SOIL SPECIALIST REPORT

1st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Project [EA]

A Trinity County Collaborative Group Proposed Project 

Six Rivers National Forest, Mad River Ranger District

Trinity County, CA

February 2, 2018

Typical Holland deep-phase soil in a shaded fuelbreak unit (unit 206, end of road 2S51).

Prepared by:

David Young

R5 North Zone Soil Scientist

Shasta Trinity National Forest

Redding, CA

530-226-2545

daveyoung@fs.fed.us
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 2

Executive Summary

The project area units were all field reviewed for soil resources assessment during the field 

season of 2017, with emphasis given to units with proposed mechanical treatments and/or 

previous management using mechanical harvest methods. This project area has an unusual 

variety of soil types, not one or a few dominant soils, however most soils are fairly similar from 

a manageability perspective (similar topsoil textures and disturbance risk ratings).

Soil management objectives with this project are:

1) Keep soil in place: minimize erosion and sedimentation by adhering to BMPs and 

maintaining effective soil cover at or above minimum levels specified herein; 

2) Minimize and/or mitigate secondary soil quality impacts (compaction, displacement, 

severe burning): apply Forest Standards and Guidelines, Soil Quality Standards, and 

additional PDFs specified herein, which mainly aim to limit severity and spatial extent 

of such impacts;

3) Monitor project activities as they occur, particularly mechanical treatments and 

prescribed burning, to ensure acceptable soil cover levels are maintained. 

Thinning and fuels treatment activities are conventional, and we know from experience how to 

successfully limit soil impacts associated with these activities. Fuels reduction treatments 

include options for mechanical (mastication, machine piling), hand treatments (lop & scatter), 

and burning (pile burning, jackpot burning, under-burning). Only under-burning carries a greater 

risk for soils here; if and where conducted care will need to be taken through burn plan Rx

provisions to explicitly protect minimum levels of soil cover for erosion protection. 

With soil protections specified herein effectively applied during implementation, soil impacts are 

expected to be minimal and acceptable, meaning in compliance with the Forest LRMP and 

complying with the intent of NFMA (1976) to maintain long-term soil productivity. 

There will be measurable negative effects for soils in isolated areas, namely old temp roads, 

landings, and primary skid trails where mechanical (tractor) methods are used. However these 

features will be limited in severity and extent, by design to be within acceptable limits as set 

forth in the Forest Plan. Thus the context and severity of expected soil impacts are tolerable and 

within the scope of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 

The author has 18 years’ experience as a Soil Scientist with the Forest Service, with PSW 

Research Station for six years, and for the last ten years the R5 Northern CA Zone Soil Scientist 

in a shared-services position covering 8 National Forests. Previously a private consulting 

forester in the ‘90s. The author has experience designing, implementing, and monitoring a 

wide variety of forestry and vegetation management projects in the west-coast states and 

Alaska, with specialties in soils, geology, silviculture, and logging systems.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 3

1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides an analysis of the effects of the First 48 Project on short-term and long-term 

soil quality and productivity in the project area. The report describes the soils in the project area, 

provides an assessment of current soil conditions, and analyzes the potential effects that 

treatments under the proposed action alternative are expected to have on the soil resource. 

Operational restrictions and mitigations that aim to minimize adverse effects on soil quality and 

productivity are included in the form of Project Design Features (PDFs). 

This report includes:

 The regulatory framework and applicable standards and guidelines that were used to 

evaluate soil condition and potential impacts of proposed treatments;

 A description of the methods used to assess the effects of the project on soils;

 A description of the affected environment, and assessment of the current condition of 

soils, including effects of past management activities;

 An assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action on the 

soil resource;

 Appendices, including soil and slope maps, an activity unit by soil map unit crosswalk 

table (used to identify units with “sensitive” soils for priority attention in field review), 

and erosion hazard rating (EHR) calculations.

This project was instigated by the Trinity County Collaborative Group for the purpose of fuels 

reduction and ingress/egress safety for residents and firefighters along county roadways. Project 

development and design was collaborative in nature and intended to meet three criteria set by the 

Trinity Collaborative: ecologically and economically sustainable and socially acceptable. 

For a detailed description of the alternatives considered, specific actions, and a complete listing 

of multi-disciplinary Project Design Features (PDFs), see the project EA document, chapter 2.

These details are not repeated here. Two Alternatives are analyzed in this report: Alternative 1 –

No Action, and Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action.

To briefly summarize here, the project proposes to use a combination of thinning prescriptions 

and fuels treatments along county roads and Forest Service roads used for FS employees, 

firefighters, and local residents’ ingress and egress in the case of a wildfire. The Ruth vicinity 

has had a number of wildfires in the last 10-20 years. Silvicultural prescriptions include 

commercial and non-commercial thinning using mechanical (tractor), cable (including endlining), and manual (understory/ladder-fuels treatment) methods. Fuels reduction treatments 

include options for mechanical (mastication, machine piling), hand treatments (lop & scatter), 

and burning (pile burning, jackpot burning, under-burning). Other connected actions associated 

with this project include road decommissioning and rehabilitation of old temporary roads and 

old/new landings with short road spurs used for logging operations.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 4

2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Forest Service management actions relative to Forest Plan implementation are subject to various 

applicable laws, regulations, policy, guidance, and management direction; these collectively 

determine the overall objectives and standards and guidelines applied to FS management 

activities in a typical interdisciplinary resource management setting. Elements relevant 

specifically to the soil resource are described here.

2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY DIRECTIVES

2.1.1 Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960

The Act established principles of multiple-use of renewable surface resources of the National 

Forests, and sustained-yield, each/both of which shall be managed without impairment of the 

productivity of the land [not defined]. 

2.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970

The Act directs all federal agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of 

proposed federal actions, and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). This was 

the first Act to stipulate federal agencies shall initiate and utilize ecological information in the 

planning and development of resource-oriented projects.

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment will include a 

statement on (ii) adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, (iii) alternatives to the 

proposed action where unresolved conflicts are involved, (iv) the relationship between local 

short-term uses and the maintenance or enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed 

action should it be implemented.

2.1.3 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RRPA) of 1974

The primary purpose of the Act is to protect, develop, and enhance the productivity and other 

values of NFS lands. References MUSYA several times, adding that management will not 

produce substantial and permanent impairment of the land [not defined].

This was the first Act to name soil as a fundamental resource: recognize the fundamental need to 

protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources; provides for 

obtaining soil inventory data and mapping; timber will be harvested only where soil, slope, or 

other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; cuts are carried out in a manner

consistent with protection of soil and watershed resources. 

The Act also provides for research and monitoring of management system effects to the end that 

they will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the land [not defined].

2.1.4 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976

NFMA is the primary statute governing the administration of National Forest System lands. 

The Act requires the maintenance of productivity of the land and the protection and, where 

appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and water resources. The Act specifies that 

substantial and permanent impairment of productivity [not defined] must be avoided. Further, 

activities must be monitored to ensure that productivity is protected. This law led to subsequent 

regulation and policy to execute the law at various levels of management. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 5

2.1.5 Forest Service Washington Office (WO) Manual 2550 – Soil Management (Nov. 2010)

The FSM provides a national directive to maintain or restore soil quality on NFS lands, and 

establishes the management framework for sustaining soil quality and hydrologic function while 

providing goods and ecosystem services outlined in Forest and Grassland land management 

plans. The FSM defines soil productivity and soil quality, and describes soil functions that may

be used in evaluating soil quality.

The FSM outlines programmatic requirements for assessments, analyses, and monitoring 

pursuant to management activities, and outlines general requirements that Standards and 

Guidelines be developed and implemented at Regional and Forest levels.

Standards and guidelines are intended to prevent substantial and permanent damage or 

degradation that affects inherent ecosystem processes. Substantial and permanent soil 

impairment is defined as detrimental changes in soil properties (physical, chemical, biological) 

that result in the loss of the inherent ecological capacity or hydrologic function of the soil 

resource, over the mid-term (substantial, beyond the duration of the project) to long-term 

(permanent, beyond a land management planning period), respectively.

2.1.6 Forest Service Region 5 FSM Supplement – Soil Quality Mgmt. (R5-2500-2017-1)

Soil management direction is applied to lands dedicated to growing vegetation; it is not applied 

to areas dedicated to other uses, such as roads, trails, administrative and recreation sites, etc. The 

Supplement specifies 3 key soil functions to be used in R5 for assessment and analysis of soil 

quality: support for plant growth function, soil hydrologic function, and filtering-buffering 

function. Indicators and desired conditions for indicators are outlined for each soil function. Soil 

condition is rated as good, fair, or poor for each indicator relative to the desired condition. This 

approach is intended to help determine the status and trend of soil management, determine 

whether ecosystem health and long-term soil productivity is being maintained, and better 

determine needs and priorities for restoration activities.

The R5 Soil Quality Management Supplement (SQMS) uses the following indicators to evaluate 

management effects on key soil functions:

 Support for Plant Growth Function [soil productivity]

 Soil stability – maintain adequate soil cover to prevent accelerated erosion.

 Surface organic matter – maintain adequate soil cover to provide for support of soil 

biology and nutrient cycling [maintain soil inputs of organic matter].

 Soil Organic Matter (SOM) – maintain the topsoil in place [avoid excessive 

displacement]. An area is considered displaced if more than one-half or 4 inches 

(whichever is less) is removed from a contiguous area larger than 100 square feet.

 Soil strength – maintain a favorable rooting environment [avoid excessive compaction].

 Soil moisture regime – maintain the inherent soil moisture regime, especially in wet 

meadows and fens.

 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 6

 Soil Hydrologic Function

 Soil stability – maintain adequate soil cover to prevent accelerated erosion.

 Soil structure and macro-porosity – maintain sufficient structure and macro-porosity in 

most of the area to provide for water infiltration and permeability [avoid excessive 

compaction, displacement, puddling, or severe burning].

 Filtering-Buffering Function

 For projects involving chemical or nutrient applications to the soil, an analysis is 

completed to maintain soil chemistry and capacity to filter and buffer foreign 

compounds.

Another provision of the Supplement is considerable direction on the process of conducting 

assessments and analyses. The activity area is no longer defined necessarily as individual harvest 

units, and it is not considered always necessary to field review each and every unit. For large 

projects (such as this) a prioritization approach is recommended, utilizing various soil risk 

ratings and interpretations to focus field review on areas with the higher risks to soils:

 “Assessments can be conducted on individual treatment units, entire activity areas, or 

specially designated land management areas. The area bounded by the assessment would 

be described or defined.”

 “Existing soil condition must be determined in the field, and field work needs to be 

focused where risks are greatest. Generally it is not feasible or practical to field visit all 

proposed management areas, so priority sites must be chosen. Highest priority areas to 

field review are where soil condition may have been adversely affected by past 

management, and where proposed activities have the greatest potential to cause adverse 

effects to soil functions.”

Various types of soil disturbance (compaction, displacement, severe burning, etc.) may affect 

key soil functions in different ways on different soils and sites. Both degree and extent of 

disturbance are important considerations that must be evaluated together to assess potential 

adverse impacts on soil functions for the activity area. Quantitative measures or thresholds/limits 

for various types of soil disturbance are generally not provided in the Supplement, recognizing

that one-size-fits-all ‘standards’ are often inappropriate for particular or differing soil types, and 

recognizing that disturbances need to be evaluated in a site and soil specific manner during 

assessments and analyses. The objective is to avoid or minimize disturbances that may impair 

key soil functions for the activity area, as that is defined. Areas rated in a poor condition should 

be considered for restoration activities.

