Soil Conservation FRPA Effectiveness Evaluation s1

0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Soil Conservation FRPA Effectiveness Evaluation

WORKING DRAFT 4 – July 12, 2004

Prepared by MoF staff on the Soils Value Team

Introduction: This document describes the approach for carrying out an effectiveness evaluation for soil conservation. It provides an overview of the sampling concepts, background information requirements, and field procedures. This document was prepared in preparation for pilot projects evaluating the effectiveness of FRPA soil conservation provisions, which will be carried out during the summer of 2004.

The objective of Soil Conservation Effectiveness Evaluation (EE) during the 2004 pilots is to evaluate how effective policy and related practices have been in conserving soil productivity and hydrologic function within cutblocks. Any apparent concerns regarding off-site or landscape effects are not the target of this exercise, but will be noted for future consideration.

The soil conservation provisions in FPC and FRPA recognize that it takes at least 20 years to understand soil disturbance effects. The focus of the policy and this exercise is on the use of soil disturbance observable on the ground (within 2 years of operations) as a proxy for longer-term effects. The underlying assumptions during policy development and this EE exercise is that the framework for soil disturbance (hazard ratings, disturbance types, cumulative limits) is being tested through validation (research), and is revised from time to time as new knowledge arises. Therefore, part of EE is to identify gaps or needs for validation (research), in addition to density gaps or needs related to policy implementation.

Effectiveness evaluation is not a compliance or enforcement exercise; however, if incidents of possible or apparent non-compliance are evident during the EE process, these will be identified for C&E consideration.

The document provides:

(1) site selection and sampling concepts; (2) cutblock level soil conservation FRPA effectiveness evaluation questions and indicators, along with tables of criteria for office and field scoring of each indicator; (3) ancillary questions are included in the various tables to flag areas for follow-up related to possible C&E issues, information gaps (research), and off-site or landscape issues beyond the scope of this exercise.

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Approach and Methodology

Site selection and sampling concepts: Sampling design will be determined based on the provincial effectiveness evaluation program objectives relating to scope of the pilot program in 2004, provincial data summarization needs, financial resources available, as well as logistical considerations such as access etc. Sample blocks should be randomly selected from a list of all possible blocks available for sampling. This population can simply be all of the blocks harvested during a certain time period, but risk based (weighted) sampling, or stratification to address issues of concern, may also be involved. A “risk-based” approach, would see sensitive or high-risk sites receiving more attention. One needs to also consider an “extent”-based approach, where the sites are selected based on how much area is affected by various practices. The final sampling design will result from balancing the benefits of each approach.

Risk based sampling should consider the following factors for site selection:  sites with high or very high hazard for soil degradation  sites with summer skidding  sites that were salvage harvested  sites with partial cutting  sites with ridged or hummocky terrain or catenas with mixes of distinctly different soil types.  small cutblocks  steep slopes  “sensitive soils”  drier or wetter ecosystems  specific prescribed practices meeting higher disturbance guidelines (eg, stump removal or other aggressive site preparation is prevalent in the area)

The method and indicators presented here are suitable for use for one to two years after harvesting operations are completed. Other indicators that could be assessed after a longer time have not been included here, but are essential for providing a linkage between soil disturbance at the time of operations and actual, long-term damage (e.g. direct measures of forest productivity such as site index) – the are the subject of validation monitoring (research).

The sampling program, and planning, should also consider the need for consistency in field measurements. Ideally, field data collection at every site will be carried out by the same crew, with additional expertise being drawn is as required.

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Background data needs (office): After the list of blocks to be sampled has been compiled, but before collecting field data, background information needs to be collected and evaluated for each cutblock. An office checklist should be used to record the information. Things to do during the office phase include:  Review of the operational plan  Review post harvest inspection, if any  Obtain copies of cruise data, and preliminary Site Plan data collection cards used to evaluate the methods for delineating standards units  Review air photos, if available

Reconnaissance data collection (reviewing air photos): For most sites, we anticipate that use of recent airphotos will be the most effective way to gain overview information needed to carry out the field component of the effectiveness evaluation. An overview could also be obtained by other means, including viewing the block from a high vantage point, or simply flying over the block and taking photos.

