Soil Disturbance Workshop

M.Curran, PhD,P.Ag. BCFS, Research

The path to “Pedo-righteousness”

Know your soil

Know what you are doing to it

Know the effects of this (on- and off-site)

Adapt your practices (reliable process) over time as more knowledge becomes available

“Science-based” management

None of this is new, but integration might be...

Outline Office for this afternoon:

– Background– FRPA– (wildfire if you wish)

Field tommorrow (bring lunch)–     - TaTa/Airport?? cutblock field evaluation–     - may be time for another block?

Outline Background

– Soil disturbance concerns– Local soils research and results

FRPA– Soil conservation provisions in FRPA – identify and discuss opportunities/issues for C&E

(eg, MPB)– FREP soil protocol if of interest (eg low level

detailed photos)

Briefly discuss harvesting strategies to manage soil disturbance (influence inspection approach

Background: Forest Sciences

Branch and Regional forest science teams Applied research, problem solving,

extension, consulting Decentralized, close to the scene of the

action Unique service in BC & talent rich Respected in MOF and externally A continued MOF core function

Six Core FSP Disciplines

Soil Conservation Plant Ecology Hydrology Geomorphology (Silvicultural

Systems) (Wildlife Ecology)

D.M.’s

RMT

Licencee’s

Industry Woodlot

BCTS

Public

PublicPublic

Public

F.S.P. Clients

Field ServicesPrimary Clients

Primary Focus (Earth Sciences)

Implementation and testing of policy related to soil and water conservation.

Done by:– Policy development support– Policy implementation support (Guidance

documents, C&E)– Testing policy and developing tools – (Effectiveness, Validation)

Recent Nelson soils work Erosion control consultation/reviews of active fires Work on Soil Conservation Framework and Surveys

LMHs (guidance documents that include airphoto approach to monitoring)

FRPA Soils Leader during drafting and start of FREP FREP Protocol development Continued monitoring on LTSP Promotion of a common approach to soil disturbance

in North America (for FRPA)

Sustainability/certification protocols (eg, MP, CCFM)

Soil Disturbance common element FSC BC often more stringent than

FPC/FRPA However, protocols like the Montreal

Process have a number of “b-type” indicators that require field validation (eg, compaction)

Therefore, compliance with standards is often used as a proxy (eg, CCFM C&I)

“Continual Improvement”(“Science-based resource

mgt.)Strategic Direction

Data/results Guidelines

Training

Best Mgt.PracticesOPERATIONS

Monitoring (C&E)R & D

Provincial Soil Conservation issues

Site productivity “Hydrologic function” Erosion and sedimentation Organic matter Rooting medium Soil moisture

Water

Timber, Habitat supply

Soil “foundation” affects Other Resources

Global Carbon

AestheticsOperations

Soil Disturbance (a Proxy)

Any physical, biological, or chemical disturbance to the soil caused by ground-based equipment (operations)

May be inconsequential, beneficial, or detrimental depending on the net effect on growth limiting factors and hydrologic properties

Soil Disturbance as a proxy for productivity/hydrologic

effects In many NA ecosystems, we need at least 10 to

20 years data to draw conclusions about the effects of various practices

Therefore, we use soil disturbance as a proxy that we can observe and regulate at the time of harvesting, site preparation, etc.

However, when we discuss or read about “Soil Disturbance” there are inconsistent approaches and methods a common approach is needed.

@ 3 YRS @ 10 YRS

@ 15 YRS

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

% o

f vol

ume

on u

ndis

turb

ed s

oil

R / R

S / NR

T / NS

T / R

T / NR

Mean Douglas-fir volume - Gates Creek

(Smith & Wass, 1991; Wass & Senyk, 1999)

Mean Douglas-fir volume - Gates Creek

(Smith & Wass, 1991; Wass & Senyk, 1999)

Soil Disturbance – is it all Degradation?

