shrubs. Existing snags and large downed wood would be retained in a mosaic of varying

densities across the landscape to meet wildlife and soil productivity needs.

Table 5 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Areas Common to Both Action Alternatives

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Areas Common to Action Alternative




258 of 348 project units (6,369 acres) common to Action Alternatives would temporarily exceed LRMP S&Gs for

acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition post-activity). 104 of those 258 project units (2,710 acres) would have

DSC levels brought below 20% threshold through subsoiling and other restoration

treatments. 144 units (3,452 acres) would remain above the 20% threshold, but have

a net improvement in soil condition after subsoiling and restoration treatments, as

required by the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards. 10 units (205 acres) are UB

only units which would remain above 20% with no net improvement in soil condition.

The remaining 90 units (2,080 acres) of the 348 units common to Action Alts would not exceed LRMP standards at any point after

planned activities. See Table 12 in the Appendix for individual unit estimates.


The amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter retained to provide ground cover, maintain soil climate, serve as microbial habitat, and supply a long-term source of nutrients

Professional judgment/qualitative assessment of sufficiency; percent effective ground cover or tons per acre retained

Monitoring data and best professional judgment suggest that, after all project

activities are completed, all of the proposed activity units would meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient

coarse woody debris retained and recruited for the ecosystem services

described herein.


29


The use of ground-based equipment for vegetation management treatments would increase the amount

and distribution of soil disturbance within the proposed activity areas. The development and use of

temporary roads, log landings, and skid trail systems are the primary sources of new soil disturbance that

would result in adverse changes to soil productivity. Mitigation and resource protection measures listed

above would be applied to avoid or minimize the extent of soil disturbance at random locations between

main skid trails and away from log landings.

The effects of ground-based logging disturbances on soil productivity vary based on soil type, types of

silvicultural treatments, duration of activities, and the area disturbed with each entry. The total amount of

soil impact also depends on the existing conditions prior to entry, the ability to reuse previously

established landings and skid trails, types of equipment used, amount of material removed, operator

experience, and contract administration. Soil productivity monitoring on the Forest has shown that

detrimental conditions increase each time a stand is treated with mechanical equipment (Deschutes Soil

Monitoring Reports 1996, 1997, 1999, 2010, 2011). Even with careful planning and implementation of

project activities, the extent of detrimental soil conditions has been shown to increase by 5 to 10 percent

with each successive entry into a stand (Craigg, 2000). Based on this information, an average increase of

8% over the existing level of detrimental soil condition was assumed for mechanical overstory harvest

throughout this analysis. As a direct result of conducting overstory and understory treatments on

previously treated areas, the extent of detrimental soil conditions is expected to increase to levels above

20 percent on 248 units (6,164 acres of treatment area) of the proposed treatment acres (see Table 12 in

the Appendix for unit-specific estimates of post-activity DSC). These include 144 activity units where the

existing extent of detrimental soil conditions is already in excess of the 20% Forest Plan threshold. When

prescribed treatments include both mechanical harvest and mechanical post-harvest activities, the risk of

diminishing soil quality is the greatest, potentially reducing inherent long-term site productivity.

Most soil impacts would occur on and adjacent to temporary roads, log landings and skid trail systems

where multiple equipment passes cause detrimental soil compaction and displacement. Soil displacement

most commonly occurs when equipment operates on steep side slopes, when equipment pivots or turns

while not on primary skid trails, or when skidded logs gouge or drag on the soil surface. Specific PDFs

have been developed for both overstory harvest and mechanical understory/fuels treatments to limit

detrimental soil impacts during implementation. To limit soil displacement damage, most ground-based

machinery is restricted in portions of activity units with extensive areas of slopes greater than 30%.

Where smaller patches of slopes greater than 30% occur, they are generally excluded from unit

boundaries or are retained as leave patches within the unit. Exceptions may be made for advanced

machinery (e.g., cable yarding or cut-to-length systems) that can demonstrate adequate soil protection

through log suspension and/or use of slash mats or other suitable techniques. Mitigation and PDFs would

be applied to avoid or minimize soil impacts in dispersed locations between main skid trails and away

from landings (adequate skid trail spacing, limiting rubber tired skidders to skid trails only, and limiting

the number of passes made by harvesting machinery). Small areas of displacement or surface mixing

resulting from isolated machine maneuvers are often not large enough to constitute detrimental soil

displacement (must be at least 100 square feet AND at least five feet in width) under Regional guidelines

(FSM 2520). Project design features (PDFs) that, where feasible, limit machine pivots and turns to

primary skid trails and focus machine piling or treatment of fuels on what can be reached from primary

skid trails help constrain the amount of soil displacement and compaction that occurs. Machine and hand

piles would also be concentrated on existing disturbances (skid trails, landings, etc.) to minimize the total

amount of detrimental soil condition incurred through pile construction and burning.


30

For the Ringo project, all mechanical harvest units may have residual fuels and brush treated by mowing

or masticating. While the outcomes of either mowing or masticating are similar from a fuels

rearrangement perspective, the potential soil impacts can be quite different. Ground disturbance from

mechanically mowing brush is generally anticipated to be negligible. Tractors with deck mowers are

usually relatively light-weight and have either small rubber tracks or overinflated agricultural tractor tires

with low ground pressures. When operating, mowers work in long, linear swaths and generally pass over

a piece of ground only once to mow it. Their low ground pressure coupled with few passes results in

minimal ground disturbance. Mastication may be accomplished using a tracked excavator with a boom-

mounted masticating head or with a rigid-mounted drum masticator attachment on the front of a tracked

or rubber tired machine. Ground impacts, especially soil displacement, may be much greater with

mastication than with mowing. Rigid-mounted drum masticators result in the greatest amount of soil

impact because they must travel directly to every section of ground to be treated, and typically do more

pivoting and turning. Because the masticator is attached to the front of the equipment and often requires

maneuvering, lifting, and lowering, direct and shear forces exerted by the machine on the soil are greater

and typically result in more soil displacement and compaction. In addition, care must be taken to keep the

masticating head above the soil surface to avoid detrimental soil mixing and churning. Mastication using

a boom-mounted masticating head mounted on a tracked excavator has the potential to cause much less

soil damage, because the full boom reach of the machine can be used to accomplish treatment, allowing

travel corridors to be more widely spaced. In many instances, the majority of treatment can be

accomplished from preexisting skid trails, avoiding the need for additional soil disturbance. It is possible

(though not proven) that resulting masticated residues can have a beneficial effect on soils in the form of

increased moisture retention, reduction in soil heating, and long-term retention of nutrients. There are

few, if any, studies that directly examine mastication impacts on soil resources, so interpretations and

recommendations are based largely on personal observations, local monitoring data, and professional

judgment of the soil scientist. Regardless of the machinery type and approach used, skilled operators,

careful contract administration oversight, and adherence to PDFs are necessary to minimize soil

displacement and contain impacts. Provided PDFs are followed, post-harvest slash treatments are

assumed to result in negligible increases in the overall extent of detrimental soil conditions.

This analysis assumes that underburns do not result in measurable amounts of detrimental soil

disturbance. Prescribed underburns generally do not increase amounts of detrimental soil conditions

because carefully planned ignitions generally only burn with light to moderate intensity and do not result

in meaningful changes to the soil’s inherent capability and function. Soil is a poor conductor of heat, and

when burning occurs under moist conditions duff is not fully consumed, fine roots survive, soil carbon

and organic matter losses are minimal, impacts to microbial communities are short in duration, and

nutrient status is not substantially shifted (Busse, Hubbert and Moghaddas 2014, p. 20). While it is

difficult to predict depth and degree of heat transfer in soils which are, by nature, heterogeneous, Shea

(1993) found that temperatures from underburns in young ponderosa pine stands on the Deschutes

National Forest seldom exceeded 100 degrees Celsius just below the soil surface, even with relatively

heavy fuel loads. This heat pulse is quite variable, since prescribed burns form a mosaic of occurrence

and intensity on the landscapes where they’re used. In general, burning fine fuels when soils are moist

results in low heat residence times, nonlethal soil temperatures, and little or no detrimental heat damage

(Busse, Hubbert and Moghaddas 2014, p. 26). PDFs require that soil moisture guidelines be included in

burn plans to minimize the risk of intense fire and adverse impacts to soils and that ground-disturbing

firelines be rehabbed to minimize the risk of erosion or of lines becoming trails or travel corridors.

