United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

July 2017

Soil Report

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Salmon and Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Will Tripp, Forest Soil Scientist

1711 South Main Street, Yreka CA, 96097

530-841-4591

wtripp@fs.fed.us
Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

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

Table of Contents

Soil Report...................................................................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Detailed Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 1

Risk Assessments............................................................................................................ 3

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ............................................................. 4

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 4

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. 5

Alternative 1........................................................................................................................ 5

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 5

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 2........................................................................................................................ 5

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 5

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................ 10

Alternative 3...................................................................................................................... 10

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................................ 10

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................ 10

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 10

Table 5:.......................................................................................................................... 12

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ............................................. 12

Literature Cited..........................................................................................................................13

Appendix A – Soil Map of the Project Area..............................................................................14

Appendix B – Soil Map Unit Characteristics............................................................................15

Appendix C – Treatment Map for Alternative 2........................................................................19

Appendix D – Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 2 .......................................................20

Appendix E – Treatment Map for Alternative 3........................................................................29

Appendix F – Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 3........................................................30

List of Tables

Table 1. Indicator Condition Assessment .....................................................................................................2

Table 2. Compaction Risk Rating.................................................................................................................3

Table 3. Soil Cover Guidelines for Vegetation and Fuels Management Projects.........................................4

Table 4. Estimated Acres Not Meeting Desired Conditions for Soil Indicators and Activities..................11

Table 5: Summary of Estimated Acres (and percentages of treatment areas) Not Meeting Desired 

Conditions for Soil Indicators for all Alternatives..............................................................................12

Table 6. Soil Map Unit Characteristics.......................................................................................................15

Table 7. Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 2 ..................................................................................20

Table 8. Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 3 ..................................................................................30
ii

List of Figures

Figure A-1: Soil Map of the Project Area...................................................................................................14

Figure C-1: Treatment Map for Alternative 2.............................................................................................19

Figure E-1: Treatment Map for Alternative 3.............................................................................................29
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

Soil Report

Introduction

This report analyzes impacts to soil indicators including soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure in the Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy Project). These soil indicators address 

how well the project meets standards for soil erosion and long-term soil productivity as defined in the 

Klamath National Forest’s Land Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1995 as amended),

the Regional Soil Management supplement to Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2500-2012-1) 

(USDA 2012a), and best available science (Powers et al. 2005). Potential impacts to soil function are 

analyzed and mitigated through project design features and best management practices.

The purpose and need for the project is displayed in chapter 1 of the environmental impact statement; 

details on treatments are provided in chapter 2 of that document.

Proposed treatments to be analyzed in this report include thinning with and without forest product 

removal, mastication, fuelbreaks, and underburning.

Methodology

Detailed Methodology

A unit selection strategy was used to determine which units should have site-specific data collected. 

Selection was based on soil sensitivity and type of management activities planned. Soils with high 

compaction or erosion hazard ratings and areas with evidence of previous disturbance received high 

priority for field review. Units proposed for ground-based commercial harvest have the highest 

probability of impacting the soil resource so those units were also high priority for field review. A 100

percent field review of all ground-based commercial harvest units was performed prior to the completion 

of this report. Field investigation was done by making two to three traverses across each unit. Site and 

soil data was collected from plots along these traverses. Each unit was analyzed for slope, percentage of 

surface cover, surface soil texture, and disturbance. The following types of existing site disturbances 

were identified in the field during the traverses: terraces, old skid trails, full bench skid trails, old roads, 

old skid roads, old landings, and old established skyline corridors. The level of soil disturbance was 

estimated for each soil disturbance type. Soil data noted in the field included shallow soil areas, rock 

outcrops and areas of surface rock, rock lithology and general soil depth. Existing soil survey 

information (Foster and Lang 1994) was used unless field investigation revealed significant differences 

between mapped soils and the actual site-specific soils.

Analysis Indicators

The analysis of the effects of individual management activities on the soil resource (soil productivity 

and soil ecosystem functionality) is guided using the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines and Forest 

Service Manual 2500, Chapter 2550, Supplement 2500-2012-1. Both these sources indicate that soils in 

at least 85 percent of treatment areas must achieve desired conditions to meet standards for soil 

productivity (15 percent or less not meeting desired conditions is the acceptable threshold). Soil 

productivity is affected by the amount of coarse woody debris that is present as well as other organic 

material in the soil cover. Standards and thresholds for soil erosion are also provided in the Forest Plan 

and Forest Service Manual; these thresholds vary from 50 percent soil cover to 80 percent based on the 

type of activity and soil type in each unit.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

Three indicators of soil productivity and soil erosion were chosen that address relevant issues in the 

Project and measure compliance with Forest Plan’s standard and guidelines. The indicators include soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure. The unit measures for each indicator are acres not 

meeting desired conditions. Table 1 describes what constitutes desired conditions for each of the soil 

indicators. Soil stability desired conditions are not met when major portions of the area lack soil cover,

lack effective erosion control measures, or both. Soil organic matter desired conditions are not met when 

major portions of the area have had the upper soil layer displaced or removed to a depth and area large 

enough to affect productivity for the desired plant species. Soil structure desired conditions are not met 

when major portions of the area have reduced infiltration and permeability capacity indicated by soil 

structure and macro-porosity changes.

The proposed activities for the Project were categorized into similar activity types. For example, all of 

the various silviculture treatments that use ground-based equipment were lumped into “Ground-Based 

Tractor Logging with Associated Landings.” Treatment areas proposed for skyline cable yarding were 

also assessed separately for tethered harvesting equipment for the purposes of comparing its effects with 

skyline cable yarding, assuming similar potential disturbance as ground-based tractor logging. The 

projected acres not meeting desired conditions for each indicator and activity type were determined from 

data collected from previous projects on the Forest using the National Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol (USDA 2009). A summary of the most recent results from soil disturbance 

monitoring on the Forest are included in the Project Record (USDA 2012b).

Table 1. Indicator Condition Assessment

Soil 

Function Indicators Good = Meets Desired 

Condition

Fair = Partially Meets 

Desired Condition

Poor = Does Not Meet 

Desired Condition

Support 

for Plant 

Growth 

and Soil 

Hydrologic 

Functions

Soil 

Stability

An adequate level of soil 

cover is present and signs of 

erosion are not visible or 

very limited in degree and 

extent. Any existing erosion 

control measures are 

effective. Generally soil 

cover level is 50% or greater 

and is well distributed for soil 

types capable of supporting 

this level.

