2409.26b,30
Page 1 of 18
FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK
PORTLAND, OREGON
2409.26b - REFORESTATION HANDBOOK
R-6 Amendment No. 2409.26b-92-1
Effective February 7, 1992
POSTING NOTICE. Amendments to this handbook are numbered consecutively.
Check the last transmittal sheet received for this handbook to see that the above
amendment number is in sequence. If not, obtain intervening amendment(s) at
once from the Information Center. Do not post this supplement until the missing
one(s) is received and posted. After posting, place the transmittal at the front of the
title and retain until the first transmittal of the next calendar year is received.
The last Amendment to this handbook was 2409.26b-91-3 (60 APPENDIX B).
Document Name
30
2409.26b,30
Superseded New
(Number of Sheets)
18
18
Digest:
This is a Technical Amendment to change the Document Name. CONTENT HAS
NOT BEEN CHANGED.
JOHN F. BUTRUILLE
Regional Forester
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 2 of 18
FSH 2409.26b - REFORESTATION HANDBOOK
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
CHAPTER 30 - SITE PREPARATION
30INTRODUCTION
30.1Definition and Objective
31PLANNING AND PREPARATION
31.1Choice of Method
31.2Planting and Seeding
31.3Natural Regeneration
31.4Long-Term Site Productivity
32 METHODS OF SITE PREPARATION
32.1Mechanical Site Preparation
32.11Hand Methods
32.11aTechniques
32.11bTools Available
32.12Machine Methods
32.12aTechniques
32.12bEquipment Available
32.2Thermal Site Preparation
32.21Prescribed fire
32.22Water Gel Explosives
32.3Biological Site Preparation
32.31Grazing
32.32Silvical
32.4 Chemical Site Preparation
32.41Direction and Guidance
32.42Application Techniques
32.43Timing of Application
32.44Herbicide Selection
33SELECTED REFERENCES
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 3 of 18
30 - INTRODUCTION. Site preparation is used to create an environment suitable
for the establishment of desired tree species by either natural or artificial
regeneration methods. This environment is created by altering vegetative cover,
soil, or other microsite elements through the use of mechanical, thermal, chemical,
or biological methods, or any combination of these. Site preparation techniques can
provide long range effects that protect seedlings and germinants from negative
effects of sun and wind, increase available moisture and nutrients, and reduce
rodent and other pest habitat. The need for site preparation should be carefully
evaluated. Site preparation is not necessary in every situation. As time elapses
after a timber harvest entry, wildfire, or other stand altering event, the need for site
preparation will increase. The cost of regeneration may be reduced by timely and
effective site preparation measures. A reduction of any regeneration lag may also
be anticipated. A major cause of seedling mortality and regeneration failure is often
inadequate or improperly timed site preparation. Site preparation is an essential
step in the regeneration process and an integral part of a regeneration silvicultural
prescription.
30.1 - Definition and Objective. Site preparation; any planned measure used to
prepare a site for the establishment of artificial or natural regeneration. The
objectives often include one or more of the following:
- Improving access for tree planters and increasing the number of
plantable spots by the removal or rearrangement of slash or other debris
(natural or man-caused).
- Preparation of a suitable seedbed for natural regeneration or artificial
seeding.
- Reduction of vegetative competition.
- Reduction or elimination of animal and other potential pest habitat.
- Reduction of compaction or improved drainage of surface and upper
soil horizons.
- Creation of microsite environments favorable to the establishment and
growth of desired tree species.
- Reduction or control of disease problems currently on the site.
- Preservation of long-term site productivity potential.
31 - PLANNING AND PREPARATION. The analysis of needs for site preparation
shall be an integral part of the silvicultural prescription for an area. It is but one
link in the chain of events leading to a successful prescription. A weak link in the
process may be the cause of failing to achieve the attainment of desired objectives.
The silvicultural prescription and site preparation decision should be reviewed and
confirmed after the completion of timber harvest. An interdisciplinary approach
sensitive to economics and the attainment of all resource objectives is mandatory.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 4 of 18
All site preparation work shall be accomplished under the auspices of the FEIS on
Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation, which should be consulted for
management direction and mitigation measures.
31.1 - Choice of Method. The choice of proper site preparation method is critical.
Site preparation wrongly applied can lead to site degradation and losses in longterm site productivity. Careful evaluation of specific site conditions and objectives
shall be made and included in the silvicultural prescription.
Physical site characteristics are an obvious factor. Slope, aspect, soil type and
characteristics, inherent productivity, plus access, and size of area all shall be
carefully analyzed. Normally ground machine methods will be limited to slopes less
than 30 percent, or slopes even gentler if soil properties, such as high erosivity are
present. On steeper southern slopes concern for the impacts of site preparation on
solar energy input will be considered. Likewise, in cold frost prone areas, the type
of site preparation can accentuate and worsen the associated problems. In these
cases dead shade in the form of slash should be retained to provide a microclimate
that favors seedling establishment. Prescribed fire on sites with low inherent
productivity can lead to considerable loss in site productivity potential, while
applied on more typical sites can maintain or enhance productivity compared to
other options. The point is, a detailed site specific evaluation shall be conducted.