For recently harvested blocks, areas of concentrated soil disturbance are readily visible on overview or formal air photos, provided they are taken at a scale large enough scale for the disturbance and soil conditions present. They may not need to be orthophotos, although that would be ideal so areas and distances could be estimated more accurately. The desire for high quality photos should be balanced against the costs of collecting the required information (to the required precision) by measuring on the ground.

Based on the photo reconnaissance, it is expected that preliminary estimates could be made of Area of the block in Unrehabilitated (“permanent”) access Area of the block in Concentrated disturbance Area of the block in landslides Green tree and woody debris retention Erosion concerns, Drainage alteration

Air photos are considered essential for reviewing partially cut areas (due to forest cover obscuring overview assessments of site disturbance from vantage points on the ground).

Field data collection: The main purpose of the field data collection phase is to:  confirm estimates of access, soil disturbance, landslides, green tree retention, and woody debris retention obtained from the air photo reconnaissance,  evaluate sites where drainage or erosion may be of concern  evaluate dispersed soil disturbance and the effectiveness of rehabilitation treatments, and  to better evaluate factors which may have affected the results observed.

Field method: Plan to walk a transect through the block, plan to cross all sensitive areas, SUs, and stop at major features and points of concern, including: (a) typical roads and landings (check length / width to confirm area estimates), (b) rehabilitated structures,

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc (c) unrehabilitated structures that may have been constructed through materials unsuitable for rehabilitation, (d) landslides, (e) active erosion, (f) areas with altered drainage, (g) areas of concentrated soil disturbance (obtain more accurate estimates of area and extent of disturbance if needed), (f) other areas of interest. Representative areas should also be visited within each standards unit for evaluation of woody debris retention (transect survey), green tree retention, and dispersed soil disturbance.

List of Indicators for In-Block Disturbance:

1. Unrehabilatated access structures: Cutblock/Standards Units Objective: Permanent access minimized based on-site conditions Effectiveness questions: Does unrehabilitated access cover the least reasonable area of productive soils? Indicator: Percent of the cutblock area occupied by unproductive soil as a result of access construction Value: Percent Method: Table 1. Estimating lost soil productivity due to access construction.

2. Erosion and landslides in-block Cutblock/Standards Units Objectives: To minimize landslides and erosion to reduce the effects of these events on soil productivity Effectiveness questions:  Have slope failures or the risk of slope failures been increased?  Has erosion or the risk of erosion been increased? Indicators:  Areas with reduced productivity due to slope failure  Areas outside of the road prism with increased risk of slope failure  Rills or gullies initiated from structures Value: Area Affected (m2) Method: Table 2. Estimating in-block area affected or potentially affected by landslides, drainage diversion or significant erosion from roads, landings or trails.

3. Natural Drainage Patterns Cutblock/Standards Units Objectives: Protection of natural surface drainage patterns Effectiveness questions: Have forestry operations in the NAR been accomplished with minimum disturbance to surface drainage? Indicator: Percent of the cutblock area that suffers, or is at risk of suffering, reduced productivity or disrupted ecosystem function as a result of disrupted natural drainage in the NAR Values: Percent of Standards Unit Method: Table 3. Estimating percent of the NAR area affected by disturbance to natural drainage patterns as a result of forestry operations.

4. Detrimental Soil Disturbance in the NAR

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Cutblock/Standards Units Objective: Limiting cumulative effects of soil disturbance in the net area to be reforested (NAR) Effectiveness question: Does detrimental soil disturbance cover the least reasonable area of productive soils in the NAR? Indicators:  Proportion of the NAR affected by dispersed soil disturbance in the NAR  Amount of machine traffic on sensitive soils Value: Percent of block?? Methods:  Table 4. Calculating percent of the cutblock area affected by concentrated and dispersed soil disturbance in a cutblock NAR.  Table 4a. Summary of dispersed disturbance categories in the NAR.

5. Soil Biology Cutblock/Standards Units Objectives: Maintain elements of mature forest soil biological properties Effectiveness questions:  Have refugia for mature forest soil organisms and processes are retained?  Has habitat been retained and recruited for dead wood- occupying soil organisms?  Has forest floor been retained? Indicators:  Extent to which mature green trees have been retained  The amount and diversity of woody debris  The extent to which forest floor is retained Value  Characteristics of green trees retained  Characteristics of woody debris  Forest floor displacement Methods:  Table 5a. Estimating refugia for mature forest soil organisms  Table 5b. Estimating amount and diversity of habitat for dead wood-occupying soil biota  Table 4aa, forest floor displacement is included in NAR disturbance assessment.