For minor portions of the 

area, soil cover is lacking 

and/or existing erosion 

control measures are 

ineffective and there are 

signs of erosion such as 

pedestals, sheet, rill, 

and/or gully erosion 

visible.

Major portions of the 

area lack soil cover 

and/or lack effective 

erosion control 

measures. Signs of 

erosion such as 

pedestals, sheet, rill, 

and/or gully erosion are 

common.

Support 

for Plant 

Growth

Soil 

Organic 

Matter

The thickness and color of 

the upper soil layer is within 

the normal range of 

characteristics for the site 

and is distributed normally 

across the area. Localized 

areas of displacement may 

have occurred but it will not 

affect the productivity for the 

desired plant species.

For minor portions of the 

area, the upper soil layer 

has been displaced or 

removed to a depth and 

area large enough to 

affect productivity for the 

desired plant species. 

Generally an area will be 

considered displaced if 

more than one-half of the 

upper soil layer or 4 

inches (whichever is less) 

is removed from a 

contiguous area larger 

than 100 sq ft.

Major portions of the 

area have had the 

upper soil layer 

displaced or removed to 

a depth and area large 

enough to affect 

productivity for the 

desired plant species. 
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

Soil 

Function Indicators Good = Meets Desired Condition

Fair = Partially Meets 

Desired Condition

Poor = Does Not Meet 

Desired Condition

Soil 

Hydrologic 

Function

Soil 

Structure 

Visually soil structure and 

macro-porosity (defined here 

as pores 1mm or larger) are 

relatively unchanged from 

natural condition for nearly 

all the area. Signs of erosion 

or overland flow are absent 

or very limited in degree and 

extent. Infiltration and 

permeability capacity of the 

soil is sufficient for the local 

climate.

For minor portions of the 

area: soil structure and 

macro-porosity are 

changed; or platy 

structure and/or increased 

density evident; or 

overland flow and signs of 

erosion are visible. 

Infiltration and 

permeability capacity is 

insufficient in localized 

portions of the area.

Major portions of the 

area have reduced 

infiltration and 

permeability capacity 

indicated by soil 

structure and macroporosity changes; or 

platy structure and/or 

increased density; or 

signs of overland flow 

and erosion.

Risk Assessments

Compaction Risk Rating

This risk rating scheme is intended to help determine the general susceptibility to loss of soil 

productivity from heavy equipment operation. It considers the risk that compaction will occur, and if 

compaction would result in productivity loss. It is based upon the soil texture and rock content. It 

presumes the soil is at field capacity or at a moisture level at which it is most susceptible to soil density 

increase under heavy equipment operation (USDA 2006). Table 2 below compares coarse fragment 

content by volume with soil texture type to arrive at a risk rating for compaction.

Table 2. Compaction Risk Rating

Coarse Fragment Content by 

Volume Soil Texture Risk Rating

Fragmental (> 70%) Any Texture Low

Skeletal (35 - 70%) Sandy Low

Skeletal (35 - 70%) Loamy Moderate

Skeletal (35 - 70%) Clayey High

< 35% Sandy Low

< 35% Loamy Moderate

< 35% Silty High

< 35% Clayey High

Erosion Risk Rating

The Region 5 soil erosion hazard rating system was used to rate the risk of soil erosion for all soils in the 

project area. This system uses various physical soil properties along with climate and site-specific 

conditions to rate soils for hazard of sheet and rill erosion. This system is used to determine the amount 

of surface cover necessary post-activity to keep erosion hazard risk low or moderate (USDA 1990). In 

addition to the erosion hazard rating system, the Forest Plan describes levels of total soil cover that 

should be maintained at the stand level to reduce the potential of soil erosion (Table 3).

Erosion hazard rating is a relative measure of the soils’ sensitivity to erosion processes. Soil disturbance 

has the potential to increase the erosion hazard because soil cover is generally reduced. Erosion hazard 

rating was calculated for each of the treatment units to estimate the potential erosion hazard for a given 

soil type. First a maximum erosion hazard rating was calculated for soil that is completely bare to 
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

determine the risk of soil loss in areas without protection from soil cover. The erosion hazard rating for 

the current conditions of treatment areas was then calculated using data collected on existing conditions 

of soil cover.

Table 3. Soil Cover Guidelines for Vegetation and Fuels Management Projects

Soil Cover Guidelines for Projects

Soil Texture Class Slope (%) Minimum Total Soil Cover* (%)

Guidelines for Projects Using Tractors:

Sandy loam or coarser

0-25 70

26-35 80

Loam or finer 0-35 70

Guidelines for Prescribed Burning Projects:

Sandy loam or coarser

0-25 60

26-45 70

46 80

Loam or finer

0-35 50

36-60 60

61 70

*Soil cover consists of low growing live vegetation (12 inches high), rock fragments 

(greater than 1/2 inch in diameter), slash (any size) and fine organic matter (charred 

or not) that is in contact with the soil surface. Fine organic matter refers to the duff, 

litter, and twigs less than 3 inches in diameter.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

For all three soil indicators, the analysis area is bounded by the potential treatment units within the 

project area, where soil-disturbing activities may take place. The analysis is further bounded in time by 

the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could persist as detectable, significant 

effects. Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is 

deposited on the forest floor. The temporal boundary for soil stability is five years. Soil organic matter 

can take years to decades to rebuild after it is lost through displacement or erosion. Once compacted, 

structure, and porosity can remain affected for decades. The temporal boundary for soil organic matter 

and soil structure is 30 years.

Affected Environment

Soils in the project area have developed from meta-sedimentary and granitic parent materials. Soil 

textures are generally gravelly to very gravelly loams on meta-sediment parent material, with the more 

developed soils having clay loam subsoils. The granitic parent material developed loamy sand to sandy 

loam soils. Geomorphic landforms are predominately steep mountain sideslopes and more gently 

sloping dormant landslide landforms. Soil depths range from moderately deep to very deep (from 24 to 

more than 60 inches deep).

Soil productivity is a measure of a soils’ ability to produce vegetation. Generally, deeper and finer 

textured soils are more productive than shallower and coarser soils. Overall, the soils in the treatment 

areas are generally moderate to highly productive with small areas of low productivity.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

The maximum erosion hazard rating for all treatment areas is high. Current soil erosion hazard ratings 

for soils in treatment areas, based on existing conditions, are low.