The species composition and density of competing vegetation will directly affect the
choice of site preparation method. A knowledge or understanding of the likely
successional pattern to expect both following initial disturbance and site
preparation are essential for success. This information should be applied on a
habitat type basis with consideration for local conditions and past experiences. For
instance, in some habitat types prescribed burning may worsen a competition
problem by encouraging certain brush species, such as Ceanothus species or
pinegrass. Herbicides may encourage undesirable multiple resprouting of brush.
The assistance of plant ecologists can be of great value in this aspect of planning.
The amount of slash and degree it hinders planter movement or planting spot
accessibility is another factor. Slash may also hinder efficient application of other
needed site preparation treatments. Commonly, a combination of treatments to
reduce slash coupled with techniques to reduce competition may be required to fully
meet site preparation objectives. In other instances, strict enforcement of planting
contract specifications may eliminate the need for burning by making planters
"plant through the slash." This has side benefits of conserving on site nutrients and
offering some protection from browsing and solar effects. Slash may, however,
harbor high populations of seed or seedling damaging rodents, and slash reduction
may be necessary to reduce the populations to acceptable levels. In other cases,
heavy-handed site preparation practices that set succession back to its earliest
stages can aggravate or create pest problems.
The silvics of the species for desirable establishment is critical in the choice of site
preparation method. Generally, the more shade tolerant species need or are favored
by retention of a duff or litter layer, while intolerant species are favored by mineral
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 5 of 18
soil conditions. Where species preference is important, careful consideration shall
be given to the microsite conditions created by various site preparation techniques.
The presence of disease pathogens will also dictate to some degree the method of
site preparation needed. Some, such as dwarf-mistletoes, are easy to control by
removal using a number of mechanical or thermal means. Others, such as the root
rots, are resistant to all but the most direct and harsh means of removal. When
faced with the choice of stump removal to control root rots or the use of alternative
nonhost species, careful consideration will be made of the latter. Stump removal, a
last resort option, is very disruptive and potentially very site degrading if not
conducted carefully.
Cost is obviously an important consideration. In many cases cost should not only be
evaluated in terms of current budget, but also in terms of long-term economic
efficiency. An economic analysis using PNV/SEV is often necessary to make an
informed decision on need or rejection of site preparation and the choice of method.
Coupled with cost are the availability of staff and equipment. To import a
specialized piece of equipment not already in the area for a small project may not be
cost effective.
Likewise, to choose mechanical scarification by hand when
acceptable machine options are available may be cost prohibitive.
Environmental and other resource concerns are important factors. The choice of
site preparation method shall be made in a total resource setting. Creating perfect
site conditions for seedlings while degrading a nearby anadromous stream is
obviously not acceptable, unless a conscious interdisciplinary decision to do so was
made and approved by line management. Quite often there are several acceptable
options to obtain effective site preparation. Some may be more sensitive to other
resource objectives than others. Often an acceptable, but less than optimum,
method may be chosen which is acceptable provided the trade-offs are understood.
External constraints can play a major role in the choice or the nonchoice of a site
preparation method. Legal constraints, smoke management objectives, riparian
activity regulations, proximity to sensitive areas, and attitudes of adjacent
landowners can overshadow biological need or expediency.
31.2 - Planting and Seeding. The silviculturist has a great degree of control over
timing of site preparation for planting and seeding. Stock can often be shifted
between units prepared for planting and those not prepared. If it is desirable to
delay unit preparation for planting or seeding and allow for other uses, such as
fuelwood removal, control can be exercised over the production of stock or seed
acquisition. Delays in site preparation can influence the type and intensity of
treatment needed, but in many cases a great deal of neutrality exists and allows for
the meeting of other site needs and activities.
The type of planting stock usually has an effect on the type and intensity of site
preparation. Frequently, to obtain high levels of successful reforestation with
container or other small sized stock, a high degree of site preparation is necessary.
On the other hand, when planting hearty, large-sized bareroot stock or transplants,
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 6 of 18
less intensive site preparation will often suffice. This reinforces the concept that
site preparation is an integral part of the silvicultural prescription.
31.3 - Natural Regeneration. Appropriate seedbed characteristics are an important
leg of the natural regeneration triangle. A receptive seedbed along with seed source
and microclimate are essential for obtaining adequate natural regeneration.
Timing of site preparation is critical to the success of natural regeneration.
Reproductive bud and cone surveys can be used to predict or identify potentially
good seed source years. To be effective, site preparation shall be accomplished prior
to seedfall. Unlike site preparation for planting or seeding, the silviculturist has
little control over timing. This may be a problem in selecting a site preparation
method. The earlier a seed crop can be identified, the more options will be open to
the silviculturist.
