Soils Report for the Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Proposal 

By: Joel T. King 

I. Existing Situation: 

The Butcher Knife Slate Study Area lies primarily within the Southwest Oregon province, which 

has a relatively old geologic history. The northwestern portion of the Study Area lies within a 

band of high magnesium, primarily derived from Ultramafic (peridotite and serpentine) materials. 

The rest of the area has soils derived from a mixture of Ultramafic (peridotite and serpentine) and 

metavolcanic (Galice and Applegate Formations) parent materials to only metavolcanic (Galice 

and Applegate Formations) materials. In addition, there are developed drainages where alluvium 

has been deposited by water. The effects of uplift dominate the entire Study Area. Active 

downcutting of side drainages have occurred throughout the study area. 

a. Soils Inventory 

The soils in the Study Area have been classified in two ways. The first type of classification is 

the RRNF Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Amaranthus 1977). The SRI provides an extensive 

classification of land areas into individual units possessing similarities in soil, bedrock, climate, 

topography, and vegetation. These units are termed Landtype Units, and guidelines associated 

with these Landtypes are useful as a broad planning tool. The tool is limited in its application to 

site specific projects. The SRI map is contained in the corporate GIS files for the District. 

The second classification type is a geomorphology method, called the King-Trudeau Inventory 

(KTI 2000), is based upon all the soil forming factors: climate, topography, parent materials, 

organisms, and time. It is a site-specific inventory developed for the Butcher Knife Slate Study 

Area. The map is listed in chapter III of the EA and is also on file at the District. 

Table I-1 describes the soils classified primarily by parent material and topography. The other 

soil forming factors of time, climate, and vegetation are either somewhat constant for the project 

area or the changes are reflected by the differences in parent material and topography. 

The time during which the soils are weathered is primarily a function of its location on the slope 

and from which parent material it weathered. All of the soils except for some of the recent 

alluvium have weathered for a long time. The climate throughout the Butcher Knife Slate Study 

Area is somewhat constant, though temperature gradients with elevation and aspect do exist. 

Consequently, the soils found at the higher elevations, with other factors being equal, have higher 

organic matter contents and less weathering. The plant communities in the Butcher Knife Slate 

Study Area have effects on soil formation. The serpentine peridotite plant communities have less 

production of organic matter to the chemical nature of the soil. Independent of the parent 

material, some differences exist with different microclimates. The moister areas have a higher 

productivity and storage of organic matter. Consequently, the concave areas, which have a 

higher moisture holding capacity, reflect this productivity and organic matter trend. 
Table I-1. Description and interpretations - KTI 2000 Soil Inventory 

Rock Type Slope 

Percent 

Slope 

Configur

ation

Soil Type Name 

(Map Code) Acres Rooting Depth

Erosion 

Hazard

Compaction

Sensitivity

Growth and 

Rehabilitation 

Potential

Alluvium 0-35 concave AL <35% <-1 18 

Deep, 

may be 

restricted 

by water 

table 

Moderate Sensitive High 

Alluvium 0-35 planar AL <35% 1-1 18 Deep Moderate Sensitive High 

Alluvium 35-60 concave AL 35% to 60% <-1 3 Deep High N/A High 

Alluvium 35-60 planar AL 35% to 60% 1-1 5 Mod. High N/A High 

Alluvium 60+ concave AL >60% <-1 <1 Mod. Very High N/A High 

Alluvium 60+ planar AL >60% <1-1 <1 Mod. Very High N/A Moderate 

Metasediments, 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 concave WV <35% < -1 370 Deep Moderate 

Moderate 

to 

Sensitive 

High 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 planar WV <35% 1-1 1182 Mod. Slight Moderate Moderate 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 convex WV <35% >1 <1 Mod.- 

Shallow Slight 

Moderate 

to not 

sensitive 

LowModerate 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

35-60 concave WV 35% to 60% <-1 1057 Deep High N/A High 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

35-60 planar WV 35% to 60% 1-1 <1 Mod. High N/A Moderate 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

35-60 convex WV 35% to 60% >1 <1 Mod.– 

Shallow High N/A LowModerate 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

60+ concave WV >60% <-1 220 Mod. Very High N/A Moderatehigh 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

60+ planar WV >60% 1-1 490 Mod.- 

Shallow Very High N/A Moderate 

Metasediments 

Volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

60+ convex WV >60% >1 <1 Shallow Very High N/A Low 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

0-35 concave U <35% <-1 69 Deep Moderate Sensitive Moderate 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

0-35 planar U <35% 1-1 375 Mod.- 

Deep Slight 

Sensitive 

to 

Moderate 

ModerateLow 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

35-60 concave U 35% to 60% <-1 199 Deep High N/A Low 
Rock Type Slope 

Percent 

Slope 

Configur

ation

Soil Type Name 

(Map Code) Acres Rooting Depth

Erosion 

Hazard

Compaction

Sensitivity

Growth and 

Rehabilitation 

Potential

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

35-60 planar U 35% to 60% 1-1 735 Mod. Moderate N/A Low 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

60+ concave U >60% <-1 141 Mod. Very High N/A Moderate 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) 

60+ planar U >60% 1-1 334 Mod.- 

Shallow High N/A Low 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 concave UMV <35% < -1 66 Deep Moderate Sensitive High 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments, & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 planar UMV <35% 1-1 97 Mod.- 

Deep Slight 

Sensitive 

to 

Moderate 

ModerateHigh 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

0-35 convex UMV <35% >1 <1 Mod.- 

Shallow Slight 

Moderate 

to Not 

Sensitive 

ModerateLow 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

35-60 concave UMV 35% to 60% <-1 90 Deep High N/A Moderate 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

35-60 planar UMV 35% to 60% 1-1 199 Mod. High N/A ModerateLow 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

60+ concave UMV >60% <-1 19 Mod. Very High N/A ModerateLow 

Ultramafic 

(peridotite and 

serpentine) & 

Metasediments & 

volcanic (Galice 

and Applegate 

Formations) 

60+ planar UMV >60% 1-1 35 Mod.- 

Shallow Very High N/A Low 
b. Organic Matter 

The organic matter in soil is important for soil productivity. Due to the wet winters and hot, dry 

climatic conditions during the summer, the organic matter contributed to these sites is quick to 

decompose, and a thin mat of duff sits atop the soil. This thin duff mat helps to prevent erosion 

and is a nutrient sink, especially on coarser soils. Opening the stand canopy to allow heating to 

the forest floor can both decrease the amount of organic matter by increasing the decomposition 

rate, and conversely allow more nutrients to cycle. Care needs to be taken not to compact the 

growing sites, thereby limiting water infiltration and reducing soil productivity. Coarse woody 

material is most important where the canopy cover is reduced because it maintains site 

productivity, stores heat from solar radiation more effectively than the coarse soil alone, stores 

nutrients, and assists in maintaining soil moisture. 