The slope within proposed treatment units ranges from zero to 100 percent with an overall average of 47

percent. Average existing total soil cover ranges from 80 to 100 percent and averages 97 percent overall 

in the project area.

Calculated from 1,021 soil plots, approximately ten percent of the treatment units are disturbed (as 

described in Table 1 above) from past activities excluding system roads. In plantations, 62 percent of the 

disturbance is on existing terraces built after the 1955 Haystack fire in the 1960’s, 16 percent is on 

existing skid trails, one percent is on old temporary roads, seven percent is on off highway vehicle trails, 

two percent is on established skyline corridors, and five percent is on old established landings. Desired 

conditions for soil stability were met across all of the treatment units as no signs of erosion were found. 

Desired conditions for soil organic matter and soil structure were met on an average of 97 percent of the 

treatment units.

Given the uniform age and close spacing of trees on the terraced units there is decreased soil 

productivity because of the high level of competition for nutrients.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects from Alternative 1, as soil-disturbing project activities would not take place. 

Soil cover, and therefore soil stability, for erosion protection would not change in the treatment areas. 

Soil organic matter would continue to accumulate faster than decomposition rates, with no additional 

benefit to soil fertility. Soil structure conditions would remain the same in the short-term, with very slow 

long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings. Indirect effects of Alternative 1 would be the 

increased accumulation of organic matter. Increases in organic matter may lead to intense wildfire with 

high soil-burn severity effects, especially on soils with granitic parent material; see the Fire and Fuels 

Resource Report for additional information.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest, tractor piling, and terracing, are evident on the landscape in the 

treatment area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. Since no reasonable 

foreseeable future actions that affect soils will occur in the proposed treatment areas, and past actions 

are part of the affected environment, there will be no cumulative effects on soil beyond the indirect 

effects above.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure include 

ground-based tractor logging, temporary road construction on existing road beds, new temporary road 

construction, and mastication. Soil stability and soil organic matter are also affected by skyline yarding 

and prescribed fire and pile burning. See chapter 2 of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement for 
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

more details on these activities. Implementation of project design features will reduce the potential for 

negative effects from these activities. Alternative 2 will maintain adequate soil cover, protect soil 

organic matter, and maintain soil structure at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and prevent 

soil erosion. A summary of estimated acres in Alternative 2 that do not meet desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are in Table 5. The total acres and percentages of the 

total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are 157 acres (1.5 percent), 276 acres (2.6 percent), and 105 acres (1.0 percent) respectively, 

totaling 5.1 percent which is below the threshold of concern. The potential use of tethered harvesting 

equipment in place of skyline yarding is expected to increase the percentages of the total treatment area 

not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are 179 acres (1.7

percent), 341 acres (3.3 percent), and 159 acres (1.5 percent) respectively, for a total of 6.5 percent 

which remains below the threshold of concern.

Ground-based tractor logging

Ground-based tractor logging with associated landings will result in reduced levels of soil cover on skid 

trails and landings but project design features will reduce the potential for soil erosion. Project design 

features require minimum levels of soil cover depending on slope steepness and require cover levels to 

be met before the fall rainy season. The project design features that prescribe placement of waterbars on 

skid trails and erosion control on landings will be effective in controlling runoff and preventing off-site 

sedimentation. Additionally, project design features limit the slope steepness for operating ground-based 

logging equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, which will reduce the potential for soil erosion on 

steeper slopes. The high amounts of soil cover in non-skid trail areas will act as sediment filters and 

prevent skid trail derived sediment from reaching a drainage channel. Best management practice 

monitoring of skid trails and landings show that water bars and erosion control measures are effective in 

controlling erosion and preventing sediment from reaching a stream course (USDA 2011). Monitoring 

from previous projects with ground-based tractor logging units indicates that 95 percent of the units

meet desired conditions for soil stability.

A combination of increased compaction, reduced soil cover, and soil displacement will lead to a loss of 

nutrients on the skid trails and landings in units where ground-based tractor logging takes place. Project 

design features including placement of waterbars, slope restrictions on ground-based equipment, and soil 

cover guidelines are designed to minimize the loss of soil organic matter from the unit. Additionally, 

project design features to protect coarse woody debris will insure these features will provide soil 

nutrients into the future, increasing soil organic matter. Monitoring from previous projects with groundbased tractor logging units indicates that 90 percent of the units meet desired conditions for soil organic 

matter after implementation occurs.

Ground-based equipment will cause soil compaction on landings and main skid trails, but with proper 

layout, the level of disturbance can be kept below levels that would impact stand productivity. In a 

general technical review titled “Restoration of Stressed Sites and Processes”, it is recommended that 

priority be given to preventing influences on soil properties that impair soil capabilities or functional 

processes (Meurisse and Geist, 1994). This can be done by placing a high priority on reusing existing 

skid trails, which will help to ensure that the area occupied by skid trails will be minimized. Soil 

compaction leading to poor soil structure will occur on the heavily used portions of main skid trails and 

landings. On skid trails where machinery makes one or two passes, compaction increases only slightly; 

rooting environment and infiltration are not negatively affected. Project design features put limitations 

on the use of ground-based equipment during wet weather and saturated soil conditions reducing the 

amount of compaction on skid trails. Additionally, project design features limit soil compaction by 
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

requiring that no more than 15 percent of a harvest unit shall be disturbed by main skid trails and 

landings. Follow-up treatments including the subsoiling of some landings, will limit the amount of the 

project that doesn’t meet desired conditions for soil indicators. Monitoring from previous projects with 

ground-based tractor logging units indicates that 95 percent of the units meet desired conditions for soil 

structure.

For ground-based tractor logging in terraced areas there is potential for high amounts of soil disturbance 

especially on soils with granitic parent material. The terraces were constructed in such a manner that 

each terrace leads back to a skid trail with the terraces alternating to function as water bars on the main 

skid trail. Since the slope between terraces averages 50 percent or more, project design features will be 

implemented which limit the disturbance on the terraces (see chapter 2 of the draft environmental impact 

statement for a list of the project design features). An effort will be made to keep skidding on the 

terraces with little to no lateral travel between terraces. Widening of the terraces to be used as skid trails 

is also a concern for soil disturbance which will be limited through the implementation of project design 

features. The reestablishment of ground cover on the terraces used as skid trails will be given high 

consideration especially on soils with granitic parent material.