With natural regeneration systems, the silviculturist can only exert indirect control
over species composition. A technique to exercise this control is the type of site
preparation method chosen and resultant seedbed produced. Attention to silvics of
the species involved and local experience will aid the silviculturist in favoring
preferred species.
31.4 - Long-Term Site Productivity. An objective of site preparation, no less
important than another, is the protection and maintenance of long-term site
productivity. Of all silvicultural activities, site preparation involves the greatest
risk of permanent site degradation. Protection of productivity will be a planned
event, and not left to chance. There is no place in sound silvicultural practices for
heavy-handed site preparation or site preparation where none is needed. The
capability of the land to absorb modifications shall be primary in the choice of a site
preparation method. The importance of residual organic debris cannot be over
emphasized: Remove or destroy no more of the organic debris than absolutely
needed for tree establishment. "Dirty burns" and "dirty piling" are the acceptable
norms. The importance of protecting the soil resource by leaving it in place in an
uncompacted state is also critical. In very few cases would large scale displacement
of soil be acceptable; an exception might be on some pumice soils. Compaction
should be kept below Regional standards; the less the compaction, the better the
prescription. The assistance of ecologists and soil scientists is invaluable to the
silviculturist in this area.
32 - METHODS OF SITE PREPARATION. There are four general classes of site
preparation methods; mechanical, thermal, biological (animal), and chemical.
There are many tools and techniques involved with each, and the list is constantly
expanding. In this section a few of the more common or available techniques and
tools will be briefly discussed. The list is not intended to be all inclusive, and
should serve only as a starting point to spark creative problem solving. As
mentioned earlier, site preparation methods can be used in combinations with one
another to achieve the desired results.
32.1 - Mechanical Site Preparation. Mechanical site preparation involves physical
modification of the site by hand or machinery. Sometimes effects of the logging
operation will change a site sufficiently that further site preparation is not needed.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 7 of 18
Site preparation through the logging operation can be planned using contract
clauses involving utilization standards or the treatment (yarding or piling) of
unmerchantable materials.
This can often eliminate need for further site
preparation work. The needs for hazard reduction should be planned and
coordinated with site preparation needs.
Mechanical site preparation methods should be carefully applied to prevent
permanent soil damage or site productivity. In many situations where mechanical
methods do not protect the soil, other options will be needed.
32.11 - Hand Methods. Handtool site preparation is most commonly used during
tree planting to prepare the planting hole area. It can also be used as traditional
site preparation on the following:
1. Acres in need of fill-in planting.
2. Small areas not economical for other site preparation methods.
3. Rocky areas.
4. Areas where residual slash aids planting success.
5. Steeper slopes unsuitable for prescribed burning.
6. Microsite planting units.
7. Areas that have multiple-use constraints prohibiting machinery.
Hand site preparation techniques result in minimal preparation at higher costs.
Other methods of preparation are generally preferred, when feasible, because cost
effectiveness increases and the resultant site preparation is more effective.
32.11a - Techniques. Hand site preparation can be done prior to, concurrent with,
or post planting/seeding. Clearing or hand scalping removes duff, debris, and
competing vegetation from the specific area. Width of the cleared spot depends on
individual site factors and the objectives for clearing. Planting hole preparation
spots need to be large enough to prevent debris contamination in the planting hole.
For effective site preparation and vegetative control in grassy areas, scalps need to
be 4 feet or larger in diameter. Scalping may need to be maintained for a number of
years following planting to maintain effectiveness.
32.11b - Tools Available. A number of hand scalping tools are available. All are
versions of a similar concept; cutting and scraping. Slight enhancements made to
familiar prototypes continue to increase human energy and cost efficiency.
Examples are:
1. Modified Reinhart Tool. A lightweight hand scalping tool made from a
modified fire shovel with the handle replaced by an adze handle. It is more energy
efficient than the McLeod or Pulaski.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 8 of 18
2. McLeod. A combination hoe and rake suitable for wide scalps and light
digging in sandy or loamy soils.
3. Pulaski.
wooden handle.
A combination axe and mattock head attached to a straight
4. Planting Hoes. Can be used for scalping by using their sides or back.
5. Combi. A Missoula Equipment Development Center tool; an improved
design of the Reinhart and other tools. It creates the optimum design for a scalping
tool. It has a longer handle and a blade with a more modified curve to increase
efficiency and production.
32.12 - Machine Methods. Machine site preparation is generally more versatile and
often more cost effective than other methods. It is preferred for situations where
vegetation will be removed or broken up to provide effective site preparation. A
variety of equipment has been developed that can be used to remove or reposition
debris, reduce competition, prepare seedbeds, reduce soil compaction, improve
drainage, and create favorable microsites. Generally, machine preparation should
be done during dry periods of the year, and along the contour. Care shall be taken
to protect the soil resource and long-term productivity. For safe operation, most
machinery is limited to slopes less than 30 percent, although there are exceptions.