Overall, the amount of coarse wood is very low in managed stands of the Butcher Knife Slate 

Study Area. Past management practices typically utilized every piece of wood cut in stands. 

Natural levels of coarse woody material would be much higher than are currently experienced in 

the managed stands in the Butcher Knife Slate Study Area. 

In the forests outside the managed stands, the exclusion of fire has led to an accumulation of 

coarse wood. The natural levels of coarse woody material in these stands would be lower with 

the presence of uncontrolled wildfires. 

c. Past Forest Management Activities and Their Influence on Soil Characteristics 

Past forest management activities have affected the soils in the Butcher Knife Slate Study Area 

by compaction, puddling, displacement, removal of organic matter, burning, and erosion. 

Detrimental Compaction, Puddling, and Burning 

Logging, site conversion, and site preparation activities, all using ground-based mechanical 

equipment, have compacted and puddled many acres in the Study Area. Compaction leads to a 

denser soil with a higher specific gravity. Puddling is the destruction of soil structure, primarily 

when wet, by compaction, to the point where ruts or imprints are made. Both can result in 

reduced site productivity. Puddling only occurs with compaction or the application of force on 

the soil surface. 

Prior to 1980, harvest and site preparation methods tended to be harsh and would not meet 

present day Standards and Guidelines. Tractor roads on the moderate slopes were not limited in 

extent. On the steeper slopes, logs were not suspended above the ground. 

Though some areas within the Study Area were undoubtedly detrimentally burned in the past 

where the mineral soil surface changed in color and the next one-half-inch of organic matter was 

charred, little evidence of such effects are observable today. Evidently, the soils have recovered 

over time, with vegetation recycling more organic matter and microbes incorporating organic 

matter into the mineral soil. The size of areas still exhibiting characteristics of detrimental 

burning is estimated to be from zero, to less than one percent of any burned area. 

Logging with tractors also impacts the soils via skid roads and landings. Areas detrimentally 

compacted from past harvest activities were measured by observing low elevation aerial 

photographs and using knowledge of the history of these areas. The results of this informal soil 

monitoring indicate about 90% of the area within Proposed Action units have less than 20% of 
the area detrimentally affected. The remaining 10% exhibit cumulative impacts exceeding 20% 

of each respective unit. What is not evident in this type of informal monitoring results are the 

effects of each ground-impacting activity versus the cumulative effects of past management. 

Detrimental Displacement 

Detrimental displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50% of the soil’s ‘A’ horizon 

(topsoil) from an area greater than 100 square feet that is at least 5 feet in width. 

The majority of active erosion in the Study Area appears to be associated with roads and deferred 

road maintenance. The majority of erosion occurs by sheet erosion and is difficult to detect as 

there are no dramatic effects to alert one to it occurrence. Rutting and gullying, however, are 

dramatic examples of erosion that are easily detected by anyone. The vast majority of sediment 

production in the Study Area comes from sheet erosion off roads, cutbanks, ditches, and fill 

slopes. 

Rutting and erosion has been observed on FS Road 253 that goes through the serpentine meadow 

complex in T.37 S., R.8W., S.14. This is an area of major gully erosion caused by lack of 

drainage and vehicle use while wet. The road is un-surfaced. There is also a mass movement at 

the southern end of the road in part due to road drainage. 

Elsewhere, sheet erosion is occurring from vehicle use on roads during the wet seasons and from 

un-surfaced roads. Roads are compacted surfaces that allow water to run overland rather than 

naturally infiltrate at the point of raindrop impact. 

Coarse Woody Material 

Past management activities have greatly impacted the amount and distribution of coarse (large) 

woody materials in this area. The majority of managed stands can be considered deficit in coarse 

woody materials today. The current timber stands occupying these sites have not developed to the 

extent that they are once again providing large coarse wood, either standing as snags or on the 

ground. Silvicultural treatments now can provide for additional coarse woody material to 

compensate for these deficits at a watershed scale. 

d. Important Soil Processes and Potential for Impacts from Management Activities 

The soil mantle is the important substrate to support tree growth. It provides for the filtering of 

quality water and the habitats for plants and animals. Since soils are of such fundamental 

importance to all land uses, a first step in determining what constitutes sustainable forest 

management is to consider the role of soils. 

Forest management can affect the biological, physical, and chemical properties of the soil. Loss 

of carbon, nitrogen, and associated minerals by harvesting has a pronounced effect on the 

complex of microorganisms dependent upon wood as a source of energy and nutrients. If not 

mitigated with proper forest practices, the removal of wood from a site can drastically alter the 

activity of fungi and other microorganisms associated with wood decay (Jurgensen, Larsen and 

Harvey 1979). 

Vegetation management can alter the chemistry of the soil. Retaining or planting nitrogen-fixing 

plants, such as alder and Ceanothus species, can increase soil nitrogen and associated site 

productivity. Keeping brush and wood on the site can maintain the quantity of carbon in the soil 

and can supply nutrients and structural components provided by decaying organic material (Cole 
and Johnson 1979). Maintaining vegetation, removing vegetation, or revegetation can also affect 

evapotranspiration, which allows more or less water to leach soluble nutrients from the soil and 

decomposing organic matter, reducing site productivity. Soil erosion often increases after 

removing vegetation, but is temporary, as it will decrease again with the revegetation of the site. 

Harvest activities can affect slope stability by removing mature trees that had extensive root 

systems that anchored and stabilized the soils. This effect may not be immediate, but may occur 

over a period following harvest as roots of cut-tree stumps decay. The deterioration of tree roots 

following timber harvesting is believed to be an important mechanism reducing the stability of 

steep slopes with shallow soils. The period of greatest susceptibility to landslides is 3 to 9 years 

following harvest (Sidle 1984). 

Skid trails and permanent roads can expose soils, compact soils, and disturb the physical 

arrangement of soils. Skid trails and landings may have long-term or even permanent 

contributions to erosion and sedimentation if compaction prevents natural recovery within a year 

or two of harvest, or where rehabilitation would not be practical. 

Landings and roads take land out of future forest production. A kilometer (0.6214 mile) of road 

in 1 km square (0.3861 square mile) of forest represents a 0.5 percent loss in area and removal 

from productivity. Roads are assumed unproductive under Forest Plans, regardless of any erosion 

impacts (Elliot, Page-Dumroese and Robichaud 1996). A certain percentage of lands are 

dedicated to access and operation purposes, but this can be minimized to maintain as much area 

as practical for the maintenance of the forest. 

 

Harvest effects on forests should be for as short a period as possible to prevent long-term losses 

in tree growth from compaction and the impacts of erosion and sedimentation in the short term 

(Andrus 1982). The effect of compaction on timber growth and yield is more pronounced on 

some soil types. The effects of compaction will be more pronounced on lower site classes where 

any impact to the site will be greatly felt and reflected in the reduced growth of vegetation on the 

site (Froehlich and McNabb 1984). 