Cut-to-length harvesting systems are expected to have similar disturbance to regular ground based 

logging operations but have the potential to cause less soil disturbance. With the use of cut-to-length 

systems it is possible that there will be less disturbance as a harvesting head can be used in the units to 

allow the equipment to operate on a slash mat which greatly decreases soil disturbance, allows for more 

soil coverage, decreases compaction in the skid trails, and keeps more nutrients on site. However there is 

no local data on cut-to-length logging systems so it was analyzed to have the same effect as traditional 

ground based logging systems.

Skyline yarding

Skyline or endline yarding would result in small amounts of soil displacement in the yarding corridors 

from the tail end of the log dragging on the soil surface. This log dragging usually does not occur over 

the entire corridor length. The yarding corridor can vary from six to eight feet wide and would have an 

area in the center of the corridor that is down cut nine to 12 inches deep (personal field observations). 

When properly water barred, no significant erosion would leave the harvest units. Soil compaction and 

reduced soil porosity would be minimal to none. Monitoring of previous projects with cable logging 

units indicates that desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are met 

across 97, 96, and 100 percent of units, respectively.

Skyline yarding on terraced units will have similar impacts to non-terraced units.

Tethered equipment

There is no local data on these types of logging systems however it is expected to have the same amount 

of disturbance as the traditional ground based tractor logging systems. The difference being that these 

types of systems can operate on steeper slopes (45 to 85 percent) and still maintain acceptable levels of 

disturbance. Best management practices and project design features will be implemented the same as

ground based logging systems. Tethering equipment is expected to help maintain traction and cause no 

more ground disturbance than traditional ground based tractor logging. If cut-to-length systems are used 

it is also possible that these types of systems will have less disturbance as a harvesting head can be used 

in the units to allow the equipment to operate on a slash mat which greatly decreases soil disturbance, 

allows for more soil coverage, decreases compaction in the skid trails, and keeps more nutrients on site.

Mastication
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Machine mastication should maintain the high levels of existing cover by cutting the existing live and or 

dead standing material into smaller pieces and letting it fall to the soil surface. Machine mastication will 

have a slight impact on soil organic matter because fine surface fuels will be increased with minimal 

disturbance to the top soil. A machine traveling over masticated materials reduces the potential for soil 

compaction. Slight increases in compaction would occur in travel access corridors around the unit. The 

direct effects of mastication are minimized by project design features that restrict mastication equipment 

to slopes up to 45 percent and restrict operations during wet weather conditions. Monitoring of previous 

projects with mastication units indicates that desired conditions for soil stability and soil organic matter 

are met across 95 percent of units and soil structure desired conditions are met across 100 percent of 

units.

A possible indirect effect of mastication on soil health is the subsequent burning of masticated fuels 

either by prescribed burn or wildfire. In Busse et al. 2005, it was shown that soil temperatures can 

surpass the biologically lethal threshold of 60 degrees Celsius if masticated residues burn. The 

likelihood of negative impacts to this project from burning of masticated fuels is low, as Busse points 

out that only the extreme amounts of masticated fuel levels produced lethal temperatures at depth. These 

extreme amounts of masticated fuels, resulting in depths of greater than 7.5 centimeters, are not

expected to occur on the Craggy Project.

Thinning without forest product removal

Since no ground based logging or other soil disturbing activities will occur that have the possibility to 

have a detrimental impact on the soil, thinning without forest product removal will have little to no 

effect on soil indicators. Soil organic matter will increase as a function of more litter being added to the 

forest floor. Soil stability will increase with the addition of material covering the surface of the soil,

making it more resistant to erosion. Soil structure would not be affected as there are no detrimental soil 

disturbing activities taking place. This activity will also serve as a reduction in fuels to make the 

landscape more fire resistant, indirectly affecting the analysis indicators in a positive manner in the 

event of a potential future wildfire.

Prescribed fire and pile burning

Prescribed fire does not have the same effects on soils as would a large-scale high severity wildfire 

(Wells et al. 1979, McNabb et al. 1990). Fuels treatments such as thinning, prescribed fire and pile 

burning involve managing specifically for fire weather and fuel moisture during burns in order to 

moderate fire behavior, and avoid adverse environmental effects. These treatments usually also involve 

modification of the amount and distribution of fuels prior to fire being introduced.

Prescribed fire is a low to moderate intensity fire that is used to reduce fuel loads and fire hazards. The 

impacts of prescribed fire on fuel loads and surface soil conditions can vary considerably depending on 

fuel characteristics and loading, soil climatic conditions at the time of burning, and resulting soil burn 

severity. Spring burns tend to consume less ground fuels than fall burns because of high soil moisture 

levels, leaving higher total soil cover levels post-fire. Recent soil cover monitoring of prescribed fire on 

the Forest for the best management practices monitoring report has shown that post-burn soil cover 

exceeds levels prescribed in standards and guidelines (USDA 2011). If soil cover guidelines are 

followed soil stability desired conditions are expected to be met for prescribed fire and pile burning 

treatments.

Prescribed fire and pile burning can alter microbial communities in a forest stand by increasing the 

temperature of the post burn soil surface or changing the availability of organic substrates. Soil heating 
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

during the burn results in a substantial short-term loss of microbial biomass or a shift in community 

structure. These changes, and their duration, are the result of the interactions of fuel load, fuel moisture 

content, weather conditions, landscape position, light-up sequence, resulting fire behavior, and resident 

time combined with heat transfer variability within the soil profile (Busse, 2005). The low and moderate 

burn severities that are prescribed for this project will have short term impacts to soil organic matter and 

microbial communities. These impacts will not affect the long term productivity of the project area. If 

burn severities are kept to low and moderate levels, soil organic matter desired conditions are expected 

to be met for prescribed fire and pile burning treatments.

Soil structure is not affected in a detrimental capacity by prescribed fire as certain moisture conditions 

are verified before implementation of burn plans, and heat is kept at low or moderate intensities. 

Wildfire on the other hand has the ability to reach high levels of heat, often combined with low 

moisture, which affects soil structure at detrimental levels.

Temporary roads and landings

New temporary roads and existing roadbeds that are going to be used as temporary roads would be 

cleared and graded; this would reduce soil cover levels during project operations. Erosion from 

temporary roads will be mitigated by grading to out-slope and covering with slash, if needed, after the 

harvest season (prior to the first winter after use and prior to additional winters if used for more than one 

harvest season). Temporary roads will be hydrologically stabilized and closed after project completion, 

mitigating long-term erosion in the project area. With erosion control features in place before the start of 

the wet season, soil stability desired conditions are expected to be met for 95 percent of temporary 

roads.