32.12a - Techniques. Techniques for machine site preparation involve the pattern,
timing, and intensity of the clearing. The four techniques commonly practiced are:
1. Area Clearing. The entire unit or area to be reforested is cleared and
prepared. This is the most drastic, expensive, and potentially damaging technique
practiced. It should be restricted to gentle slopes and used only when absolutely
necessary.
2. Strip Clearing. Site prepared areas alternate with untreated strips.
When done on the contour, this serves to trap sediment and also preserves much
more nutrient capital than area clearing.
3.
Spot Clearing.
Discontinuous spots are prepared as opposed to
continuous strips. Size of the spots is determined by machinery used, and can be as
small as a few feet long, or up to 25 feet in length.
4. Fallowing. This treatment is normally done in conjunction with area or
strip clearing and consists of recultivating previously cleared or scarified areas to
preserve and store soil moisture and to eradicate undesirable vegetation. Fallowing
is normally done the year prior to planting for building soil moisture in low rainfall
areas. Cultivation is done with a harrow or disc, and only deep enough to break the
soil crust and destroy the roots of undesired plants.
32.12b - Equipment Available. There are many equipment options for machine site
preparation. Many are attachments to traditional logging equipment. Others are
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 9 of 18
machines specifically designed and constructed for site preparation work.
Representative types of equipment are covered here. This is certainly not an all
inclusive list.
1. Rakes. Attachments for crawler tractors designed to pile slash, remove
brush, and scarify the ground. The rake teeth are curved to give a rolling motion to
the material being removed or displaced, allowing the soil to sift through the teeth
and remain essentially in place rather than in the slash or brush piles. Rakes can
be operated with their teeth in the ground to provide scarification, but care will be
exercised not to penetrate deeply resulting in excessive soil displacement and
movement.
2. Drum-type Rolling Choppers. Usually towed behind a ground primary
mover to cut and crush slash or brush. The rolling action and chopping blades
provide shallow scarification with minimal duff removal and virtually no topsoil
exposure. In areas relatively rock- and stump-free, this equipment may be useful
for preparing natural regeneration sites for species that germinate and establish in
duff and litter. Use is limited to slopes generally less than 40 percent and in areas
with light to moderate slash levels and materials less than 6 inches in diameter.
3. Discs. Usually towed by crawler tractors to plow and turn the soil and
incorporate brush and surface debris into the topsoil for complete site preparation
and light brush control. Topsoil is not removed, but is loosened to depths of 8-16
inches. It is suitable for use on shallow soils and areas that are moderately rocky.
Frequently discs need to be used in conjunction with other methods that reduce
slash loadings to low levels, such as piling or burning. Double pass discing is
usually much more effective than single pass. Discs hydraulically mounted offer
much more utility than nonhydraulic mountings, particularly in rocky soils or sites
with excess stumps or debris. The final pass of discing should always be done on
the contour to prevent erosion and gullying.
4. Rippers/Cultivators. Mounted behind a primary mover and penetrate
the ground deeply to loosen rock and compacted soil. Ripping can improve
drainage, promote root development, reduce brush vegetation, prepare planting
spots, and provide microsites conducive to natural regeneration with a minimum of
site disturbance. Like discs, rippers and cultivators require a reasonable slash-free
site. Mounting attachments hydraulically increases their effectiveness in forest
land situations. The "winged ripper" or Forest Cultivator adds a wedge-shaped
wing to the ends of the ripping teeth, and provides much more lateral action and
reduction of compaction. The amount of disturbance is controlled by the depth,
speed, and spacing of teeth. Ripping should be done only on dry soils and along the
contour.
5. Spot Scarifiers. There are several models of spot scarifiers. Perhaps the
best known in the west is the Bracke. This equipment is normally towed behind a
prime mover to remove slash, vegetation, and litter to expose mineral soil while
loosening and mixing the soil. Spots are typically 18 inches wide by 24 inches long,
and many machines can be calibrated to provide a range of spot spacings. The
Bracke can be used for direct seeding, as well as spot preparation.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 10 of 18
6. Spot Scalpers. Tractor mounted implements that create a pair of planting
or seeding spots. Slash, duff, and litter are cleared to depths controlled by the
operator. Spacing between spots is controllable within a fixed range by adjusting
the location of the scalping devices in the tractor. Typically, the scalps are
approximately 3 feet wide and as long as desired. Two models have recently been
developed and tested by the Missoula Equipment Development Center (MEDC).
The Birch Quick-Tach are scalpers mounted on the blade of the tractor giving the
operator good control over spot location, spacing, and depth. The Rocky Mountain
Scalper is mounted on a tool bar attached to the rear of a tractor. It is more difficult
to use than the Birch Quick-Tach and allows less operator control due to poor
visibility. However, it does have an advantage; no compaction occurs from the
tractor passing over prepared spots, which occurs with the Birch. Both devices can
prepare up to 1,500 spots an hour and are operable in a variety of vegetative covers
and conditions. They are mounted on tractors of 70-150 horsepower.