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Field Assessment for Soil Conservation Effectiveness Evaluations

Table 1. Estimating lost soil productivity due to access construction. Variable Value 1.1 Percent of the cutblock area in un-rehabilitated roads, landings, and borrow pits (determined from aerial photo, vehicle or walk-through traverse - as per the Soil Conservation Surveys Guidebook)

Structure (eg, Landing A) Length Width Area % of Cutblock ______

1.2 Indicate on the map and calculate how much of the un-rehabilitated access appears to belong in the Temporary Access definition? (determined from access plans, aerial photo, vehicle or walk-through traverse - as per the soil conservation surveys guidebook)

Structure (eg, Landing A) Length Width Area % of Cutblock ______

1.3 For rehabilitated access, evaluate any areas where rehabilitation % of Cutblock treatments were insufficient to fully restore productivity (percent cutblock area in rehabilitated access) x (1- ER*)

Total permanent lost production (% of cutblock) caused by access (sum of the above) “ER (effectiveness of rehab) ranges from 0 (unproductive ground) to 1 (fully restored soil conditions), and is determined according to the following method [partial scores possible for all], where: ER = A+B+C A) Was the rehabilitated area decompacted as necessary? yes = .5; no = 0 B) Was topsoil and/or burnpile debris, and woody debris re-spread with minimal mixing of subsoil ? yes = .3; no = 0 C) Has the site been reforested, or is there a reasonable likelihood that natural revegetation and reforestation will occur as a result of natural ingress from the surrounding area? yes .2; no = 0

Questions: 1) Does the total amount of permanent access seem appropriate given the site conditions? Provide specifics and rationale.

2) Do any individual access structures seem larger than necessary? Provide specifics and rationale.

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Table 2: Estimating in-block area affected or potentially affected by landslides, drainage diversion or significant erosion from roads, landings or trails. Variable Value Landslides 2.1 Delineate and measure cutblock areas in new failures outside the road prism including dry ravel

Failure Length Width Area Area affected (m 2) ______

2.2 Delineate and measure cutblock areas that could be affected by road construction or maintenance practices, or roadcuts through material and/or slope conditions known to have stability problems in the local area (eg, often clay textured materials on wet slope locations)

Failure Length Width Area Area affected (m2) ______

Total area affected or potentially affected by landslides (sum of above) 2.3 Are there areas of water diversion into non-channel areas (eg, Yes or No evidence of overland flow onto slopes that normally would not receive that much water – estimate average width and length of runoff If yes, estimate size evidence) (m2) Note: If yes, estimate size and specify potential concerns regarding stability and/or erosion that may be expected to occur. When considering potential If yes, potential concerns, take into account slope steepness/topography involved, other concerns values at risk, etc. Water diversion may not be a concern on flat land.

Erosion* 2.4 Delineate and measure eroded areas, which are typically devoid of vegetation, in the cutblock (deposits are not counted)

Eroded area Length Width Area Area (m 2) ______

Questions:

Are there any potential or existing off-site effects evident during your field or office review? Provide specifics and rationale.

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Table 3. Estimating percent of the NAR area affected by disturbance to natural drainage patterns as a result of forestry operations

Variable Percent of cutblock area 3.1 Delineate and measure cutblock areas experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, altered drainage or standing water as a result of construction of roads, landings, trails, or concentrated soil disturbance (e.g. areas with evidence of saturated soils, drowned vegetation or regeneration problems due to raised water table; or areas expected to experience these problems due to evident drainage problems)

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Table 4. Calculating percent of the cutblock area affected by concentrated and dispersed soil disturbance in a cutblock NAR. 4.1 Determine the soil disturbance hazards for each SU SU__ SU__ SU__ Compaction Displacement Forest floor displacement Erosion Mass wasting Were the hazards rated correctly? Were the SU’s mapped correctly? 4.2 Delineate and measure areas of concentrated disturbance greater than 0.2 ha Do not include roadside work areas Area Area Area Length Width Area (m 2) (m 2) (m 2) ______