New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roadbeds may have the upper soil layer displaced 

or removed when the road bed is cleared, to allow log truck and equipment access. Additionally, new 

temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roads beds will have increased soil strength and cause 

reductions in infiltration and permeability. Research studies have shown that forest roads disrupt the 

physical environment through increased compaction and reduced porosity (Trombulak and Frissell, 

2000). The loss of soil organic matter and increases in soil strength will limit the growth of trees 

growing next to temporary roads, but because these roads occupy only a minor part of the project area, 

stand productivity will not be affected. While soil compaction will reduce infiltration and permeability, 

slash cover will reduce overland flow and prevent soil erosion. Temporary roads are not expected to 

meet desired conditions for soil organic matter and soil structure but subsoiling some temporary roads

will reduce the recovery time to return to desired conditions.

Monitoring from previous projects on the Forest has shown an increase in compaction, reduction in soil 

cover, and soil displacement leading to a loss of nutrients and reduced infiltration on the landings and 

temporary roads. Landings and temporary roads, therefore, do not meet desired conditions for soil 

organic matter and soil structure because the majority of these areas have the upper soil layer displaced 

or compacted enough to affect hydrologic function and productivity for the desired plant species.

The potential negative effects of landings and temporary roads are reduced through project design 

features that prevent damage from occurring, reduce the risk of further damage, and restore areas after 

damage has occurred. Impacts are prevented by limiting the extent of landings and main skid trail to 15

percent of units and ground-based equipment operation is restricted during periods of wet weather. The 

risk of future negative impacts is reduced by blocking access and hydrologically stabilizing landings and 

temporary roads. Finally, restoration of soil functions on landings and temporary roads will occur by 

subsoiling and seeding where it is practical to do so.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest, machine piling, and thinning are evident on the landscape in the 

treatment areas and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. No reasonably

foreseeable future actions are expected in treatment areas that would impact soil stability, soil organic 

matter, or soil structure. Adding the effects of Alternative 2 to the effects of past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions will not have measurable effects on surface and soil organic matter, stability 

or structure, and therefore no cumulative effects will exceed the analysis indicator thresholds in the 

Forest Plan.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that have a potential to impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are similar to Alternative 2. The acres and percentages of the total treatment area not meeting 

desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are 129 acres (1.1 percent), 

228 acres (2.0 percent), and 90 acres (0.8 percent) respectively, for a total of 3.9 percent which is below 

the threshold of concern. The potential use of tethered harvesting equipment in place of skyline yarding 

is expected to increase the percentages of the total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are 149 acres (1.3 percent), 288 acres (2.5 percent), and 

140 acres (1.2 percent) respectively, for a total of 5 percent which is below the threshold of concern.

Alternative 3 has fewer acres of mastication, the ground-based yarding portion of thinning with forest 

product removal, miles of new temporary road constructed and temporary road constructed on existing 

roadbeds than Alternative 2. However, Alternative 3 has more acres of fuelbreaks, underburning, and 

thinning without forest product removal than Alternative 2. The effects of this alternative are similar to 

those of Alternative 2 with slightly fewer negative effects due to the differences in acreage of various 

treatments.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. No cumulative effects

will exceed the analysis indicator thresholds.

Comparison of Alternatives

There would be no direct effects to soils from Alternative 1, as soil-disturbing project activities would 

not take place. Soil cover, and therefore soil stability, for erosion protection would not change in the 

project area. Soil organic matter would continue to accumulate faster than decomposition rates, with no 

additional benefit to soil fertility. Soil structure conditions would remain the same in the short-term, 

with very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings.

For Alternative 2, the total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, 

and soil structure are 157, 276, and 105, respectively; or 179, 341, and 159 acres, if tethered harvesting 

equipment is used in place of skyline yarding. The majority of acres not meeting desired conditions 

result from ground-based tractor logging and construction of associated landings. To a lesser degree, 

mastication, cable logging, and temporary road construction contribute to the total acres not meeting 

desired conditions.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

For Alternative 3 the total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and 

soil structure are 129, 228, and 90, respectively; or 149, 288, and 140 acres if tethered harvesting 

equipment is used in place of skyline yarding. There is a reduction in acres that do not meet desired 

conditions compared to Alternative 2 mostly due to a decrease in activities including mastication, 

ground-based tractor logging, skyline logging and new temporary road building; these were discussed 

earlier as being activities that affect the three analysis indicators more negatively compared to the other 

planned activities. Implementation of fuelbreaks, underburning, and thinning without forest product 

removal will mostly be performed manually and these are the activities that will occur on more acres in 

Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. A decrease in activity on the landscape results in less soil disturbance 

which leads to a higher percentage of desired soil conditions.

For the action alternatives, implementation of project design features will reduce the potential for 

negative effects from soil disturbing activities. Alternatives 2 and 3 will maintain adequate soil cover, 

protect soil organic matter, and maintain soil structure at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and 

minimize soil erosion. These acres will account for minor portions of any one stand so stand 

productivity will not be negatively affected.

• For Alternative 1 the percent of the total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are all zero percent.

• For Alternative 2 the percent of the total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 1.5, 2.6, and 1.0 percent, respectively; or 1.7, 

3.3, and 1.5 percent if skyline harvesting is replaced with tethered harvesting equipment.

• For Alternative 3 the percent of the total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 1.1, 2.0, and 0.8 percent, respectively; or 1.3, 

2.5, and 1.2 percent if skyline harvesting is replaced with tethered harvesting equipment.