7. Plows. V-shaped implements typically mounted on the front of crawler
tractors. They are used to clear light to moderate brush and slash while creating a
wide flat scalp continuous or intermittent under the control of the operator. Soil is
displaced to a depth that can be preset on many devices. Seedlings can be planted
in the berms or in the scalped flat. Their use is limited in rocky areas, and in heavy
soils, unacceptable compaction can result. They are excellent for clearing paths and
preparing ground for machine planting devices.
8. Climbing Backhoes. Self-propelled, lightweight backhoes with complete
hydraulic control that can operate in steep, rough terrain on slopes up to 100
percent. Spot preparation is accomplished by scooping duff, debris, and soil from
the spot. While climbing backhoes are very versatile, production rates are low, due
to the frequent moves required. Use is limited to areas with deep soils; they are
disadvantaged in the removal of valuable topsoil and nutrients from the planting
spot. Several models are available; the most well known being the Menzie Muck.
9. MEDC Cable Scarifier. An implement with two-toothed scalping devices
spaced about 6 feet apart and mounted on a bar attached to the yarders mainline.
It creates spots about 20 inches wide, 2-4 inches deep and 4 feet long as it is skipped
upslope during the yard-in process. To achieve the desired number of planting
spots, two to three passes of the device are required before the tailhold (usually a
tractor) is moved and another corridor begun. Equipment works best on sites that
have less than 40 tons of slash per acre with fuels less than 9 inches in diameter;
where brush is light to moderate and less than 10 feet tall. Production rates are 2-4
acres per 8-hour day. With the high cost of cable yarding accounted for, this method
of site preparation is relatively expensive and may limit its widespread use.
10. Slashbuster. A new and promising piece of equipment developed by
D&M Machine of Montesano, Washington. It is a conventional hydraulic excavator
with a third boom and cutter head added. The cutter has a twirling metal disk with
teeth, which shreds and mulches slash to 16 inches in diameter, excavating a
cleared spot to mineral soil in seconds. Nutrients are left on the site. It can also be
used to destroy worthless residual stems. Area, strip, or spot clearing can be
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 11 of 18
accomplished with this machine. Operating from a designated skidtrail, compaction
can be effectively limited and managed. The Slashbuster can reach up to 45 feet
either side of a trail and work on ground up to 40 percent slope or more. Production
rates are about 0.4-0.7 acres per hour, depending upon the type of work being
accomplished.
11. Rotoclear. Another new and promising piece of equipment originally
developed for the Canadian Government by the Roto International Corporation of
Calgary, Alberta. The Rotoclear is towed behind a four wheeled-drive tractor
crawler tilling and mulching as it goes. Standing trees up to 5 inches in diameter
can be removed with the Rotoclear, while stumps and slash much larger in size can
be mulched. The Rotoclear tills about 9 inches deep. Two versions of the Rotoclear
exist; one has a 7.5-foot wide rotor and the other has 3.5-foot rotors on either side
with a 3-foot no-till strip in-between. Area or strip clearing can be accomplished
with this machine. Excluding tractor length, the machine is more than 22 feet long
which may limit its utilization to gentle slopes and clearcut applications.
32.2 - Thermal Site Preparation. Using thermal techniques, a site can be modified
with prescribed fire or explosives.
32.21 - Prescribed Fire. Prescribed fire attempts to mimic the effects of a low
intensity natural burn to accomplish resource objectives. Site preparation by
prescribed fire is often accomplished in conjunction with fire hazard abatement.
Historically the use of prescribed fire has been a preferred method of site
preparation in the Region. This, however, changed with the selection of Alternative
H and the Record of Decision issued for the FEIS on Managing Competing and
Unwanted Vegetation, which called for a reduction in the use of fire for treating
slash. This was precipitated by concerns over air quality, smoke intrusion into
smoke sensitive areas, and Class I airsheds.
Prescribe burning should only be accomplished under the direction of an approved
burning plan developed in an interdisciplinary manner, consistent with direction
found in the above FEIS and subsequent clarifications. It is the responsibility of
the silviculturist to insure silvicultural opportunities and objectives are coordinated
with the fuels specialist and incorporated into the burning plan. Silvicultural input
should include such things as:
- Objective for the burn.
- Amount of duff reduction desired.
- Amount of mineral soil to be exposed.
- Amount of slash to be left by size class.
- Desired and undesired effects on residual vegetation, including leave
trees and snags.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 12 of 18
Care should be exercised where prescribed fire is utilized. Adverse effects can occur
to the soil resource and long-term site productivity if prescribed burns become
intense or last too long. Standards to protect the soil resource include:
- No more than 40 percent exposed mineral soil on soils of low to
moderate erosion hazard ratings, 30 percent exposed mineral soil on
soils of high erosion hazard, 15 percent exposed mineral soil on soils of
very high erosion hazard.