Generally, the smaller the soil particles, the more compaction reduces the yield (Frisby and Pfost 

1993). Once compacted, the physical properties of the soil may be altered for a long time. Studies 

indicate that 12 to 40, or more, years are projected for recovery depending on soil texture and 

depth, type of equipment used, and depth of compaction (Perry, 1964; Hatchell, Ralston and Foil 

1970; Hatchell and Ralston 1971; Dickerson 1976; Youngberg, 1959; Froehlich 1979; Wert and 

Thomas 1981; Froehlich, Miles and Robbins 1985; Goss, 1987; Monnier and Goss 1987; and 

Froehlich and McNabb 1984). 

Soil compaction increases soil bulk density by compressing soil particles together, reducing the 

volume of unoccupied air spaces. Compaction is a reduction in the total porosity of the soil. 

Macro porosity is reduced while micro porosity increases as large pores are compacted into 

smaller ones. An increase in micro porosity can lead to greater available water-holding capacity 

throughout a site, but this increase is usually at the expense of aeration and drainage (Incerti, 

Clinnick and Willat 1987). Roots will also have a greater difficulty moving through a compacted 

soil (Warkenti, 1971; McKyes 1985; and Steinhardt and Griffith 1992). 

Compaction may inhibit occupation of the soil by organisms that assist in the decomposition of 

wood to soil organic material that improves site productivity and helps to aerate the soil. 
Compaction also possibly inhibits growth of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) that provide nutrients 

to plant roots (Keslick 1997). 

Ectomycorrhizal fungi form an essential interface between soil and trees. Ectomycorrhizal fungi 

usually colonize more than 90% of the feeder roots of host plants (Goodman and Trofymow 

1998). Plant development is also restricted in compacted soils due to poor aeration and impeded 

root growth. As a result, soil productivity is adversely affected (Floch 1988). 

 

Rutting caused by heavy equipment or vehicle use when roads and skid trails are too moist, can 

concentrate runoff and cause localized increases in erosion. Disturbing the physical arrangement 

of soils (displacement of topsoil or removing the organics-rich duff layer) can increase erosion. 

Ground disturbance can inhibit revegetation of the site. In some situations, this may mean a delay 

in the recovery of the site and may allow erosion processes to occur. The result of ground 

disturbance that causes compaction and erosion may be a decrease in the site productivity. 

Large amounts of woody materials scattered on the surface of the soil can decrease the amount of 

soil nitrogen available for plant growth until debris decomposition is nearly complete, but can 

increase soil moisture during that time. 

Burning slash piles could affect the area of burning by possibly killing soil organisms that are 

useful in the decomposition of woody materials and the cycling of organics in the soil beneficial 

to maintaining long-term site productivity (Ahlgren and Ahlgren 1965; Neal, Wright and Bollen 

1965; Wright and Tarrant 1957; and Henderson 1981). However, the soil microflora can recover 

rapidly and frequently to a population greater than the pre-burn condition. This is due to a more 

alkaline soil pH following burning, increased carbon availability, and higher ammonium levels 

found in the soil after fire. Recovery is greatest when precipitation follows the burn, and when 

burning temperatures remain below 200 degrees C. 

Burning may also make some soils water-repellent, but this is dependent on soil temperatures 

reached in burning and the nature of the soils prior to burning. Water-repellent soils however, are 

more likely to occur on coarse-textured soils than fine-textured soils because the surface area per 

unit volume of coarse grains is less than that for fine grains. Water-repellent soils occur when 

hydrophobic substances derived from higher plants or microorganisms intermix with the soil or 

coat individual soil particles. A water drop placed on the surface of a water-repellent soil will 

remain on the soil surface. 

In wettable or normal soil, this drop would be adsorbed immediately. In water-repellent soils, 

water movement and water holding capacity are reduced at and below the water-repellent layer 

(DeByle, “Clearcutting” 1981; Hungerford et al., 1981; Bond 1969; Cory and Morris 1969; 

DeBano, “Observations” 1969; DeBano, “Water Movement” 1969; DeBano, “The Relationship” 

1969; DeBano and Rice 1973; Henderson and Golding 1983; and Wells et al. 1979). 

Burning makes the exposed areas more vulnerable to erosion. In addition, hot burns reduce the 

soil stability and increase erosion. Ash created by burning can add soil nutrients short-term, but 

the burning of organic matter also causes nitrogen and carbon to evaporate (volatilize), which can 

lower site productivity. Between 200 and 300 degrees C, organic matter in the soil is 

destructively destroyed, between 300 and 400 degrees C it is charred, and above 450 degrees C it 

is consumed (Hungerford et al. 1981; Osborn et al. 1964; and Savage et al. 1972). 
Vegetation cover is important in controlling erosion. The vegetative canopy and the organic 

layers covering the soil dissipate the erosive energy of raindrops and reduce runoff. Plant roots 

also strengthen and bind the soil together. Baring of mineral soil surfaces through logging 

disturbance, fire, road building, or any other process, sets the stage for overland flow and erosion 

of soils (DeByle, “Clearcutting” 1981). Erosion and overland flow can transport organic matter 

and nutrients as well as soil solids off-site, which could cause indirect impacts to water quality. 

Clearing vegetation, especially on slopes, can cause soil to destabilize and erosion to occur. Both 

runoff and soil moisture content could increase (DeByle, “Fire” 1976). Increased runoff, 

combined with the removal of vegetation and protective soil organic layers, can result in elevated 

erosion levels. In addition, more water would stay in the soils (instead of being taken up through 

the plant roots and transpired to the atmosphere) and add to the soil mantle weight, heightening 

the potential for mass movement in unstable areas. 

Healthy, un-compacted and adequately aerated soils support a wide variety and abundance of 

microorganisms that produce carbon dioxide CO2

. Microorganisms facilitate the transport of 

nutrient cations as well as their release from organic forms. Roots also produce CO2 

and account 

for up to one-third of soil respiration (Edwards and Sollins 1973). Trees appear to use a waste 

product of soil microorganisms (CO2

) to help acquire cation nutrients from exchange sites. 

Leaving coarse wood on the site following harvest and disturbance activities would allow 

mineralization, or the release of nutrients by soil microorganisms, required for tree growth. 

Nearly all nitrogen and approximately half the phosphorus and sulfur necessary for vegetative 

growth are present in the soil as organic complexes (Mulder, Lie and Woldendorp 1969). To 

change the balance by removing wood from the site and disturbing the soil may affect the 

availability of most other soil nutrients as their occurrence is largely dependent upon the activity 

of soil micro-flora and soil microorganisms cycling wood into organic matter necessary in the 

maintenance of site productivity (Staddon, Duchesne and Trevors 1999). The responses of soil 

nutrient pools to forest harvest vary with harvest method and forest type (Knoepp and Swank 

1994). 