Specific measures, indicators, and thresholds are established at the project scale in assessing soil 

condition, and for evaluating the effects of the proposed project on the soil resource: what gets 

looked at, why, and interpretation of what it means to soil quality and site productivity. This is 

described for this project in the methods and analysis sections below.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 7

2.2 FOREST MANAGEMENT DIRECTION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The proposed project falls on Six Rivers National Forest administrative lands. The Forest Plan is 

the primary and most specific vehicle establishing direction and standards & guidelines pursuant 

to land management activities in the context of Forest Plan implementation. Provisions relating 

to soil management are provided below.

2.2.1 Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1995)

The Six Rivers’ Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) establishes Forest-wide 

management direction, and Standards and Guidelines in carrying out project activities. Forest

soil resource direction includes: 1) Manage soil and water resources to protect and enhance 

long-term productivity of the forest...; 2) Where applicable and practical, restore the productive 

capacity of soils damaged by past events; 3) Program emphasis is to avoid or mitigate the 

impacts of management activities on slope instability...and soil productivity.

This Forest has implemented Soil Quality Standards (SQS) as a means to ensure maintenance of 

soil productivity. SQS in this LRMP mirror almost verbatim the old (1991) R5 Supplement’s 

Soil Quality Analysis Standards, so most of the arbitrary quantitative thresholds contained 

therein are still in place on this Forest until Plan revision.

The LRMP provides measures and threshold values that indicate when changes in soil properties 

and soil conditions may result in significant change or impairment of key soil functions – soil 

productivity and hydrologic function. “Detrimental” disturbance refers to exceeding a severity

threshold (not an area threshold), so detrimental disturbance could be very small scale in area. 

The extent of detrimental soil disturbance shall not be of a size or pattern that would result in a 

significant change in productivity for the activity area; that result is notoriously difficult to 

determine, so 15% area is conventionally used as an assumed surrogate for collective impacts. 

Thus both severity and extent of detrimental disturbance are important considerations that must 

be evaluated in combination to assess potential adverse impacts to soils of the activity area. As 

such, detrimental disturbance can be allowed on a small portion of a unit – this does not 

constitute adverse impacts; conversely, minor disturbance can be allowed in most of a unit, this 

likewise does not necessarily constitute adverse impacts. Detrimental disturbance in > 15% area 

is used to constitute unacceptable levels of detrimental soil condition. Furthermore, disturbance 

is considered adverse if these thresholds are exceeded and subsequent impairment of soil 

functions is judged likely after a soil & site specific assessment. 

Note that the activity area is the scale at which impacts are ultimately assessed, defined as the 

area where soil disturbing activities take place, such as a timber harvest unit in a sale area or a 

burn area within a prescribed burn project. System roads, trails, and other areas not dedicated to 

growing vegetation are not included as part of the activity area, having other dedicated uses. 

This could include features such as landings if they are intended to be part of a permanent 

harvest system, but not if designated “temporary”.

2.2.1.1 Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (LRMP, p. IV-71)

Standards and guidelines [1-1 thru 1-5] relate to soil productivity in forest and range production 

areas. They do not apply to lands dedicated to other uses, such as administrative sites or 

transportation system roads. Standards and guidelines [1-6 thru 1-8] relate to soil erosion and 

mass movement.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 8

1-1. Implement Forest soil quality standards as described in Appendix L.

1-2. For each harvest unit, soil porosity will be maintained to at least 90% of its natural 

condition over at least 85% of the project area. [compaction standard]

1-3. Where soils are susceptible to compaction [high compaction hazard rating], actions 

will be required to mitigate or avoid compaction [examples given]. 

1-4. Tractor skid trails should be limited to 15 percent of the harvest area. [logging systems]

1-5. Mechanical slash piling will be limited to the normal operating season, unless a special 

prescription is developed. [as in Wet Weather Operation Standards]

1-6. The potential for increased mass movement and soil erosion will be addressed for proposed 

timber harvest and road building; a risk assessment should be developed. [project design, 

EHR]

1-7. Roads, landings, and timber harvest units will be located and designed to avoid 

triggering or accelerating mass movements... [project design, avoid landslides]

1-8. Tractors will be limited to slopes of 35% or less in order to minimize soil disturbance 

and subsequent erosion. [logging systems]

2.2.1.2 Soil Quality Standards (LRMP, Appendix L)

SQS provide threshold values to identify when changes in soil properties or conditions become 

detrimental. Areas of detrimental soil disturbance should not be of a size or extent that would 

result in a significant change in production potential for the activity area, generally assumed to 

be 15% area. Some standards are qualitative and some are quantitative. Six Rivers SQS use the 

following soil properties, conditions, and threshold values to evaluate management effects on the 

key soil functions of soil productivity and hydrologic function. 

1. Soil cover for erosion prevention is sufficient to prevent the rate of accelerated soil 

erosion from exceeding the rate of soil formation [which is unknown and unknowable; 

number 2 is assumed to meet this objective unless stated otherwise for particular sites].

2. The kind, amount and distribution of soil cover necessary to avoid detrimental 

accelerated soil erosion is guided by the Region 5 Erosion Hazard Rating system (R5 

FSH 2509.22) and locally adapted standard erosion models and measurements.

3. Soil porosity is at least 90 percent of the total porosity found under undisturbed or 

natural conditions. Porosity is evaluated between 4 and 8 inches below the surface.

[compaction standard, 10% reduction in total porosity is “detrimental”].

4. Organic matter is present in sufficient amounts to prevent significant short or long-term 

nutrient cycle deficits, and to help avoid adverse physical soil characteristics [kinds and 

amounts of organic matter follow].

5. Soil organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil is at least 85 percent of the total soil 

organic matter found under undisturbed conditions for the same or similar soils. 

[displacement standard; notably this is highly uncertain in measuring or implementing].

6. Litter and duff occurs over at least 50 percent of the activity area. Use the presence of 

living vegetation that could contribute significant annual litterfall to compensate for 

conditions when post-disturbance litter and duff coverage is less than 50 percent.

7. Large woody material, when occurring in forested areas, is at least 5 logs per acre in 

contact with the soil surface. Desired logs are about 20 inches in diameter, about 10 feet 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 9

long, and represent the range of decomposition classes [as defined]. Attempt to protect 

logs in decomposition classes 3-5 from burning and mechanical disturbance. Large 

woody material requirements may be waived in strategic fuelbreak areas.

8. Infiltration and permeability are not reduced to ratings of 6 or 8 as defined in the R5 

EHR system. [soil hydrologic function standard; “water movement” rating in EHR]

9. Soil reaction class, buffering or exchange capacities, or biological populations are not 

altered to the degree that significantly affects soil productivity, soil hydrologic function, 

or the health of humans and animals. [soil chemical and biological standard; this is 

another unknowable and non-implementable standard; notably the language this was 

taken from in the old R5 Supplement tied this to “materials added to the soil” will not 

have this effect, originally intended for fertilizer or herbicide applications].

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 SOIL RESOURCE INFORMATION

Soils information for the project area was obtained from two sources. The Six Rivers NF Soil 

Survey (1993) was primarily used for soil mapping coverage and various soil interpretations 

(e.g. susceptibility to burning damage). The NRCS Web Soil Survey1has publicly available soil 

mapping, map unit descriptions, information on soil physical, chemical, and engineering 

properties, along with additional NRCS soil interpretations. This was used to obtain official 

series descriptions, updated taxonomy information, and lab information (such as clay and organic 

matter content), realizing that such properties likely differ from the site-specific soils being 

assessed, but useful to rate soils on a relative basis for general sensitivity to various kinds of 

disturbance. Ultimately, soil resource information was field-verified to assure accuracy of soil 

properties and interpretations at the site/project scale.

3.2 SOIL EROSION HAZARD RATING

The Region 5 Soil Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) System (USDA Forest Service, 1990) 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 factors to rate soils for hazard of sheet and rill 

erosion. This system can also be used to determine the amount of surface cover necessary postactivity to avoid raising the erosion hazard rating to a higher risk level, and to determine the 

slope gradient at which EHR becomes higher with other site factors held constant. Hazards of 

gully erosion or mass wasting are not addressed with this procedure; these are evaluated on site 

during site visits, specifically looking for past problem areas that could also be future problems.

3.3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS

The purpose of the field investigations were to: 1) validate soil mapping coverage; 2) gather 

information on site-specific soil properties; 3) assess current soil conditions as affected by past 

management activities; 4) develop predictions on soil response to the proposed activities.

Field surveys were largely ocular, meaning emphasis was given to traversing a large portion of 

unit areas and visually observing the range of conditions and kinds and amounts of disturbance 

from past activities, with soil pits along the way to document soil types and condition. Most soil 

pits were relatively shallow (1-2 ft deep) as physical soil impacts are largely confined to this 

 

1 See http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 10

surficial layer. Profile horizonation, texture, structure, rock content, and color were used to 

distinguish and identify different soils for mapping validation, as well as evaluating resistance 

and resilience of soils to physical impacts, for example susceptibility to compaction. Other site 

specific data was collected for the analysis portion below, mainly site and topography data such 

as slope gradient, soil cover amount and components including rock cover, and large woody 

material (LWM) concentrations. 

Current soil conditions in undisturbed state were observed, as well as altered states resulting 

from past management effects. Most of the mechanical units have some level of management 

history using ground-based equipment, as detailed below. Old features such as skid trails, 

landings, and former temporary roads were inspected for degree and extent of detrimental soil 

conditions, in particular erosion features, compaction, and soil displacement. No soil-related 

legacy problems were identified to be brought forward to the IDT as restoration opportunities to 

consider with the project. 

3.4 ANALYSIS METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis first requires an assessment of the existing or baseline condition and then a prediction 

of the effects from the proposed activities. Existing current conditions were determined in the 

field. Soil impacts from proposed activities consider the types of activities, types of equipment 

and manner of operations expected, potential for detrimental disturbances, including where and 

to what extent, and further how long impacts are expected to persist considering expected rates 

of natural recovery or revegetation. 

Information sources include the silvicultural prescriptions, including treatment methods, aerial 

photography, NRCS and USGS certified data, Forest GIS layers, the Forest Soil Survey (USFS, 

1993), custom GIS products generated for this project, field notes from site visits, and other 

interdisciplinary specialists’ input (particularly geology, hydrology, silviculture, and fuels). 

It is assumed that application of required Best Management Practices (BMPs) as well as Project 

Design Features (below) concurrent with the project will be effectively applied as intended, 

meaning they will be implemented and achieve desired objectives on the ground. Erosion 

prevention is an end-result objective; it is assumed that any necessary additional or corrective 

actions will be implemented by responsible parties to achieve this end-result. The author will 

likely be available to observe field operations during early implementation of the project to 

confirm assumptions and expectations. 

Regarding silvicultural prescriptions and mechanical operations: some unit prescriptions have 

optional methods to be used for the fuel reduction component of activities, namely through hand 

piling, mechanical piling, mastication, and/or understory burns. This is intended to confer 

flexibility for implementation as site specific conditions warrant at the time; however different 

activities carry different consequences for analysis purposes. It thus must be assumed for 

analysis that the more-disturbing of alternate practices will be used, i.e. “conservatively” 

estimating more rather than less soil-disturbing methods will take place. For example many of 

the units involve pile burning, with piling accomplished by hand and/or machine piling; for 

analysis it is assumed to be machine piling as the more impactful option. Some of the Project 

Design Features are prescribed with this in mind, which risk being overly-restrictive where lessdisturbing activities wind up being chosen. This is necessary to address the range of soil 

disturbing activities that may be expected to occur and ensure compliance with LRMP standards. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 11

Mechanical treatments are expected to be restricted to allowable slope gradients as specified in 

the LRMP. Units are further assumed to be treated in designated portions over approximately 

10-15 years, so impacts will be spread out over time, not all at once or in a couple years like the 

scope of a conventional commercial timber sale. 

3.5 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL BOUNDING OF THE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

For soil resource analysis, the analysis area for direct effects is bounded spatially by the entire 

“footprint” of the project activity units, as this is the full extent of direct soil disturbing activities. 