- No significant loss in total nitrogen levels in the ecosystem. A
significant loss would be represented by a 50 percent reduction in total
nitrogen in the top 2 inches of mineral soil.
- No significant increase in water repellency; it can be assumed that a
reduction in water infiltration in excess of 30 percent would be
significant.
- Limiting surface temperatures to 572oF for clearcut burns and 392oF
for underburns; limiting fireline intensities to 500 Btu's/ft/sec for
clearcuts and 300 Btu's/ft/sec for underburning, with a duration of less
than 10 minutes for both.
The response of existing and potential vegetation on the site are also potential areas
of concern when applying prescribed fire. Certain species, such as Ceanothus,
lodgepole pine, tanoak, pinegrass, and many sedges are vigorous sprouters or
seeders following fire; they can negate the beneficial aspects of the treatment.
Plant habitat and community guides should be consulted to determine the response
of vegetation in your area to fire.
32.22 - Water Gel Explosives. Water gel explosives are useful for increasing
planting spots in units where brush and slash restrict mineral soil and planter
mobility. They are safe, stable explosives consisting of ammonium nitrate mixed
with a sensitizer, water, and thickener, then packaged in various lengths of plastic
tubes. An exploding bridgewire detonator is recommended for use. Forest Service
personnel shall have a current Forest Service blaster's card to store, transport, or
use this explosive. Some follow-up hand clearing may also be required to provide
satisfactory results.
32.3 - Biological Site Preparation. Biological site preparation can be thought of as
active or passive. Active biological site preparation is generally limited to grazing
by domestic livestock; primarily cattle and sheep.
Passive biological site
preparation brings both silvic and genetic opportunities together eliminating or
reducing the need for active forms of site preparation.
32.31 - Grazing. Prolonged or forced grazing of domestic livestock can be used to
modify the composition and production of competing vegetation, to prepare a site for
reforestation activities. A key difference between this use of livestock and
traditional grazing use of National Forests is the emphasis on vegetation
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 13 of 18
modification rather than animal weight gain. While the utilization of grazing for
site preparation and vegetation management has been limited in the Region, its use
is expected to increase. Results from operational trials on the Siuslaw, Fremont,
and Tahoe National Forests, as well as Weyerhauser lands and research by Oregon
State University, suggest some factors to consider in the application of grazing for
vegetation management purposes:
1. Quality forage and browse shall exist in sufficient quantities on the site.
2. Timing is critical; animals should only be left in the plantation as long as
there is high quality green forage/browse species available. Extending grazing
beyond the period of green feed places conifer seedlings at increased risk. With
sheep, seedlings should harden and set terminal buds prior to grazing.
3. Herding/riding and good control through administration are necessities.
Animals cannot be dumped into an area and left to graze at their choice. Forced
and managed grazing is required; temporary fencing may be needed to hold animals
in a plantation to achieve objectives.
4. Levels of use and damage to conifer seedlings shall be monitored closely,
preferably by the herder/rider who can make timely on-site decisions. Once
vegetation management objectives have been met or excess seedling damage occurs,
animals shall be removed.
5. To achieve effective uniform grazing adequate water and/or salt shall be
present. These, along with bedding areas, shall be located in areas where trampling
will not be a problem, usually outside of the plantation boundary.
6. Higher numbers of animals will be needed compared to normal grazing
practices. With cattle, a 25-600 percent increase in numbers may be needed.
7. Animals who have had a previous history of browsing conifer seedlings
cannot be used in this management context.
8. With sheep, older animals (4+ years) provide better results than younger
sheep which browse more indiscriminately.
9. Animals should not be off-loaded directly into a plantation; they will often
be very hungry and eat whatever is in sight.
Grazing has the benefit of being low cost, noncontroversial. The animals can
benefit the site by converting vegetation into a readily available source of nitrogen
and other nutrients.
Sheep can also be used to "rough-up" and disturb the duff under shelterwoods to
facilitate natural regeneration of shade tolerant species.
32.32 - Silvical. In the sense that additional site preparation may become
unnecessary due to seedling characteristics, some silvical practices can be thought
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 14 of 18
of as a form of site preparation. Seedlings from tree improvement programs that
exhibit superior juvenile growth can eliminate the need for further site preparation
in brush situations.
Likewise, taking advantage of advanced regeneration
whenever possible and feasible will reduce the need for site preparation.
32.4 - Chemical Site Preparation. The reliance on chemicals in Region 6 will be
reduced, and herbicides will only be used when necessary to meet management
objectives. Other alternative methods would be ineffective or increase costs
unreasonably. Vegetation treated with herbicides will not be burned within 1 year
of application.
