![](media/image1.png)

***MLRA REGION 10 Newsletter***

***4^th^ Quarter 2001***

***(October-November-December)***

**Out of the Field and Onto the \"Floor\"**

Chicago\'s Field Museum of Natural History is still raking in visitors
to the \"Underground Adventure\" exhibit on the wonders of soil. As part
of our involvement with the project, NRCS continues to play a role and
take advantage of the opportunity this exhibit offers us to interact
with the public.

On special Saturdays throughout the spring and summer months, the Museum
opens to the public at a special rate to encourage students and families
to come, see, and learn.

On these days, NRCS is there too! NRCS Soil Scientists volunteer to
serve as a \"Scientist on the Floor,\" manning an exhibit in the Mud
Room\--the final phase of the Underground Adventure\--where all the
lessons and concepts of the exhibit culminate and where there are even
more things to touch and see. This is where kids \"cut loose\"
experimenting with a wide array of hands-on activities, computer and
role-playing games, and other fun things to do. This is also where all
the unanswered questions arise in the minds of visitors of all ages. And
luckily, NRCS is there to answer those questions! On both occasions that
I visited the Underground, I wanted to visit with our NRCS scientist on
the floor, but couldn\'t get anywhere near the table because there was a
horde of kids, parents, and questions blocking my way. How often to soil
scientists get that kind of attention?!

All those who have manned the booth confirm that it is a great
opportunity and a terrific experience. Estimates are that NRCS speaks
with anywhere from 400 to 500 people in one day And all those people
leave The Field Museum knowing a whole lot more about the soil beneath
their feet than they did when they walked in!

By.\'Paige Buck, NRCS

Communications Specialist,

Champaign, IL

the following web site is related to the above article:

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/ua/default.htm

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

Greetings from the Center of Excellence map finishing team at the Fond
du Lac Tribal and Community College.

The Center of Excellence in soil map finishing has undergone a change at
the team leader position. Previous team leader Tom Neuenfeldt helped
develop the Center of Excellence and set guidelines and office policy.
Tom accepted a Soil Data Quality Specialist position at the Region 10
MLRA Office. Mike Walczynski the new team leader has been with NRCS for
over 16 years and has mapped soils in nine counties while in Illinois
and Minnesota. Mike most recently mapped soils in South St. Louis
County.

The current staff and Mike Walczynski are working on the soil map
overlays for Lyon County MN. The soil lines and symbol work for Lyon
County was completed in September. This work is now in the Quality
Control stage. The next project is Freeborn County MN.

During the quality control process for Lyon County the students check
each other's maps. The mapmaker is then responsible for making the
necessary corrections and thus learning from their mistakes. Mike
Walczynski then performs a second quality control check and then a final
check. The soil maps are then sent to the MO in St. Paul for quality
assurance before being forwarded to the digitizing center in Madison WI.

Since the opening ceremony in June of 1998 the Center of Excellence has
trained 35 students to recompile ten Minnesota Counties.

Another important part of the Center's mission is outreach to the
students. An opportunity to introduce a scientific career in soil
science or conservation related field is provided. All students are
taught soil science concepts and basic soil survey through team meetings
and/or other experiences. Students will also have an understanding of
aerial photo interpretation, remote sensing, and how soil survey
information can be used in Geographic Information Systems.

During the summer, Mike Walczynski took five students on a tour of South
St. Louis County looking at various glacial features (till plains,
drumlins, peat bogs, and an esker). Mike also had an opportunity to
demonstrate some of the equipment soil scientists' use and show how soil
types can be related to landscape positions.

Visitors are always welcome at the Center of Excellence. So please stop
by to see how the partnership works between NRCS and Fond du Lac Tribal
and Community College at Cloquet.

For more information, contact Mike Walczynski - (218) 879-0862

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura Visits Center of Excellence**

As part of his visit to the Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
(FDLTCC) in Cloquet, Minnesota in October, Governor Jesse Ventura also
visited the NRCS Center of Excellence for map compilation. He was
briefed on our working relationship with the College and saw first hand
the process of students compiling soil maps under the direct supervision
of an NRCS soil scientist (Mike Walczynski, SS in charge of the Center).

Pictured below from left are Shirley DeFoe (Director, FDLTCC
Foundation), Jack Briggs (President, FDLTCC), Dave Wise (NRCS Soil
Conservationist), Governor Ventura and NRCS Soil Scientist Mike
Walczynski.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.079861111111111in"
height="2.365972222222222in"}

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**NASIS Reports \-- Downloading Error**

Quite a few users have started reporting problems with downloading NASIS
reports. After clicking on Reports and entering a password, they get an
error message that says \"subscript out of range\". Users who have an
older version of the NASIS Secure Access software will occasionally get
the error \"subscript out of range\".