There would be no new construction of roads that would remain as classified system roads. An estimated

13.6 miles of temporary road would be needed to allow access to some of the activity areas proposed for

mechanical treatments under both Alternatives 2 and 3 (see PDF 22 above for a list of units that are

anticipated to need temporary roads). Temporary roads are considered to be a short-term commitment of

soils resources, and will be rehabilitated after use in accordance with the temporary road PDF developed


31

for this project. Temporary roads are built to a low standard, should require negligible excavation, and are

not intended to substantively remain after harvest activities are completed. Many of these temporary

roads would be located on existing short segments of old access roads from previous entries. Once no

longer needed for project activities, these temporary roads would be decommissioned by blocking access,

recontouring any cuts and fills, and/or subsoiling the running surface. Additional surface cover treatments

(mulching, slash placement, large wood placement) may be used to minimize erosion potential, increase

revegetation success, and discourage vehicular traffic where needed. Decreased infiltrative capacity,

increased erosion risk, reduced vegetative productivity, and reduced microbial habitat potential resulting

from new temporary roads are expected to be short-term in nature (lasting five years or less) because of

these restoration treatments. Where pre-existing non-system spurs would be reused as temporary roads, a

net improvement in soil condition would result from post-activity restoration.

Under both Action Alternatives, approximately 696 acres of treatment would occur on sensitive soil types

(8% of the treatment acres common to the Action Alternatives). Of these 696 acres, about 428 acres are

classified as sensitive because they occur on slopes greater than 30%. PDFs restrict traditional ground-

based machinery on slopes over 30% or require specialized harvest systems/equipment with demonstrated

ability to limit soil displacement on these steeper slopes. The remaining 268 acres of sensitive soils

common to the Action Alternatives occur in frost pockets with limitations for natural regeneration, on

soils with the potential for high water tables, and on high-elevation soils that are classified as low

productivity landtypes. Frost pocket soils would have adequate organics retained/protected during

harvest activities to address long-term soil productivity concerns. Temporary roads will be avoided in

frost pocket soil types, but if required, a minimum of 75% areal cover of fine surface organics (material

less than three inches in diameter) will be required where it is available onsite. This material will aid in

nutrient cycling, provide habitat for fungal and microbial communities, moderate soil temperature and

moisture flux, and protect against surface erosion. Sufficient organic cover may be obtained or retained

by a variety of methods—operating over slash mats, adding fine slash to disturbed areas after harvest

activity, limiting machine pivots and maneuvers, and/or operating over snow or frozen ground. Where

high water tables are present, all treatment would be conducted by hand unless machines could reach in

from upland areas. For MDW treatment units, mechanical operations could be allowed, at the discretion

of the sale administrator and soil scientist, only when water tables are low enough and soil is dry enough

to avoid resource damage or when sufficient snow, frozen ground, or slash mats are present to adequately

protect against detrimental soil disturbance. These techniques have proven effective in limiting

compaction, displacement, and rutting on wet soil types.

Indirect effects related to accelerated erosion after treatment activities have occurred would be expected

to be negligible. Accelerated erosion is not considered to be an issue of primary concern because surface

soils are highly permeable, infiltration rates are rapid, and surface cover is generally adequate to dissipate

erosive energy. Furthermore, intense highly erosive runoff events in the area do not commonly occur.

There are few linkages between the road and stream networks and untreated/untrafficked buffers protect

creeks and other intermittent streams. Issues and concerns relative to road-related erosion and the indirect

effects of sediment delivery are slight for the Ringo project. PDFs requiring adequate and timely haul

route maintenance, erosion control features on skid trails, and adequate surface organic retention

throughout treatment units further lessen the potential for indirect effects from accelerated erosion.

For both Action Alternatives, approximately 430 acres of subsoiling is proposed to alleviatedetrimental

soil conditions. Subsoiling reduces compaction on landings and primary skid trails where bulk densities

are increased and pore space reduced to a level that inhibits tree growth and impairs other soil functions.

Subsoiling is most effective when ample ground cover is present or when coupled with surface organic

matter additions. Organic matter additions may come from activity-generated slash, woody material

present within the stand, or from wood shred mulches. The total acres estimated for subsoiling represent

the minimum number of acres needed to meet Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality Standards for soil


32

improvement. Actual treated acres may be greater if restoration funds are available. In isolated instances,

subsoiled acres may be less if harvest occurs over snow or frozen ground or over slash mats sufficient to

limit soil compaction and displacement, only where the extent of pre-harvest DSC was below 20% and

post-harvest DSC is not expected to exceed 20%.


The measure for CWD and surface organic matter was evaluated qualitatively based on the probable

success of implementing appropriate BMPs, PDFs, and recommended guidelines that address adequate

retention of these important landscape components to meet soil productivity and wildlife habitat

objectives. A minimum amount of 5 to 10 tons per acre of woody debris on ponderosa pine sites and 10

to 15 tons per acre on mixed conifer and lodgepole sites is recommended to ensure the long term

maintenance of soil productivity (both nutrient cycling and soil climate moderation) without resulting in

unacceptable fuel loadings.

The proposed harvest activities would reduce potential sources of CWD where mechanized whole-tree

yarding is used to reduce overstory densities. However, harvest activities also recruit CWD to the forest

floor through breakage of limbs and tops during felling and skidding operations. Existing CWD would be

protected from disturbance to the extent practicable and generally retained on site. Understory trees

damaged during harvest operations would also contribute woody material for ground cover and nutrient

sources. It is expected that enough broken branches, unusable small-diameter trees, and other woody and

green materials would remain after mechanical thinning activities to meet the recommended guidelines

for CWD retention and Forest Plan requirements for effective ground cover.

Fuel reduction treatments would potentially reduce CWD and some of the forest litter by burning logging

slash and natural fuels accumulations. Most of the logging slash generated from commercial harvest

would be machine piled and burned on log landings. Where existing dead and down natural fuels

loadings are especially high, grapple piling or hand piling may occur, with piles placed and burned

primarily on main skid trails. Post-harvest review by fuels specialists would determine the need for

prescribed underburning, especially where fine fuel accumulations increase the risk of wildfire to

unacceptable levels. If prescribed fire is recommended, burning would occur during moist conditions to

help ensure adequate retention of CWD and surface organic matter. While prescribed burning does

consume some surface organic matter, this is a natural process for fire-adapted ecosystems. These

treatments also help reduce the risk of soils impacts that would result from an uncharacteristic high

intensity fire. Fuel reductions achieved through planned ignitions usually burn in a mosaic of low to

moderate intensity that does not fully consume or destroy the structure burned surface organics, and also

increases nutrient availability in burned areas. Low intensity fire does not generally consume material

much larger than three inches in diameter, and charring does not substantially interfere with the

decomposition or function of coarse woody debris (Graham et al., 1994). Any dead trees killed from

prescribed burn treatments will eventually fall to the ground and become additional sources of CWD.

Depending on the rate of weakening and local wind conditions, may of the small-diameter trees (less than

ten inches) would be expected to fall within the short-term (less than five years).

A cool-temperature prescribed burn would remove some of the surface litter and duff materials without

exposing extensive areas of bare mineral soil. Some of the direct and indirect beneficial effects to the soil

resource include a reduction of fuel loadings and potential for wildfire-induced changes to soil properties,

increased nutrient availability in localized areas, increased grass and forb regeneration, and maintenance

of organic matter that supports biotic habitat for mycorrhizal fungi and microorganism populations.


33

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to soils are activity areas (analysis units),

because actions outside the unit boundaries would have little or no effect on soil productivity within the

units, and actions within the unit boundaries would have little or no effect on soil productivity elsewhere.

