Science Support for a North American Consensus on a Common Approach to Evaluate Soil Disturbance

1. Science Support for a North American Consensus on a Common Approach to Evaluate Soil Disturbance M. Curran, D.G. Neary, R. Heninger, T. Terry, K.C. Van Rees, S. Howes, C. Trettin, D. Page-Dumroese, B. White, & D. Maynard Soil Science Society of America Annual Meeting Indianapolis, IN November16, 2006

2. Agency Collaborators • British Columbia Forest Service • USDA Forest Service • Weyerhaeuser Company • University of Saskatchewan • Alberta Forest Management Branch • Canadian Forest Service

3. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) ratings • Developing consensus • Summary

4. “Sustainable Forest Soils” “Ensuring that the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the soil remains for sustaining future site productivity” • ‘Everyone’ Wants It • Governments, 3rd Parties, and Industry Address the Need For It Through Systems and Processes • To Achieve Sustainability, Efforts are Needed at Local, Regional, National and International levels • Required for National Forests by the National Forests Management Act of 1976

5. “Sustainability Protocols” • Criteria and Indicators (C&I) of Sustainable Forestry: • Montreal Process (MP) (1995) • Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (1995, 2003) • Encourage Countries to Report on the Status of the Indicators. • States and Provinces Have Reporting Systems Based on the International Protocols: • Oregon (2000), California (2003), Ontario.. • The State of B.C.’s Forests (2004...)

6. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

7. Desirable Attributes for Indicators • Relevant (related / sensitive / responsive) • Measurable (scientifically valid, practical) • Understandable (forest managers, public) • Can be Forecast (expected future condition) • Have Reference Values (performance check)

8. Soil Productivity and Hydrologic Condition • In many ecosystems, we need at least 10 to 20 years (or more) of growth data to draw conclusions about the effects of various practices • Therefore, soil disturbance at the time of harvest has been seen as a proxy that can be measured.

9. Soil Disturbance (a Proxy) • Any physical, biological, or chemical disturbance to the soil caused by ground-based equipment (operations) • May be detrimental, inconsequential, or beneficial, depending on growth limiting factors and hydrologic properties

10. Main Concern - Disturbance Leading to Soil Degradation • Compaction • Displacement (mineral soil; forest floor) • Erosion • Mass Wasting (cut/fill failures) Additional Concerns May Arise… • Organic Matter… coarse / fine woody debris • Biological Components (e.g. flora & fauna)

11. MP talks about “significant compaction” How Much is Too Much? Soil Variability Factor Time Effect BUT, what does compaction mean on a given forest site?

12. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

13. Adaptive Management Process Strategy / Database Execution Data/results Tools / Guidelines Research Monitoring (C&E) Training OPERATIONS Best Mgt.Practices

14. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

15. Common Terms and Standards • Currently: • Each jurisdiction/landowner may have different definitions and criteria • Research may use different definitions and criteria • Difficult to compare results/standards • Some New Legal Challenges Now, More Are Expected • Disturbance is a sustainability proxy that must be scientifically validated, so comparability is more important now...

16. BOUNDARY ISSUES UNIFORM STANDARDS???? STATE LINE FOREST # 1 FOREST # 2 REGION 1 REGION 2

17. Criteria for Consistent Soil Disturbance Classes • Mostly defined by visual (morphologic) attributes rather than quantitative physical properties, • Easy to communicate, and • Correlated with soil variables that affect tree growth and hydrological or ecological function

18. Example: BC Disturbance types Recognized by equipment operators, contractors, inspectors, public, researchers, etc. “Counted” varies with site condition Simple “objects” defined mainly by visual criteria

19. Weyerhaeuser Disturbance types Mainly machine traffic types - less displaced Varies with site condition (topsoil)

20. . USDA FS Wallowa-Whitman(Older Key had 7 classes) • Class 0: Undisturbed Natural State. • Class 1: Low Soil Disturbance • Class 2: Moderate Disturbance • Class 3: High Disturbance

21. USDA FS Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest Class 3: High Disturbance • Wheel tracks or depressions >12 inches • Litter and duff layers are missing. • Evidence of topsoil removal,and piling. • Soil displacement has removed the majority of the surface soil. • Subsoil partially or totally exposed. • Increased resistance (>12 inches). • Massive or platy structure extends beyond the top 12 inches of soil.

