soil disturbance workshop
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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