Table 4. Estimated Acres Not Meeting Desired Conditions for Soil Indicators and Activities

Activity

Estimated Percent Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

Determined from Disturbance 

Monitoring on the Klamath NF

Alternative 2: Acres Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

(Estimated)

Alternative 3: Acres Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

(Estimated)

Ground-based Tractor Logging

Soil Stability 5% 77 58

Soil Organic Matter 10% 154 117

Soil Structure 5% 77 58

Tethered Equipment Logging 

Soil Stability 5% 54 50

Soil Organic Matter 10% 108 100

Soil Structure 5% 54 50

Skyline Yarding

Soil Stability 3% 32 30

Soil Organic Matter 4% 43 40

Soil Structure 0% 0 0

Mastication
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

12

Activity

Estimated Percent Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

Determined from Disturbance 

Monitoring on the Klamath NF

Alternative 2: Acres Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

(Estimated)

Alternative 3: Acres Not 

Meeting Desired Conditions 

(Estimated)

Soil Stability 5% 46 39

Soil Organic Matter 5% 46 39

Soil Structure 0% 0 0

Thinning Without Forest Product Removal

Soil Stability 0% 0 0

Soil Organic Matter 0% 0 0

Soil Structure 0% 0 0

Hand piling and burning

Soil Stability 0% 0 0

Soil Organic Matter 0% 0 0

Soil Structure 0% 0 0

New Temporary Roads

Soil Stability 5% 0.2 0.1

Soil Organic Matter 100% 4.7 2.4

Soil Structure 100% 4.7 2.4

Temporary Roads on Existing Roadbeds

Soil Stability 5% 1.4 1.5

Soil Organic Matter 100% 28 30

Soil Structure 100% 28 30

Table 5: Summary of Estimated Acres (and percentages of treatment areas) Not Meeting Desired Conditions for Soil 

Indicators for all Alternatives

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total Acres and Percent of the Treatment Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions With Skyline

Soil Stability 0 acres (0%) 157 (1.5%) 129 (1.1%)

Soil Organic Matter 314 acres (3%) 276 (2.6%) 228 (2.0%)

Soil Structure 314 acres (3%) 105 (1.0%) 90 (0.8%)

Total Acres and Percent of the Treatment Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions With Tethered Equipment

Soil Stability 0 acres (0%) 179 (1.7%) 149 (1.3%)

Soil Organic Matter 314 acres (3%) 341 (3.3%) 288 (2.5%)

Soil Structure 314 acres (3%) 159 (1.5%) 140 (1.2%)

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for soils will be met for all alternatives. The number of acres that 

do not meet desired conditions for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure is minor in 

relation to the treatment areas, and is reduced to the extent possible with project design features.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

13

Literature Cited

Busse, M.D., Hubbert, K.R., Fiddler, G.O., Shestak, C.J., Powers, R.F. 2005. Lethal Temperatures 

during Burning of Masticated Forest Residues. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 14: 267–

276.

Foster, C.M. and G.K. Lang. 1994. Soil Survey of Klamath National Forest Area, California, Parts of 

Siskiyou County, California and Jackson County, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific South 

West Region, Vallejo, California.

McNabb, D. H. and K. Cromack, Jr. 1990. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Nutrients and Soil Productivity.

In: Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests, edited by J. D. Walstad, S. R. 

Radosevich, and D. V. Sandberg. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 125-141.

Meurisse, R. T., and Geist, J. M. 1994. Conserving Soil Resources. In Restoration of Stressed Sites, and 

Processes, edited by Everett, R. L., Complier. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Pacific North West-General Technical Report-330. Volume 

IV, 50-58.

Powers, R., Scott, D., Sanchez, F., Voldseth, R., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J., and Stone, D. 2005. The 

North American Long-term Soil Productivity Experiment: Findings from the First Decade of 

Research. Forest Ecology and Management, 220: 31-50.

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 18-30.

USDA Forest Service, 1990. Soil Erosion Hazard Rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Ch. 

50, Region-5 Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Region 5 Amendment 2. Pacific South West

Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Chapter 4. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, 2006. Proposed Compaction Risk Rating, Version 1. Region 5.

USDA Forest Service, 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. General Technical Report

WO-82a.

USDA Forest Service, 2011. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices Report 2011 Fiscal 

Year. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office.

USDA Forest Service, 2012a. Region 5 Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2550- Soil Management. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific South West Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service, 2012b. Klamath National Forest Soil Monitoring Report 2012. Klamath National 

Forest Supervisors Office.

Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C, Froelich 

and R.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil. USDA Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington D.C.
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

14

Appendix A – Soil Map of the Project Area

Figure A-1: Soil Map of the Project Area
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management 

Project

15

Appendix B – Soil Map Unit Characteristics

Table 6. Soil Map Unit Characteristics

Map unit 

symbol Map Unit Name Surface Texture Parent Material

Depth to 

Restriction 

(cm)

Acres 

in Area

Percent 

of Area

106

Bluesprin familyLithic Mollic 

Haploxeralfs 

association, 30 to 70 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

58 1,890 6.40%

110sc

Bogus stony loam, 

15 to 50 percent 

slopes

Stony loam

residuum 

weathered from 

tuff

>200 279 0.90%

112

Clallam, deepDeadwood families 

association, 50 to 90 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

107 907 3.10%

113

Clallam, deepHolland families 

association, 30 to 70 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

107 1 0.00%

119

Deadwood familyRock outcrop 

association, 50 to 90 

percent slopes.

Extremely gravelly 

loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

41 29 0.10%

124

Entic XerumbreptsGerle family 

association, 30 to 90 

percent slopes.

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

granite

36 164 0.60%

128

GilliganChawanakee 

families association, 

30 to 90 percent 

slopes.

Sandy loam

residuum 

weathered from 

granite

119 359 1.20%

130

Gilligan-Holland 

families association, 

15 to 70 percent 

slopes.

Sandy loam

residuum 

weathered from 

granite

119 2,398 8.10%
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management 

Project

16

Map unit 

symbol Map Unit Name Surface Texture Parent Material

Depth to 

Restriction 

(cm)

Acres 

in Area

Percent 

of Area

142

Holland-Gilligan 

families association, 

30 to 90 percent 

slopes.

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

152 4,394 14.80%

143sc

Dubakella-Ipish 

complex, 5 to 30 

percent slopes

Stony loam

residuum 

weathered from 

serpentinite

91 119 0.40%

144

Holland-Skalan 

families association, 

30 to 70 percent 

slopes.

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

152 608 2.00%

147

Inville-Wintoner 

families association, 

30 to 50 percent 

slopes.

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous rock

76 477 1.60%

148sc

Duzel-Jilson-Facey 

complex, 15 to 50 

percent slopes

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

97 2,193 7.40%

150

Jayar-Woodseye 

families association, 

30 to 70 percent 

slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

86 55 0.20%

153

Lithic HaploxeralfsHolland family 

association, 30 to 70 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

33 304 1.00%

154

Lithic Mollic 

HaploxeralfsBluesprin family 

association, 30 to 90 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

36 954 3.20%

162

Lithic XerumbreptsRock outcrop 

association, 15 to 90 

percent slopes.