The R5 Supplement and the Forest Plan indicate that the activity area is an appropriate scale to 

analyze project effects on the soil resource. LRMP Soil Quality Standards are intended to be 

used at this scale to determine project effects on key soil functions, focusing here upon soil 

productivity and soil hydrologic function.

For indirect and cumulative effects, the analysis area is likewise the same as the proposed project 

area (unit areas only). Although surface runoff egressing the project units could possibly affect 

adjacent downhill slopes, it is only relevant where 1) runoff may be expected to occur, and 2) 

site-specific topography indicates runoff could pose additional off-site scouring, erosion, or 

water quality concerns. It is an assumption that runoff and erosion concerns are expected to be 

controlled on-site through effective BMPs and drainage controls. Thus the analysis area for 

direct and indirect effects is the same, the proposed project area units.

The analysis is further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of 

this project could persist as detectable, significant effects. Some soil impacts, such as cover 

reductions, can naturally recover quite quickly from needlecast and other organic debris 

deposited on the forest floor. Others, such as compaction and effects of displacement, can persist 

for decades. In general, expectation for temporal longevity of effects is discussed as short-term 

(< 5 years), mid-term (5-20 years), or long-term (> 20 years) effects. For cumulative effects, the 

analysis is bounded in time by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

By adhering to SQS for limiting detrimental effects such as erosion, compaction, displacement, 

and loss of organic matter components, key soil functions described above are assumed to be 

maintained, in both space and time. A further level of analysis and discussion is warranted where 

SQS are expected to be exceeded in significant portions of the unit area. Greater than 15% area 

has conventionally been used for this extent threshold of concern for soils, though it is only 

technically specified for compaction and coincidental area in tractor skid trails. 

3.6 ANALYSIS INDICATORS

The effects of individual management activities on the soil resource, pertaining to soil 

productivity and soil ecological function, is guided using the regulatory framework outlined 

above, with particular emphasis on the most specific guidance: Six Rivers LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines, and Soil Quality Standards (SQS, Appendix L). 

Three indicators were chosen that best address relevant soil issues in the Project and measure 

compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The indicators include soil stability (soil 

cover for erosion prevention), soil organic matter (conservation of), and soil structure & porosity 

(limiting aerial extent of compaction and displacement). The unit measures for each indictor are 

percentage area (acres) not meeting desired conditions, as set forth from applicable Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines and/or SQS. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 12

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 GEOLOGY AND GENERAL SOILS

The project area is located in the Northern CA Coast Range, Ecological Subsection2 M261Ba, 

Eastern Franciscan. This is the higher elevation part of the Northern CA Coast Range, far 

enough inland to have little oceanic influence on climate. Lithology is dominated by Jurassic 

and Cretaceous Franciscan metaclastic rocks of the Eastern Belt, intensely folded and faulted. 

Bedrock transitions predictably with elevation. Lower slopes are Yolla Bolly Terrane, 

Hammerhorn Ridge graywacke and meta-graywacke. Mid and upper slopes are Pickett Peak 

Terrane: mid slopes are Valentine Springs Fm meta-graywacke and semi-schist; upper slopes 

are South Fork Mountain Schist Fm, quartz mica schist. 

Geomorphology is typified by long rounded ridges with steep sides and narrow canyons. South 

Fork Mountain ridge is the longest continuous ridge in western North America, trending northnorthwest with elevations up to 5,800 ft in the project area. Streams are low-order dendritic 

basins, sub-parallel along the fall-line of the continuous ridge, flowing into Mad River (see area 

map, Appendix A). Mass wasting and fluvial erosion are the main geomorphic processes. 

Soils are about half Inceptisols and half Alfisols & Ultisols. Inceptisols are “young” soils, 

generally occurring on the steeper slopes where parent materials are often coarse and resistant to 

weathering due to bedrock density and/or alteration from higher-grade metamorphism, so slopes 

naturally have a higher angle of repose. These soils are perpetually young because of active 

geomorphic erosion processes, and have little soil profile development from eluvial/illuvial soilforming processes. Relatively low site quality is reflected in the vegetation types. 

The Alfisols & Ultisols occur on relatively stable landforms where geomorphic rates of soil 

creep and natural erosion are low, such as ridges and lower gradient midslope benches and 

swales. Lacking erosion, they exhibit mature profile development and morphology from 

advanced pedogenic (soil-forming) processes. These soils are deep and well drained. Nutrients 

are concentrated in the topsoil, and subsoils are clay enriched, so these soils have much higher 

water holding capacity and forest site productivity in this water-limited environment. Ultisols 

differ from Alfisols in being more highly weathered and leached of base nutrients in the subsoil. 

Soil temperature regimes are predominantly mesic, transitioning to frigid at higher elevations. 

Moisture regimes are almost exclusively xeric except perhaps in riparian areas. Soil particle size 

classes are mostly loamy-skeletal, a few fine-loamy. Soil mineralogy is mixed to micaceous. 

Soil rock fragment content (RFC) is primarily pebble size class with lesser gravels and cobbles. 

4.2 SOIL RESOURCE INVENTORY

The Order 3 soil survey was judged as having good accuracy and utility for project planning

based upon field review. No areas were found that had substantially different soil types which 

would change interpretations and conclusions regarding environmental effects of proposed 

activities. This project area has an unusual variety of soil types, not one or a few dominant soils 

based on relative acreage (table 2); however most soils are fairly similar in certain key respects

such as surface texture and depth (table 2). 

 

2 Miles and Goudey, 1997.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 13

In all there are 10 soil map units with 20 family-phases in various combinations and component 

proportions (tables 1-2). Map phases are most commonly based upon slope class and perhaps 

depth class. Here Clallam is an example having 3 phases differentiated by rock fragment content 

and aspect (“dry” occurring on south aspects). Riverwash bridges alluvial and dry-floodplain 

and stream terrace environs. All but 1 soil map unit are associations, meaning the components 

occur in a predictable and repeatable pattern such that they could be mapped at Order 2 survey 

intensity (1:24 000). This was not necessary here since most of the soils have similar 

manageability characteristics relative to this kind of project, as described below, so there would 

be no added benefit from the effort. 

Soil maps are in Appendix A, with table 1 serving as the soil map unit legend. Select properties 

and risk ratings including EHR for the dominant soils are displayed in tables 2 and 3 below.

Table 1. Soil Map Units, acreage, and GIS-derived slope stats from a USGS 10m DEM.

Table 2. Soil Families in descending extent, incl. select properties and interpretations. Acreage is 

prorated from map unit components, less inclusions. Abbreviations are standard soil science. 

Soil MU Map Unit Name MU Type Acres Min. Mean Max.

100 Typic Xerofluvents-Riverwash, 2-10% slopes Assoc. 16 1 30 105

250 Oxalis-Hecker-Doty, deep, 25-70% slopes Assoc. 1.1 27 31 34

256 Hecker deep, 35-70% slopes Family 32 0 45 114

257 Bins deep-Nanny deep-Woodseye, 5-35% slopes Assoc. 8.4 0 14 31

258 Albus-Race, deep, 35-70% slopes Assoc. 119 12 30 66

259 Nanny deep-Woodseye-Bins deep, 35-70% slopes Assoc. 151 0 15 76

260 Skalan-Kistirn-Holland, deep, 35-70% slopes Assoc. 278 0 36 134

265 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, dry, 35-70% slopes Assoc. 103 0 33 83

266 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, 30-50% slopes Assoc. 26 13 50 107

281 Clallam deep eg, Deadwood, 35-70% slopes Assoc. 88 0 38 142

Total 823 0 33 142

GIS Slope % Soil Family/Phase Rel. Acres Rel. Acres A Texture Depth Tex. Δ Sub. Texture Depth RFC (top 12") HydroGroup Compaction BurnDamage SiteClass Part. Class Taxonomy

Skalan deep 83.5 13.4% vgL 12 vgCL 56 55 B-C moderate low 3-4 L-skel Ultic Haploxeralf

Holland deep 69.6 11.1% vgL 6 gL 40-60 40 C moderate low-mod 3 fine-L Ultic Haploxeralf

Kistirn deep 60.9 9.7% vgL 8 vcCL 53-79 40 C high moderate 3-4 L-skel Typic Haploxerult

Albus deep 53.6 8.6% gL 14 gCL 44-60 15 B-C moderate moderate 3-4 L-skel Ultic Haploxeralf

Nanny deep 47.5 7.6% gL 10 egL 40-60 20-45 B-C moderate moderate 3-4 L-skel Typic Xerumbrept

Woodseye [shallow] 46.7 7.5% gL 8 egL 14 20-60 C moderate moderate 4-5 L-skel Lithic Xerumbrept

Race deep 41.7 6.7% gL 16 cCL 40-60 20 C moderate moderate 3 fine-L Dystric Xerochrept

Clallam deep eg 39.5 6.3% egL 42 R 42 60-80 B moderate high 5 L-skel Dystric Xerochrept

Clallam deep dry 36.0 5.8% vgL 13 egCL 53 35 B moderate high 4-5 L-skel Dystric Xerochrept

Bins deep 33.2 5.3% L 10 gL 58 0-15 B-C moderate low-mod 3 fine-L Typic Xerumbrept

Deadwood [shallow] 26.4 4.2% gL 14 vgL 18 15 D moderate high 5-6 L-skel Dys-Lithic Xerochrept

Holland deep dry 20.6 3.3% vgL 6 gL 40-60 40 C moderate high 3 fine-L Ultic Haploxeralf

Hugo deep dry 20.6 3.3% gL 7 SiL 40-60 15 B high high 3 fine-L Dystric Xerochrept

Hecker deep 19.2 3.1% gL 6 vglCL 40-60 15 B-C high mod-low 4 L-skel Mollic Haploxeralf

Clallam deep 7.8 1.3% vgL 13 egCL 53 35 B-C moderate moderate 4 L-skel Dystric Xerochrept

Typic Xerofluvents 6.6 1.1% gSL 10-30 vgLS 40-60+ > 35 A low low n/a S-skel Typic Xerofluvents

Hugo deep 6.5 1.0% gL 7 SiL 40-60 15 C high moderate 3 fine-L Dystric Xerochrept

Riverwash 4.9 0.8% egS 10-30 cS 60+ > 35 A low low n/a S-skel Riverwash

Oxalis deep 0.4 0.1% SiL 8 SiC 40-60 0-10 C high moderate non-com fine-L Vertic Xerochrept

Doty deep 0.2 0.0% L 7 CL 40-60 5 B high low 4 fine-L Pachic Xerumbrept

Risk Ratings
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 14

Most of the soils within the project area are deep, well drained, with gravelly to very gravelly 

loam surface textures; several soils have finer-textured subsoils, sometimes fairly shallow and 

sometimes at depth. Woodseye and Deadwood are the only shallow soils, and only Deadwood 

has a soil hydrologic group D. 

Soil hydrologic groups (table 2) indicate the potential of a soil to produce runoff from long 

duration storms, when soils are already thoroughly wet and are not protected by vegetation. 

Groups range from A, indicating very low runoff potential, to D, indicating prone to flashy 

runoff with erosion consequences. Soils here are mostly B or C. Group C soils indicate 

moderate runoff potential due to their less permeable subsoil, shallower profile depth, or both.

Compaction risk rating in table 2 follows Roath (2006). Relatively high rock fragment content 

(RFC) and organic matter content are both beneficial in making topsoils moderately resistant and 

resilient to compaction from ground based machinery. Most soils have a moderate compaction 

risk because of loam surface textures. Soils with a high rating have a finer-textured subsoil (clay 

loam or silt loam) within 12 inches of the surface. These shallow-occurring fine textures are 

susceptible to compaction, and also have a higher risk of exposing less-permeable subsoil from 

incidental displacement with mechanical ground-based yarding. This is the sort of risk 

identification that may drive development of unit-specific PDFs after field review; compaction 

risk is usually best dealt with by limiting the extent (% area) of mechanical operations. 

