Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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)
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
8
Figure 1 - General Soil Groups in the Ringo Project Area
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard, low to unproductive landtype for timber
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
Slopes >30%, high displacement and erosion hazard, low to unproductive landtype for timber
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
13
Figure 2 - Sensitive Soil Types in the Ringo Project Area
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Existing Condition
(Alternative A)
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
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.
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
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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).
All prescribed burn units.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
All proposed activity areas
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.
All prescribed burn units.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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).
All proposed activity areas.
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
All proposed activity areas.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
All proposed activity areas
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.
All proposed activity areas.
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
All proposed activity areas
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
All proposed activity areas.
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
All prescribed burn units.
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Areas Common to Action Alternative
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC
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.
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 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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
29
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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%.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Units Common to Action Alternatives
Past, Present, and Future Actions
(Units)
Cumulative Impacts (Units)
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC
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,
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
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 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 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
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative B
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC
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.
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 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.
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
See Detrimental Soil Disturbance under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
See Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C
above.
Cumulative Effects
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
See Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C
above.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
37
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative B (Units)
Past, Present, and Future
Actions (Units)
Cumulative Impacts (Units)
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC
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
individual unit estimates.
258 units (6,369 acres) would temporarily
exceed LRMP S&Gs for
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
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) would not exceed LRMP standards
after planned activities.
After all harvest
activities and restoration
work completed: 195 units
(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
Coarse woody debris and surface organic matter
The amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter retained to provide ground cover, maintain
Professional judgment/qualitative assessment of sufficiency; percent effective ground cover or tons per acre retained
Monitoring data and best
professional judgment
suggest that all of the proposed
activity units currently meet
After project activities, all units are expected to comply with the recommended management
guidelines that ensure adequate
Predict sufficient
quantities of CWD and
fine organic matter for surface
cover for
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
retention of snags, CWD, and fine
organic matter for surface cover,
biological activity, and nutrient supply for
maintaining soil long-term
productivity
maintaining soil long-
term productivity;
no reasonably foreseeable actions that
would notably impact amount
/continuity of CWD or surface organic matter
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
See the Cumulative Effects discussion under under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative C
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
Percentage of each treatment area in a detrimental soil condition; number of units/acres exceeding 20% DSC
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)
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
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 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.
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
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.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
See Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C
above.
Cumulative Effects
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
See Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C
above.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
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
(Quantify if possible)
Measure
(Quantify if possible)
Alternative C (Units)
Past, Present, and Future
Actions (Units)
Cumulative Impacts (Units)
Detrimental soil disturbance
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
activities and restoration
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
individual unit estimates.
exceed LRMP S&Gs for
acceptable soil productivity. 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 349 units
would not exceed LRMP standards
after planned activities.
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) greater than 20% with no
net improvement
in soil condition; no reasonably foreseeable actions that will notably
increase extent of DSC in
project area
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 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 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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
41
organic matter
Detrimental Soil Disturbance
See the Cumulative Effects discussion under Effects Common to Alternatives B and C above.
Coarse Woody Debris and Surface Organic Matter
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:
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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).
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
46
Table 11 - Summary comparison of environmental effects to soil resources
Resource Element
Indicator/Measure Alt A (No Action) Alt B Alt C
Detrimental soil disturbance
The extent of detrimental soil conditions within individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments
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).
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.
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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.
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
50
Appendix
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
51
Figure 3 - Guide to Detailed Soil Maps
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
52
Figure 4 - Ringo Soils Map 1
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
53
Figure 5 - Ringo Soils Map 2
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
54
Figure 6 - Ringo Soils Map 3
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
55
Figure 7 - Ringo Soils Map 4
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
56
Figure 8 - Ringo Soils Map 5
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
57
Figure 9 - Ringo Soils Map 6
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
58
Figure 10 - Ringo Soils Map 7
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
59
Figure 11 - Ringo Soils Map 8
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
60
Figure 12 - Ringo Soils Map 9
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
15 13.5 HTH HTH PM (9.3 acres), 98 (4.2 acres)
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
29 22.1 HTH HTH PM (15.8 acres), 96 (6.3 acres)
<10% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
45 21.3 HTH HTH PJ (11.1 acres), 96 (10.2 acres)
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
92 8.2 HTH HTH 98 (6.7 acres), PM (1.5 acres)
10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0
93 32.9 HTH HTH 98 (23.1 acres), PM (9.8 acres)
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
109 35.2 HTH HTH PM (26.2 acres), 7E (8.9 acres)
10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 0 0
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
110 16.1 HTH HTH PM (11.2 acres), 7E (4.9 acres)
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
119 27.9 HTH HTH PJ (17.4 acres), 96 (10.5 acres)
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
123 26.6 HTH HTH PJ (24.1 acres), 98 (2.5 acres)
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
152 27.0 SDT SDT 7E (14.4 acres), 98 (12.6 acres)
>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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
161 19.6 SDT SDT 7E (17.6 acres), 98 (2.1 acres)
10-20% >20% >20% 1.4 1.4
162 14.5 SDT SDT 98 10-20% >20% >20% 1.0 1.0
163 24.5 SDT SDT 7E (17.1 acres), 98 (7.4 acres)
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
168 30.5 SDT SDT 98 (19.1 acres), 7E (11.3 acres)
10-20% >20% >20% 2.1 2.1
169 64.7 SDT SDT 7E (58.1 acres), 98 (6.6 acres)
>20% >20% >20% 4.5 4.5
170 20.1 SDT SDT 98 (13.9 acres), 7E (6.2 acres)
>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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
203 123.9 HTH HTH 97 (107.1 acres), 98 (16.8 acres)
>20% >20% >20% 8.7 8.7
204 70.2 HTH HTH 97 (42.4 acres), 98 (27.8 acres)
>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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
251 22.4 HIM HIM 96 (19.2 acres), 43 (3.2 acres)
10-20% >20% >20% 1.6 1.6
252 11.0 HIM HIM 43 (7.6 acres), 5 (3.3 acres)
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
264 11.3 SDT SDT 97 (6.4 acres), 96 (4.8 acres)
>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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
299 42.7 HTH HTH 97 (39.3 acres), 9C (3.4 acres)
10-20% >20% >20% 3.0 3.0
300 15.2 HTH HTH 97 (11.7 acres), 9C (3.5 acres)
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
315 20.0 SDT SDT 9C (13.5 acres), 97 (6.5 acres)
>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
318 20.0 HTH HTH 97 (10.9 acres), 9C (9.1 acres)
>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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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
347 10.8 SDT SDT 9C (9.3 acres), 98 (1.5 acres)
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
351 13.2 SDT SDT 9C (12.1 acres), 98 (1.1 acres)
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
359 10.2 SDT SDT 84 (6.6 acres), 98 (3.6 acres)
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
Soil Resource Report Ringo EIS
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