Net effect on tree growth

Resulting tree growth is sum of positive and negative effects

Common negative effects:– reduced aeration from compaction– loss of nutrients and organic matter

Common positive effects:– reduced competition– warmer soils

Soil disturbance processes

what is soil disturbance what is soil degradation what processes lead to degradation (strategies to manage disturbance)

Soil Disturbance

Any physical, biological, or chemical disturbance to the soil

May be beneficial or detrimental, depending on net effect on growth limiting factors

Beneficial Disturbance Foresters often create disturbance on

purpose as site preparation to ameliorate seedling growth-limiting factors

Net effect would have to be positive Growth is limited by most limiting factor Identify and manage for these Don’t compromise long-term productivity

Soil degradation Any disturbance that negatively affects

soil productivity

In B.C. Forestry, trees are the “bioassay”

FPC/FRPA targets potentially detrimental disturbance– some of concern for drainage as well (FRPA)

Processes leading to degradation:

Compaction Displacement (min. soil; forest floor) Erosion Mass Wasting (cut/fill failures)

(Part of management framework)

Erosion

Surface soil eroded primarily by water (splash, sheet, rill erosion)

Loss of fertile topsoil layers Loss of effective rooting volume

– Exposure of unfavourable subsoils Drainage diversion Sedimentation of watercourses

Erosion

Controlling factors: texture, coarse fragments, slope, climate

Manageable factors: machine traffic, degree of scalping, drainage control

Mass Wasting

“Minor” cut and fill failures Often result in drainage diversion Can lead to larger landslides Loss of productive growing site Impacts on downslope values Safety concerns Also use slope stability indicators

(LMH47)

Mass Wasting

Controlling factors: parent material, climate, slope, topography

Manageable factors: amount and extent of excavation, drainage control, machine traffic, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

Compaction

Compaction and Puddling result in the alteration / loss of soil structure (architecture of pores)

Bulk Density increase (penetrability) Infiltration decreases (more runoff) Aeration decreases (less biological

activity)

Compaction

Controlling factors: texture, coarse fragments, forest floor depth/type, (soil depth, mineralogy)

Manageable factors: machine traffic, machine type/dynamic loading, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

Table 3. Bulk density (kg m-3) of 0-10 cm soil depth in 1981 and 1997 among three treatments and two disturbances at Gates Creek. Treatment Disturbance Year Prob>T

1981 1997

Non-stumpedUndisturbed 1231 1246 0.88Track 1613 1405 0.001

RakedRake 1469 1373 0.23Track 1671 1469 0.03

Scalped Scalp 1119 1210 0.20Track 1724 1420 0.000

Aeration Porosity (Nakusp)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30U

nd

ist2

Un

dis

t6

Tra

il2

Tra

il6

Lig

ht2

Lig

ht6

Dispersed traffic = concern Aeration porosity definitely affected Literature suggests is could affect trees Therefore, need to monitor and check Institute BMP for now Adjust guidelines as hard data available Hard data needs a framework (plasticity)

Mean Douglas-fir Volume

• Both sites sandy-loam texture

• BUT, Clay varies

• Ratings need validation

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

N o n - s t u m p e d S c a l p e d R a k e d

T r e a t m e n t

Tree v

olume

(cm

3)

N o n - t r a c k e d

R u t t e d

a

b

b

b

G a t e s C r e e k , B . C .

b

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

N o n - s t u m p e d S c a l p e d R a k e d

T r e a t m e n t

Tree v

olume

(cm

3)

N o n - t r a c k e d

R u t t e db

a

a b

b

b

P h o e n i x , B . C .