One user was able to correct the problem by removing the NASIS Secure
Access software (be sure to use Add/Remove Program) and downloading and
installing the latest NASIS Secure Access Version 1.5. The latest
version is available at: http://nasis.nrcs.usda.gov

We recommend that everyone install NASIS Secure Access Version 1.5 to
avoid this problem in the future.

Soils Hotline

National Soil Survey Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

Email: hotline@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov

Fax: 402-437-5336

Phone: 402-437-5378 or 5379

Submitted by: John Handler

Soil Data Quality Specialist (Databases)

<john.handler@mn.usda.gov>

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**Soils Maintains Strong On-line Presence**

Soil survey sites maintain a strong presence on the web. Recent usage
statistics indicate that over 957,000 accesses occurred during April
2001. Since October 1, 2000, over 5.8 million hits have been received
through the soils web sites for the National Soil Survey Center, Soil
Survey Division, and Soil Quality Institute. The soil science education
topic area alone receives about 22,000 hits a month. User statistics
reveal that those with the domain of .com access soil web sites most
frequently, followed by unknowns, .net, .edu, and .gov, respectively.
This information demonstrates that soil survey web sites are delivering
information to the public through their home and office systems, their
search routines, and educational institutions.

These statistics do not include the World Soil Resources site
\<[www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/WSR](http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/WSR)\>, which
delivers world-based soil information, nor does it include the National
Cartography and Geospatial Center, which delivers detailed and general
soil map geographic data. The soil survey sites provide links to these
information sources, but do not include their statistics.

The sites began with delivery of standards for soil survey including the
National Soil Survey Handbook, the Soil Survey Manual, Soil Taxonomy,
official series descriptions, and Laboratory Methods. Services have been
expanded to include soil management information, soil survey
publications, laboratory data, geographical information, Agriculture
Handbook 296 on MLRAs, hydric soils, soil educational materials for
teachers and students, and a large amount of other soil information. The
photo gallery, for example, includes the state soil of every state with
images of the landscape and soil profile. In addition, many sites that
provide state emblems, flowers, and flags link to the soils sites. Staff
of universities and other scientists accesses the posters that NRCS
scientists presented at various scientific meetings.

The National Soil Survey Center web site is at \<
[www.nssc.nrcs.usda.gov](http://www.nssc.nrcs.usda.gov/)\>.

For more information, contact:

Gary Muckel

National Soil Survey Center

\(402\) 437-4148

<Gary.muckel@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov>

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**Release of Soil Data Viewer 3.0**

NRCS Soil Survey Division; is proud to announce the release of SOIL DATA
VIEWER 3.0. A version of Soil Data Viewer designed for other agencies,
partners, public and NRCS non-CCE computers is available as a
downloadable ARCVIEW extension or on CDROM. This version of Soil Data
Viewer will install

on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 Professional operating systems. A
Web-downloadable version and user guide can be found at:

<http://www.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/soildataviewer/updates.htm>

under Stand-alone Soil Data Viewer 3.0.

Soil Data Viewer 3.0 is designed to work with the new SSURGO Version 2
data structure and will not work with previous SSURGO products. The new
SSURGO dataset includes SSURGO spatial data and the new SSURGO version 2
soil attribute data. Complete SSURGO version 2 datasets containing both
the spatial and new attribute data are available on a limited basis.
These updated SSURGO datasets will become more commonly available as
previous versions of SSURGO products are reattributed and certified for
distribution.

Users needing pre-certified SSURGO version 2 attribute data should
contact the state soil scientist responsible for the respective area and
request a NASIS 5.0 data export. The contact information for the NRCS
state soil scientist can be found at

<http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv/personnel/sodir.html>

Upon receiving the data export, the user will link the spatial and
attribute data using the procedures described in

<http://nasis.nrcs.usda.gov/products/updatedbf.htm>

This process will create an interim SSURGO version 2 dataset that can be
used with Soil Data Viewer.

For further information and technical assistance, please contact:

Robert D Nielsen

Soil Scientist - Soil Survey Interpretations

USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Soil Survey Center

Federal Bldg, Rm 152, MS36

100 Centennial Mall North

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866

Office 402.437.4149

Fax 402.437.5336

email: <bob.nielsen@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov>

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

SOIL MAPPING A REMOTE WILDERNESS AREA

A MAPPING/CAMPING ADVENTURE/EXPEDITION

As experienced by two of the adventurers

The Ontonagon Soil Survey crew had mapped most of the Porcupine
Wilderness State Park in MLRA 93, but there was 8,000 acres remaining in
a remote section of the park in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

We reserved two cabins, one for the week of April 30 to May 4 and the
other for May 14 to May 18. When the reservations were made last fall we
of course had no clue on what the weather would be like for those weeks.