Burn damage risk rating (table 2) indicates the susceptibility of heat to penetrate the soil during a 

fire, volatilize soil organic matter (SOM), and kill soil microorganisms. While this is primarily 

determined by fire intensity, soil properties such as texture, rock content, parent material, and 

organic matter content can influence heat penetration to some degree. Long term burn damage is 

mainly related to the loss of SOM, which requires long timeframes to accumulate within the soil. 

Soil moisture status at the time of burning also has a profound influence on heat penetration 

(Busse et al., 2010), but is not a factor in this rating system due to its transient nature. Clallam, 

Deadwood, and dry-phase soils have a high burn damage susceptibility rating because of lower 

levels of SOM in the topsoil. Soils with a moderate rating and not severely burned are expected 

to naturally recover in the short term. That said, Rx burning activities still carry a risk of erosion 

if too much soil cover is removed, particularly on steeper slopes and soils with high EHR.

Table 3. Erosion Hazard Ratings for soil map units (calculations may be seen in Appendix C).

EHR results in table 3 are calculated for project specific conditions and local climate. These are 

based upon the dominant soil component in each map unit. Often an approach rating the “most 

GIS Hydrologic High EHR

Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) summary table mean Soil limit

Soil MU Map Unit Name % slope Group Current Post-Treatment Bare % slope

100 Typic Xerofluvents-Riverwash, 2-10% slopes 30 A L M M 94**

250 Oxalis-Hecker-Doty, deep, 25-70% slopes 31 C-B L M H 37**

256 Hecker deep, 35-70% slopes 45 B-C L M H 53

257 Bins deep-Nanny deep-Woodseye, 5-35% slopes 14 B-C L L M 57**

258 Albus-Race, deep, 35-70% slopes 30 B-C L M M 57

259 Nanny deep-Woodseye-Bins deep, 35-70% slopes 15 B-C L L M 57

260 Skalan-Kistirn-Holland, deep, 35-70% slopes 36 B-C L M M 73

265 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, dry, 35-70% slopes 33 B-C L M M 86**

266 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, 30-50% slopes 50 B-C L M H 86

281 Clallam deep eg, Deadwood, 35-70% slopes 38 C L M M 86

Note: "current" condition assumes 95% ground cover, "post-project" assumes > 50% ground cover, "bare" includes only overstory canopy and rock cover.

Erosion Hazard Rating

Soil Cover Levels
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 15

limiting” component is taken, or rating components separately if they are drastically different. 

Soil map units here do not generally have strongly contrasting soil components that might 

otherwise necessitate this. 

None of the soils have a high EHR with 50-70% soil cover on their respective average slope 

gradients. Most of the soils do not even have a high EHR when bare, due to these surface loams 

being very porous (> 2in/hr infiltration rate), which is typical of loamy and most fine-loamy 

forest soils. All soils will reach a high EHR at some point of steepness with 50% or less soil 

cover, or even with 50-70% cover for most soils. The EHR slope limit in table 3 is the slope 

gradient at which EHR becomes High with assumed 50-70% soil cover post-project; this would 

indicate a need for soil cover additions above this limit to maintain a moderate or lower EHR; 

**denotes these soils do not actually occur on slopes this steep (e.g. Bins). The soils that do 

have a high EHR when bare are relatively minor in extent (< 60 acres total), but would warrant 

caution where they occur to not create large bare areas, particularly on slopes > 50% as a general 

practice for all soils here. 

Thus, from a manageability perspective, considering texture, depth, and interpretive ratings, 

these soils fall into three groups: 1) soils which are more susceptible to compaction and 

displacement impacts because of fine-textured subsoils shallow beneath the surface (Kistirn, 

Hugo, Hecker, Oxalis, Doty); 2) soils susceptible to burn damage because of low OM content

(Clallam, Deadwood, and dry-phase soils on south aspects); 3) other soils which are generally 

more resistant/resilient to management related impacts. 

Oxalis is repeatedly noted as different. This is a somewhat unique soil found in the “glades” that 

supports mixed grassland-oak woodland; it has finer textures (SiL overlying SiC) than any of the 

other soils (table 2), and is considered “non-commercial” – it does not support productive forest. 

Silty clay is a very unusual texture on NFS lands, so it was enjoyable to inspect. Also notable, 

Oxalis is “vertic” meaning it has shrink-swell clays that form cracks seasonally when dry; thus 

infiltration and permeability function differently in this soil, and natural recovery of compaction 

is relatively fast. Oxalis only occurs in tiny portions (0.5-0.6 acres) of two units (416 and 613), 

both oak woodland restoration units where actual ground impacts are expected to be quite 

minimal. 

All of these management risk ratings collectively indicate the general sensitivity or resistance & 

resilience of different soil types to different kinds of disturbances or impacts. They were also 

used as a pre-field filter to help identify and prioritize emphasis areas for more detailed field 

review, to ensure that soils types which are generally more sensitive to management related 

impacts receive more attention and thorough review, given the management activities proposed. 

Units are routinely dropped during the field review phase for various resource concerns,

including slope stability and soils concerns when they pose higher risks. Again, these are the 

sort of risk factors that may drive development of unit-specific PDFs after field review. 

4.3 CURRENT SOIL CONDITIONS

There have been past entries into the project area to harvest timber, construct fire breaks, and 

respond to wildfire with suppression activities. Portions of the project area remain detrimentally 

disturbed, most commonly in plantations. Persistent disturbance is primarily compaction located 

in old landings and some primary skid trails near landings. The assessment of current soil 

condition and past disturbance extent is based upon ocular estimates during field review. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 16

Severity of persistent past disturbance was assessed qualitatively. For example, compaction is 

inspected looking for platy structure, pore size distribution, and presence/distribution of fine to 

medium roots to estimate whether root growth pattern was affected (excluded or restricted). 

4.3.1 Soil Cover (Soil Stability)

Bare soil was occasionally noted during field investigations, but was rarely observed in most 

units, and when noted was always small isolated patches (such as windthrow mounds) without 

significant sediment movement. The only exception were a few segments of skid trails, which 

had obviously had surface sheet erosion in the past (not ongoing), as evidenced by pedestaled 

stones. All mechanical and other units surveyed had ample ground cover (> 95%) to prevent soil 

loss from erosion. This is quite typical in a forested setting with good site quality, both for units 

with no management history and those not entered for a decade or more. The average depth of 

fine organic matter, focused on duff, was 1-4 inches thick. 

4.3.2 Soil Porosity (Compaction)

Detrimental compaction was visually assessed during unit field reviews, focused upon any old 

landings and skid trails that could be seen from prior mechanical operations. Most of the units 

are roadside and relatively narrow, where prior impacts could usually be readily observed. The 

few plantations required more investigation; these do have some old skid trails on slopes 

generally less than 40 percent which still exhibit signs of detrimental compaction. Most of the 

detrimental compaction appeared limited to the old landings, and some (but not all) primary skid 

trails in proximity of landings. Secondary skid trails further out from landings were observed to 

have little or no compaction that would qualify as detrimental. Thus all of the less-frequented 

old skid trails (with fewer passes) are assumed to be in non-detrimental condition, since the more 

heavily trafficked ones are very close to the threshold. 

Field investigations conclude that historic landings may all be assumed to be over the detrimental 

compaction threshold in terms of severity. Only a subset of old main skid trails have detrimental 

compaction currently. However old skid trails were universally assessed as occupying < 15% 

areal extent in proposed units, so all units currently meet applicable compaction standards. 

4.3.3 Organic Matter

Organic matter currently exists in kinds and amounts sufficient to prevent significant nutrient 

cycle deficits, and to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions, as described 

below. Kinds and amounts based on ocular surveys in units were universally consistent. 

4.3.3.1 Soil Organic Matter (Displacement, Severe Burning)

Evidence of severe burning (from past pile burning or underburns) was not found in any of the 

units. Nor was significant soil displacement observed, except on just 2 or 3 of the old skid trails, 

and not comprising any significant extent. 

4.3.3.2 Fine Organic Matter (Nutrient Cycling)

Fine organic matter, including litter, duff, and woody material less than 3 inches diameter, 

currently occurs on about 95% of the area (visually estimated), and on average is 1-4 inches 

deep. This is considered quite sufficient for nutrient cycling purposes, and all proposed units

currently meet applicable standards. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 17

4.3.3.3 Large Woody Material (LWM)

LWM specifications for retention are at least 5 logs per acre, greater than 20 inches diameter and 

at least 10 feet long, spanning a range of decomposition classes as available on site. However, 

the LRMP provides that LWM requirements may be waived in strategic fuelbreak areas, which 

these activity units (except plantations and oak woodland units) would qualify as.

LWM levels were only crudely assessed during field surveys, mainly noting a fairly consistent 

lack of LWM in most units. These are roadside units in proximity of a rural community, so it is 

reckoned that any large down wood has been scavenged as firewood over the years. This would 

likely be the case in the future as well, because of easy access. In accordance with standards, 

where currently existing LWM is deficient, 5 logs per acre is not required post-activity. The vast 

majority of units are for the purpose of establishing fuelbreaks along roads, so the requirement 

for LWM retention is waived in these units. 

 

4.3.4 Infiltration and Permeability (Soil Hydrologic Function)

The LRMP SQS have a soil hydrologic function standard whereby infiltration and permeability 

are not reduced to ratings of 6 or 8 as defined in the EHR system. In the EHR system, infiltration 

and permeability (and soil depth) are factored into a single “water movement” criterion. EHR 

water movement ratings are currently 1-4 under natural soil conditions (Appendix C).

Infiltration is reduced to some degree by compaction. Compaction is present in areas of units 

that were previously managed with mechanical ground-based entry, specifically on the old main 

skid trails and landings that are considered detrimentally compacted (section 4.3.2 above). This 

is estimated to be about 5-10% aerial extent of these units. Soil water movement in other units 

without observable management history is essentially unaffected. All soils here (except Oxalis) 

have porous loam surface textures, so natural infiltration rates for EHR purposes is rapid; Oxalis 

is moderate. Reduced infiltration from compaction generally bumps the infiltration down 1 class 

for a modified water movement rating. Adjusting infiltration down a class would still produce 

water movement ratings of 3-4 for all soils but Oxalis. 

Subsurface permeability is naturally slower in the soils with clay loam subsoils (table 2), but 

only Oxalis has a “moderately slow to slow” permeability rating with its silty clay subsoil. 

Permeability is generally unaffected by surficial impacts unless a less-permeable subsoil is 

exposed by displacement. Complete topsoil displacement was not observed in any substantial 

portions of any of the proposed units; this was only observed on road cutbanks. 

Aside from the EHR water movement rating standard, impaired soil hydrologic function is more 

practically and reliably indicated in the field by signs of erosion. In ocular surveys, minor sheet 

erosion was only noted on a select few of the old skid trails near landings. Also noted was that 

re-deposition of fines generally occurred over short distances (< 10-20 feet), so the eroded soil 

materials and nutrient capital remains on site. Old landings themselves are generally too flat to 

produce erosion; water may pond on the surface during heavy rains and then soak in. There were 

no larger contiguous areas (> 100 sq. feet) with signs of erosion to be of concern. Current soil 

hydrologic function of soils is judged as acceptable and meeting applicable standards in all but a 

small fraction (< 2%) of the project area as a whole, specifically a subset portion of the 

compacted areas discussed above. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 18

5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The proposed project involves a straightforward purpose and need, primarily creation of fuel

breaks along roads, to provide for safe public ingress/egress and firefighter access in the case of 

another wildfire in this area. A few roadside plantations are also involved for fuels reduction, as 

well as oak woodland maintenance units, being situated within the overall roadside fuelbreak 

zone; management will just be extended further from the road in these cases. Past management 

activities have occurred in a sizeable portion of the project area, with some portion of a 

“footprint” persisting and observable today. The No-Action Alternative incorporates these past 

effects, and is analyzed as a baseline or yardstick to compare the end result of new and additive 

effects from the proposed action, if implemented. 