Soil Plasticity (Approx., CSSC)

Non-Plastic

Very Plastic

Slightly Plastic

Plastic

Displacement

Displacement of fertile mineral topsoil and forest floor layers of concern

Loss of available nutrients Loss of effective rooting volume

– exposure of unfavourable subsoils Loss of water holding capacity Increased runoff, drainage diversion

Displacement

Controlling factors: slope, topography, soil depth, subsoil type

Manageable factors: amount and extent of excavation, machine size/type, seasonal soil conditions (wetness, snow, frost)

Marl Ck. Stumping trial

Disturb. Growth CO3

(9)No CO3

(12)Ttest

Track Dbh(cm)

2.6 5.3 0.02

0-10 cm Height(cm)

264 448 0.01

Volume(cm3)

4390 13, 649 0.008

Rehabilitated Skidroad Tree Growth

Outline Background

– Soil disturbance concerns– Local soils research and results

FRPA– Soil conservation provisions in FRPA – identify and discuss opportunities/issues for C&E (eg, MPB)– FREP soil protocol if of interest (eg low level detailed photos)

Harvesting strategies to manage soil disturbance (can influence inspection approach if a good strategy appears to have been used)

BC Soil disturbance stds 1988 start, FPC in 1995, now FRPA Disturbance types of concern evolved

from bladed trails to compacted trails, ruts

Limits set in Silviculture Prescription (Site Plan) based on soil dist.hazards

Monitoring based on transects Disturbance at sample point categorized

Historical Disturbance Levels

late 70’s / early 80’s– over 20 % common

Interim Harv. guidelines (1988)– 13 % without rehab.

1993 Harv. guidelines– 13 % WITH rehab.

1995 FPC Act, now FRPA– 10 % AFTER rehab. “10 + 3”(5)

Types of counted disturbance

Machine traffic (compaction)– excavated and bladed trails– compacted areas– main (nonbladed) trails– ruts greater than 5 or 15 cm

Only need to dig Repeated Machine Traffic

Machine traffic (compaction)– Altered soil structure or increased

density relative to the surrounding soil– Puddling (and OR)– Compacted deposits of forest floor, fine

slash and woody debris such that difficult to dig….

Types of counted disturbance

Displacement– deep gouges– long gouges– wide gouges– very wide scalps

FPRA Objectives for Soils

“Conserve the productivity and hydrologic function of soils.”

Soil disturbance under FRPA

Permanent access (PAS) is a standard at 7 %

NAR dist. uses FPC limits as “default” Refers to previous hazards/dist. types BUT

not formally defined in regulation anymore (publications important now)

FSPs will likely not deviate for NAR, but might include something on PAS

Soil disturbance under FRPA

Permanent access (PAS) is a standard at 7 %

NAR dist. uses FPC limits as “default” Refers to previous hazards/dist. types BUT

not formally defined in regulation anymore (publications important now)

FSPs will likely not deviate for NAR, but might include something on PAS

Soil disturbance - FREP(pilotted sessions in Castlegar)

Are sensitive soils identified adequately? Is access being minimized?

– PAS– TAS– Roadside work areas– Other disturbance

Is drainage being restored/maintained?

FRPA support needed

• FRPA provision “Sensitive soils” Soil disturbance

classes 5 and 10 % limit Can go over 5 % if

rehab Conditions where

higher

Needs (validation as well)

Publish former guidebooks, test and revise

Soil conservation “framework” LMH;

Test cumulative, other conditions like stumping and rehab tech/success

Other FRPA support needed

• FRPA provision Non-timber for.

products Coarse woody

debris Biodiversity

Needs (validation also)

Gap in policy/guidance; test harvesting effects

Soil biodiversity is HUGE

Forest and Range Practices Act (replaces Forest Practices Code)

“Simplified” planning steps Sets “results-based” standards for

11 values like Riparian, SOILS, etc. FPRA Objectives for Soils

– “conserve the productivity and hydrologic function of soils.”

FRPA Soil Disturbance Stds(others for drainage, revegetation, etc.)

Permanent access 7 % or less Temporary access up to 5 % Sensitive Soils 5 % “disturbance” Less-sensitive 10 % Roadside work areas 25 % Based on soil sensitivity

Extra codes

Rehab = r, rX Other machine traffic = M Other scalps/gouges = O 2 rut depths: - Ts, Td (deep)

Mike to provide total key….