The staff on the Porkies adventure was:

Scott Eversoll -- Ontonagon County Soil Survey Staff Leader

Bill Anzalone -- Soil Scientist

Randy Tepler -- Soil Scientist

Larry Carey -- MLRA Coordinator (for a day and a half the first week)

Darrin Silkworth -- Soil Scientist, Gogebic County (second week)

# April 30 to May 3

The Porcupine Mountain Wilderness State Park staff took us by boat to
the Buckshot cabin in the morning. The ride on Lake Superior was a
little on the rough side. Bill and I got soaked from the waves coming
over the bow. When we arrived, Larry said this was like an episode of
*Survivor*. He also wondered who was going to be the first one to leave.
We hiked to cabin, had lunch, I handed out mapping assignments and off
we went. At about 5:30 it started to rain. Bill and I got back to the
cabin at about 6:15. After dinner and a game of cards we hit the sack.

The next day we got a good day of mapping in. Larry hiked out in the
afternoon as planned. We had good weather and no bugs for the week. The
area we wanted to get mapped was completed one day ahead of what was
planned.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="2.6666666666666665in"
height="1.9895833333333333in"}

The 8000 acres mapped were in similar terrain in a relatively
inaccessable area between this overlook near the Lake of the Clouds
parking lot and Lake Superior. See maps below for named locations.

We mapped the area around Buckshot from the Superior lakeshore up to the
ridge extending west from the Lake of the Clouds parking lot, including
the Green Mountains. The most westward point mapped was in the area of
Lone Rock back to the westward edge of the Green Mountains. After
several days of 10 hours plus, we finished on May 3, one day ahead of
schedule.

![](media/image4.png){width="6.551388888888889in"
height="5.509722222222222in"}

Coutour interval is 10 meters.

The main soils mapped were Annalake, Belding, Fintsteel (P), Loggerhead
(P) and Porkies (P). The soils ranged from sandy loam to silt loam in
texture with most of the soils in the coarse-loamy family, but there was
some fine-loamy and loamy-skeletal.

# May 14 to May 18

Bill, Randy, Darrin and I got a boat ride to the cabin on the Carp
River. The ride was much dryer. We had lunch and went off mapping. The
previous week there had been some complaining about my snoring, so this
week I was forced to sleep outside in a tent. Darrin caught some suckers
(round mouth trout) for his dinner the first night.

The area we mapped was from the Gogebic County line east to the area we
mapped the previous week. Darren mapped in Gogebic County. This week we
dug not have any mountains to map, so the hiking was not as steep, but
the distances were greater. The main soils were the same as the previous
week. In this area of the Porkies the terraces were wider. Randy and
Darrin hiked out a day early, while Bill and I finished up what was left
of the mapping.

We also found out that the Porkies boat was broke but the Department of
Conservation was sending a boat to pick us up. The boat arrived about an
hour early. Bill I and were scrambling to get the cabin clean and our
gear down to the Lake Superior shore, so we would not get left behind.
The DOC boat was bigger and provided a much better ride.

We did finish up the mapping in the Porkies on this trip; the weather
cooperated (it rained on a few evenings but no snow). I would consider
the trip very successful.

Contributed by:

Scott Eversoll -- Soil Survey Staff Leader, Ontonagon, MI

\* \* \* \* \* \*

# PORCUPINE MOUNTAIN MAPPING EXPEDITION

The Ontonagon Soil Survey Crew organized a two week long mapping/camping
expedition into the remote access areas of the Porcupine Mountains
Wilderness State Park. All members of the Ontonagon Soil Survey Crew
plus Larry Carey attended the first week (April 30 to May 4) for the
first two days. All members of the Ontonagon Crew plus myself of the
Gogebic Soil Survey Crew attended the second week (May 14 to 18). What
follows are the highlights of my week.

Wednesday while walking on a game trail, I found a large antler shed
with 5 points, the longest tine being 10 inches. I spent 5 minutes
looking in the immediate vicinity for the matching antler to no avail.
Knowing antlers commonly fall off days apart, I continued on my traverse
knowing the other one would be extremely hard to find. Three soil
observations later I was passing through the same general area about 1/8
mile away when I spotted a large black bear. I walked to the spot that
he had run from and found a large wind throw that looked like a perfect
bear den. And, lying next to the wind throw was the other shed. This one
had four points, but it definitely was the match to the 5 pointer. GPS
Location: UTM 16, 281019E, 5181431N.