Gravelly sandy 

loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous rock

28 509 1.70%
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management 

Project

17

Map unit 

symbol Map Unit Name Surface Texture Parent Material

Depth to 

Restriction 

(cm)

Acres 

in Area

Percent 

of Area

165sc

Kindig-Neuns 

gravelly loams, 50 to 

80 percent slopes

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

152 7 0.00%

170

Ovall family-Entic 

XerumbreptsZeibright family 

association, 30 to 70 

percent slopes.

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

granite

109 515 1.70%

174 Riverwash

sandy and 

gravelly 

alluvium

>200 29 0.10%

178sc

Lithic XerorthentsRock outcrop 

complex, 0 to 65 

percent slopes*

Variable

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous, 

metamorphic 

and 

sedimentary 

rock

38 4 0.00%

182

Skalan-Clallam, deep 

families association, 

30 to 70 percent 

slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

81 1,139 3.80%

183sc

Marpa-KinkelBoomer, cool 

complex, 5 to 15 

percent slopes

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

76 8 0.00%

184

Skalan family-Lithic 

Haploxeralfs 

association, 30 to 90 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

81 8,685 29.20%

184sc

Marpa-KinkelBoomer, cool 

complex, 15 to 50 

percent slopes

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

76 285 1.00%

185

Skalan family-Lithic 

Mollic Haploxeralfs 

association, 30 to 70 

percent slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

81 2,344 7.90%
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management 

Project

18

Map unit 

symbol Map Unit Name Surface Texture Parent Material

Depth to 

Restriction 

(cm)

Acres 

in Area

Percent 

of Area

189

Teewinot-Endlich 

families association, 

50 to 90 percent 

slopes.

Extremely gravelly 

loam

residuum 

weathered from 

igneous and 

metamorphic 

rock

23 51 0.20%

198

Woodseye-Jayar 

families association, 

30 to 70 percent 

slopes.

Very gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

metamorphic 

rock

48 856 2.90%

212sc Riverwash

Stratified 

extremely gravelly 

coarse sand to 

gravelly sand

alluvium derived 

from igneous, 

metamorphic 

and 

sedimentary 

rock

>200 4 0.00%

237sc

Weitchpec variantRock outcrop 

complex, 5 to 65 

percent slopes

Gravelly loam

residuum 

weathered from 

serpentinite

41 1 0.00%
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

19

Appendix C – Treatment Map for Alternative 2

Figure C-1: Treatment Map for Alternative 2
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

20

Appendix D – Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 2

Table 7. Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 2

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

133-

89G Ground-Based 128 M H H M 70 13

134-

107S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 80

134-

131P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 22

134-

21S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 30

134-

23P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 119

134-

240G Ground- Based 142 M M H M 70 92

134-

240P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 68

134-

242G Ground- Based 128 M H H M 70 60

134-

242S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 15

134-

244P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

128 M H H H 70 20

134-

244S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 8

134-

245G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 14

134-

246P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 70

134-

247G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 29
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

21

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

247S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 7

134-

248E Endline 184 M M H M 70 1

134-

248G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 76

134-

248S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 54

134-

249G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 27

134-

250G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 57

134-

250P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 20

134-

251P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 37

134-

27S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 9

134-

28S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 8

134-

299G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 13

134-

299S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 24

134-

29P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 10

134-

29S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 5
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

22

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

2S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 42

134-

31P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 9

134-

32G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 10

134-

32P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 10

134-

32S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 16

134-

33G Ground- Based 147 M M H M 70 12

134-

33S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

147 M M H M 70 41

134-

34G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 34

134-

34S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 27

134-

36S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 32

134-

38S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

147 M M H M 70 20

134-

39S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 60

134-

40G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 15

134-

41G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 24
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

23

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

41S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 18

134-

42G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 12

134-

42S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 7

134-

44G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 20

134-

44S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 18

134-

47S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

147 M M H M 70 18

134-

55E Endline 184 M M H M 70 5

134-

55G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 25

134-

58G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 11

134-

58S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 6

134-

59G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 122

134-

70E Endline 184 M M H M 70 13

134-

70G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 7

134-

70P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 77

134-

83G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 13
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

24

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

83S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 68

136-

145G Ground- Based 142 M M H M 70 60

136-

146G Ground- Based 142 M M H M 70 37

136-

18G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 79

136-

21G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 54

136-

22G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 103

136-

24G Ground- Based 170 M M H M 70 43

136-

25G Ground- Based 170 M M H M 70 39

136-

26S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

124 M H H H 70 30

136-

2G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 45

136-

302P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

170 M M H M 70 43

136-

400M Mastication 144 M M H M 70 19

136-

401M Mastication 144 M M H M 70 31

136-

402M Mastication 142 M M H M 70 12

136-

47G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 11

136-

57G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 145

136-

61P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 117

136-

917M Mastication 142 M M H M 70 43

136-

926P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

106 M H H H 70 75
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

25

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

137-

5G Ground- Based 112 M H H H 70 32

137-

5S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 45

137-

6S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 44

137-

8S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 33

137-

Mast Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 138

138-

102P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 225

138-

11G Ground- Based 106 M H H H 70 34

138-

11S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 20

138-

12G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 28

138-

13S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 41

138-

151G Ground- Based 148sc M M H M 70 22

138-

155S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 12

138-

1G Ground- Based 106 M H H H 70 48

138-

23G Ground- Based 142 M M H M 70 31

138-

23S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

142 M M H M 70 13
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

26

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

138-

3S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 12

138-

46E Endline 198 M H H H 70 20

138-

532G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 10

138-

53P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 31

138-

53S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 23

138-

54S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 20

138-

56P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 274

138-

56S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 37

138-

70P

Thinning Without 

Forest Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 98

138-

71S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 51

138-

74M Mastication 184 M M H M 70 33

138-

91G Ground- Based 106 M H H H 70 34

138-

91S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 9

138-

Mast1Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 80
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