Unfavourable growing media

Mike to provide total key….

FRPA Soil Disturbance Stds(others for drainage, revegetation, etc.) 35(7), 37 – mtl adverse effect **PJordan**

Drainage control provision– 39– 79-81 need clarification

Environmental damage (alter ecosystem __(site series) - _define)– Landslide– Soil disturbance (30 % or higher on 0.2 ha?)– Changes to soil (mudbogging)

Soil Issues in other Districts(?)

MPB salvage– Wet soils– Salvage permit…

Small Scale Salvage operations Roadside work area issues Opennings less than 1 ha

Types of monitoring

1. Implementation (Compliance)1. Did they meet the contract?2. (speeding?)

2. Effectiveness1. Contract and practices effective?2. (are ticketting, signing, etc. reducing it)

3. Validation (research)1. Underlying assumptions correct?2. (speeding causes more fatalities there?)

Compliance monitoring

1. Behaviour consistent with good practice?2. Identify sensitive areas (SP or photos, reccies,

soil maps, experience ___)3. Walkthrough to check these4. Run some transects to calibrate level of

disturbance you are observing5. Need to decide if a problem6. If a problem you call for second opinion

(survey), report it to Licensee, document (measurements/observations) in a inspection report, stop work (imm. Env. Damage) / enforcement… _______________

Compliance monitoring

1. Behaviour consistent with good practice?2. Identify sensitive areas (SP or photos,

reccies, soil maps, experience ___)3. Walkthrough to check these4. Run some transects to calibrate level of

disturbance you are observing5. Need to decide if a problem6. If a problem you_survey, stop work,

investigate, rehab plans?, _______________

Compliance monitoring

1. Behaviour consistent with good practice?2. Identify sensitive areas (SP or photos,

reccies, soil maps, experience ___)3. Walkthrough to check these4. Run some transects to calibrate level of

disturbance you are observing5. Need to decide if a problem6. If a problem you; escalating enforcement –

compliance notice, big ugly?, rehab instructions via cooperation or determination________________

High resolution airphotos

1. Available at about $ 300 per cutblock, maybe less

2. Good for evidence and demonstration3. Helpful in partial cut areas

4. Can also get on overview flights and check new photos (eg, Google maps)

Show high res. Photo(s)

Run ER viewer with “images” file

Types of monitoring

1. Effectiveness1. Contract and practices effective?2. (are ticketting, signing, etc. reducing it)

3. Protocol developed in 20054. Uses high resolution photos5. Checks on site ID, TUs, concentrated

distubance, size of PAS, TAS, etc…

Field Map: Planned transects

Types of monitoring

1. Validation (research)1. Underlying assumptions correct?2. (speeding causes more fatalities there?)

3. Research installations and operational trials4. Have to compete for funding5. Long-term commitment required

B.C. has 5 replicated LTSP installations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

C0 C2 C0 C2 C0 C2 C0 C1 C0 C2

Challenge Wallace Owl Vista Central CampCamp

Other

Trees

CLAY LOAM SAND

BIO

MA

SS

(M

g h

a-1)

10-YR BIOMASS RELATIVE TO COMPACTIONON FIVE LTSP SITES IN CALIFORNIA

Rehab (amelioration)Plot on LTSP study

RehabilitatedHaul Road

“Soil test sites”

EFMPP Area

Continual Improvement Process

Strategy / Database

Data/results Tools / Guidelines

Training

Best Mgt.PracticesOPERATIONS

Monitoring (C&E)Research

Execution

A “Package Deal”

Regional Database Indicators/Thresholds

Validation Implementation

Harvesting strategies Independant of climate/weather Longer season, less shutdowns Can rehab. as you go, but stay under Rehab. can be haul roads, unbladed trails

– close trail spacing– close road spacing– designated/random skidding– hoe-chucking