![](media/image5.png){width="6.176388888888889in"
height="2.3020833333333335in"}

The red cross marks the location of the bear den, wind throw, and four
point shed. The northeast corner of Gogebic County is one mile north of
the red cross. Same scales as above map.

Evenings were spent fishing. On Monday I had caught 2 round --mouth
trout and fried them up. Other than myself, only Randy ate a small
piece. On Tuesday I took some credit time to get an early start on brook
trout fishing. I caught a few and kept a 10 incher from the upper Big
Carp River. I ate the trout myself without offering any to the other
crew members. They must not like trout.

Contributed by:

Darin Silkworth, Soil Scientist, Ramsay, MI

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**SOIL AND INTERPRETIVE IMPACTS OF TRACKED LOGGING EQUIPMENT**

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

**Gentle Logging Demonstration**

On May 9 the Northeastern Area's Wood Education and Resource Center was
one of several partners who hosted a "gentle logging" demonstration near
Munising, Michigan. Over 400 individuals representing all areas of the
logging and forest management community attended this event, which
demonstrated and evaluated several "high-flotation" type timber
harvesting systems. Held on timberlands owned and managed by Shelter Bay
Forests, five different logging systems conducted "thinning" operations
on wet northern hardwood stands while attendees looked on. The
demonstration was part of a larger project funded through the Wood
Education and Resource Center designed to investigate and demonstrate
the site impact and operation costs of several harvesting systems
working on productive, but water-sensitive, northern hardwood soils.

Several harvesting and forwarding systems were demonstrated at the
event. While equipments sizes varied from the very large to the very
small, all share design features that result in the equipment leaving
much less of a "footprint" in forests where the soils are vulnerable to
compaction or other damage.

In the days following the demonstration, investigators conducted
measurements designed to measure the efficiency, operability, and
environmental impacts of the various systems. The results of the
demonstration and evaluation will be published later this year. Portions
of the demonstration were also videotaped. Videotape highlights will be
presented as part of an interactive satellite conference designed to
present the results of this effort to interested individuals and
organizations in the northeast, midwest, and Canada.

While results of the tests are still being evaluated, indications are
favorable. Quoted in the local newspaper "The Mining Journal," Natural
Resource Conservation Service Soil Scientist Dwight Jerome, one of those
judging the effectiveness of the equipment, said "My initial impression
is that it's a great improvement over original wheeled systems. They
really don't seem to be having much of an impact."

Peter Grieves, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of
Timbermen, and one of the organizers of the event, noted that "Don
Howlett put together a solid team that has made this an outstanding
project. The management group designed a project that will produce some
useful information for loggers as well as both public and private forest
managers. Demonstration day created a lot of interest. Several loggers
and foresters told me that it was a great opportunity for them and they
hoped that the demonstration day could be repeated on a regular basis.

We need to identify other research projects that can bring forest
resource managers, researchers, educators and harvesting professionals
together. The video part of the project will provide even more chances
to learn how we can best extend the educational value of these research,
demonstration, and educational efforts."

Other partners in this effort include the Hiawatha National Forest,
Southern Research Station, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Michigan State University Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center,
Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Forest Management Division, Northern Initiatives, Upper
Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council, National Park
Service Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and Davie Communications.

**[Contributed by:]{.underline}**

Don Howlett

Partnership and Rural Community Assistance Coordinator

Acting Regional Conservation Education Program Manager

Hiawatha National Forest

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

SKID TRAIL IMPACTS -- RUTTING DEPTH AND COMPACTION MEASUREMENTS

I.  Preface - The soil conditions at the demonstration site consist
    primarily of deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy
    glacial till. Typically, these soils have a firm, dense fragipan
    layer about two feet below the surface. Permeability is restricted
    in the fragipan layer. In most years there is a perched water table
    above the fragipan in the spring shortly after snowmelt. However,
    these soils also tend to dry out quickly when the trees begin to
    "leaf out". Some of the equipment operators and several in
    attendance commented they were expecting a wetter, more sensitive
    site. During wetter periods of the year these soils *are* very
    sensitive.

The overall relief at the site is nearly level. Slopes are less than 6
percent and surface runoff is slow. The microrelief at the site
consisted of a hummocky pattern of tree-tip pits and mounds.