An activity area is defined as “the total area of ground impacted by an activity, and is a feasible unit for

sampling and evaluating” (FSM 2520 and Forest Plan, page 4.71, Table 4-30, Footnote #1).

The temporal boundaries consider the potential for both short- and long-term effects. Analysis of short-

term effects looks at changes to soil properties that would generally recover or revert to pre-existing

conditions within five years of completing proposed activities. Long-term effects are those that would

substantially remain for five years or longer in the absence of restoration treatments. Both temporal

bounds are considered because short-term effects may be visually-evident immediately after planned

activities but have only short-lived and minor impacts to soil productivity (e.g., low-level shallow

compaction that returns to normal levels through freeze-thaw action in a couple of seasons), while long-

term effects may persist for years or decades, dramatically affect soil productivity, and be worsened by

repeated entries or management actions (e.g., compaction on skid trails that persists from historic harvests

and may be worsened by proposed activities).

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For the Ringo project, the following projects were considered

as part of the cumulative effects analysis for soils resource where they overlapped with proposed

treatment units (a comprehensive list of projects considered for the project as a whole is available in

Chapter 2 of the EIS):

Seven Buttes EA (1996) - completed

Seven Buttes Return EA (2001) - completed

Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) - completed

Five Buttes EIS (2007) - completed

BLT EIS (2008) - completed

Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013 and prior) – some completed and some ongoing

2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy - ongoing

Forestwide Firewood CE - future

Table 6 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects Common to Action Alternatives

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Units Common to Action Alternatives

Past, Present, and Future Actions

(Units)

Cumulative Impacts (Units)




154 of the 348 project units common to both

action alternatives currently exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil

productivity (>20% DSC). See Table 12 in the Appendix for

258 of the 348 common project

units (6,369 acres) would temporarily

exceed LRMP S&Gs for

acceptable soil productivity. 104 of those 258 project

units (2,710 acres)

After all harvest

activities and restoration

work completed: 194 units

(4,790 acres) below 20%

DSC,


34

individual unit estimates.

would have DSC levels brought

below 20% threshold through

subsoiling and other restoration treatments. 144

units (3,454 acres) would remain

above the 20% threshold, but have a net improvement

in soil condition after subsoiling and

restoration treatments, as required by the Region 6 Soil

Quality Standards. 10 units (205

acres) are UB only units which would remain above 20%

with no net improvement in soil

condition. The remaining 90 units (2,080 acres) of the

348 common to Action Alts would not exceed LRMP

standards after planned activities.

144 units (3,454 acres) greater than

20% DSC but showing net improvement

in soil condition, 10

units (205 acres)

remaining over 20% with

no net improvement (UB only); no reasonably foreseeable actions that will notably increase

extent of DSC in project area




Monitoring data and best professional judgment suggest

that all of the proposed activity

units currently meet LRMP S&Gs for

ground cover and have sufficient coarse woody debris for the ecosystem services described herein.

After project activities, all units are expected to comply with the recommended management

guidelines that ensure adequate

retention of snags, CWD, and fine

organic matter for surface cover,

biological activity, and nutrient supply for maintaining soil

long-term productivity

Predict sufficient

quantities of CWD and fine organic matter

for surface cover for

maintaining soil long-term productivity;

no reasonably foreseeable actions that

would notably impact amount

/continuity of CWD or surface

organic matter


Implementation of either of the Action Alternatives would cause some new soil disturbances where

ground-based equipment would be used for mechanical harvest and yarding activities during the current

entry. The combined effects of past, current, and anticipated activities (listed in the Past, Present, and

Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section above) and those


35

anticipated from implementing the Action Alternatives were previously addressed in the discussion of

direct and indirect effects. The primary sources of detrimental soil conditions from past management are

associated with existing roads and ground-based logging facilities used for past harvest activities.

Likewise, the majority of project-related soil impacts from this project would also be confined to known

locations on heavy use areas (roads, log landings, and main skid trails). Activity units with previous

harvest entries are expected to have an average increase in detrimental soil disturbance of eight percent.

Estimated existing and predicted detrimental soil disturbance levels are provided in Table xx in the

Appendix. Any net change in detrimental soil conditions would be associated with additional logging

facilities retained following harvest (increase in overall DSC) or logging facilities reclaimed as a result of

subsoiling or other restoration treatments (decrease in overall DSC). In keeping with the Region 6 Soil

Quality Standards, in units where more than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior

activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at a

minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net

improvement in soil quality. This guidance applies to 144 units common to both Action Alternatives

which would experience a temporary increase in DSC as a result of project activities, with overall levels

of DSC reduced to below pre-activity levels through post-activity subsoiling and other restoration

activities. 204 of the units would either not exceed 20% post-activity or would be brought back below

20% through subsoiling and other restoration activities. The cumulative soil disturbance incurred from

the Ringo project and all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would not exceed LRMP

standards after all restoration activities are complete. Either of the two Action Alternatives would result

in a long-term trend toward restoration of soil productivity because of the high extent of existing

detrimental soil conditions.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy (ongoing personal use firewood collection on the district)

and a potential Forest-wide firewood analysis are the only known reasonably foreseeable actions that

overlap with the Ringo project area. Personal-use firewood collection is not assumed to contribute

meaningfully to overall levels of DSC. Off-road vehicle travel is limited to a specific distance from

designated routes, and wood is cut and collected by hand. Other potential impacts, like dispersed

recreational usage, would be confined to small areas of very limited areal extent within the project area

and are not expected to have a measurable effect on site productivity or soil function.


As previously described for the direct and indirect effects, it is expected that the Action Alternatives

would comply with the recommended management guidelines that ensure adequate retention of snags,

CWD, and fine organic matter for surface cover, biological activity, and nutrient supplies for maintaining

soil productivity on treated sites. Firewood collection activities would only be expected to impact CWD

quantities along primary travel routes, which are generally priority areas for fuels reduction activities

related to firefighter safety and public ingress/egress.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation measures associated with Alternative B are listed in the Effects Common to

Alternatives B and C section above.


Alternative B includes only one additional underburn unit beyond those common to both Action

Alternatives. There are 349 total treatment units with 8,478 total treatement acres under this Alternative.

The direct and indirect effects analysis provided under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C section


36

above is fully applicable to Alternative B. The additional unit (29 acres) of underburning will not

contribute additional amounts of detrimental soil disturbance or notable changes in amount and/or

continuity of CWD and surface organics.

Table 7 - Resource indicators and measures for Alternative B

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Alternative B




258 units (6,369 acres) of 349 project units in Alternative B would temporarily exceed LRMP

S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil

condition post-activity). 104 units (2,710 acres) would have DSC levels brought below 20%

threshold through subsoiling and other restoration treatments. 144 units (3,454 acres)

would remain above the 20% threshold, but have a net improvement in soil condition after

subsoiling and restoration treatments, as required by the Region 6 Soil Quality

Standards. 10 units (205 acres) are UB only units which would remain above 20% with no

net improvement in soil condition. The remaining 91 units (2,109 acres) of the 349 Alt B units would not exceed LRMP standards at any point after planned activities. See Table

12 in the Appendix for individual unit estimates.





activities are completed, all of the proposed activity units would meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse

woody debris retained and recruited for the ecosystem services described herein.


See Detrimental Soil Disturbance under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.


See Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

above.

Cumulative Effects


See Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

above.


37


See Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis under

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.

Table 8 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects for Alternative B

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Alternative B (Units)

Past, Present, and Future

Actions (Units)





154 of the 349 project units in Alternative B

currently exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil

productivity (>20% DSC).

See Table 12 in the Appendix for


258 units (6,369 acres) would temporarily


acceptable soil productivity. 104 of those 258 project

units (2,710 acres) would have DSC

levels brought below 20%

threshold through subsoiling and

other restoration treatments. 144


above the 20% threshold, but

have a net improvement in

soil condition after subsoiling and




with no net improvement in soil condition.

The remaining 91 units (2,109 acres) would not exceed LRMP standards

after planned activities.