32.41 - Direction and Guidance. The following documents contain specific direction
and guidance on the use of herbicides in Region 6:
1. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Managing Competing and
Unwanted Vegetation, November 1988 - specific Regional policy, standards and
guidelines.
2. FSM 2150 - Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination - authority and
responsibilities; requirements for environmental documentation, safety planning,
and training when pesticides are used.
3. FSH 2109.11 - Pesticide Project Handbook - used for project planning;
establishes procedures for planning, organizing, conducting, and reporting pesticide
use projects.
4. FSH 2109.12 - Pesticide Storage, Transportation, Spills, and Disposal
Handbook - defines standards for storage facilities, posting and handling,
accountability, and transportation. Also covers spill prevention, planning, cleanup,
and container disposal requirements.
5. FSH 2109.13 - Pesticide Project Personnel Handbook - defines the
responsibilities and personnel needs, training, and experience needed for large scale
aerial or ground application projects.
6. Region 6 Water Quality Monitoring Guide for Pesticide Detection (R6-WS040-1980) - establishes procedures for the monitoring of pesticide use and effects on
water.
7. FSH 6709.11 - Health and Safety Code Handbook, Chapter 9 - establishes
basic safety rules, as well as guidelines on storage, transportation, and disposal
safety.
32.42 - Application Techniques. For chemical site preparation, there are three
primary application techniques: aerial, backpack, and ground equipment. Spot
application with backpacks provides the most controlled method of applying
herbicides.
While being less wasteful of chemical than aerial or ground
applications, it also increases chemical-worker contact and potential risk.
Application with ground equipment, such as spray trucks or booms mounted on
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 15 of 18
crawlers is a feasible and cost effective application on gentle ground with little slash
and low lying vegetation. With backpack or ground applications, a dye is often
added to the herbicide carrier to help identify areas treated and extent of treatment.
Aerial methods are fast and cost effective on large areas. Placement control of the
herbicide is less than with backpack or ground applications and more chemical is
wasted. Drift and spread can be controlled by the use of specialized booms, nozzles,
carriers, nozzle orientation to the ground, and increasing droplet size. Herbicides
will only be applied under the supervision of a licensed applicator.
32.43 - Timing of Application. Applications are timed to correspond with the period
of maximum herbicidal susceptibility of the dominant targeted species, while
minimizing risk to desirable tree species present. Generally, susceptibility is lowest
during the dormancy period, increasing with budbreak, and highest during late
spring/early summer when plants are actively growing. This varies depending upon
the plant in question, and information on the phenology of the targeted species.
This information is critical.
32.44 - Herbicide Selection. The choice of herbicide to use depends upon the the
composition of vegetation to be controlled, and the sensitivity of crop trees involved.
Emphasis should be on the key 1-3 competitors on site. In brush situations,
consideration should be given to the effects of releasing potential understory shrubs
and grasses and their effects on tree seedlings. Herbicide use will be in strict
accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws, including labelling
instructions of the Environmental Protection Agency. In Region 6, the herbicides
fosamine, diuron, and amitrole will not be used, and restrictions on the use of
dalapon, 2,4-D, glyphosate, dicamba, tebuthiuron, triclopyr, simazine, and bromacil
apply. Refer to the FEIS for further information.
33 - SELECTED REFERENCES. The following selected references relate to site
preparation. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but a starting point for
further research.
Alm, Alvin A., Steven E.Long, and David L. Eggen. 1988. Integration of
forest site preparation with the Bracke scarifer. Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry 5(1):12-13.
Basford, Doug. 1986. New blade design for site preparation. USDA-FS,
Region 4, Skunkworks News 1(4):1-7.
Baumgartner, David M. (ed). 1982. Site preparation and fuels management
on steep terrain. Proceedings of a symposium held February 15-17, 1982, Spokane,
WA. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA. 179
p.
Baumgartner, David M. and Raymond J. Boyd (eds). 1976. Tree planting in
the Inland Northwest. Proceedings of a conference held February 17-19, 1976,
Pullman, WA. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman,
WA. 311 p.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 16 of 18
Baumgartner, David M., Raymond J. Boyd, David W. Breuer, and Daniel L.
Miller. 1985. Weed control for forest productivity in the interior West.
Symposium Proceedings, February 5-7, 1985, Spokane, WA. Washington State
University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA. 148 p.
Boyer, Donald E. and John D. Dell. 1980. Fire effects on Pacific
Northwest forest soils. USDA-FS, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-WM-0401980. 59 p.
Cleary, Brian D. and B.R. Kelpsas. 1981. Five steps to successful
regeneration planning. For. Res. Lab. School of Forestry, Spec. Publ. 1.
Oregon State University. 30 p.
Cochran, Patrick H. 1977. Forest regeneration of arid lands in the
Pacific Northwest. IN: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters
National Convention, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Grier, Charles C. et al. 1989. Productivity of forests of the United
States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: a
review. USDA-FS Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-222. Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR. 51 p.