5.1 EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)

5.1.1 Direct Effects of No-Action

Direct effects of the No Action Alternative would be of no immediate effect at all on the soils, as 

new soil disturbing activities would not take place. Soil cover for erosion protection would not 

change. Present compaction levels would remain the same in the short-term, with very slow 

long-term natural recovery. Surface organic matter components would continue to accumulate 

faster than decomposition. Soil organic matter would be unaffected. Soil hydrologic function 

would be unaffected.

5.1.2 Indirect Effects of No-Action

Indirect effects of the No Action alternative would be the increased accumulation of organic 

matter in terms of surface and ladder fuels, with a corresponding continual increase in fire 

hazard. Fire hazard is not the probability of a fire ignition, but that a fire ignition (human or 

lightning caused) would result in a successful fire start and spread, and fire behavior would be 

more severe. Fire hazard already represents an unacceptable threat to values at risk in proximity 

to the project area due to present vegetation composition. The No Action Alternative would do 

nothing to alleviate the hazard, and would do nothing to provide for a more manageable 

firefighting scenario in the eventual case of another fire. 

These fuel breaks also provide opportunities for compartmentalizing fires when they do occur, as 

a matter of when, not if. To the extent that management activities can reduce the eventual size 

of high severity fires, soil resources benefit in the long term. Low to moderate severity fire is not 

usually considered a serious threat to soil resources, but high soil burn severity can have longterm consequences to soils. High severity fire may have other resource benefits, depending on 

scale, but not for soils as an essentially non-renewable and irreplaceable resource in human 

timeframes. 

5.1.3 Cumulative Effects of No-Action

There would be no additional impacts to soils with No-Action, so there would be no additive 

effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and therefore by 

definition no cumulative effects. Soils would continue to have natural ecological function and 

soil productivity would be unaffected relative to the current existing condition. It can certainly 

be argued that there are ecological cumulative effects of No-Action, in terms of wildfire effects 

to soils, watersheds, and T&E fish and wildlife habitats, but wildfires are not Forest Service 

actions, so they are not usually discussed in this NEPA context of cumulative effects. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 19

5.2 EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION)

5.2.1 Project Design Features (PDFs)

Environmental effects are analyzed with the intent and assumption that BMPs and the following 

Project Design Features (PDFs) are effectively applied to the proposed action, meaning they are 

implemented and achieve the intended results on the ground. BMPs are intended to manage 

water quality consistent with the Federal Water Quality Act (WCA) and State of California water 

quality programs. BMPs are not repeated here; see the project hydrologist’s report for specifics. 

Notable here is that many of the BMPs concurrently address soils concerns to the extent they are 

intended to prevent or minimize surface erosion and sediment movement. 

Project Design Features are additional prescriptive measures that aim to minimize and/or 

mitigate foreseeable adverse effects upon the soil resource. These measures are to be done in 

conjunction with operations for minimizing or treating unavoidable adverse effects. 

Objectives of PDFs are to 1) minimize soil disturbance severity and spatial extent in the project 

units, and 2) mitigate adverse soil disturbance effects that cannot be avoided. Most PDFs are 

“end-result” provisions rather than numeric prescriptions; the latter are usually for compliance 

purposes when LRMP soil standards are numerically restrictive. Recommended PDFs specific 

to this project for soil management include the following:

1. Heavy equipment operations shall occur when soils are dry enough to avoid deep rutting 

or puddling; operate over a duff and slash “cushion” if possible.

2. Limit heavy equipment operations to slopes 35% or less (Forest S&G). 

3. Limit temporary roads and landings and skid trails collectively to less than 15% unit area; 

this is the 15% area with allowable soil disturbance. 

4. Maintain 50-70% soil cover in all units at all times; duff and fine litter less than 3 inches 

diameter are the most desired soil cover components, but rock and larger wood also 

technically count as cover. 

5. Re-utilize old temporary roads and landings and equipment trails to the maximum extent 

possible, thus minimizing new ground disturbance and avoiding cumulative effects.

6. Avoid soil displacement: do not blade topsoil from skid trails, or landings when possible; 

full bench skid trails shall not be constructed. 

7. Feller-buncher, masticator, and excavator routes are generally NOT restricted to 15% 

area, however these are limited to dry soil conditions as with all heavy equipment, and 

effort should be made to minimize turning-related (skid-steer) soil displacement.

8. Fuels piling operations (hand and machine): seek a balance between size, number, and 

distribution of piles to maintain overall soil cover requirements and keep bare areas 

separated by filter strip areas. Do not place burn piles adjacent to streams or wet areas to 

avoid sediment delivery. Place burn piles away from existing LWM. 

9. Machine piling operations: an excavator shall be used for piling to limit trafficked area, 

except where a dozer is necessary for larger material in the burn scar; equipment shall 

utilize a brush rake and leave duff in place to keep piles free of topsoil; duff does NOT 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 20

need to be placed into piles to meet fuel reduction objectives; equipment shall operate 

upon existing skid trails wherever possible.

10. Broadcast burning operations: include in the burn plan specific means to achieve residual 

soil cover requirements of >50% cover on slopes <50% and >70% on slopes >50%; 

preference is for duff and fine litter cover; monitor fuel/duff moisture content prior to 

ignition so that duff will not be consumed over too much area. Protect existing LWM to 

the extent feasible. 

11. Cable, yoder, and end-lining operations: maintain at least one-end suspension of the buttend of the tree so the top canopy end is dragged on the ground; linear gouging of the soil 

where it occurs shall require hand-waterbars and raking of duff and slash back onto the 

bare area in a timely manner with other erosion control measures.

12. Rehabilitate temporary roads and landings upon completion of a unit, to include 

decompaction by ripping with conventional rock rippers (or “dibbling” using an 

excavator bucket), followed by re-contouring if benched or constructed (created using cut 

and fill), and mulching and/or seeding using FS approved seed mix. Exceptions may be 

applied where the project soil scientist determines erosion risk is low.

13. Erosion control measures shall be kept concurrent with operations, and shall be in place: 

1) prior to any shutdown for anticipated storm events, 2) prior to weekend shutdown if 

storm events are expected, or 3) prior to seasonal shutdown.

14. Sale administration staff should request a site visit by the project soil scientist for units 

where soil disturbance appears severe or excessive (> 15% area), for the soil scientist to 

assess possible rehabilitation needs for LRMP compliance.

15. Bare soil areas: larger areas (>1/5 acre, not including landings) rendered bare by 

mechanical operations or burning should be monitored for adequate and timely natural 

revegetation; areas that do not revegetate naturally over 1 winter should be prescribed for 

mulching and/or seeding with FS approved seed mix to stabilize soils, particularly if 

signs of erosion are present.

Minor modifications of PDFs may be allowed with mutual concurrence of the project soil 

scientist, hydrologist, silviculturist, and sale administration staff. Substantial modification of 

PDFs at the contracting stage, or a line officer later deciding to not include certain PDFs without 

concurrence of the project soil scientist, may compromise the soil NEPA analysis herein and 

render findings of this report invalid. 

5.2.2 Direct Effects of the Proposed Action

Direct effects are generally analyzed in the context of activity types and where they are expected 

to occur, i.e. what “footprint features” will be left behind and what are the soil impacts there. 

The direct effects of these activities are very largely predictable based upon expected methods of 

operations and location of activities in terms of topography and soils and vegetation composition, 

the latter indicating types and amounts of removals or general treatment intensity. The effects of 

these different activities on the soil resources are well understood from years of experience 

planning and monitoring the effects of such activities on a wide variety of soils. 

New temporary roads and landings are the most impactful features associated with activities, in 

particular ground-based (tractor) operations. No new temp roads are proposed with this project, 

in agreement with the Collaborative. The majority of landings are old landings to be reutilized, 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 21

but a number of new landings will also be created. These will have severe compaction, and thus 

have reduced infiltration and be prone to producing runoff; drainage features are required to 

control runoff and avoid adverse impacts (BMPs). Being “temporary” means that they will need 

to be rehabilitated once their use is finished. PDFs herein stipulate that rehabilitation will 

include decompaction via ripping (furrowing using conventional rock-rippers common on 

logging equipment) or “dibbling” meaning working the ground with an excavator bucket 

(common method in other areas, also called “potato patch”). This would be followed by 

recontouring to the approximate original terrain in cases where the feature was “constructed” by 

blading topsoil to create a favorable grade or bench (constructed using cut & fill). The proposed 

landings are mostly roadside on gentle grade, so little blading should be necessary to make them 

usable, and thus little to no recontouring is expected to be necessary; however some form of 

decompaction will be necessary. These areas will also be rendered bare, so some form of soil 

cover may be required to prevent erosion, either organic mulch, slash, and/or seeding to establish 

vegetation. In most cases, old access roads and landings are in favorable locations to be reutilized, which will minimize new disturbance and cumulative effects. Even with rehabilitation 

measures, new and reutilized temp roads and landings will still have long-term effects left to

slowly recover naturally over time.

Table 4. Soil map unit acres by logging system method (Alternative 2).

Skid trails will be created as necessary to operate the mechanical ground-based units. These will 

also have compaction, but not as severe as temporary roads and landings. These may or may not 

have “detrimental” levels of compaction, depending on traffic intensity. A few passes with a 

tracked grapple-skidder will generally not produce a detrimental degree of compaction if soils 

are dry. Most soils have a moderate compaction risk (table 2), but some have a high compaction 

risk, namely Kistirn (SMU 260), Hugo (SMU 265-266), and Hecker (SMU 250-256); these 

intersect with many of the ground-based units (Appendix B). Thus it is conservatively assumed 

that skid trail compaction will be detrimental, and these equipment trails in combination with 

temporary roads and landings should not exceed 15% of the unit area as part of the layout plan to 

ensure this aerial extent is not exceeded (PDF). If equipment trails are deeply rutted, they should 

also be decompacted by ripping and allowed to naturally revegetate. 

Mastication uses specialized equipment to “chew up” or create wood chips from standing surface 

and ladder fuels (shrubs and saplings) and redistribute them on the soil surface. This creates 

[ACRES]

Soil MU Hand Cable Ground w/ Endline Ground Total

100 3.6 13 16

250 1.1 1.1

256 24 7.7 32

257 8.4 8.4

258 25 94 119

259 151 151

260 5.7 110 0.1 162 278

265 4.4 28 7.8 62 103

266 19 7.3 26

281 21 67 88

Total 10.1 231 7.9 574 823

Logging System
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 22

increased surface fuels for some period of time, while reducing potential for crown fire. Chips 

are more or less directionally propelled during operations, which leaves a somewhat clumpy 

distribution of chips. If chips build up around tree boles, there is the potential for tree mortality 

from cambial scorch during broadcast burns. On the positive side, chips decompose over the 

course of 5-10 years, benefitting buildup of soil organic matter (SOM). Burns can be safely 

accomplished after a lag time for chips to decompose. Thick chip layers can also inhibit 

germination of some understory species for some time period, which there is little scientific 

information about (i.e. what species are more sensitive, in what settings, can it also inhibit 

invasive species?). Finally, large additions of carbon (C) to the soil can potentially immobilize 

nitrogen (N) through microbial metabolism for some period of time, and affect C:N ratios for 

plants. This effect was not seen on two intensively studied long-term research experiments by 

PSW Research Station, Redding, despite great effort to document it (Zhang et al., 2016; Powers 

and Young, unpublished). All that said, mastication effects on fire hazard and understory 

development are temporary, which may or may not fit with other short-term management 

objectives. 