After all harvest



(4,819 acres) below 20% DSC, 144 units

(3,454 acres)

greater than 20% DSC

but showing net

improvement in soil

condition, 10 units (205

acres) greater than 20% with no

net improvement

in soil condition; no reasonably foreseeable actions that will notably

increase extent of DSC in

project area


The amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter retained to provide ground cover, maintain


Monitoring data and best

professional judgment

suggest that all of the proposed

activity units currently meet



Predict sufficient

quantities of CWD and

fine organic matter for surface

cover for


38

soil climate, serve as microbial habitat, and supply a long-term source of nutrients

LRMP S&Gs for ground cover

and have sufficient coarse woody debris for the ecosystem

services described herein.



biological activity, and nutrient supply for

maintaining soil long-term

productivity

maintaining soil long-

term productivity;

no reasonably foreseeable actions that


/continuity of CWD or surface organic matter


See the Cumulative Effects discussion under under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.


See the Cumulative Effects discussion under under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.

Alternative C

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation measures associated with Alternative C are listed in the Effects Common to

Alternatives B and C section above.


Alternative C includes nine additional underburn units (412 additional acres) and five additional units

where an SDT treatment is proposed (163 additional acres). There are 362 total units and 9,024 total

treatment acres under this Alternative. The direct and indirect effects analysis provided under Effects

Common to Alternatives B and C section above is fully applicable to Alternative B. The additional nine

units/412 acres of underburning will not contribute additional amounts of detrimental soil disturbance or

notable changes in amount and/or continuity of CWD and surface organics. The additional five SDT

units would all exceed 20% DSC after harvest, but would have their levels reduced to meet R6 Soil

Quality Standards post-activity.

Table 9 - Resource indicators and measures for Alternative C

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Alternative C




264 units (6,608 acres) of 362 project units in Alternative C would temporarily exceed LRMP

S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil

condition post-activity). 108 units (2,839 acres) would have DSC levels brought below 20%

threshold through subsoiling and other restoration treatments. 145 units (3,487 acres)


39

would remain above the 20% threshold, but have a net improvement in soil condition after

subsoiling and restoration treatments, as required by the Region 6 Soil Quality

Standards. 11 units (281 acres) are UB only units which would remain above 20% with no

net improvement in soil condition. The remaining 98 units (2,415 acres) of the 362

units would not exceed LRMP standards. See Table 12 in the Appendix for individual unit

estimates.





activities are completed, all of the proposed activity units would meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse

woody debris retained and recruited for the ecosystem services described herein.


See Detrimental Soil Disturbance under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above. Alternative C

results in an additional five units (163 acres) of SDT treatment where DSC levels would increase. While

all five units will receive subsoiling restoration treatments, one unit currently exceeds 20% DSC and will

be treated to reduce impacts below pre-harvest levels for an overall net gain in soil productivity. The

additional nine units (412 acres) of underburning will not result in any additional DSC.


See Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

above.

Cumulative Effects


See Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

above.


See Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis under

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.

Table 10 - Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects For Alternative C

Resource Element

Resource Indicator


Measure


Alternative C (Units)

Past, Present, and Future

Actions (Units)



The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual

Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number

156 of the 362 project units in Alternative C

currently exceed

264 units (6,608 acres) of the 362

project units would temporarily

After all harvest



40

activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments

of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC

LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil

productivity (>20% DSC).

See Table 12 in the Appendix for



acceptable soil productivity. 108

units (2,839 acres) would have DSC

levels brought below 20%

threshold through subsoiling and

other restoration treatments. 145


above the 20% threshold, but

have a net improvement in

soil condition after subsoiling and




with no net improvement in

soil condition. The remaining 98 units

(2,415 acres) of the 349 units

would not exceed LRMP standards

after planned activities.


(5,254 acres) below 20% DSC, 145 units

(3,487 acres)

greater than 20% DSC

but showing net

improvement in soil

condition, 11 units (281

acres) greater than 20% with no

net improvement

in soil condition; no reasonably foreseeable actions that will notably

increase extent of DSC in

project area




Monitoring data and best

professional judgment

suggest that all of the proposed

activity units currently meet

LRMP S&Gs for ground cover

and have sufficient coarse woody debris for the ecosystem

services described herein.





biological activity, and nutrient supply for

maintaining soil long-term

productivity

Predict sufficient

quantities of CWD and

fine organic matter for surface

cover for maintaining

soil long-term

productivity; no

reasonably foreseeable actions that


/continuity of CWD or surface


41

organic matter


See the Cumulative Effects discussion under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.


See the Cumulative Effects discussion under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan

The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (Deschutes National

Forest, 1990) specifies that management activities be prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement

of soil productivity. This is accomplished by following Forest-wide standards and guidelines to ensure

that soils are managed to provide sustained yields of managed vegetation without impairment of the

productivity or ecosystem functions of the land. Applicable Standards and Guides include:

SL-1: Management activities will be prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil

productivity. The potential for detrimental soil damages will be specifically addressed through

project environmental analysis. Alternative management practices will be developed and

mitigation measures implemented when activities will result in detrimental soil compaction,

puddling, displacement, or soils with severely burned surfaces or those with accelerated erosion.

SL-2: The Forest will have and use appropriate contract and permit language to meet Standards

and Guides.

SL-3: Leave a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable

productivity potential for trees and other managed vegetation following land management

activities. Include all system roads, landings, spur roads, and skid roads or trails to evaluate

impacts. Soil monitoring, to include statistical methods, will be required on all sensitive soil

areas.

SL-4: Any sites where this direction cannot be met will require rehabilitation. Measures may

include tillage, smoothing, fertilizing, or spreading of biologically-rich organic materials.

SL-5: The use of mechanical equipment in sensitive soil areas will be regulated to protect the soil

resource. Operations will be restricted to existing roads and trails wherever feasible.

SL-6: In order to minimize soil erosion by water and wind, the following ground cover objectives

should be met within the first two years after an activity is completed:


42

Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover2

Surface Soil Erosion Potential1 1st year 2nd year

Low 20-30 31-45

Moderate 31-45 46-60

High 46-60 61-75

Severe 61-75 76-90 1Erosion potential can be obtained by referencing the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen 1976) 2Effective ground cover includes all living or dead herbaceous or woody materials and rock fragments greater than three-fourths

of an inch in diameter in contact with the ground surface. Includes tree or shrub seedlings, grass, forbs, litter, woody biomass,

chips, etc.

Region 6 Soil Quality Standards

The objective of the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines (FSM 2500, R6 Supplement

2500.98-1) is to provide guidance to help meet direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976

(NFMA) and other legal mandates. The Regional policy requires that land management activities be

planned and implemented so that soil and water quality are maintained or improved. They describe

conditions detrimental to soil productivity and outline direction to limit the extent of these conditions to

less than 20% of an activity area. Detrimental soil conditions are described in the Soil Quality Standards

as follows:

Detrimental compaction in volcanic ash/pumice soils is defined as an increase in soil bulk density

of 20% or greater over the undisturbed level.

Detrimental puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or greater.

Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area

greater than 100 square feet and at least five feet in width.

Detrimental burn damage occurs when the mineral soil surface has been substantially changed in

color, e.g. oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter

charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The area must be greater than 100 square feet

and at least five feet in width.

Detrimental surface erosion occurs when visual evidence of surface loss is present in areas greater

than 100 square feet, where rills or gullies are present, or where water quality is degraded from

sediment or nutrient enrichment.

Detrimental mass wasting is defined as visual evidence of landslides associated with land

management activities and/or that degrade water quality. Mass wasting is an uncommon

occurrence on the Deschutes National Forest.

The Soil Quality Guidelines further specify that organic matter must be maintained in amounts sufficient

to provide for short- and long-term nutrient and carbon cycles and to avoid detrimental physical or

biological soil conditions; and that soil moisture regimes remain unchanged (except for activities that

restore natural water tables). The Soil Quality Standards must be used to guide the selection and design

of management practices and prescriptions at the watershed scale. While the standards allow for up to

20% of an activity area to be in a detrimental soil condition after harvest activities, it is expected that the

scope and severity of those impacts will not result in an irretrievable commitment of the soil resource—

that is, impacts should not result in thresholds being crossed that permanently impair soil productivity or

preclude the recovery of productive capacity within reasonable time frames. While system roads and

landings are considered part of the permanent infrastructure, skid trails are still considered part of the

productive land base and are expected to be left in a productive state or placed on a reasonable trajectory

to recovery (internal communication with Regional Soil Scientist).