Since soil aeration decreases with the increase in soil moisture content, tree removal can 

generally reduce the oxygen levels in the soil. Changes in soil pH also result from harvesting, 

especially if the site is burned for slash disposal or site preparation. These changes in soil 

properties can in turn affect the numbers, diversity, and activity of the soil organisms (Harvey, 

Jurgensen and Larsen 1976). 

Removing vegetation and creating openings in the forest allows heating to the forest floor. This 

both increases the decomposition rate of the forest floor organic matter and, somewhat in the 

short term, increases the productivity of the site by allowing nutrients to cycle. The increased 

availability of nutrients is related to the increased activity of soil micro-flora as the soil warms. 

The increased numbers of micro-flora also increase the carbon dioxide levels within the soil that 

increase nutrient movement through the soil profile and contribute to leaching losses of the 

nutrients from the site (Cole, Crane and Crier 1975). Periods of accelerated nutrient losses are 

generally of short duration and continue only until the site has a vegetative cover reestablished 

(Packer and Williams 1976). 
Almost all nitrogen in the soil is present in organic forms and usually is the nutrient most limiting 

to plant growth. The effects of timber harvesting on the soil micro-flora would likely have the 

greatest impact on nitrogen cycling. In the forest ecosystem, nitrogen is supplied in useful forms 

to the plants by nitrogen fixation in the soil. Nitrogen-fixing plants such as legumes, alder (Alnus 

spp.) and Ceanothus spp., are symbiotic organisms that form nitrogen-fixing nodules converting 

atmospheric nitrogen gas to an organic plant available form in soil. 

Opening the forest canopy or burning the site alters the composition of the vegetation of the 

forest favoring shrub and forb species to pioneer the site for trees. Non-symbiotic organisms also 

occur in the forest ecosystem to aid in the nitrogen fixing in the soil. These organisms are 

dependent on the organic matter of the soil as an energy and carbon source and are very 

important to the nitrogen cycle of the forest ecosystem. Most forest disturbance activities, 

including timber harvest, would favor non-symbiotic nitrogen-fixing organisms. The increases in 

soil temperature, pH, and moisture level after logging would all tend to raise nitrogen-fixing rates 

until the soil ammonium and nitrate concentrations were raised inhibiting the micro-flora. 

Organic matter on the site indirectly affects nitrification by influencing soil moisture levels, soil 

temperature, and cation exchange capacity. 

 

Harvesting has the potential of increasing de-nitrification rates. De-nitrification converts nitrate 

to a gaseous nitrogen form. Since anaerobic bacteria carry out de-nitrification, the increases in 

soil water content following harvesting and the resultant lowering of oxygen levels would favor 

such organisms. An increase in soil temperature or pH could also stimulate the denitrifying 

micro-flora (Broadbent and Clark 1965). 

e. Characteristics of Proposed Units 

The units associated with the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) have existing soil conditions that 

are presented in this sub-section. Past management activities, the current conditions for amount 

of coarse wood, the percentage of land that is detrimentally compacted, puddled, displaced, or 

burned, and compaction/rock content rating for each unit (Proposed Action – Alternative 2) are 

discussed below. Current site condition, including past forest management activities, were 

analyzed for each proposed unit. Status regarding past harvest and site preparation is assessed by 

particular unit. The estimated percentage of the units that are in a condition which is 

detrimentally burned, eroded, puddled, or compacted, consistent with Regional Definitions, is 

also displayed for each unit. 

The existing levels of coarse wood are dependent upon the past fire history and past forest 

management treatments. Those units that are deficit in coarse woody material are listed. Other 

proposed units are listed as being within the range of natural variation, as documented by the 

Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (1998) and professional judgment associated with field 

examination in the Butcher Knife Slate Study Area. 

Sensitivity for compaction and the units with high rock content are also analyzed. The units that 

have a high sensitivity to compaction have high clay content and a moisture regime that is more 

likely to compact during operations. 

For proposed commercial treatment units, the percent of area that was found to be detrimentally 

compacted, puddled or displaced was identified on aerial photographs. Roads, skid trails and 

landings were measured. This method was not uniformly reliable as the canopy cover, where 

dense, would occlude the view. In these cases, additional percentages were added for detrimental 
compaction, puddling, burning, and soil displacement when there was on-the-ground knowledge 

of the past management activities and existing ground conditions. This approach was 

accomplished as the most reasonable, cost effective and scientifically sound process available. 

Table I-2: Characteristics of Proposed Units. 

Stand Proposed 

Treatment 

Proposed 

Logging 

System 

Estimated 

Existing 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions, 

Including Roads 

a Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

b Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

c Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

d Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

e Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

f Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 12 

g Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

h Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

i Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 9 

j Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 10 

k Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

l Meadow Restoration & Rx Fire g 7 

m Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

n Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 1 

o Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

p Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

q Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 

r Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

s Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

t Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 

u Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 

v Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

w Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 10 

x Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

y Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

z Meadow Restoration & Rx Fire g 20 

Aa Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 4 

Bb Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 4 

Cc Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

Dd Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Ee Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

Ff Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Gg Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Hh Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

Ii Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Jj Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 8 

Kk Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Ll Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 10 

Mm Density Mgt & Rx Fire s/g 7 
Stand Proposed 

Treatment 

Proposed 

Logging 

System 

Estimated 

Existing 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions, 

Including Roads 

Nn Density Mgt & Rx Fire s/g 2 

Ll Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 15 

Oo Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Pp Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Qq Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 9 

Rr Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

Ss Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 2 

Tt Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 12 

Uu Density Mgt & Rx Fire g/s 10 

Vv Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 15 

Ww Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 16 

Xx Density Mgt & Rx Fire s/g 8 

Yy Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 2 

Zz Meadow Restoration & Rx Fire g 15 

1 Meadow Restoration & Rx Fire g 12 

2 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

3 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

4 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 7 

5 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

6 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

7 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

8 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

9 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

10 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

11 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

12 Meadow Restoration & Rx Fire g 12 

13 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 15 

14 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

15 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

16 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 3 

17 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 

18 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 

19 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s/g 8 

20 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

21 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g/s 12 

22 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 5 

23 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 15 

24 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 4 

25 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 8 

26 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 11 

27 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 14 

28 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 4 

29 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 7 

30 Density Mgt & Rx Fire g 12 

31 Density Mgt & Rx Fire s 6 
II. Effects of Implementation 

A. Effects on Geologic Slope Stability 

Landslides and surface erosion are both active processes and are leading sources of sediment to 

the Applegate drainage and its tributary streams. The majority of this sediment and debris 

migrates down slope during major storm events, such as during the 1974 and 1997 floods. 

The potential for effects to geologic stability as a result of the implementation of ecosystem 

management activities was analyzed. There are no management activities proposed within areas 

mapped as landslides, which are also classified as Riparian Reserves. Additionally, geologic 

stability associated with the current and past use in the Study Area serves as a good model for the 

expected response of the Action Alternatives. Much of the Study Area contains relatively stable 

slopes with a few exceptions occurring within the mixed serpentine/peridotite areas. 

a. Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1, No-Action 

With Alternative 1, there would be no potential for affecting slope stability beyond current 

conditions since no management activities would be implemented. With a few minor exceptions, 

the Study Area has not resulted in accelerated landslide activity with past ecosystem management 

activities. 