There is a great variety of equipment used to accomplish mastication, which is usually smaller 

and lighter ground pressure than conventional harvest equipment, but not a given depending on 

specific equipment used, which is not necessarily known beforehand to estimate soil impacts. It 

is conventionally thought that operating upon a fresh masticated chip layer helps to protect soils 

from compaction effects, but to what degree likely depends on several factors. 

Tractor piling of fuels for later burning is one the more controversial practices regarding soil 

impacts. In the past this was usually conducted with fixed-blade D-6 type tractors, resulting in 

much topsoil displacement into piles, and much maneuvering and many passes with resulting 

compaction effects, especially if soils were moist. Today this practice often utilizes smaller 

tractors with 6-way blades and a brush rake attachment, which is nimble and much more 

effective in piling fuels without the associated displacement or severe compaction impacts. This 

project proposes using primarily smaller excavators (type 3) to pile fuels, which is lower groundpressure on the soils, and can reach out to operate a larger swath in fewer passes, usually singlepass. This kind of operation does not typically produce soil displacement or detrimental levels of 

soil compaction or unless operating in truly adverse weather on saturated soils (Rust, 2009). 

Most units are proposed to have some form of manual treatment, hand pile burn, or prescribed 

burn activities, discussed here collectively as “hand-treatments.” This is often a follow-up or 

maintenance treatment some time after initial treatments. Hand treatments are generally low 

impact, rarely creating impacts of a degree or extent that would be considered detrimental for 

soils, only foot traffic and potential burning effects for possible soil impacts. 

Pile burning creates severe heating of soils under the piles, but these occupy a relatively small 

portion of unit area, and are surrounded by duff-covered soils to provide a filter strip to prevent 

sediment movement. Soil heating is reduced if burning is conducted when soils are moist to wet 

(Busse et al., 2010, 2013), shortening soil recovery time as well. Prescribed (broadcast) burning, 

conducted as desired, usually should not burn all of the duff to bare mineral soil, or only in 

patches. However this practice does have more potential to remove more duff from more of the 

area than may be desirable for soil cover and erosion prevention. Burn plans will need to be 

conservative, and explicitly take measures to retain soil cover levels specified in PDFs. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 23

There are steep areas not suitable for mechanical operations (>35%) in many of the ground-based 

units that will need to be avoided or only treated by hand. Steep areas should not be traversed 

with heavy equipment. Flexibility is usually granted for tracked equipment to strategically 

operate on short pitches <100 feet and <40% slope, in which case equipment should go straight 

up and down slope with no turning; any such instances should be identified for installation of 

waterbars at close spacing and addition of soil cover (e.g. slash) if bare soil results. Thus minor

flexibility is allowed, but it carries additional mitigations. 

It is expected there will be areas of bare soils after ground-based operations are complete, 

typically <10% of unit area. Bare areas are typically small and dispersed; larger bare areas in 

one portion of a unit would pose a concern for erosion and sediment production. Any such areas 

rendered bare on >1/5 acre will be monitored for vegetation recovery, and will be actively 

mulched and/or seeded if any evidence of significant erosion is discovered, and/or if natural 

revegetation is not timely (PDF). 

Cable and road-based mechanical treatments are generally lower impact on soils, especially with 

full suspension cable. Road-based cable generally only achieves single-end suspension, with 

some resulting soil gouging. With either system, a PDF specifies at least one-end suspension of 

the butt-end of the tree, which will greatly help reduce gouging. Where gouging does expose 

bare soils, hand waterbars and raking cover back onto the corridor shall be done to mitigate 

water routing and potential for gullying since these activities are by necessity on steeper slopes. 

All of these foreseeable direct impacts would not occur all at once; rather they would be spread 

out over the next approx. 15 years. BMPs and PDFs would be kept concurrent with operations. 

Thus the acreage extent of impacts would be annually variable over the life of the project. 

Given the activity-centric context described above, effects below will now be discussed relative 

to the analysis indicators used to address Forest Plan requirements, and where appropriate 

relative to specific activity type or specific units. 

5.2.2.1 Soil cover for erosion prevention

Reduction of soil cover to varying degrees is a given by-product of proposed activity types. 

This is acceptable given that residual soil cover still meets requirements for erosion prevention, 

generally >50% on slopes <50% and >70% on slopes >50% as indicated by EHR analysis. 

Site-specific EHR development (Appendix C) indicates that >50% cover is adequate to avoid a 

high erosion hazard for all soils present here, at least upon average (GIS-derived) slope gradients 

for those soils. But even with >50% cover most soils will still reach a high EHR at some point 

of steepness, ranging from 53-86% slope for soils that actually occur on slopes that steep (table 

3). Thus it is conservatively recommended that on slopes exceeding 50%, more residual soil 

cover is required at >70%, which is easy to achieve for cable operations but not necessarily for 

broadcast burns. 

All other areas have loam surface textures, and >50% soil cover in the form of duff and litter is 

estimated as sufficient to avoid a high erosion hazard. Only prescribed (broadcast) burning 

activities have potential to exceed 50% cover losses, and then only if the burns are much hotter 

than planned. It is expected that burns will be conducted with target residual cover levels in the 

prescription, and all units should accordingly meet this requirement at unit-scale post-activity.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 24

5.2.2.2 Soil porosity (compaction)

The Six Rivers LRMP defines detrimental compaction is a 10% reduction in total soil porosity, 

and this condition cannot occupy >15% area of an activity unit. All units surveyed currently 

meet this standard. For proposed activities, this would practically apply only to units with 

mechanical ground-based activities. One PDF specifies limiting temporary roads and landings 

and skid trails collectively to less than 15% unit area, and this is a conventional standard that sale 

administration staff is accustomed to implementing and achieving. It is thus expected that all 

units will meet this standard post-activity.

5.2.2.3 Soil Organic Matter (SOM)

Soil organic matter (SOM) is organic matter and humus within the topsoil, which is crucial for 

nutrient and water holding capacity and long-term soil productivity. In Mediterranean climates, 

it is produced mainly from annual fine-root turnover, and to a lesser extent from fine surface 

organic matter additions; these are long-term processes, and long timeframes are necessary to 

accumulate SOM. The SOM is principally vulnerable to loss from erosion (export), severe 

burning effects (volatilization), and displacement (redistribution, but still generally on-site). 

Forest SQS include a standard of retaining 85% of total SOM in the top 12 inches of soil. 

Though not stated, this standard is aimed at avoiding excessive soil displacement; notably it is 

non-implementable because even an experienced soil scientist cannot objectively determine 

compliance, or lack of. That said, soil displacement effects are a lesser concern for SOM loss, 

because the displaced soil is still on-site unless eroded, so the nutrient capital is still accessible 

by plant roots. This was a much greater concern historically when large brushfields were 

“reclaimed” for conifer plantations by “topsoil windrowing” to remove root-crowns of sprouting 

species that would be aggressive competition for resources, along with removing nutrient and 

SOM rich topsoil. It came to light that this practice was degrading to long-term soil productivity, 

particularly when windrows were spaced far apart and then many tree roots could not reach the 

enriched soil; such practices have not been conducted for several decades now. Displacement 

here will be incidental and very small in scale of movement, very unlike the old practices that 

became a concern for degraded soil productivity. Soil displacement in this context is not a 

concern with this project. 

Erosion is explicitly part of the project design to prevent and avoid. Therefore, severe burning 

has the greatest potential to cause some loss of SOM and nutrients in the top several inches of 

soil, precisely where they are most concentrated (Wells et al. 1979; McNabb and Cromack Jr., 

1990). Fire effects are specifically a concern in the event that proposed burning activity is much 

hotter and hotter over larger areas than planned. Burn prescriptions that aim to preserve >50% 

duff cover for erosion prevention should certainly not be hot enough to significantly degrade 

SOM in the surface soil, except perhaps in small patches, as with pile burning where residence 

time is longer. Broadcast burning prescriptions as practiced usually produce low to moderate 

soil burn severity (SBS), as opposed to 5-15% high SBS + 30-40% moderate SBS typical for 

wildfires in this vicinity (BAER records, on file with author). In either case, soil heating will be 

reduced if burns are conducted when soils are moist (Busse et al., ibid). 

Proposed activities, including burning activities, are fully expected to result in all units meeting 

applicable standards for SOM post-activity.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 25

5.2.2.4 Surface organic matter (duff and fine litter)

Surface organic matter here is for the purpose of nutrient cycling, as opposed to erosion 

prevention above (5.2.2.1), which may or may not coincide as the same cover levels. The LRMP 

specifies at least 50% cover of duff and fine litter for soil productivity (with perhaps more

needed for erosion prevention, as determined for the project). As already stated, it is expected 

that this level of soil cover will be met for all project units post-activity.

Furthermore, these are not clearcuts. A living forest canopy that continually adds litterfall to the 

forest floor will compensate in the short-term to cover small areas that may have burned hot or 

otherwise inadvertently removed more cover than desired. A healthy productive forest is the 

best case for self-maintaining favorable nutrient cycling, particularly on the more developed soils 

(Ultisols and Alfisols). 

The portion of the burn scar area that burned at high fire severity lacks a productive overstory, so 

surface organic matter levels are still recovering, particularly in thickness of the duff layer. 

Shrub regrowth has been aggressive, so current cover levels are adequate in extent (>50%). 

Fuels reduction activities will set this recovery back slightly, but it is still expected that this 

standard will be met post activity. 

5.2.2.5 Large Woody Material (LWM)

LWM contributes to SOM and habitat for arthropods that masticate fine organic matter into 

smaller particles that soil microbes can then utilize as food. LWM becoming SOM is an even 

longer-term process than for duff and litter, and in a fire prone setting most LWM probably 

never makes it to this state, but is consumed by fire sometime at higher levels of decomposition

class. That said, the habitat value of LWM for arthropods, bacteria, and fungi is ecologically 

important. 

As stated above, LWM is generally deficient in most of the project area, attributed to roadside 

firewood scavenging by the nearby community. This is not a problem, nor undesirable here. 

These roadside units are proposed as fuelbreak units, and LWM requirements are explicitly 

waived in strategic fuelbreak areas, so this is a non-issue here. 

This leaves plantations and oak woodland units where the retention standard would perhaps 

apply. These are both also deficient in LWM. The oak woodlands are an ecological type that 

would not be expected capable of producing and maintaining LWM standards. The plantations 

do not currently have much LWD because of past management practices, particularly site prep 

for planting that would have removed or burned most of this material. The stands are relatively 

immature, so there will not be large trees on site to contribute such materials for some time into 

the future. Such forested areas where LWM does not currently occur are not expected to meet 

the retention standard with current activities. 

As with duff and fine litter, burning activities and especially broadcast burns have the most 

potential of consuming what LWM does exist here. Since plantations do not have adequate size 

class of trees for LWM recruitment, the only practical management option is to protect existing 

LWM in non-plantations from mechanical disturbance and more importantly burning. Burn 

plans will need specific provisions to protect this resource (PDF). It is thus estimated in good 

faith that LWM will be protected to the extent practical, and LWM levels will increase over time, 

on average project-wide and eventually within plantations in the long-term. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 26

5.2.2.6 Infiltration and permeability (soil hydrologic function)

The Six Rivers Plan specifies that infiltration and permeability will not be reduced to a rating of 

6 or 8 under the EHR system, as described above (section 4.3.4). Furthermore, the area in 

detrimental condition should not be of a size or extent that would result in a significant change in 

production potential for the activity area; this is not specified for this criterion, but is 

conventionally assumed to be 15% area, as with other criteria.

The primary impact to soil hydrologic function is compaction by ground-based equipment, 

which usually only affects surface infiltration, not permeability as this is based upon subsurface 

water movement that is typically below compaction depth. Notably, the EHR system was 

developed primarily for agricultural soils; forest soils nearly always have rapid to moderate 

infiltration rates, being naturally more porous than equivalent Ag soils. Reducing infiltration 

from rapid to moderate still produces a water movement rating 3-4 for almost all of these soils. 