43

Federal Law

Several pieces of legislation provide thematic guidance and overarching intent for the protection

and enhancement of soil resources when managing Forest Service lands. Region- and Forest-

level policies provide specific guidance for how these directives are to be achieved. The most

relevant Acts are:

Organic Administration Act of 1897

This Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to govern the occupancy

and use of National Forests and “…to improve and protect the forests (…) 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

This Act authorizes and directs a program of land conservation and land utilization, in order to

rehabilitate damaged lands, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion, preserving natural

resources, mitigating floods, conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the

watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting public lands, health, safety, and welfare.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

This Act mandates that the Forest Service and other land management agencies engage in “coordinated

management of the resources without impairment of the productivity of the land”.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974

This 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”.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976

This Act mandates “environmental protection to ensure timber harvesting will occur only where

water quality and fish habitat are adequately protected from serious detriment; ensure clear-

cutting and other harvesting will occur only where it may be done in a manner consistent with the

protection of soil, watersheds, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic resources and regeneration of

the timber resource”. To comply with NFMA, the Chief of the Forest Service has charged each

Forest Service Region with developing soil quality standards for detecting soil disturbance and

indicating a loss in long-term productive potential. These standards are built in to Forest Plans.

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (40 CFR 1502.16). The Multiple Use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest System lands for multiple uses

(including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, rangeland, and watershed services). All renewable

resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. Forest thinning

activities that provide a commercial product can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource.


44

As a renewable resource, trees can be re-established and grown again if the productivity of the land is not

impaired.

Maintaining the productivity of the land is a complex, long-term objective. Some readily-visible harvest-

related impacts (described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section for the Action Alternatives) may

represent a short-term use of the soil (e.g. minor compaction, shallow furrowing, disruption of surface

organics, removal of growing vegetation) but will recover quickly (within five years) and will not affect

the long-term productivity and capability of the soil. Project design features, BMPs, LRMP management

requirements, and mitigation measures built into the Action Alternatives ensure that long-term

productivity will not be impaired by the application of short-term management practices. The Action

Alternatives would improve soil productivity in specific areas where soil restoration treatments are

implemented on soils committed to logging facilities (particularly those units that exceed Forest Plan

standards for detrimental soil condition due to historic uses and harvest practices). Temporary road

construction often represents a short-term commitment of the soil resource where new ground is

disturbed, but many of the proposed temporary roads are located on non-system or user-created spurs

which have been in detrimental condition for years or decades. Post-harvest decommissioning and

restoration of these roads will return these soils to a productive capacity and often result in a net

improvement in soil conditions within a treatment area.

Through implementation of all recommended BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation measures, the Action

Alternatives are not expected to have a negative effect on long-term productivity of the soil.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

There are no unavoidable adverse effects to consider for the soils resource. All areas are expected to meet

Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality standards for soil condition after all project activities are

completed.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

The proposed actions are not expected to create any irreversible damage to soil productivity. No soil

would be removed for the construction of permanent facilities, and there is no measurable risk for

mechanical disturbances to cause mass failures or landslides. Application of BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation

measures will ensure that all Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality standards will be met to ensure the

long-term productivity of the soil resource.

The development and use of temporary roads and logging facilities is considered an irretrievable loss of

soil productivity until their functions have been served and disturbed sites are returned back to a

productive capacity. Both action alternatives include soil restoration activities that would improve soil

productivity and hydrologic function on detrimentally disturbed soils. All temporary roads used for the

project would be fully reclaimed. Activity units that exceed Forest Plan standards for DSC after harvest

will have restoration treatments (primarily subsoiling) applied to a proportion of those facilities.

However, most harvest units will still have some irretrievably committed soil resources in the form of

logging facilities (skid trails and landings) that substantively remain after the project is completed. This

is considered an acceptable trade-off to meet ongoing needs for stand management, and existing logging

facilities will be used for subsequent entries into the stand.

Summary

Each of the Action Alternatives will meet Deschutes National Forest LRMP S&Gs and Region 6 Soil

Quality Standards, and honor the intent of the overarching policies and regulations applicable to the soil


45

resource. While Alternative C treats 546 more acres than Alternative B, it also provides an opportunity for

more acres of soil restoration treatment in the form of subsoiling and surface organic matter amendments.

Summary of Environmental Effects Table 11 below summarizes the environmental effects to the soil resource as described using the

indicators and measures used for this analysis.


46

Table 11 - Summary comparison of environmental effects to soil resources

Resource Element

Indicator/Measure Alt A (No Action) Alt B Alt C



207 of 363 project units (5,282 acres) currently meet LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (less than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition). 156 of the 363 project units (3,770 acres) currently exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition).

349 total treatment units / 8,478 total treatment acres: 258 units (6,369 acres)

would temporarily exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition post-activity). 104 units (2,710 acres) would have DSC levels brought below 20% threshold through subsoiling and other restoration treatments. 144 units (3,454 acres) would remain above the 20% threshold, but have a net improvement in soil condition after subsoiling and restoration treatments, as required by the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards. 10 units (205 acres) are UB only units which would remain above 20% with no net improvement in soil condition. The remaining 91 units (2,109 acres) of the 349 Alt B units would not exceed LRMP standards at any point after planned activities. After all harvest activities and restoration work completed: 194 units (4,790 acres) below 20% DSC,

144 units (3,454 acres) greater than 20% DSC but showing net improvement in soil condition, 10 units (205 acres) remaining over 20% with no net improvement in soil condition (UB only).

362 total treatment units / 9,024 total treatment acres: 264 units (6,608 acres)

would temporarily exceed LRMP S&Gs for acceptable soil productivity (more than 20% of the unit area in a detrimental soil condition post-activity). 108 units (2,839 acres) would have DSC levels brought below 20% threshold through subsoiling and other restoration treatments. 145 units (3,487 acres) would remain above the 20% threshold, but have a net improvement in soil condition after subsoiling and restoration treatments, as required by the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards. 11 units (281 acres) are UB only units which would remain above 20% with no net improvement in soil condition. The remaining 98 units (2,415 acres) of the 362 Alt C units would not exceed LRMP standards at any point after planned activities. After all harvest activities and restoration work completed: 206 units (5,254 acres) below 20% DSC,

145 units (3,487 acres) greater than 20% DSC but showing net improvement in soil condition, 11 units (281 acres) remain above 20% DSC with no net improvement in soil condition (UB only).



Monitoring data/best professional judgment suggest that all of the proposed units currently meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse woody debris for the ecosystem services described herein.

Monitoring data/best professional judgment suggest that, after all project activities are completed, all of the proposed activity units would meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse woody debris retained and recruited for the ecosystem services described herein.

Monitoring data and best professional judgment suggest that, after all project activities are completed, all of the proposed activity units would meet LRMP S&Gs for ground cover and have sufficient coarse woody debris retained and recruited for the ecosystem services described herein.


47

Acronyms BMP – Best Management Practice(s)

CWD – Coarse woody debris

DSC – Detrimental soil condition

FSDMP – Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

FSM – Forest Service Manual

LRMP – Land Resource Management Plan (Deschutes Forest Plan)

PDF – Project Design Feature(s)

S&G – Standards and Guides (from Deschutes LRMP)

SRI – Soil Resource Inventory


48

References Cited Adams, P.W. and H.A. Froehlich. 1981. Compaction of forest soils. Pacific Northwest Extension

Publication – PNW 217. 13 pp.

Bormann, B.T., P.S. Homann, R.L. Darbyshire, and B.A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest wildfire

sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 38: 2771-2783.

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kylie. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and fire

hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 16 pp.

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

Soil Quality. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-241. USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station. 156 pp.