The major soils mapped at the demonstration site are soils that are
similar or closely related to the Munising series. Detailed soils
information can be obtained at
[*www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/*](http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/)
or from USDA NRCS. The dominant soil surface textures are sandy loam or
fine sandy loam. Small minor areas with sandy surface textures (e.g.
loamy sand, loamy fine sand, and fine sand) are also present throughout
the site. Soil drainage is dominantly moderately well drained with minor
amounts of well drained and somewhat poorly drained soils. An occasional
small depression of poorly drained soils was present in the back
portions of sites H, I, and J. While collecting data, non-typical
conditions were noted when they were encountered.

The major woodland management concerns at the site are equipment
limitation and windthrow hazard. The use of logging equipment is
generally restricted in spring and in excessively wet periods. The upper
part of the soil is wet and may be saturated during these periods. The
degree of saturation is generally higher in depressions. Ruts form
easily if wheeled skidders are used when the soil is wet. Deep ruts tend
to restrict lateral drainage, alter soil structure, and expose tree
roots. Also, because of the fragipan layer in the subsoil, trees are
shallow rooted. Some trees may be blown down during periods of high wind
and excessive wetness.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="2.7777777777777777in"
height="1.8888888888888888in"}Skidder: A machine on tracks or wheels
used to drag logs from the forest to a landing where they can be further
processed and loaded on a truck. Skidders are equipped with cables or
grapples.

Damage to root systems is also a concern on these soils because of the
shallow rooting depths. Increasing mechanization of ground systems for
harvesting and thinning may reduce the growth of the remaining stand by
directly damaging root systems through soil compaction (Daniel, Helms,
and Baker, 1979). The potential for soil or root damage depends largely
on the conditions of the site, stand, and operational factors. Site
factors include topography, soil type and depth, soil moisture, and
degree of soil protection from slash. Stand factors include tree
species, age or size, stand density before and after operation, and
rooting characteristics. And operational factors involve ground pressure
and vibration of equipment, operator skill and care, load sizes being
removed, pattern of skid routes, and the number of equipment passes.
Some of these factors were measured by members of other evaluation teams
and may directly or indirectly relate to the rutting and soil compaction
results. Hopefully, some comparisons can be made between some of these
results.

II. Procedures -- The depth of rutting and soil compaction was
    determined along a primary and secondary skid trail within each
    "Operation" area. This was accomplished by measuring the depth of
    ruts and obtaining paired bulk density samples (one within the rut
    and another in an adjacent undisturbed area) at several points as
    intervals along two major skid trails (figure 2). The rut depth
    measurements and bulk density samples were taken at 50-foot
    intervals for a distance of 200 feet (figure 1). This produced five
    sets of measurements for each of the two main skid trails in each
    "Operation" area. A total of 40 rut depths were measured and 80 bulk
    density samples were collected in plots E, H, I, and J.

Figure 1. Skid trail compaction and rutting plot layout

![](media/image7.wmf)

Figure 2. Rut depth measurement (d)

![](media/image8.wmf)

Rut depths (d) were measured using a level rod as shown in figure 2. The
depths were measured from the original soil surface to the deepest
portion of the rut. Three inch diameter sampling cores were used to
collect soil samples used for determining bulk density. Bulk density is
commonly used to measure soil compaction. Bulk density is the weight of
soil for a given volume. In general, the greater the density, the less
pore space for water movement, root growth and penetration.

Another common tool used for studying soil compaction is soil
penetrometers. Soil strength measurements made with a penetrometer are
highly dependent on both soil moisture and bulk density at the time of
measurement. Penetrometers may also produce highly variable results in
soils where numerous roots, rock fragments and fluctuating soil
moistures are encountered. For these reasons, bulk density was chosen
over penetrometer measurements.

Soil bulk density can be measured by various methods, such as clod, core
or auger hole. Although each method has its disadvantages, observed soil
bulk density values are less dependent on soil moisture and measuring
techniques than are soil strength values. Bulk density samples were
taken using the "Core Method" developed by the USDA ARS and NRCS Soil
Quality Institute. For further information contact:
[*www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/sqihome.shtml*](http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/sqihome.shtml)

![](media/image9.wmf)Rutting Depth Results

![](media/image10.wmf)

![](media/image15.wmf)

# 

  -------------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
  **Study Plot** **Ave. Rut Depths (IN)      **Ave. Rut Depths (IN)
                 Primary**                   Secondary**

  E --           4.25                        3.4
  Timberjack                                 

  H -- Ponsse    5.1                         4.8

  I -- Valmet    3.8                         4.9

  J -- Fabtek    3.4                         3.3\*
  -------------- --------------------------- -----------------------------

\* Excluded one measurement taken in a wet depression from average.