The water movement rating becomes a 6 if infiltration is reduced from rapid to moderate on a 

shallow soil (e.g. Woodseye), or an 8 if infiltration is reduced to slow (< 0.6 in/hr) on any soil. 

Reduction of infiltration to 0.6 in/hr would be unusually severe compaction, such as with a 

temporary road or severely compacted landing. 

Soil hydrologic function is currently in good condition except in the limited areas noted above 

(section 4.3.4), namely old landings and just a few main skid trails close to landings, comprising 

about 5% area in previous mechanical units and <2% of the project area as a whole. 

For proposed activities, this function is potentially compromised where severe compaction from 

ground-based equipment is expected, specifically landings if not rehabilitated and any reutilized 

temp roads or landing spurs. Heavy equipment traffic (including temp roads and landings and 

skid trails) is limited to <15% area (PDF) to satisfy the porosity/compaction standard. Even

most compaction that would qualify as detrimental would NOT be compacted severely enough to 

reduce infiltration to < 0.6 in/hr. Thus the PDF that limits detrimental compaction is expected to 

more than satisfy the soil hydrologic standard also. All units are expected to comply with this 

standard post activity. PDFs also specify rehabilitation of any temporary roads and landings that 

are used, so this condition is expected to be actually improved on net-balance post-activity. 

5.2.2.7 Unit-specific Mitigations (none)

Often differing soil types or differing levels of current legacy soil impacts drive the need for 

additional unit-specific requirements above and beyond project-wide PDFs, necessary to ensure 

compliance with LRMP standards. No such measures were identified as necessary for this 

project during field review or analysis phases of the soil assessment for this project. 

5.2.3 Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

Indirect effects relative to soils within the bounding area (section 3.5) include changes to the soil 

environment, reallocation of soil resources (water and nutrients) to fewer plants, changes in the 

distribution of organic matter upon and within the soil, and changes in potential soil damage 

from future wildfires. 

The proposed action would create short- to mid-term changes in the soil environment. Soil 

temperatures would be elevated due to opening the canopy and increased solar exposure of the 

soils. This would stimulate soil microbial and fungal activity and increase decomposition of soil 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 27

organic matter and CO2 efflux from the soils. This would also synergistically stimulate root 

activity of vegetation, also increasing CO2 efflux but as importantly, increasing annual fine-root 

turnover which is a primary input to soil C and organic matter. On balance, soil C attrition in 

CO2 efflux would probably exceed accrual in root turnover for the first several years, then 

stabilize once revegetation and canopy expansion proceeds to shade the soil, then perhaps 

becoming a C sink from increased tree growth and vigor. This is all largely speculative, as 

current science has not yet formed reliable principles on effects of such practices, particularly 

belowground. Regardless, these effects would be temporary as the overstory canopy closes, 

understory fills in, and forest floor layers increase in depth over several years. Thus such effects 

are expected to be short- to mid-term, minor, and not relevant to long-term soil productivity. 

The scale of the proposed activities is not large enough to make net carbon sink or source 

estimates relevant to local or larger scale climate effects. 

With thinning as a silvicultural practice, residual stocking of trees is supposed to be high enough 

to fully occupy the site, so finite soil moisture and nutrient resources are still fully utilized, just 

reallocated to fewer individual trees. Therefore thinning should have little effect on soil 

moisture or nutrient status. Trees will increase growth rates, expand crown and root systems, 

and would generally be healthier and more resistant to drought and insect attack with more 

available water and xylem flow. 

Increased organic matter mineralization rates, as mentioned above, can provide short term 

benefits to microbial activity and soil nutrient status, but as that nutrient capital is ‘used up’ more 

rapidly, it can also possibly lead to nutrient deficits later. Conservation of surface organic matter 

as proposed with these activities is intended to maintain adequate nutrient cycling and prevent 

nutrient deficits. Often overlooked, the root systems of trees and vegetation that are removed 

remain in the soil, and slowly decompose to provide organic matter inputs directly within the 

soil, as well as provide readily available growth pathways for new roots through compacted soil. 

This is currently thought by investigators to be the probable explanation for a general lack of 

negative effects on tree growth with extreme experimental compaction in the Long Term Soil 

Productivity study (Powers et al., 2005, Ponder, Jr. et al., 2012, Zhang et al., 2017, Busse et al., 

2017). This experiment also tested effects of complete organic matter removals on soil nutrient 

status and tree growth, with no negative effects overall in the first 20 years to date. Thus, shortterm pulse changes in organic matter presence and distribution upon the soil are not expected to 

significantly affect soil productivity. 

Given direct localized impacts described above, mainly associated with ground-based operations, 

this should be balanced against a reduced potential for future wildfires to damage the soil in a

more harmful fashion. On a Regional basis, fire is considered a much larger threat to soil 

productivity than active management activities, because the cumulative annual ‘footprint’ of fire 

is dramatically larger, and it causes much more erosion, which represents the most irreversible & 

irretrievable kind of soil damage. However, it is also unknown with what severity a future 

wildfire would burn on these particular areas, depending not just on fuels, but topography and 

weather conditions at the time as they influence fire behavior. It is reasonable to assume that 

fuel reduction activities should help moderate future fire behavior, and therefore benefit soil 

resources, at a cost of management impacts today. This is considered acceptable, as long as 

management related impacts are minor in scale. Soil impacts associated with proposed activities 

are expected to be mostly minor in severity, and ultimately minor in scale. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 28

Other effects caused indirectly by direct soil effects (if significant as defined), could then include 

impaired watershed hydrology and water quality for fisheries; these are notably outside the 

analysis bounding area for soils. These concerns were however identified and discussed in the 

interdisciplinary-resource team setting, and are more appropriately addressed in others’ specialist 

reports (hydrology and fisheries). Suffice to say here, direct soil effects of this nature (erosion 

and impaired soil hydrologic function) are not expected to be significant as a result of proposed 

activities, so these indirect effects do not warrant further discussion here. 

In summary, indirect effects of proposed activities upon the soil resource are generally neutral or 

beneficial, are short-term in nature, and no adverse or long-term indirect effects are foreseen.

5.2.4 Past and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Past timber harvest activities have occurred in approximately 40% of the project area (FACTS). 

There were past regeneration harvests followed by broadcast burning for site prep, replanting, 

and subsequent thinning about 20 years later. These old 1960s-1970s clearcuts are today’s 

plantations. Soil impacts at the time for ground-based clearcuts were no doubt significant, 

considering size and volume of materials skidded and removed, and larger, heavier equipment 

conventionally used for skidding at the time. Sources for past harvest data (tables 5-6) do not 

line up, for example the “shelterwood removal” acres in table 5 should be equal to or greater than 

table 6, because it spans that same time period. This is not really problematic for soil resources.

Table 5. FACTS database activities intersecting with project units.

Table 6. Ruth Timber Sale activities intersecting with project units.

Most relevant for soil resources, regardless of past methods the remaining footprint of past 

activities can and was observed in the field, and current soil condition assessed accordingly. 

Where past impacts cannot be observed today, they were likely minor impacts that have naturally 

recovered and are not significant today, or else they would still be apparent. This is bolstered by 

FACTS database -- Activity Type From To Acres

Commercial Thin 1983 1983 18

Sanitation Cut 1983 1983 16

Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 1982 1990 106

Shelterwood Removal Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 1983 1986 14

Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1974 1983 106

Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 1982 77

Total 1968 1990 337

Fiscal Year

Silvicultural Rx From To Acres

Commercial Thin 5.6

Sanitation 15.5

Shelterwood 34.7

Shelterwood Removal 25.9

Single Tree Selection 69.0

Clearcut 6.1

Total 1984 1987 157

Year
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 29

the finding that almost all of the lasting past impacts that were observed are not judged to be 

detrimental severity or significant in aerial extent today (see Existing Soil Condition and NoAction sections). 

There are no additional foreseen future projects within the bounded analysis area. Presumably 

there will be future management actions in the vicinity at some point, but it is unknowable at this 

time as to what those actions may consist of, where they would be located, or the management 

setting and operational environment (e.g. biomass harvest, restoration, post-wildfire, revised 

LRMP standards, etc.). 

5.2.5 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

The proposed action and connected activities are to take place over the next approximately 15 

years; for analysis purposes these are collectively considered the “present” action regardless of 

implementation timing. To reiterate, the cumulative effects assessment area for the soils 

resource is bounded in space within the proposed activity units, including area with connected 

actions such as road decommissioning and landing rehab treatments, because this is the full 

extent of where soil disturbing activities are to take place. Effects analysis is bounded in time by

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions within this area. Effects from past 

management actions were discussed in the current conditions section 4.3, and expected direct 

and indirect effects of the proposed actions were discussed in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 above

respectively. A summary recap is provided again here.

Past: Effects of past management have almost entirely naturally recovered, with only a small 

portion of the old harvest footprint having soil disturbance that qualifies as detrimental under 

current soil management standards. Field review indicated that almost all of the previously 

managed stands have < 5% area with detrimental disturbance currently. 

Present: Impacts of the proposed action will by design occupy < 15% area of any individual unit, 

and will re-utilize old access roads, skid trails, and landings where possible, again to limit 

cumulative effects for individual units as a whole. “Where possible” is indefinite – sometimes 

reutilization of prior access routes and landings is not operationally pragmatic; it is expected with 

this project from field review that reutilization is entirely feasible. The direct and indirect effects 

of the proposed action are minimized to the degree possible, in severity and extent (considered in 

tandem), partly due to integrated Project Design Features. 

Future: There are no known future planned activities that will have any foreseeable adverse 

effects intersecting with the current project’s analysis area. 

Current existing detrimental effects of past actions are minimal in extent area. The proposed 

action alternative by itself will not produce significant amounts of adverse direct or indirect soil 

impacts, using 15% area in detrimental soil conditions collectively as the threshold used to 

determine if soil impacts are significant, per current management direction. There are no 

reasonably foreseeable future actions which would produce significant impairment of soil quality 

or productivity. Thus there are no additive significant effects of past, present, and foreseeable 

future actions expected, and therefore by definition no significant cumulative effects for soil 

resources. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 30

5.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CONSISTENCY

All Alternatives are consistent with the regulatory framework outlined above. Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) and Soil Quality Standards (SQS) are intended to comply with 

NFMA toward the end result of maintaining soil productivity. S&Gs and SQS indicators were 

used as the context to describe and analyze the extent and magnitude of expected soil impacts, 

spatially and temporally. Implementing project-specific PDFs are intended to help ensure 

compliance with these LRMP provisions, and it is thus deduced that long-term soil productivity 

is maintained within this project area.

5.3.1 Forest Plan Compliance (LRMPs)

Both Alternatives are in compliance with the Six Rivers LRMP relative to soil management 

direction. BMPs and PDFs will be implemented for the Action Alternative. Soil impacts are 

expected to be within allowable limits set forth by the Forest Plan. 

5.3.2 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

The purpose of this report is not only to disclose soil resource impacts, but to evaluate those 

impacts in the context of NEPA significance (40 CFR 1508.27) to determine whether to prepare 

an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on the quality of the human environment. 

This report summarizes the potential impacts of the Alternatives in the context of analysis 

indicators used to assess soil resources. This report should provide sufficient evidence and

analysis to substantiate a FONSI in connection with soil resources for this project EA. 

5.3.3 Mandatory Disclosures (NEPA)

The Action Alternative involves adverse environmental effects to soil resources that cannot be 

wholly avoided or mitigated. There will be measurable negative effects in specific areas (old 

temp roads, landings, some skid trails); however these are not expected to be long term effects or 

extensive enough to be significant at unit-scale. The aerial extent of these impacts is expected to 

comply with applicable standards (less than 15% area), and thus impacts are not considered to 

constitute a “substantial and permanent impairment” of soil productivity with respect to NFMA 

and R5 SQS. Project Design Features are developed in site-specific fashion and are intended to 

ensure compliance with the various elements of soil management direction. Physical soil 

impacts will be limited in aerial extent, and thus are considered acceptable for this project, in 

accordance with soil management direction.