Alternative 2 

Proposed ecosystem management treatments such as density management and small group 

selection would have a very low potential for adverse effects on slope stability for the Proposed 

Action. No new permanent road construction also favors slope stability. In addition, limiting 

the use of road stubbies to existing road templates or sideslopes <35% also results in a very low 

potential for adverse effects on slope stability. The overall landslide risk is considered to be 

LOW TO MODERATE. 

Fine sediment from landslides or potential landslides is a concern, because it has the potential to 

be delivered to streams, which may adversely affect fisheries habitat and water quality. 

Alternative 2 would harvest the some acres using a tractor for the logging system. Ground based 

logging is more of an impact to erodable soils in the watershed, which may produce larger 

volumes of sediment to streams. 

If improperly drained, temporary roads can concentrate surface water into unstable and 

potentially unstable areas, which may accelerate landslides and surface erosion. Temporary road 

construction prisms, cut, and fill slopes may cause slope failures and erosion if they are not 

properly constructed and adequately drained. Where skyline/cable logging systems are proposed 

with Alternative 2, temporary road stubbie construction is needed to allow equipment access to 

landing locations. Alternative 2 would construct the most new system roads (approximately 3 

miles). 

Most of these roads are short spurs that would extend an existing system road. Direct and indirect 

effects of these new roads and silvicultural management of these units are considered to be very 

minor in regard to slope stability, since all of the proposed treatment is contained within stable 

locations. However, mitigation measures would be necessary to avoid surface run-off/drainage 

into any unstable locations from any new roads. Road decommissioning of approximately 0.33 

miles would be completed. 
b. Cumulative Effects 

Since no management actions would take place with Alternative 1, the risk for cumulative effects 

would not change or increase do to this option. Past management activities have been few and 

scattered across the landscape in the last 10 years. Most of the other management actions have 

been hazard tree removal, minor (non-commercial) thinning, wildlife habitat improvement, and 

fuels treatments along road corridors. No effect on slope stability has occurred. 

Given the overall watershed low risks for adverse cumulative watershed effects, (this Chapter 

and with mitigation measures for temporary road construction shown in Chapter II), the 

Action Alternative is considered a LOW potential risk for adverse cumulative effects, i.e., 

sediment production from mass wasting events. 

B. Effects on Soils and Productivity 

The potential for adverse effects on soil quality and productivity because of the implementation 

of ecosystem management activities was analyzed for each alternative considered in detail. The 

direct effects are impacts on large woody materials, detrimental soil compaction, detrimental 

displacement of soils, detrimental soil puddling, detrimentally burned soils, soil rehabilitation, 

and soil productivity. Also measured is the land taken out of vegetative production as landings, 

etc. 

A study conducted on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest between 1995 and 1997 compared 

tractor loggings systems with a harvester – forwarder system as well as skyline logging (McIver, 

1998). This study concluded that for tractor logging systems, approximately half of the 

detrimental soils disturbance was due to compaction and half due to displacement. For the 

harvester – forwarder system, approximately one-third of the detrimental disturbance was due to 

compaction and two-thirds due to displacement. For the skyline system, nearly all of the 

detrimental disturbance was due to displacement. 

a. Effects of Alternative 1, No-Action 

Direct Effects 

The “No-Action” Alternative would not change the current levels of large woody material. Under 

this alternative, the amounts of large wood would continue to increase due to growth and 

mortality, at unnatural rates, due to past fire exclusion. The possibility of future wildfires with 

increased severity would provide a future flux of dead large woody material. The No-Action 

Alternative would not improve site productivity through immediate coarse wood recruitment to 

sites that are deficient of coarse wood from past management. 

Since the No-Action Alternative would contribute no new disturbances to the landscape, this 

alternative would also not create any additional areas of detrimental soil impacts. Erosion from 

road surfaces, if not checked by routine road maintenance, may increase over time. 

Future wildfires could occur with increased severity due to dense stands and organic matter 

accumulations. Potential wildfires could produce areas of detrimental soil conditions at a rate 

higher than historical wildfire behavior. It is not uncommon to have 40%-50% of the burned area 

to be detrimental to soils in an area that has missed several fire cycles. 
With this alternative, passive restoration of detrimentally compacted and displaced areas from 

past management activities would occur, and these areas would continue to recover through the 

action of root growth and frost heaving. The No-Action Alternative would not accelerate the rate 

of rehabilitation in areas of detrimental compaction or disturbance. No additional acres would be 

taken out of vegetative production. 

With Alternative 1, there would be no potential for accelerating losses in soil productivity or 

losing additional land to permanent landings since no management activities would be 

implemented. If the No-Action Alternative were selected, there would be no additional impacts 

on soil productivity and with time, natural restoration processes would occur. On the other hand, 

the No-Action Alternative would not allow restoration and rehabilitation that could be 

implemented, for example, reducing the number of road miles per square mile (road density) in 

the Study Area. 

Indirect Effects 

The indirect effects include the impacts on soil productivity (physical, biological, and chemical 

properties), the effects on hydrology, and the indirect effects on plant/animal habitats that would 

not occur. Nutrients would continue to be input into the system by rainfall and plants/animals. 

Hydrologic conditions would continue to recover from past actions as vegetation grows and 

recovers (see Hydrology Section, this Chapter). The indirect effects on habitats would be a 

continued accumulation of large wood and organic matter. The increasing potential for severe 

wildfires could impact soil productivity, hydrology and plant/animal habitats. As much as 40-

50% of a severe wildfire’s area could adversely affect soil productivity, increasing runoff and 

erosion, and setting back vegetative conditions to an early seral condition. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects include the additive effects on large woody materials, detrimental soil 

compaction, detrimental soil puddling, detrimental displacement of soils, detrimentally burned 

soils, soil rehabilitation, and area taken out of production. Under No Action, the Study Area 

would continue to have many areas where past management activities have removed most of the 

large woody material. These areas would still be deficit in ten years. 

In the Study Area, there are 165 acres of previously impacted land within proposed units that 

have various degrees of detrimental soil compaction and displacement; some of the Study Area 

has been detrimentally affected by past timber harvest and road construction. 

Due to lack of road maintenance, amounts of erosion would continue as the road system 

deteriorates. In the long-term, overall rates of erosion would continue to decrease unless a 

wildfire would occur. The continued accumulation of organic matter would eventually increase 

the likelihood of a severe (stand replacing) wildfire occurrence. For the next ten years, with no 

outbreaks of wildfire, no cumulative effects on erosion within the watersheds and plant/wildlife 

habitats would occur due to any detrimental impacts created by management actions on the soils 

resources. 