# IV. Rutting Depth Summary - The microrelief at the demonstration site was a 

# hummocky pattern of tree-tip pits and mounds sometimes referred to as cradle knolls. This relief posed some challenges when measuring the rut depths. It was important to study each transect point to determine the best position to make a measurement that was truly reflective of the rut depth. Measurements were made as shown in figure 2. The soil surface was rarely level and depths were measured from the original soil surface. Most of the ruts greater than 4 inches deep exhibited raised "berms". It was important not to measure from the top of the rut berms. These depths would be an inaccurate representation of the ruts made by the tires and/or tracks of each forwarder. In some instances the trail was covered with a heavy slash layer. In these (3) cases the depths were not recorded because it was impractical and the depths were insignificant.

# ![](media/image17.jpeg){width="3.3958333333333335in" height="2.4583333333333335in"}

Forwarder: A machine with a crane which can load logs onto its chassis
and piggy-back them to a road where it can sort and pile them or load
them directly onto a truck.

# 

Overall, the rutting depths did not vary greatly between plots. Where
ruts were deeper than 5 inches, the soil moisture content was noticeably
higher. The deepest rut (16.5") was in a small wet depression. Because
of this, it was not used in calculating the ave. rut depths shown in the
graphs. Forty percent of the rut depths measured were less than 3.25
inches, 48 percent were between 3.25 to 7 inches, and 12 percent were
over seven inches deep. Rut depths on the secondary skid trails were
somewhat less in some cases, but did not vary greatly. This is most
likely due to variable soil conditions and the amount of slash present
on the trails. Typically, a study used to show this type of result would
need to be conducted on sites that have uniform soil and site
conditions.

A factor that had a major affect on the depth of the ruts was the amount
of slash present on the skid trails. In most cases, when a layer of
slash was present the rut depths were significantly less. In three
instances where a heavy slash layer existed, measurements were not made.
Below the heavy slash layer, measurable rut depths were not present. On
sites where sensitive soil conditions exist, it is important to take
steps to reduce potentially damaging ruts. Tracked harvesting systems
and slash cover in combination appeared to be an effective way to
increase tire flotation and reduce rutting on sensitive soils.

V.  Compaction Results

Figure 1. Bulk Density Results

  ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------
  **System**   **Ave. % Soil    **Ave. Bulk      **Ave. %     **Ave. Bulk
               Moisture         Density          Soil         Density Ruts
               Undisturbed**    Undisturbed      Moisture     (g/cu. cm)**
                                (g/cu. cm)**     Ruts**       

  Ponsse       19               1.38             22           1.56

  Fabtek       24               1.16             24           1.48

  Timberjack   22               1.17             20           1.66

  Valmet       28               1.01             22           1.47
  ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------

Figure 2. General relationship of soil bulk density to root restriction
based on dominant soil textures at the demonstration site.

  ----------------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------
  **Soil Texture**        **Ideal Bulk    **Bulk Densities  **Bulk
                          Densities       that may affect   Densities that
                          (g/cu. cm)**    root growth**     restrict root
                                                            growth**

  Sands, **loamy sands**  \<1.60          1.69              \>1.80

  **Sandy loams,** loams  \<1.40          1.63              \>1.80
  ----------------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------

## 

![](media/image18.wmf)Figure 3.

![](media/image19.wmf)Figure 4.

VI. Compaction Summary -- The initial goal of the compaction
    measurements was to obtain results that were reflective of the soil
    conditions for each operation plot. For the purposes of this
    demonstration, the intent was not to undertake a major compaction
    study so that precise comparisons could be made. This was not a
    controlled study. Although the overall relief of the site was
    uniform, the microrelief was not. There was enough relief present to
    effect soil moisture and organic matter content. Soil moisture and
    organic matter content had a major affect on some of the bulk
    density results. The soil surface textures ranged from fine sandy
    loam and sandy loam to loamy sand and loamy fine sand. These
    variations also influence bulk density results. This was recognized
    in the field when collecting samples. Some of the core samples taken
    occurred in small depressions, which had a higher amount of organic
    matter in the surface layer. These samples made it difficult to
    compare between the "undisturbed" and rut soil samples. Fortunately,
    this was a small percentage of the total samples collected. Most of
    the samples yielded useful results. Some of the samples collected in
    the ruts had bulk density results that were seemingly low for an
    area that had received heavy equipment traffic. This was also a
    small percentage, but is most likely due to the amount of soil
    displacement in some instances. There was a small amount of
    "churning" of the soil surface and upper subsoil, which alters soil
    structure and can decrease bulk density.