6 REFERENCES

Busse, Matt D., Carol J. Shestak, Ken R. Hubbert, Eric E. Knapp, 2010. Soil Physical Properties 

Regulate Lethal Soil Heating during Burning of Woody Residues. Soil Science Society of 

America Journal 74:947-955.

Busse, Matt D., Carol J. Shestak, Ken R. Hubbert, 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest 

slash piles and wood piles. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2013, 22, 786-796.

Busse, Matt D., G.O. Fiddler, C.J. Shestak, 2017. Conifer root proliferation after 20 years of soil 

compaction. Forest Science 63(2):147-150.

McNabb, D. H., and K. Cromack, Jr. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrients and soil 

productivity. Pp. 125-141 in J. D. Walstad, S. R. Radosevich, and D. V. Sandberg, 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 31

editors, Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Miles and Goudey, 1997. Ecological Subregions of California, Section and Subsection 

Descriptions. USDA Forest Service, R5-EM-TP-005.

Ponder, Jr., Felix, R.L. Fleming, S. Berch, M.D. Busse, J.D. Elioff, P.W. Hazlett, R.D. Kabzems, 

J.M. Kranabetter, D.M. Morris, D. Page-Dumroese, R.F. Powers, F.G. Sanchez, D.A. 

Scott, R.H. Stagg, D. Young, J. Zhang, D.W. McKenney, D.S. Mossa, P.T. Sanborn, 

D.M. Stone, R.A. Voldseth, 2012. Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, 

and vegetation control on 10th year biomass and foliar nutrition: LTSP continent-wide 

comparisons. Forest Ecology and Management 278 (2012) 35-54.

Powers, Robert F., David H. Alban, Gregory A. Ruark, Allan E. Tiarks, Charles B. Goudey, 

Jerry F. Ragus, Walter E. Russell, 1989. Evaluating Timber Management Impacts on 

Long-Term Soil Productivity: A Research and National Forest System Cooperative 

Study. On file, PSW Redding.

Powers, Robert F., D. Andrew Scott, Felipe G. Sanchez, Richard A. Voldseth, Deborah PageDumroese, John D. Elioff, Douglas M. Stone, 2005. The North American Long-Term 

Soil Productivity Experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology 

and Management 220 (2005) 31-50.

Roath, B., 2006. Detrimental Compaction Risk Rating Guide. Region 5 Version 1. 

Rust, Brad, 2009. Lakehead Mastication Soil Monitoring Report. On file with the Shasta-Trinity 

NF and the author of this report.

USDA Forest Service, 1982. Soil Survey of Klamath National Forest Area, California. USFS 

Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 1984. Soil Survey of Six Rivers National Forest Area, California. USFS 

Pacific Southwest Region.

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

Handbook, Ch. 50. Region 5, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service, 1995a. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

USFS Pacific Southwest Region. See also: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning [accessed 7/10/2017]

USDA Forest Service, 1995a. Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

USFS Pacific Southwest Region. See also: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/srnf/landmanagement/planning [accessed 7/10/2017]

USDA Forest Service, 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. Publication R5-EM-TP-005.

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Pacific Southwest Soil Management Interpretations.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 32

USDA Forest Service, 2000. Water Quality Management for National Forest System 

Lands in California – Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, 

California – sections 12.11 & 12.51. 

USDA Forest Service, 2010. FSM 2500 Chapter 2550 – Soil Management.

USDA Forest Service, 2012. Region 5 Supplement to the National Soil Management Manual: 

FSM 2500 Chapter 2550 Supplement No. 2500-2012-1.

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. 

Gov’t Printing Office, Washington D.C. 34pp.

Zhang, J., J. Webster, D.H. Young, G.O. Fiddler, 2016. Effect of thinning and soil treatments on 

Pinus Ponderosa plantations: 15-year results. Forest Ecology and Management, 368 

(2016) 123-132. 

Zhang, J., M.D. Busse, D.H. Young, G.O. Fiddler, J.W. Sherlock, J.D. TenPas, 2017. 

Aboveground biomass responses to organic matter removal, soil compaction, and 

competing vegetation control on 20-year mixed conifer plantations in California. Forest 

Ecology and Management 401 (2017) 341-353. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 33

APPENDIX A – SOIL AND SLOPE GRADIENT MAPS

 

Map A1. Project overview.

Area map of the 1st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative 

Project, vicinity of Ruth, Trinity County, CA. 

The project area is along Six Rivers National Forest 

roads on the west side of South Fork Mountain, a portion 

of which burned in the 2011 Ruth Fire.

Soil maps follow below, zoomed in to portions of the 

project area for better scale and readability. Field-scale 

soil and slope maps were used for field reconnaissance. 
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 34

Map A2. Soils map, north portion of the project area.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 35

Map A3. Soils map, central portion of the project area.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 36

Map A4. Soils map, south portion of the project area.
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 37

Map A5. Slope gradient map, north portion of the project area (derived from USGS 10m DEM).
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 38

Map A6. Slope gradient map, central portion of the project area (derived from USGS 10m DEM).
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 39

Map A7. Slope gradient map, south portion of the project area (derived from USGS 10m DEM).
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 40

APPENDIX B – ACTIVITY UNIT BY SOIL MAP UNIT CROSSWALK

Table B1. Activity Unit by Soil Map Unit Crosswalk, grouped by logging system.

[ACRES] Project

Logging System Unit 100 250 256 257 258 259 260 265 266 281 Total

Hand 207 5.7 4.4 10.1

Cable 100 2.8 2.8

103 1.7 1.7

104 6.8 6.8

107 0.5 0.5

108 2.6 2.6

112 2.5 2.5

201 3.4 0.0 3.4

204 2.2 2.2

205 5.3 1.7 7.0

206 2.8 2.8

302 3.3 3.3

305 1.4 0.0 1.5

307 1.4 1.4

309 1.2 1.2

312 4.3 3.2 7.5

313 0.9 0.9

403 7.0 0.3 7.3

404 2.6 1.5 4.0

408 5.7 0.2 5.8

410 0.7 8.6 9.3

412 24.3 24.3

422 2.0 2.0

423 5.9 5.9

501 0.0 5.6 5.6

503 1.9 0.7 2.5

504 2.8 1.4 4.2

509 10.7 1.8 12.5

510 8.1 0.0 8.1

511 0.5 1.1 1.7

601 3.5 2.5 0.5 6.5

604 0.0 11.8 0.2 12.0

606 15.5 4.6 20.0

608 31.6 0.8 32.4

609 7.0 7.0

610 3.4 1.3 4.7

617 6.9 6.9

Ground w/ Endline 611 0.1 7.8 7.9

Ground 101 2.9 2.9

102 3.7 3.7

105 4.8 4.8

106 7.5 7.5

109 11.3 11.3

111 5.4 5.4

202 0.0 1.3 1.3

203 2.4 2.4

301 4.0 4.0

303 0.5 0.5

304 0.3 0.3

306 1.2 11.7 12.9

308 2.9 2.9

310 1.0 1.0

311 1.6 1.6

401 15.2 3.9 19.1

402 4.4 10.6 15.0

405 11.4 0.7 12.0

406 3.4 0.5 4.0

407 15.9 0.1 16.0

409 1.3 14.1 15.4

411 15.9 0.7 16.5

413 30.4 30.4

414 20.3 20.3

415 2.6 2.6

416 0.6 2.2 2.8

417 2.3 2.3

419 17.0 17.0

420 0.6 2.2 23.0 25.8

421 2.4 2.4

424 3.6 3.6

502 4.8 4.8

505 0.5 0.3 0.8

506 0.1 14.1 14.1

507 6.0 25.4 31.4

508 1.2 10.4 11.5

602 4.5 4.5

603 6.2 0.8 7.1

605 2.1 27.5 5.0 6.4 0.1 41.1

607 10.8 10.8

612 1.7 1.7

613 0.5 22.6 1.9 25.0

614 2.5 2.5

615 7.8 7.8

616 7.7 7.7

801 14.7 14.7

802 36.7 36.7

803 10.4 10.4

804 6.5 6.5

805 22.9 22.9

806 7.8 19.3 27.0

807 17.8 17.8

Total 16.5 1.1 31.7 8.4 119.2 151.3 278.4 102.9 26.1 87.8 823.3

SOIL MAP UNIT
1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project – Soil Report p. 41

APPENDIX C – EROSION HAZARD RATING CALCULATIONS

** END OF REPORT **

Soil Map Unit Texture Aggreate Erodibility Climate Water Runoff Uniform Runoff Runoff Slope % Runoff Soil Soil Erosion Erosion

Soil Burn Severity Adjustment (2.2 in) Movement Slope length Production Production Energy Cover % Cover Hazard Hazard

3 Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating

100 Typic Xerofluvents-Riverwash, 2-10% slopes

Current 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 30 0.30 > 90 0.5 1 L

Post-Treatment 2 0 2 3 1 0 6 10 3.33 30 0.30 51-70 2 4 M

Bare 2 0 2 3 1 2 6 12 4.00 30 0.30 < 10 3 7 M

250 Oxalis-Hecker-Doty, deep, 25-70% slopes

Current 4 0 4 3 3 0 6 12 4.00 31 0.31 > 90 0.5 2 L

Post-Treatment 4 0 4 3 3 0 6 12 4.00 31 0.31 51-70 2 10 M

Bare 4 0 4 3 3 2 6 14 4.67 31 0.31 < 10 3 17 H

256 Hecker deep, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 0 3 3 3 0 6 12 4.00 45 0.45 > 90 0.5 3 L

Post-Treatment 3 0 3 3 3 0 6 12 4.00 45 0.45 51-70 2 11 M

Bare 3 0 3 3 3 2 6 14 4.67 45 0.45 < 10 3 19 H

257 Bins deep-Nanny deep-Woodseye, 5-35% slopes

Current 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 14 0.14 > 90 0.5 1 L

Post-Treatment 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 14 0.14 51-70 2 3 L

Bare 3 0 3 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 14 0.14 < 10 3 5 M

258 Albus-Race, deep, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 30 0.30 > 90 0.5 2 L

Post-Treatment 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 30 0.30 51-70 2 7 M

Bare 3 0 3 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 30 0.30 < 10 3 12 M

259 Nanny deep-Woodseye-Bins deep, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 15 0.15 > 90 0.5 1 L

Post-Treatment 3 0 3 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 15 0.15 51-70 2 3 L

Bare 3 0 3 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 15 0.15 < 10 3 6 M

260 Skalan-Kistirn-Holland, deep, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 -1 2 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 36 0.36 > 90 0.5 2 L

Post-Treatment 3 -1 2 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 36 0.36 51-70 2 6 M

Bare 3 -1 2 3 2 5 6 16 5.33 36 0.36 < 10 3 11 M

265 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, dry, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 33 0.33 > 90 0.5 1 L

Post-Treatment 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 33 0.33 51-70 2 5 M

Bare 3 -1 2 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 33 0.33 < 10 3 9 M

266 Clallam-Hugo-Holland, deep, 30-50% slopes

Current 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 50 0.50 > 90 0.5 2 L

Post-Treatment 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 50 0.50 51-70 2 7 M

Bare 3 -1 2 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 50 0.50 < 10 3 13 H

281 Clallam deep eg, Deadwood, 35-70% slopes

Current 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 38 0.38 > 90 0.5 1 L

Post-Treatment 3 -1 2 3 2 0 6 11 3.67 38 0.38 51-70 2 6 M

Bare 3 -1 2 3 2 2 6 13 4.33 38 0.38 < 10 3 10 M