Clayton, J.L, G. Kellog, and N. Forrester. 1987. Soil Disturbance-Tree Growth Relations in Central

Idaho Clearcuts. Research Note INT-372. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 pp.

Craigg, T.L. 2000. Subsoiling to restore compacted soils. In: Proceedings, Twenty-First Annual Forest

Vegetation Management Conference, January, 2000, Redding, CA.

Deschutes National Forest, 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_035906.

Deschutes National Forest, Soil Monitoring Reports, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2010. Unpublished

soil monitoring reports on file at the Deschutes National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bend, OR.

Froehlich, H.A. 1976. The influence of different thinning systems on damage to soil and trees.

Proceedings, XVI IUFRO World Congress Division IV, UUFRO Norway, pp 333-344.

Froehlich, H.A. 1979. Soil compaction from logging equipment: Effects on growth of young ponderosa

pine. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 34(6): 276-278.

Froehlich, H.A. and D. H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests.

Paper presented at the Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference on Forest Soils and

Treatment Impacts, Knoxville, TN, June 1983. Available online at

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/RPs/Froehlich_McNabb_1983.pdf.

Gent, J.A. R. Ballard, A.E. Hassan, and D.K. Cassel. 1984. Impact of harvesting and site preparation on

physical properties of piedmont forest soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48: 173-

177.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994.

Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Intermountain Research

Station, Research Paper INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 12 pp.

Hash, S.J. 2011. Deschutes National Forest 2010 Soil Monitoring Report. Internal document available

upon request.


49

Laing, LE., and S. W. Howes. 1983. Detrimental Soil Compaction Resulting from a Feller-Buncher and

Rubber-Tired Skidder Timber Harvest Operation: A Case Study. In: J.D. Lousier and G.W. Still

(eds.): Degradation of Forest Lands, “Forest Soils at Risk”. Proceedings of the 10th BC Soil

Science Workshop, Vancouver, B.C., February 1986. pp. 191-195.

Larsen, D.M., 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Miller, J.H. and D.L. Sirois. 1986. Soil disturbance by skyline yarding vs. skidding in a loamy hill forest.

Soil Science Society of America Journal, 50: 1579-1583.

Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soil in northern Idaho to

mechanical compaction. Research Note INT-409. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station, Ogden, UT. 5pp.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice, 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol,

Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office - General Technical Report GTR-

WO-82.

Robichaud, P.R., and R.E. Brown. 1999. What Happened After the Smoke Cleared: Onsite Erosion Rates

After A Wildfire In Eastern Oregon. In Proceedings, AWRA Specialty Conference, Wildland

Hydrology. D.S. Olsen and J. P. Potyondy, eds. pp. 419-426. Revised November, 2000.

Scott, W.E. 1977. Quaternary glaciation and volcanism, Metolius River Area, Oregon. Geological

Society of America Bulletin, 88(1): 113-124.

Shea, R. 1993. Effects of prescribed fire and silvicultural activities on fuel mass and nitrogen

redistribution in Pinus ponderosa ecosystems of central Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University. 163 p. M.S. Thesis.

Snider, M.D. and R.F. Miller. 1985. Effects of tractor logging on soils and vegetation in eastern Oregon.

Soil Science Society of America Journal, 49: 1280-1282.

Sussman, P. 2004. Soils Specialist Report, Davis Fire Recovery Project EIS. 61 pp. Available in the

project record from the Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on

National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a.

WRCC. 2015. Western Regional Climate Center. Climate Summaries webpage. Summary for Crescent

Lake Junction, Oregon (351978). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?or1978

Zaborsky, R.R. 1989. Soil Compaction on a Mechanized Timber Harvest Operation in Eastern Oregon.

M.S. Thesis, Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 89 pp.


50

Appendix


51

Figure 3 - Guide to Detailed Soil Maps


52

Figure 4 - Ringo Soils Map 1


53



54



55



56



57



58



59



60



61

Table 12 - Unit Treatments, DSC Estimates, and Subsoiling Estimates for Each Alternative

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

1 21.1 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

2 13.5 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

3 23.9 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

4 28.4 SDT MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

5 51.0 HTH SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 3.6 3.6

6 8.3 HIM MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

7 21.8 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

8 12.7 HIM MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

9 8.6 HTH MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

10 35.4 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.5 2.5

11 21.5 UB UB PM (18.7 acres); 96 (2.8 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

12 13.7 HTH HTH PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

13 6.0 HTH HTH PM >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

14 12.9 HTH HTH PM (10.8 acres), 98 (2.1 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

16 44.3 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

17 11.3 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

18 23.6 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

19 23.6 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

20 17.7 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

21 59.3 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

22 7.9 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

23 48.9 HTH HTH 98 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

24 22.5

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

25 41.2 HTH HTH 98 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

26 8.1 HTH HTH 98 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

27 4.5 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.3 0.3

28 13.8 HTH HTH PM (12.2 acres), 96 (0.9 acres), 98 (0.8 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 1.0 1.0


<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


62

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

30 7.3 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5

31 35.3 HTH HTH 98 (25.7 acres); PM (9.6 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.5 2.5

32 18.5 UB SDT PM (11.6 acres), 96 (6.8 acres)

10-20% 10-20% >20% 0 1.3

33 7.2 MDW

MDW

43 >20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5

34 52.3

SDT 96 10-20% 10-20% >20% 0 3.7

35 30.8

SDT 97 (19.5 acres), 96 (11.3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% >20% 0 2.2

36 34.4

SDT PM (20.9 acres), 96 (13.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.4 2.4

37 6.5 UB UB PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

38 26.9

SDT PM (21.5 acres), 96 (5.4 acres)

10-20% 10-20% >20% 0 1.9

39 29.1

UB PM (22.1 acres), 96 (7 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

40 68.1 SDT SDT 96 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

41 30.2 HIM HIM 96 (23.7 acres), PJ (6.6 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

42 45.2 HTH HTH PJ (32.3 acres), 97 (12.8 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 3.2 3.2

43 43.3 HTH HTH 97 (29 acres), PJ (14.2 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

44 37.0 HTH HTH 97 (29.8 acres), PJ (4.9 acres), 96 (2.2 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.6 2.6


10-20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

46 25.6 HTH HTH PJ 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

47 23.8 UB UB PJ (12.5 acres), PM (9.5 acres), 96 (1.7 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

48 34.2 UB UB PM (23.9 acres), PJ (10.3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

49 22.5 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

50 21.2 UB UB PM >20% >20% >20% 0 0


63

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

51 24.3 HTH HTH PM (14.7 acres), PJ (9.1 acres), 96 (0.4 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

52 21.8 HTH HTH PM >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

53 21.5 HTH HTH PM >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

54 98.4

UB PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

55 28.7 SDT SDT PM (19.7 acres), 98 (9 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

56 28.8 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

57 12.3 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

58 19.5 HTH HTH 98 (17.9 acres), PM (1.6 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

59 36.1 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 2.5 2.5

60 20.7 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

61 24.5 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

62 15.3 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

63 25.9 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

64 24.6

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

65 17.9 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

66 14.3 HTH HTH 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

67 32.8

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

68 14.9

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

69 82.8 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 5.8 5.8

70 18.9 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.3 1.3

71 10.8 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

72 32.4 HTH HTH 98 (24 acres), PM (8.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

73 17.7 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

74 71.1

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

75 41.8

UB 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

76 48.8 HIM MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 3.4 3.4

77 46.0 HIM MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

78 10.8 HIM MLT 98 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

79 14.3 HIM MLT 98 <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

80 13.5 HIM MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

81 33.5 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

82 25.7 HIM MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


64

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

83 22.0 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

84 5.3 HIM MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0.0 0.0

85 15.2 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

86 6.0 HIM MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

87 32.7 HIM MLT 98 (30.7 acres), 7E (2 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

88 5.1 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

89 42.8 HTH HTH PM (29 acres), 7E (13. acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 3.0 3.0