22. COMPACTION IS OFTEN A CONCERN ON TRAILS WHAT ABOUT THERE? WHAT ABOUT HERE?

23. Tree Growth Related to Bladed Trail Location DOES THIS EFFECT PERSIST?

24. Examples of Common Terms • Permanent versus temporary access • including trails in partial cuts • Machine traffic types • ruts, puddling, repeated traffic • Displacement types • gouges and scalps

25. Comparable Standards • Limit for Permanent Access Network • e.g. BC is 7 % which seems high • Limits on Temporary Access • Standards for Rehabilitation • Cumulative Limit for Dispersed Disturbance Within Area to be Reforested • e.g. BC it is 10 or 5 % based on sensitivity • 15% on some National Forests • These May Vary With Soil Sensitivity

26. OTHER SOIL DISTURBANCE CONCERNS • Organic Matter • Biological Function • Green tree retention • Invasive Plants • Other Invaders (eg, Armillaria?) • Aesthetics (social license)

27. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

28. TYPES OF MONITORING • Implementation (Compliance) • Did they meet the contract? • Effectiveness • Contract and practices effective? • Validation (Research) • Underlying assumptions correct? • SCIENCE SUPPORT

29. Validation Monitoring • Test underlying assumptions behind the goals / objectives in policy • Validate indicators based on Best Available Information • Demonstrate long-term data trends • Advise policy through adaptive process

30. B.C. has 5 replicated LTSP installations

32. Precision?

33. National Forest Soil Quality Monitoring Crisis • Manual direction to select standards, validate, & monitor based on National Forest Management Act &SUSTAINABILITY • Different Standards in Each NFS Region • No Validation or Monitoring Done • Series of Lawsuits in Montana – PROCESS3 • 9th Circuit Court Upheld Plaintiff’s Cases • Focus on Soils……The Dirty Spotted Owl???

34. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

35. Reliable Methods for Soil Risk Rating (Productivity / Hydrology) • Interpretations of Risk for Detrimental Soil Disturbance • Risk = Hazard x Consequence • Like Disturbance Standards, Risk Assessment Needs Validation • Long-term growth / hydrologic data needed

36. Environmental Framework (Social and Economic are the others ) • Inherent Soil Sensitivity: (HAZARD) • Compaction • Displacement • Erosion and Mass Wasting • Potential Effects: (CONSEQUENCE) • On-site (forest productivity) • Off-site (fish, water, property, life) • View - aesthetics (amelioration)

37. OUTLINE • Sustainability • Indicators • The Need for a Common Approach • A. Common Terms • B. Monitoring • C. Risk (Hazard) rating • Developing consensus • Summary

38. Work Together in an Adaptive Management Process Strategy / Database Execution Regional Database Indicators/Thresholds Data/results Tools / Guidelines Research Monitoring (C&E) Training Validation Implementation OPERATIONS Best Mgt.Practices

39. Developing Consensus (Framework)North America • Northwest Forest Soils Council (Soil scientists from northwest USA and western Canada) • U.S. Forest Service Soils Team • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources • Canadian Soil Science Society • Future Directions • Continued Workshops & Meetings • Website

40. Future Workshops… • USDA Forest Service Region 1 Soil Quality Project (on-going discussions for Soil Quality Standards committee) • On-going collaboration of all groups • Your involvement here welcomed!!

41. SUSTAINABILITY AFFECTED OR NOT?

42. We Can Improve.. • Work Together • Follow a Reliable, Adaptive Process • Have Comparable Approaches • Disturbance Categories • Monitoring Approaches • Risk / Hazard Ratings • Reporting • Regional Databases

43. Summary… • Many agencies, companies, and countries recognize the need for a better approach • We can work together to provide better, science based tools for sustainable management of our soil • Please contact us if you are interested in more information, or would like to participate

44. THE END THE END