No soils would be detrimentally burned unless a severe wildfire occurred. Soil productivity 

conditions of the Study Area would increase slightly over time due to passive recovery from 

detrimental compaction and displacement, and due to natural weathering and increase in organic 

matter levels. 
b. Effects of the Action Alternative

Though the potential effect mechanisms on soils and site productivity are similar for each of the 

Action Alternatives, each alternative has differing levels of effects. The following discussion 

covers the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and is the basis for a comparison of 

the effects in the subsequent sub-section. 

Direct Effects 

Direct soil quality effects include effects on large woody materials, detrimental soil compaction, 

detrimental soil puddling, detrimental displacement of soils, detrimentally burned soils, soil 

rehabilitation, and soil productivity. (i.e., area taken out of vegetative production due to roads, 

landings, etc.). 

Here is an unit by unit breakdown of the predicted effects: 

Stand Proposed 

Treatment 

Proposed 

logging 

system 

Proposed 

RX Fire 

Estimated 

Existing 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions, 

including 

roads (%) 

adjusted 

acres 

Existing 

Detrimental 

Conditions 

(acres) 

Future 

Soil 

Conditions 

(%) 

Predicted 

Detrimental 

Conditions 

(acres) 

a 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

11 0.5 5 0.5 

b 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

5 0.1 2 0.1 

c 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

12 0.2 2 0.2 

d 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

142 5.7 6 8.5 

e 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

9 0.2 2 0.2 

f 

Density 

Mgt g y 

12 

31 3.7 12 3.7 

g 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

24 0.7 5 1.2 

h 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

39 0.8 2 0.8 

i 

Density 

Mgt g y 

9 

24 2.1 15 3.6 

j 

Density 

Mgt s y 

10 

23 2.3 15 3.4 

k 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

130 2.6 4 5.2 

l 

Meadow 

Restoration g y 

7 

12 0.8 14 1.7 

m 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

38 1.9 5 1.9 
n 

Density 

Mgt s y 

1 

19 0.2 1 0.2 

o 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

13 0.5 4 0.5 

p 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

24 1.0 4 1.0 

q 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

12 0.7 8 1.0 

r 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

16 0.3 2 0.3 

s 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

28 1.1 4 1.1 

t 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

24 1.5 8 1.9 

u 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

11 0.6 8 0.9 

v 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

118 2.4 4 4.7 

w 

Density 

Mgt s y 

10 

58 5.8 12 7.0 

x 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

50 1.0 2 1.0 

y 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

21 1.1 7 1.5 

z 

Meadow 

Restoration g y 

20 

11 2.1 20 2.1 

Aa 

Density 

Mgt g y 

4 

39 1.6 11 4.3 

Bb 

Density 

Mgt g y 

4 

23 0.9 11 2.6 

Cc 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

26 0.5 2 0.5 

Dd 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

24 0.7 5 1.2 

Ee 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

8 0.2 2 0.2 

Ff 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

30 0.9 5 1.5 

Gg 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

6 0.2 3 0.2 

Hh 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

29 1.2 6 1.8 

Ii 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

21 0.6 3 0.6 

Jj 

Density 

Mgt s y 

8 

8 0.6 10 0.8 

Kk 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

23 0.7 3 0.7 
Ll 

Density 

Mgt g y 

10 

31 3.1 15 4.7 

Mm 

Density 

Mgt s/g y 

7 

44 3.1 15 6.7 

Nn 

Density 

Mgt s/g y 

2 

14 0.3 11 1.6 

Oo 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

84 2.5 5 4.2 

Pp 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

30 0.9 3 0.9 

Qq 

Density 

Mgt g y 

9 

6 0.5 9 0.5 

Rr 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

8 0.2 3 0.2 

Ss 

Density 

Mgt s y 

2 

25 0.5 4 1.0 

Tt 

Density 

Mgt g y 

12 

36 4.4 15 5.5 

Uu 

Density 

Mgt g/s y 

10 

17 1.7 10 1.7 

Vv 

Density 

Mgt g y 

15 

13 1.9 15 1.9 

Ww 

Density 

Mgt g y 

16 

33 5.3 16 5.3 

Xx 

Density 

Mgt s/g y 

8 

331 26.5 15 49.7 

Yy 

Density 

Mgt g y 

2 

15 0.3 2 0.3 

Zz 

Meadow 

Restoration g y 

15 

18 2.7 15 2.7 

1 

Meadow 

Restoration g y 

12 

40 4.8 15 6.0 

2 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

17 0.5 3 0.5 

3 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

63 1.9 5 3.2 

4 

Density 

Mgt s y 

7 

12 0.8 9 1.1 

5 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

24 1.0 4 1.0 

6 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

28 1.4 5 1.4 

7 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

23 0.9 6 1.4 

8 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

24 0.7 3 0.7 

9 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

35 1.4 6 2.1 
10 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

63 2.5 6 3.8 

11 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

10 0.5 7 0.7 

12 

Meadow 

Restoration g y 

12 

25 3.0 15 3.8 

13 

Density 

Mgt g y 

15 

11 1.6 15 1.6 

14 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

46 1.8 6 2.8 

15 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

10 0.5 5 0.5 

16 

Density 

Mgt s y 

3 

6 0.2 5 0.3 

17 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

42 2.5 9 3.8 

18 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

19 1.1 8 1.5 

19 

Density 

Mgt s/g y 

8 

46 3.7 15 6.9 

20 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

22 1.1 5 1.1 

21 

Density 

Mgt g/s y 

12 

14 1.6 15 2.0 

22 

Density 

Mgt s y 

5 

30 1.5 5 1.5 

23 

Density 

Mgt g y 

15 

15 2.3 15 2.3 

24 

Density 

Mgt s y 

4 

20 0.8 4 0.8 

25 

Density 

Mgt s y 

8 

37 3.0 10 3.7 

26 

Density 

Mgt g y 

11 

31 3.4 11 3.4 

27 

Density 

Mgt g y 

14 

84 11.8 15 12.6 

28 

Density 

Mgt g y 

4 

6 0.2 13 0.7 

29 

Density 

Mgt g y 

7 

10 0.7 15 1.6 

30 

Density 

Mgt g y 

12 

45 5.4 15 6.7 

31 

Density 

Mgt s y 

6 

4 0.3 8 0.4 

Implementation of the Action Alternatives would affect the current levels of large woody 

material. The amount of large wood would continue to increase due to growth and mortality, at 

an accelerated rate. This would be as a result of density management activities. Under the Action 
Alternative, some smaller diameter wood would be harvested, and the amount of large wood 

remaining would be retained of prescribed amounts. The Action Alternatives would improve 

current conditions through immediate coarse wood recruitment to sites that are deficient of coarse 

wood from past management. 