90 11.9 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

91 46.3 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 3.2 3.2


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


10-20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

94 28.4 HTH HTH PM <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

95 18.6 HTH HTH PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

96 34.0 UB UB PM (33 acres), 98 (1 acre)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

97 16.2 HTH HTH PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

98 8.8 HTH HTH PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

99 17.8 HTH HTH PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

100 31.8 HTH HTH PM >20% >20% >20% 2.2 2.2

101 11.7 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

102 23.9 UB UB PM 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

103 58.0 HTH HTH PJ (29.2 acres), PM (28.8 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 4.1 4.1

104 49.4 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 3.5 3.5

105 11.6 UB UB PM >20% >20% >20% 0 0

106 13.3 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

107 40.2 HTH HTH PM (37.7acres), 7E (2.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.8 2.8

108 14.9 HTH HTH PM (12.1 acres), 7E (2.8 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


65

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

111 38.5 HTH HTH PM 10-20% >20% >20% 2.7 2.7

112 52.0 HTH HTH PJ (45.9 acres), PM (6.1 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 3.6 3.6

113 23.0 HTH HTH PJ 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

114 59.5 SDT SDT 96 (47 acres), PJ (12.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 4.2 4.2

115 28.9 UB

96 (21.9 acres), PJ (6 acres), PM (1 acre)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

116 91.5 HTH HTH PJ (64.5 acres), 96 (27 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 6.4 6.4

117 6.8 HTH HTH PJ 10-20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5

118 14.9 HTH HTH PJ 10-20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0


10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

120 54.5 HIM HIM 96 (43.6 acres), PJ (8.2 acres), 15 (2.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 3.8 3.8

121 28.7 HTH HTH 96 (17 acres), PJ (5.3 acres), 15 (6.3 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

122 41.9 HIM HIM PJ (33.9 acres), 96 (8 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.9 2.9


10-20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

124 22.8 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

125 37.0 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.6 2.6

126 62.4 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 4.4 4.4

127 91.9 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 6.4 6.4

128 106.1 HTH HTH 98 (100.6 acres), PJ (5.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 7.4 7.4

129 9.1 HTH HTH 98 (7.5 acres), PJ (1.6 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

130 29.7 HTH HTH PJ (21.9 acres), 15 (7.2 acres), 98 (0.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1


66

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

131 32.4 HTH HTH 15 (18.2 acres), 96 (7.6 acres), PJ (6.6 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

132 76.6

UB 98 (34.3 acres), 96 (31 acres), 15 (1.3 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0 0

133 21.9 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

134 20.9 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

135 13.1 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

136 57.2 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 4.0 4.0

137 16.0 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

138 17.3 HTH MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

139 22.9 HTH MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

140 14.7 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

141 53.6 HTH MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 3.8 3.8

142 20.9 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

143 43.1 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0 0

144 19.3 SDT SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

145 17.7 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

146 32.0 SDT SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 2.2 2.2

147 8.7 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

148 16.9 HTH MLT 98 (13.8 acres), 7E (3 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

149 11.4 SDT NONE

7E 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

150 30.1 SDT SDT 7E (19.2 acres), 98 (10.9 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1

151 8.7 SDT SDT 98 (8 acres), 7E (1 acre)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


>20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

153 18.2 HTH HTH 98 (15 acres), 7E (3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

154 13.7 SDT SDT 98 (10.9 acres), 9Z (2.8 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

155 6.4 HTH HTH 7E (5.9 acres), 98 (0.6 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

156 24.1 SDT SDT 98 (20 acres), 83 (4.1 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

157 6.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4


67

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

158 67.5 SDT SDT 98 (62.8 acres), 83 (3.4 acres), 7E (1.3 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 4.7 4.7

159 12.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

160 26.2 HTH MLT 7E (19.5 acres), 98 (6.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8


10-20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

162 14.5 SDT SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0


10-20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

164 12.7 SDT SDT 98 (6.5 acres), 7E (6.2 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

165 11.8 HTH MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

166 28.3 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

167 15.3 SDT MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1


10-20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1


>20% >20% >20% 4.5 4.5


>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

171 25.5 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

172 22.4 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

173 20.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

174 16.1 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

175 27.0 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

176 16.8 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

177 24.1 HTH MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

178 24.9 HTH HTH 98 (21.5 acres), 97 (3.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

179 16.3 SDT SDT 97 (11.4 acres), 98 (4.9 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

180 25.1 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

181 12.7 HIM HIM 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

182 10.1 HTH MLT 7E (6.7 acres), 98 (3.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

183 13.3 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

184 10.9 HTH MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

185 8.0 SDT SDT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


68

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

186 29.6 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1

187 10.9 HIM MLT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

188 36.3 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.5 2.5

189 16.9 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

190 25.8 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

191 24.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

192 24.2 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

193 16.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

194 4.4 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.3 0.3

195 8.6 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

196 15.4 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

197 11.9 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

198 105.4 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 7.4 7.4

199 25.2 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

200 11.0 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

201 26.2 SDT SDT 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8

202 35.0 SDT SDT 97 >20% >20% >20% 2.4 2.4


>20% >20% >20% 8.7 8.7


>20% >20% >20% 4.9 4.9

205 28.0 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

206 24.2 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

207 39.6 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.8 2.8

208 22.3 SDT SDT 7E >20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

209 14.5 HTH HTH PN >20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

210 8.9 HTH HTH PN (5.6 acres), 9Z (3.3 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

211 10.1 SDT SDT 98 (6.9 acres), PN (3.1 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

212 42.3 HTH HTH 98 (29.3 acres), 9Z (12.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 3.0 3.0

213 28.1 SDT SDT 98 (18.2 acres), 9Z (10 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

214 28.0 HTH HTH 98 (15.2 acres), 7E (12.8 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

215 16.2 SDT SDT 98 (12.8 acres), 9Z (3.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1


69

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

216 15.4 HTH HTH 98 (14 acres), 7E (1.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

217 13.9 HTH HTH 98 (8.8 acres), 9Z (3.3 acres), 7E (1.8 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

218 10.4 HTH None

98 (8 acres), PN (2.4 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

219 5.6 HTH HTH 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

220 23.2 SDT SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

221 31.4 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 2.2 2.2

222 19.2 HTH HTH 98 (11.2 acres), 97 (8 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

223 27.5 HTH HTH 97 (24.6 acres), 98 (1.6 acres), 1 (1.4 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

224 56.0 UB UB 97 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

225 21.9 HTH HTH 97 10-20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

226 22.9 HTH HTH 97 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

227 22.5 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

228 23.3 UB UB 97 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

229 24.7 HTH HTH 97 10-20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

230 34.3 UB UB 97 (20.8 acres), PG (13 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

231 21.8 HTH HTH 97 (17.6 acres), PG (4.2 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

232 9.1 HTH HTH PG (5.2 acres); 97 (3.9 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

233 22.4 HTH HTH PG (5.2 acres), 97 (3.9 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

234 23.7 HTH HTH 97 (20.4 acres), PG (3.3 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

235 49.5 UB UB 97 >20% >20% >20% 0 0

236 37.1 UB UB 97 (22.2 acres), PG (14.9 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0 0

237 7.5 HTH HTH PG (6.6 acres), 97 (0.9 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5

238 8.3 HIM HIM PG <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

239 10.4 HIM HIM PG <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

240 10.1 HIM HIM PG <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

241 36.6 SDT SDT PG 10-20% >20% >20% 2.6 2.6


70

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

242 28.4 SDT SDT PG (25.7 acres), 9T (2.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

243 6.1 HIM HIM PG >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

244 13.6 HIM HIM PG >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

245 14.4 HIM HIM 96 10-20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

246 17.2 HIM HIM 96 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

247 33.2 HIM HIM 43 (15.9 acres), 96 (13.5 acres), 1 (3. acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

248 13.5 MDW

MDW

43 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

249 43.8 MDW

MDW

43 (23.9 acres), 96 (12.5 acres), 1 (7.4 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

250 26.6 HIM HIM 43 (23.3 acres), 96 (3.3 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9


10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6


10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

253 17.5 HIM HIM 96 (15.7 acres), 43 (0.9 acres), 1 (0.9 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