Harrington, Michael G. and Rick G. Kelsey. 1979. Influence of some
environmental factors on initial establishment and growth of ponderosa pine
seedlings. USDA-FS Res.Pap. INT-230. Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, UT. 26 p.
Hobbs, S.D. and O.T. Helgerson (eds). 1981. Reforestation of skeletal
soils. Proceedings of a workshop held November 17-19, 1981, Medford,
Oregon. Forest Research Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 124 p.
Kilgore, Bruce M. and George A. Curtis. 1987. Guide to understory
burning in ponderosa pine-larch-fir forests in the Intermountain West. USDAFS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-233. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 39
p.
Krueger, William C. 1983. Cattle grazing in managed forests. IN:
Forestland Grazing. Proceedings of a symposium held February 23-25, 1983,
Spokane, WA. Washington State University, Cooperative Extension, Pullman,
WA. 29-41.
Krueger, William C. 1985. Grazing for forest weed control. IN: Weed
control for forest productivity in the interior West. Symposium Proceedings,
February 5-7, 1985, Spokane, WA. Washington State University Cooperative
Extension, Pullman, WA. 83-88.
Larson, John and Richard Hallman. 1980. Equipment for reforestation and
timber stand improvement. USDA-FS Equipment Development Center, Fort
Missoula, Missoula, MT. 254 p.
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 17 of 18
Larson, John and Ben Lowman. 1983. Developing equipment for spot site
preparation - Progress through July 1981.
USDA-FS ED&T 005081.
Equipment Development Center, Missoula, MT. 16 p.
Leininger, Wayne C. and Steven H. Sharrow. 1989. Seasonal browsing of
Douglas-fir seedlings by sheep. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 4(3):7376.
Long, Steven E., Alvin A. Alm, and David L. Eggen. 1986. Determination
of scalps per unit area produced by the Bracke scarifer. USDA-FS Tree
Planters Notes 37(4):29-30.
Lowman, Ben. 1985. New equipment for spot site preparation. IN: Weed
control for forest productivity in the interior West. Symposium Proceedings,
February 5-7, 1985, Spokane, WA. Washington State University Cooperative
Extension, Pullman, WA. 73-78.
Martin, Robert E. and John D. Dell. 1978. Planning for prescribed
burning in the Inland Northwest. USDA-FS Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-76. Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 67 p.
McKenzie, Doug. 1984. Forest Service equipment development center
activities. IN: Vegetative rehabilitation & equipment workshop. 38th Annual
Report - Rapid City, South Dakota, February 14-15, 1984.
USDA-FS
Equipment Development Center, Missoula, MT and San Dimas, CA. 50-56.
Monfore, John. 1983. Livestock - A useful tool for vegetation control
in ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine plantations. IN: Forestland Grazing.
Proceedings of a symposium held February 23-25, 1983, Spokane, WA.
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA. 105-107.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 1982. Prescribed fire monitoring
and evaluation guide. Prepared by: Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects Working
Team. 16 p.
Nelson, David E. and Gordon C. Oldford. 1979. Swedish Brackecultivator:
Site preparation and seeding. USDA-FS Tree Planters' Notes 30(3):24-26.
Panelli, Mike and Al Horton. 1987. Forests for the future - Step 3,
Site Preparation. USDA-FS Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 3 p.
Sloan, John P. and Russell A. Ryker. 1986. Large scalps improve
survival and growth of planted conifers in central Idaho. USDA-FS Res.Pap.
INT-366. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 9
p.
Stein, William I. 1986. Comparison of site preparation methods on Coast
R-6 AMENDMENT 2409.26b-92-1
EFFECTIVE 2/7/92
2409.26b,30
Page 18 of 18
Range sites. USDA-FS Research Progress Rep. (FS-PNW-1201-8029). Forest
Sciences Lab., Corvallis, OR. 24 p.
Stewart, R.E. 1978. Site preparation. IN: Regenerating Oregon's
Forests. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, OR. 99-129.
Thomas, David F. 1985. The use of sheep to control competing vegetation
in conifer plantations on the Downieville Ranger District, Tahoe National
Forest. 1981-1984. IN: Weed control for forest productivity in the interior
West.
Symposium Proceedings, February 5-7, 1985, Spokane, WA.
Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA. 89-91.
Tung, Chao-Hsiung, Jim Batdorff and David Deyoe. 1986. Survival and
growth of Douglas-fir seedlings with spot-spraying, mulching and root dipping.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1(4):108-111.
Unknown. 1989. New machine for reforestation captures industry interest
- Slashbuster may have numerous other uses in woods. Timber/West
February, 1989. 16,18 and 42.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Better handtools for site preparation.
Equip Tips (8524-2304). Equipment Development Center, Missoula, MT. 2 p.
USDA Forest Service. 1988. Managing competing and unwanted vegetation Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,
OR.