27

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

138-

Mast2Mastication 106 M H H H 70 40

138-

Mast3Mastication 112 M H H H 70 26

544-

17S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

182 M M H M 70 19

544-

19S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 46

544-

20E Endline 198 M H H H 70 25

544-

222S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 5

544-

Mast Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 490

FBP1 FuelbreakPrivate 182 M M H M 70 64

FBR1 FuelbreakRoadside 182 M M H M 70 34

FBR2 FuelbreakRoadside 198 M H H M 70 206

FBR3 FuelbreakRoadside 184 M M H M 70 202

FBR4 FuelbreakRoadside 148sc M M H M 70 259

FBR5 FuelbreakRoadside 185 M M H M 70 72

FBS1 Fuelbreak- Ridge 198 M H H H 70 135

FBS2 Fuelbreak- Ridge 184 M M H M 70 194

FBS3 Fuelbreak- Ridge 128 M H H H 70 157

FBS5 Fuelbreak- Ridge 130 M H H H 70 69

UB1 Underburn 142 M M H M 70 2,246

UB2 Underburn 184 M M H M 70 898

UB3 Underburn 130 M H H H 70 209

UB4 Underburn 106 M H H H 70 666
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

28

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

UB5 Underburn 198 M H H M 70 137

Total: 10,463
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

29

Appendix E – Treatment Map for Alternative 3

Figure E-1: Treatment Map for Alternative 3
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

30

Appendix F – Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 3

Table 8. Treatment Interpretations for Alternative 3

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

133-

89G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 13

134-

107S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 80

134-

131P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 22

134-

21S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 30

134-

23P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 110

134-

240G Ground- Based 130 M H H H 70 12

134-

240P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 145

134-

242G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 34

134-

242P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

128 M H H H 70 26

134-

242S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 15

134-

244P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

128 M H H H 70 20

134-

244S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 8
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

31

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

245G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 12

134-

246P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 68

134-

247G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 29

134-

247S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 7

134-

248E Endline 184 M M H M 70 1

134-

248G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 76

134-

248S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 54

134-

249G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 27

134-

250G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 57

134-

250P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 20

134-

251P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 37

134-

27S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 9

134-

28S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 7

134-

299G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 13

134-

299S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 24
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

32

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

29G Ground- Based 128 M H H H 70 16

134-

29P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 19

134-

2S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 42

134-

31G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 9

134-

32G Ground- Based 184 M M H M 70 10

134-

32P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 19

134-

32S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 16

134-

33G Ground-Based 147 M M H M 70 12

134-

33S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 52

134-

34G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 50

134-

34S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 27

134-

36S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 32

134-

38S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

147 M M H M 70 14

134-

39G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 7
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

33

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

39S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 54

134-

40G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 16

134-

41G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 24

134-

41S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 18

134-

42G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 12

134-

42S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 7

134-

44G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 20

134-

44S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 18

134-

47S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

147 M M H M 70 18

134-

55E Endline 184 M M H M 70 4

134-

55G Ground-Based 128 M H H H 70 29

134-

58G Ground-Based 128 M H H H 70 11

134-

58S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

128 M H H H 70 6

134-

59G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 97

134-

70E Endline 184 M M H M 70 13

134-

70G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 7
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

34

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

134-

70P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 77

134-

83G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 13

134-

83S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 68

136-

145G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 9

136-

146G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 8

136-

147G Ground-Based 142 M M H M 70 41

136-

18G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 62

136-

21G Ground-Based 142 M M H M 70 31

136-

21P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

130 M H H H 70 23

136-

22G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 103

136-

24G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 39

136-

25P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

170 M M H M 70 38

136-

26G Ground-Based 124 M H H H 70 4

136-

26P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

124 M H H H 70 29

136-

2P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

130 M H H H 70 45
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

35

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

136-

302P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

170 M M H M 70 43

136-

400M Mastication 144 M M H M 70 19

136-

401M Mastication 144 M M H M 70 31

136-

402M Mastication 142 M M H M 70 12

136-

47G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 14

136-

57G Ground-Based 130 M H H H 70 135

136-

61P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 58

136-

917M Mastication 142 M M H M 70 43

136-

926P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

106 M H H H 70 75

137-

5S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 28

137-

6S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 41

137-

8S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 33

137-

Mast Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 139

138-

102P

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 225

138-

11G Ground-Based 106 M H H H 70 32
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

36

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

138-

11S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 20

138-

12G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 7

138-

13S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 41

138-

151G Ground-Based 148sc M M H M 70 22

138-

155S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 12

138-

1G Ground-Based 106 M H H H 70 45

138-

23P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

142 M M H M 70 44

138-

3S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 12

138-

46E Endline 198 M H H H 70 20

138-

501P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 85

138-

532G Ground-Based 184 M M H M 70 10

138-

53P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 73

138-

53S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 23

138-

54S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 20
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

37

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

138-

56P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 289

138-

56S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 37

138-

70P

Thinning 

Without Forest 

Product 

Removal

184 M M H M 70 98

138-

71S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

184 M M H M 70 38

138-

74M Mastication 184 M M H M 70 33

138-

91S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

106 M H H H 70 16

138-

Mast Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 81

138-

Mast4Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 24

544-

17S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

182 M M H M 70 19

544-

19S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 46

544-

20E Endline 198 M H H H 70 25

544-

222S

Skyline OR 

tethered 

harvesting 

equipment

198 M H H H 70 5

544-

Mast Mastication 148sc M M H M 70 393

FBP1 FuelbreakPrivate 182 M M H M 70 295
Soil Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

38

Unit 

ID System Dominant 

Map Unit

Compaction 

Hazard 

Rating

Current

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Maximum 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Treatment 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Rating

Post 

Project 

Soil 

Cover 

(%)

Acres

FBP2 FuelbreakPrivate 184 M M H M 70 115

FBP3 FuelbreakPrivate 142 M M H M 70 171

FBP4 FuelbreakPrivate 148sc M M H M 70 72

FBR1 FuelbreakRoadside 182 M M H M 70 33

FBR2 FuelbreakRoadside 198 M H H H 70 204

FBR3 FuelbreakRoadside 184 M M H M 70 204

FBR4 FuelbreakRoadside 148sc M M H M 70 298

FBR5 FuelbreakRoadside 185 M M H M 70 72

FBS1 FuelbreakRidge 198 M H H H 70 196

FBS2 FuelbreakRidge 184 M M H M 70 165

FBS3 FuelbreakRidge 128 M H H H 70 191

FBS4 FuelbreakRidge 106 M H H H 70 104

FBS5 FuelbreakRidge 130 M H H H 70 69

UB1 Underburn 142 M M H M 70 2,282

UB2 Underburn 184 M M H M 70 899

UB3 Underburn 130 M H H H 70 215

UB4 Underburn 106 M H H H 70 895

UB5 Underburn 198 M H H H 70 137

Total 11,308