254 49.5 SDT SDT 96 (28.8 acres), 43 (13.6 acres), 1 (2.9 acres), 9F (2.8 acres), PG (1.3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

255 20.9 HIM HIM 9F 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

256 72.5 HTH HTH 9F (62.7 acres), 1 (5 acres), 96 (4.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 5.1 5.1

257 68.3 HIM HIM PG (34.4 acres), 96 (27.2 acres), 9F (6.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 4.8 4.8

258 26.5 HIM HIM 96 (18.4 acres), PG (8.1 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

259 84.5 HIM HIM 96 >20% >20% >20% 5.9 5.9

260 16.2 HIM HIM 96 (8.1 acres) 9F (5.6 acres), 1 (2.4 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

261 16.3 SDT SDT 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1


71

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

262 22.5 UB UB 97 (19.7 acres), PN (2.8 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0 0

263 19.7 UB UB 97 >20% >20% >20% 0 0


>20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

265 8.8 HTH HTH 9Z 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

266 64.1 HTH HTH 97 (32 acres), 9Z (32 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

267 9.4 HTH HTH 9Z (8.5 acres), 97 (0.9 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

268 33.9 HTH MLT 97 (33 acres) 9Z (0.8 acres); 96 (0.2 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

269 16.6 SDT SDT 9Z (12.7 acres) PN (3.9 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

270 20.4 SDT SDT PN >20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

271 11.2 SDT SDT PN >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

272 15.4 SDT SDT PN >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

273 11.1 SDT SDT 9Z >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

274 13.5 HTH HTH 9A <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

275 11.2 HTH HTH 9A 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

276 10.2 SDT SDT 9A 10-20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

277 10.9 HTH HTH 9A 10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

278 13.2 SDT SDT 9A 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

279 16.5 HTH HTH 9Z (14.2 acres), 9A (2.3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 1.2 1.2

280 16.5 SDT SDT 9Z >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

281 13.4 SDT SDT 9Z 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

282 7.1 SDT SDT 9Z >20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5

283 12.0 HTH SDT 9Z >20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

284 15.7 HTH HTH 9Z <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

285 15.5 HTH HTH 9Z (13.7 acres), 9A (1.8 acres)

<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

286 24.3 SDT SDT 9Z <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

287 13.2 SDT SDT PG >20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

288 14.2 SDT SDT PG >20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

289 11.8 HTH HTH 9C (10.4 acres), 9Z (1.3 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8


72

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

290 51.8 SDT SDT PG (34.1 acres), 9Z (10.1 acres), 9C (7.5 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

291 14.6 HTH HTH 9Z <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

292 27.5 SDT SDT 9Z (25 acres), PG (2.5 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

293 12.7 SDT SDT PG 10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

294 5.0 SDT SDT PG <10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

295 29.2 SDT SDT PG 10-20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

296 8.6 SDT SDT 96 >20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

297 39.5 HTH HTH 9C (33 acres), 97 (4.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.8 2.8

298 25.7 HTH HTH 97 (13.9 acres), 9C (11.6 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.8 1.8


10-20% >20% >20% 3.0 3.0


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

301 18.7 HTH HTH 97 (10.6 acres), 9C (6.1 acres); 96 (2 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.3 1.3

302 10.2 HTH HTH 97 10-20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

303 22.5 HTH HTH 97 10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6

304 10.1 HTH HTH 97 (8.8 acres); 96 (1.4 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 0.7 0.7

305 32.1 HTH MLT 97 (21.8 acres), 9C (7.3 acres), 96 (3 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.2 2.2

306 62.4 SDT SDT 9C (36.7 acres), 97 (25.7 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 4.4 4.4

307 20.0 HTH HTH 97 (15 acres), 9C (4.5 acres); 96 (0.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

308 33.1 HTH MLT 97 >20% >20% >20% 2.3 2.3

309 28.0 HTH HTH 97 (21.8 acres), 9Z (6.2 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 2.0 2.0

310 18.1 HTH MLT 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.3 1.3

311 19.1 SDT SDT 9Z (14.4 acres); 97 (4.6 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.3 1.3

312 6.9 HTH MLT 97 >20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5


73

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

313 5.4 SDT SDT 9Z (5 acres); 97 (0.4 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

314 13.4 HTH MLT 97 (8.9 acres), 9C (4.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9


>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

316 21.6 SDT SDT 9C (21 acres), 97 (0.6 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

317 19.9 HTH HTH 9C (10.3 acres), 97 (9.6 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4


>20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4

319 62.0 UB UB 97 (50.7 acres), 9C (11.3 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

320 6.3 HTH HTH 97 >20% >20% >20% 0.4 0.4

321 23.2 UB UB 97 (19.7 acres), 9C (3.5 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

322 13.4 UB UB 97 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

323 17.6 SDT SDT PG (11.4 acres), 97 (6.2 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2

324 24.0 UB UB 97 (13.8 acres); PG (8.8 acres); 9C (1.4 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

325 14.3 SDT SDT 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0

326 20.9 SDT SDT 97 >20% >20% >20% 1.5 1.5

327 16.4 HTH HTH 9C >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

328 16.2 SDT SDT 9C >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1

329 6.5 UB UB 9C 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

330 19.6 UB UB 9C 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

331 32.0 SDT SDT 9C 10-20% >20% >20% 2.2 2.2

332 18.7 UB UB 9C >20% >20% >20% 0 0

333 6.1 SDT SDT 9C 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

334 91.1 UB UB 9C 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

335 11.1 UB UB 9C >20% >20% >20% 0 0

336 8.5 UB UB 9C (5 acres), 9Z (3.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0 0

337 11.2 SDT SDT 9Z (6.9 acres), 9C (4.3 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

338 16.0 SDT SDT 9Z >20% >20% >20% 1.1 1.1


74

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

339 54.0 UB UB 9Z (40.3 acres), 98 (13.7 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

340 12.8 HTH MLT 98 (11.3 acres), 9Z (1.5 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

341 18.0 HTH MLT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.3 1.3

342 8.1 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

343 17.1 SDT SDT 98 (16.2 acres), 9Z (1 acre)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

344 21.1 HTH MLT 98 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

345 12.4 SDT SDT 9Z (5.4 acres), 9C (4.1 acres), 98 (2.8 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

346 13.2 SDT SDT 9C (9 acres), 98 (3 acres), 9Z (1.2 acres)

>20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9


10-20% >20% >20% 0.8 0.8

348 8.4 SDT SDT 9C >20% >20% >20% 0.6 0.6

349 29.6 SDT SDT 9C 10-20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1

350 7.0 SDT SDT 9C >20% >20% >20% 0.5 0.5


10-20% >20% >20% 0.9 0.9

352 36.6 SDT SDT 9C (21.5 acres), 84 (12.3 acres), 98 (2.8 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 2.6 2.6

353 16.6 SDT SDT 84 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

354 27.3 SDT SDT 9C (11.3 acres), 84 (9.3 acres), 98 (6.7 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.9 1.9

355 4.6 UB UB 98 >20% >20% >20% 0 0

356 24.3 SDT SDT 98 (15.3 acres), 84 (9 acres)

10-20% >20% >20% 1.7 1.7

357 4.6 SDT SDT 84 >20% >20% >20% 0.3 0.3

358 14.4 SDT SDT 98 (12 acres), 84 (2.4 acres)

10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0


10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

360 15.3 SDT SDT 84 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0

361 1.9 SDT SDT 96 >20% >20% >20% 0 0

362 17.4 SDT SDT 98 >20% >20% >20% 1.2 1.2


75

Unit #

Acres Alt

B Rx Alt

C Rx Soil Type

Existing DSC Class

Alt B DSC Class

Alt C DSC Class

Acres to Subsoil

Alt B

Acres to Subsoil

Alt C

363 30.6 HTH HTH 98 10-20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1

Ac Sum

9,052 Total Subsoil/Restoration Acres:

433 442

Ringo Vegetation Management Project...

Documents

Transcript of Ringo Vegetation Management Project...