Tractor logging has the greatest potential to cause soil compaction. Disturbance from skyline 

yarding primarily has the potential for detrimental soil displacement. Erosion associated with 

skid trails and skyline corridors would be effectively mitigated by the placement of cross drains 

(waterbars), drainage dips, placement of slash, and erosion control seeding (or any vegetative 

cover on exposed soil). These measures have been used for many decades and there has been 

considerable monitoring of their effectiveness. Erosion from road surfaces would be checked by 

routine road maintenance by the timber sale operator, but only on approved haul routes during 

sale operations. Maintenance of roads with designed drainage systems would have the least 

amount of sedimentation because surface flow over the road surface would be minimized. 

The risk of future wildfires with increased severity due to dense stands and organic matter 

accumulations would be less than No-Action due to the amount of density management (which 

lowers tree density), and activities that would reduce resultant activity fuels. Fewer areas of 

detrimental soil displacement due to detrimental burning from wildfires are expected if a wildfire 

were to occur. In areas where fuels are treated, it is common to have only 20% of the soils in a 

wildfire-burned area to be in a detrimental condition (approximately half the effect that would be 

expected in untreated areas). 

With the Action Alternative, passive restoration of detrimentally compacted and displaced areas 

from past management activities would continue recovery through the action of root growth, 

large woody material recruitment, the addition of biomass, and frost heaving. In other areas, the 

use of old skid trails would set back the recovery rates. Additional acres would be taken out of 

vegetative production due to construction of landings. 

 

Indirect Effects 

The indirect effects include the effects on soil productivity (physical, biological, and chemical 

properties), the effects on hydrology, and the indirect effects on plant/animal habitats. 

Management activity would impact soil productivity on acres irretrievably taken out of 

production. Any acres detrimentally disturbed would have reduced productivity. Nutrients would 

continue to be input into the system by rainfall and plants/animals. Hydrologic conditions would 

continue to recover from past actions as vegetation grows and recovers. 

The indirect effects on wildlife habitats would be a continued accumulation of large wood and 

organic matter, and at an accelerated growth rate in the density management units. The potential 

for severe wildfires is decreased and would not impact soil productivity, hydrology and 

plant/animal habitats as much as a wildfire that could occur under No-Action. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Study Area would continue to have areas where past management activities have removed 

most of the large woody material. Treated areas would have dead and down wood created and 

left on site, within the range of natural variability, contributing to an overall improving trend. 
The rates of erosion would increase temporarily within the limits designed by the mitigation 

measures, unless a wildfire would occur. The reduction in organic matter from density 

management would decrease the likelihood of a severe wildfire occurrence. Erosion would 

decrease as the road system is maintained. For the next ten years, with no outbreaks of wildfire, 

no adverse cumulative effects from erosion within the affected sub-watersheds and plant/wildlife 

habitats would occur due to any detrimental impacts on the soils resources. 

This consequence is due to the success of the mitigation measures. Based upon past observations, 

waterbars, grass seeding exposed areas, pre-designating skid trails, landings, and pre-designating 

skyline corridors and skid trails, and utilizing skyline logging systems on steep areas, instead of 

tractor, effectively limits the amount of detrimentally impacted areas. Overall, soil/site 

productivity of the lands within the Study Area would increase slightly over time, due to passive 

recovery from detrimental compaction and displacement, and due to natural weathering, root 

expansion and colonization, and increased levels of organic matter. 

c. Summary of Effects - Action Alternative 

Below is a summary (Table IV-4) of risks to soil quality and productivity within the units and for 

associated temporary road construction (stubbies). 

Table IV-4. Summary of Soil Productivity Effects Within Mechanically Treated Units

INDICATOR Alternative 2 

Total acres 

mechanically treated 2,712 

Total predicted 

additional acres 

impacted 

70 

Total predicted 

additional acres 

impacted by new 

temporary road 

construction 

(stubbies) 

8 

Total predicted 

additional acres 

impacted by ground 

based skid trails 

44.5 

Total cumulative 

acres impacted by 

ground based skid 

trails 

144 

Total additional acres 

impacted by skyline 

based yarding 

17.5 

Total cumulative 

acres impacted by 

skyline yarding 

90 

Total cumulative 

acres predicted in 

detrimental condition 

following treatment 

242 
Bibliography

Ahlgren, I. F. and C. F. Ahlgren. 1965. Effects of prescribed burning on soil microorganisms 

in a Minnesota jack pine forest. Ecology 46, p. 304-310. 

Andrus, Charles Wesley. 1982. Tilling Compacted Forest Soils Following Ground-Based 

Logging in Oregon. Masters Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 11 February 1982. 

Amaranthus, Mike 1977. Soils Resource Inventory for the Siskiyou National Forest 

Bond, R. D. 1969. The occurrence of water-repellent soils in Australia, In DeBano, L. F. and 

John Letey (eds.), Proc., Water-repellent soils. University of California, Riverside, May 6-10, 

1968. p. 1-6. 

Broadbent, F. E. and F. E. Clark. 1965. Denitrification. In Soil Nitrogen, Agron. Monogr. 10, 

p. 347-362, W. V. Bartholomew and F. E. Clark, eds. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI. 

Cole, D. W., W. J. B. Crane, and C. C. Crier. 1975. The effect of forest management 

practices on water chemistry in a second-growth Douglas-fir ecosystem. In For. Soils and 

For. Land Manage., p. 195-208. B. Bernier and C. H. Winget, eds. Laval Univ. Press, 

Quebec, Canada. 

Cole, D. W. and D. Johnson. 1979. The Cycling of elements within forests. In Heilman, et al. 

(eds.), Forest Soils of the Douglas-fir Region, Washington State University, Pullman. p. 185-

198. 

Cory, J. T. and R. J. Morris. 1969. Factors restricting infiltration rates on decomposed 

granitic soils, In DeBano, L.F. and John Letey (eds.). Proc., Water-repellent soils. University 

of California, Riverside, May 6-10, 1968. p. 149-161. 

DeBano, L. F. 1969a. Observations on water-repellent soils in western United States. In 

DeBano, L.F. and John Letey (eds.). Proc., Water-repellent soils. University of California, 

Riverside, May 6-10, 1968. p. 17-29. 

DeBano, L. F. 1969b. Water movement in water-repellent soils. In DeBano, L.F. and John 

Letey (eds.). Proc., Water-repellent soils. University of California, Riverside, May 6-10, 

1968. p. 61-89. 

DeBano, L. F. 1969c. The relationship between heat treatment and water repellency in soils. 

In DeBano, L.F. and John Letey (eds.). Proc., Water-repellent soils. University of California, 

Riverside, May 6-10, 1968. p. 265-279. 

DeBano, L. F. and R. M. Rice. 1973. Water-repellent soils their implication in forestry. 

Journal of Forestry. 71, p. 220-223. 
DeByle, N. V. 1976. Fire, logging, and debris disposal effects on soil and water in northern 

conifer forests. Div. 1. Proc. XVI IUFRO World Cong., Oslo, Norway. pp. 201-212. 