Typical soil bulk densities range from 1.10 to 1.70 g/cu. cm. Ideal bulk
densities (figure 2) for sandy loams are less than 1.40 and less than
1.60 for loamy sands. All of the undisturbed samples were below 1.60. On
average these samples ranged from 1.10 to 1.43 g/cu. cm. (figure 3).
Bulk density averages in the ruts ranged from 1.47 to 1.66 g/cu. cm.

Soils with sandy loam or loamy sand textures are generally considered
compacted at 1.80 g/cu. cm. At this bulk density root growth is
restricted. Only 3 percent of the samples were above this level. Fifty
four percent of the bulk density measurements on the skid trails were
from 1.60 to1.80 and 43% were below 1.60 (figure 4).

There was a significant increase in bulk density in some instances
between the undisturbed samples and rut samples (figure 3). Many factors
can be attributed to an increase in bulk density. Factors such as
equipment weight, load weight, number of equipment passes, soil moisture
content, and soil texture are responsible for the variations in these
results. Since this was not intended to be an extensive compaction
study, there can be no conclusive statements about one system vs.
another based on these bulk density results. However, most of the
results do show that there was a fairly moderate increase in compaction
on each plot. Some of the plots have bulk densities that would be
considered moderately compacted, but there is no indication of a serious
compaction problem on any of the plots. Since all of the systems were
using tracks and equipment weights were similar, it is difficult to make
comparisons.

VII. **Site Impact Summary -** The use of tracks on sensitive soils
     appears to be a step in a positive direction. Still, other factors
     such as soil conditions and time of year must be a primary
     consideration. Some soils have characteristics that are extremely
     sensitive and could receive extensive damage regardless of the
     system used. The soils of any harvest site should always be
     considered. Soil survey information is a very useful resource
     available to help landowners manage their forests. Many areas in
     the Upper Peninsula support quality northern hardwood stands, but
     have site conditions that make it difficult to harvest without
     damaging the soils and causing residual damage to the stand. It is
     important to recognize these limitations and manage these sites
     appropriately. Harvest systems that diminish or lessen the impact
     on a site are defininitely worth considering. Hopefully, this
     demonstration has increased an awareness of this.

### References

Daddow, Richard L. and Warrington, Gordon E. 1983. Growth-Limiting Soil
Bulk Densities as Influenced by Soil Texture. WSDG Report WSDG-TN-0005.
Fort Collins, CO.

Daniel, Theodre W., Helms, John H., and Baker, Frederick S. 1979.
*Principles of Silviculture, 2^nd^ Edition.* McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Hakansson, I. and Voorhees, W.B. 1997. Soil Compaction. *Advances in
Soil Science: Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation.* CRC Press.
Boca Raton, FL.

USDA Agriculture Research Service, USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Soil Quality Institute. 1998. *Soil Quality Test Kit Guide.*

[Contributed by:]{.underline}

Dwight Jerome, Resource Soil Scientist

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Marquette MLRA Project Office

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

![](media/image20.png)**WEB SITES OF INTEREST**

State Soils website at <http://www.geobop.com/paleozoo/Soils/>

Contact: David Blomstrom at <GeoBear@geobop.com>

Current soils forms may be obtained at this web site:
<http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nps/soi.htm>

<http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra/index.html>

Soil surveys on the web available from MO 2. Your choice of:Mendocino
Co., CA, West; Napa

County, CA;; Stanislaus County, Western Part.

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**OSDs updated 7/2001- 9/2001**

FRIGID: buckroe ... carlshend ... chabeneau ... chocolay ... crex ...
dishno ... farquar ... frechette ... frohling ... garlic ... jeske ...
keewaydin ... keshena ... lablatz ... mashek ... moshawquit ... neconish
... neopit ... northland \... noseum \... pecore \... perote \...
peshtigo \... pleine \... rabe \... reade \... schweitzer \... shag \...
skandia \... spear \... sporley \... sunia \... tokiahok \... totagatic
\... tourtillot \... traunik \... tula \... vanriper \... voelker \...
wayka \... yellowdog