Closer Trail Spacing

Gentle to moderate slopes (45 %?) Avoid seepage sites Avoid VH Mass Wasting, Compaction Avoid H Mass Wasting if clayey Minimize cuts into unfavourable

subsoil

Dispersed (Random)

Plan for designated trails (can’t be the preferred strategy) Take advantage of weather windows Can accomplish site preparation Can use feller buncher

Hoe-chucking (Interior)

Can augment other strategies Can often operate when wetter Good for complex topography in

W.Koot. Complements cable harvesting

Seasonal soil factors

How Wet is Too Wet discussed before

How Much Frost? How Much Snow? How Much Helium?

How wet is too wet? (1 pass)

Non-plastic soils– squeezed soil leaves < 100 % moisture

on hand Plastic soils

– squeezed soil leaves < 50 % moisture on hand

– AND clod breaks apart with easy finger pressure (tapping)

How much frost is enough?

7.5 cm (3 in.) in mineral soil PROVIDED not too wet below “can’t penetrate with body weigth on

a 3/8” rod with a 30 degree cone”

How much snow is enough?

Compressible snow: 30 cm? Dry snow: 60 cm? Try a “jump” or boot test... Frozen snow: 15 cm?

– (do a single pass at end of first day on it)

PROVIDED soil not too wet below!

Harvesting strategies

– close trail spacing– close road spacing– designated/random skidding– hoe-chucking

Adaptive Management Process (a package deal)

Strategy / Database

Data/results Tools / Guidelines

Training

Best Mgt.PracticesOPERATIONS

Monitoring (C&E)Research

Execution

Regional Database Indicators/Thresholds

Validation Implementation

Environmental Framework

Inherent Soil Sensitivity (HAZARD)– Compaction– Displacement– (Erosion and Mass Wasting [non-

alcoholic]) Potential Effects: (CONSEQUENCE)

– On-site (forest productivity)– Off-site (fish, water, property, life)

Recommendations BC Interior Winter log? Processors onsite for sensitive? Consider the “4 strategies” roadside reduce disturbance? Larger blocks and rehab all roads (all NAR) Equipment size? Operator effect is number one often Operator training materials

Funding sources

Invermere “enhanced mgt pilot” Science Council (FRBC) FIA/FII In-kind MoF Regions, Branch, District In-kind CFS Victoria, Edmonton In-kind UBC In-kind Tembec, Slocan, Kalesnikoff

Useful website?http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/

Forest Practices Code Guidebooks: Land Management Handbooks

Cool research: Southern Interior Forest Region – Active Projects - Nelson Test Site Directory

mike.curran@gov.bc.ca

The end…

Calcareous Soils

Special case Limestone derived High pH Unfavourable subsoil.

Nutrient availability vs. pH

Calcareous pts (Golden Mt 7)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ConH ConL ConC PushH PushL PushC

FPC Disturbance (Mt 7)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40C

on

vH

Co

nv

L

Co

nv

C

Pu

sh

H

Pu

sh

L

Pu

sh

C

Leaching study: FF pH

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

FF ST2 ST8 EX2 EX8

1 yr

5 yr

Site and Treatment Vs. Available Iron

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00U M U M B U M B U M U M U M U M

Ava

il. F

e (p

pm

)

McMurdo Bloom Grave Lussier Hudu Caven Bell

Availabe Fe (ppm)

Height of lodgepole pine in presence or absence of CO3

CO3

DepthGood Medium Poor

< 40 cm 650 24 589 27 382 27

> 40 cm 752 48 649 34 465 34

Lussier Provenance trial (20 year growth of 5provenances in each category.

Marl Ck. Stumping trial

Disturb. Growth CO3

(9)No CO3

(12)Ttest

Track Dbh(cm)

2.6 5.3 0.02

0-10 cm Height(cm)

264 448 0.01

Volume(cm3)

4390 13, 649 0.008