DeByle, Norbert V. 1981. Clearcutting and fire in the larch/Douglas-fir forests of western 

Montana --- a multi-faceted research summary. GTR-INT-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. Agric., 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. P. 73. 

Dickerson, B. P. 1976. Soil compaction after tree-length skidding in northern Mississippi. 

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40, p. 965-966. 

Elliot, William J., Deborah Page-Dumroese, and Peter R. Robichaud. 1996. The Effects of 

Forest Management on Erosion and Soil Productivity. In Proc. Symposium on Soil Quality 

and Erosion Interaction, Soil and Water Conservation Soc. Of America, Keystone, CO. 

Floch, Rick F. 1988. Shovel Logging and Soil Compaction: A Case Study. Masters Thesis, 

Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. May 1988. 

Frisby, James C. and Donald L. Pfost. 1993. Soil Compaction: The Silent Thief. Agric. Pub. 

G1630. Oct 1, 1993. Dept. Agric. Engineering, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 

http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/agengin/g01630.htm. p. 4. 

Froehlich, H. A. and D. H. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest 

forests, p. 159-192 In E. L. Stone (ed.) Forest soils and treatment impacts. Dep. For. Wildlife 

Fish., Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Froehlich. H. A., D. W. R. Miles, and R. W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on 

compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49. p. 1015-1017. 

Goodman, D. M. and J. A. Trofymow. 1998. Comparison of Communities of 

Ectomycorrhizal Fungi in Old-growth and Mature Stands of Douglas-fir on Southern 

Vancouver Island. Northwest Science 72. p. 91-93. 

Goss, M. J. 1987. Effects of mechanical impedance on root growth in barley (Hordeum 

vulgare L.). I. Effects on the elongation and branching of seminal root axes. J. Exp. Bot. 28. 

p. 96-111. 

Harvey, A. E., M. F. Jurgensen, and M. J. Larsen. 1976. Intensive fiber utilization and 

prescribed fire: Effects on the microbial ecology of forests. USDA-Forest Service. GTRINT-28. p. 46. 

Hatchell, G. E. and R. W. Ralston. 1971. Natural recovery of surface soils disturbed in 

logging. Tree Planter’s Notes. 22(2). P. 5-9. 

Hatchell, G. E., R. W. Ralston, and R. R. Foil. 1970. Effects on soil characteristics and 

growth of loblolly pine in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. J. For. 68. p. 772-775. 
Hayward, Gregory, ed. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United 

States: a technical assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experimental Station and Rocky Mountain Region General Technical Report RM-253. 213 

pp. 

Henderson, G. 1981. Physical and chemical aspects of water repellent soils affected by slash 

burning at Vancouver, British Columbia (abs.). Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 

Faculty of Forestry. Masters Thesis, p. ii-iii. 

Henderson, G. S. and D. L. Golding. 1983. The effect of slash burning on the water 

repellency of forest soils at Vancouver, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 13: 353-355. 

Hungerford, Roger D., et al. 1981. Influence of Fire on Factors That Affect Site Productivity. 

In Proc. Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest soils. Alan E. Harvey and 

Leon F. Neuenschwander, eds. GTR-INT-280. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Intermountain Research Station. Missoula, MT. p. 32-50. 

Incerti, M., P. F. Clinnick, and S. T. Willat. 1987. Changes in the physical properties of a 

forest soil following logging. Aust. For. Res. 17: 91-98. 

Jurgensen, M. F., M. J. Larsen, and A. E. Harvey. 1979. Forest Soil Biology --- Timber 

Harvesting Relationships: A Perspective. USDA-Forest Service. GTR-INT-69. 12 p. 

King, J. and Trudeau, P., 2000. KTI Soils Inventory Technique, Mill Creek and Big Butte 

Springs EIS 

Knoepp, J. D. and W. T. Swank. 1994. Long-term soil chemistry changes in aggrading forest 

ecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 325-331. 

McKyes, E. 1985. Soil physical properties and plant growth, p. 105-124 In Soil cutting and 

tillage. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Monnier, G. and M. J. Goss (eds.). 1987. Soil compaction and regeneration. Proc. Workshop 

Soil Compaction: consequences and structural regeneration processes, Avignon, France, 

Sept. 1985, Balkema, Rotterdam, 167 p. 

Mulder, E. G., T. A. Lie, and J. W. Woldendorp. 1969. Biology and soil fertility. In Soil 

biology, reviews of research. Nat. Resour. Res. UNESCO 9: 163-208. 

Neal, J. L., E. Wright, and W. B. Bollen. 1965. Burning Douglas-fir slash. Physical, 

chemical, and microbial effects in soil. Oregon State Univ. For. Res. Paper 1. 32 p. 

Neal, J. L., E. Wright, and W. B. Bollen. 1965. Burning Douglas-fir slash. Physical, 

chemical, and microbial effects in soil. Oregon State Univ. For. Res. Paper 1. 32 p. 
Osborn, J. F., et al. 1964. Soil wettability as a factor in erodibility. Proc., Soil Science 

Society of America. 28: 294-295. 

Perry, T. O. 1964. Soil compaction and loblolly pine growth. U. S. For. Service Tree Planters 

Notes. 67:9. 

Savage, S. M., et al. 1972. Substances contributing to fire-induced water repellency in soils. 

Proc., Soil Science Society of America. 36: 674-678. 

Sidle, R. C. 1984. Factors Influencing The Stability Of Slopes. In Swanson, Doug (ed.), Proc. 

of a Workshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solutions in Forest Management, USDA 

Forest Service, GTR-PNW-180. p. 17-23. 

Steinhardt, G. C. and D. R. Griffith. 1992. Soil Compaction in Indiana. In Agronomy Guide 

AY-221, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN. 

http://persephone.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/AY/AY-221.html. 6 p. 

Staddon, W. J., L. C. Duchesne, and J. T. Trevors. 1999. The role of microbial indicators of 

soil quality in ecological forest management. The Forestry Chronicle. 75: 81-86. 

Warkentin, B. P. 1971. Effects of compaction on content and transmission of water in soils, 

p. 126-163 In Compaction of agricultural soils. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin., St. Joseph, 

Michigan. 

Wells, C. G, et al. 1979. Effects on fire on soil: a state-of-knowledge review. GTR-WO-7. 

Wash., D. C., U. S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service. p. 34. 

Wert, S. and B. R. Thomas. 1981. Effects of skid roads on diameter, height and volume 

growth on Douglas-fir. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45: 629-632. 

Wright, E. and R. F. Tarrant. 1957. Microbial soil properties after logging and slash burning. 

USDA-Forest Service. Pacific NW Forest and Range Exp. Stn. Res. Notes 157, 5 p. 

Youngberg, C. T. 1959. The influence of soil conditions, following tractor logging, on the 

growth of planted Douglas-fir seedlings. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 23: 76-78.