MESIC: aldo \... barremills \... bearpen \... boguscreek \... boplain
\... brice \... brinkman \... churchtown \... delft \... derrynane \...
dinsdale \... dinsmore \... dunkerton \... elbaville \... ella \...
fairport \... farrington \... finchford \... forkhorn \... gaphill \...
garne \... gladek \... greenridge \... hamel \... hersey \... kevilar
\... kickapoo \... klingmore \... komro \... lacrescent \... lambeau
\... lamoille \... lawler \... lourdes \... lycurgus \... marquis \...
marshan \... maxfield \... maxmore \... mindoro \... morconick \...
nevin \... norden \... oran \... pepin \... plumcreek \... prissel \...
protivin \... rasset \... readlyn \... renova \... rockbluff \... rolfe
\... root \... rusktown \... salix \... saude \... sigglekov \...
spillville \... steen \... terril \... tripoli \... valton \... waubeek
\... waukee \... wiota

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

**Schedule for October-November-December (subject to change)**

[WEEK]{.underline} [LOCATION]{.underline} [MLRA]{.underline}
[STAFF]{.underline} [ACTIVITY]{.underline}

10/8-12/01 Rochester, MN 104 AGG, Progress Review - MNSEP

TWN

10/8-12/01 Forman, ND 56 DJP Richland Co. PFR

10/8-12/01 Duluth, MN JWM GIS/LIS Conference

10/15-19/01 Atlantic, IA 107B TWN Initial Field Review - Shelby Co.

10/15-19/01 Int\'l Falls, MN 88 MPD QA Field Review - Koochiching Co.

10/15-19/01 Richland Center, WI 105 JJJ Final Field Review - Richland
County

10/15-19/01 Madison, WI JWM Recruiting + WISSG

10/22-26/01 Milaca, MN 90 AGG, Progress Review - Mille Lacs/Kanabec

MPD

10/22-26/01 MLRA Offices JWM Performance Review

10/29-11/2/01 Marshall, MN 107 AGG, Nobles Field Visit

11/5-9/01 Marshall, MN 107A TWN, QA Field Review - Nobles Co.

TCJ

11/5-9/01 Thief River Falls, MN KDM TSS Quality Review - FSO NW

11/5-9/01 St. Cloud, MN JWM (7) Gov\'s Council for GIS

11/5-9/01 Des Moines, MN LLD (6-8) IA Meeting

11/12-16/01 Washington, IA 108C TWN Initial Field Review - Iowa Co.

11/12-16/01 Fergus Falls, MN KDM TSS Quality Review - FSO WC

11/19-23/01 St. Paul, MN CTS MNSEP Technical Coordinating Meeting

11/19-23/01 Nobles County, MN 103 TCJ Nobles County DMUs

11/26-30/01 Rock Falls, IL 108B TWN Prog. Review -- Henderson Co.

12/3-7/01 Brooklyn Center, MN 90 AGG Initial Review -- Benton County, MN

12/3-7/01 Duluth, MN KDM, TSS Quality Review - FSO NE

MPD

12/3-7/01 Ironwood, MI 93B JJJ NASIS Data Review -- Ontonagon County

12/10-14/01 Hinckley, MN Staff Soil Scientist Meeting

12/10-14/01 Eau Claire, WI All JJJ Project Leaders Meeting

12/10-14/01 Bloomington, MN JWM Program Managers Workshop

12/10-14/01 St. Paul, MN All LLD Manuscript Training

12/17-21/01 St. Paul, MN 107 AGG, Final Correlation -- Rock County

TWN

12/17-21/01 I\'Falls/TBD, MN 88 DJP data base setup/trainingTBD

12/31/01-1/4/02 Brooklyn Center, MN KDM TSS Quality Review - FSO EC

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

CONTRIBUTIONS, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

This newsletter is intended to be a forum to distribute information of a
general nature that will benefit soil scientists in soil survey project
offices. It is hoped that it will foster communications and sharing of
knowledge among those soil scientists in MLRA Region 10.

\* \* \* \* \*

Articles from other newsletters are often included to distribute ideas
and comments from other areas of the country; these ideas and comments
are not necessarily identical to those used in MLRA Region 10.

\* \* \* \* \*

The format of this newsletter is intentionally simple so that it can be
received, read, and printed by the project office having the least
sophisticated computer and printer setup.

\* \* \* \* \*

Thanks to those individuals who participated this month. It is your
efforts that have made this newsletter a success.

![](media/image21.png)\* \* \* \* \*

Articles in an electronic format can be submitted to:

<rhonda.osterman@mn.usda.gov>

\* \* \* \* \*

Previous copies of this newsletter are available at:

<http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/mo10/mo10.html>

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~

### USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

> The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
> all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
> origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
> orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
> apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require
> alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
> large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA\'s TARGET Center at
> 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
>
> To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of
> Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence
> Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice
> and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~