4.3 Delineate and measure roadside work areas Area Area Area Length Width Area (m 2) (m 2) (m 2) ______

4.4 Percent area of dispersed disturbance in remainder of each SU. Use Table 4.aa to summarize field tallies. Do not double-count concentrated disturbance areas above. Counted Disturbance Based On Sensitivity How is this determined? Total Machine Traffic Disturbance Sum of 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Adjustment calculation for NAR rehabilitated areas = (% SU in rehabilitated disturbance) x (1-ER) , see example in Table 1): Prorated Total Disturbance In SU How is this determined? Total adjusted concentrated and dispersed SU disturbance: How is this determined?

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc

Questions: 1. Do the sensitivity ratings appear to be correct; have complexes been recognized?

2. Were these roadside work areas of an appropriate width for the harvesting system used and was an attempt made to minimize disturbance within the roadside work area?

3. Were skid trails and temporary access structures designed/ constructed to minimize the amount of area occupied by these structures while keeping in mind there may be other factors to consider such as safety or efficiency?

Table 4a. Summary of dispersed disturbance categories in the NAR. Carry out a soil disturbance transect (100-300 points across representative areas of the block), then record the percentage of each category below: Disturbance type SU__ SU__ RWAs Record the percentage of dispersed disturbance over the by SU entire standards unit Wheel or track ruts: > 5-15 cm* > 15 cm Deep gouges Long gouges Wide gouges Wide scalps* Very wide scalps Main trails/compacted (repeated traffic, etc.) Survey all, compile and asterisk number for use in lower total if not counting on SU Unrehabilitated compacted areas Total “counted” disturbance in the NAR Sum of areas of all disturbances above. Other forest floor displacement Refer to calc/survey methods. Indicate if forest floor is displaced during survey by circling all displaced points regardless of disturbance type, tally these to indicate forest floor displacement total percent. Rehabilitated TAS and compacted areas Perceptible impressions/ruts 0.3 x 2 m and < 5 cm Light trails/light compaction (not meeting criteria) Grazing related Bare ground, pugging, and hummocking with dimensions equal to wide scalps. Continuous gouge Total disturbance in the NAR (all categories) Total Forest Floor Displacement in the SU

2018-4-30 0de0c55cc4265ca2ae555bc1c3529249.doc Table 5a. Estimating refugia for mature forest soil organisms Distance from cutblock to nearest mature forest distance in km Number of green trees retained on cutblock per number of trees per ha ha Percent of original species retained as green number of tree species _____ / preharvest trees on cutblock number of tree species = ______

Age classes of green trees* estimated approximate percentage 1. Original dominant or co-dominant trees 1. 2. Sub-canopy trees 2. 3. Shrub layer trees 3. *See Land Management Handbook 25

Question: Was a mixture of species planted? List the species:

Table 5b. Estimating amount and diversity of habitat for dead wood-occupying soil biota Amount of woody debris Field data Depth and percent cover of pieces under 7.5 cm Depth: TrA___TrB____Tr C_____ diameter Percent cover < 25, 25 – 50, > 50 Based on overview of each transect, slash loading TrA___TrB____Tr C____ photos will be available as examples. Number of pieces over 7.5 cm diameter TrA___TrB____Tr C____ Based on 3 randomly located 30m transects. Average length of larger pieces on each transect TrA___TrB____Tr C____ Average diameter of larger pieces on each trans. TrA___TrB____Tr C____ Percent of original species retained as CWD number of tree species as CWD _____ / preharvest number of living tree species

Amount of woody debris estimated based on three 30 m transects located randomly in NAR and using method for CWD in A Field Estimation Procedure for Downed Coarse Woody Debris, Taylor 1997, and for slash in Field Handbook for Prescribed Fire Assessments in British Columbia: Logging Slash Fuels, Trowbridge et al. 1989.

Questions:

1. Was the site whole tree harvested and do you perceive any problems due to this practice? If yes, provide specifics and rationale.

2. Is there opportunity for recruitment of CWD during the rotation?

3. Are there concerns regarding these opportunities? If so, provide specifics and rationale.

2018-4-30