Principle – CCFM 3.0 Conservation of Soil and Water Resources

Criterion- CCFM 3.1 Physical environmental factors.

Indicator - CCFM 3.1.1 Percentage of harvested area having significant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling, loss of organic matter, etc. Rewritten to: Percentage of harvested area having greater than 25% of the area with degraded soil quality, including soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter.

Box B: Definition

"This element deals with the characteristics of soil, water and biota that serve as indicators of long-term ecosystem sustainability. Topics include soil disturbances (e.g., compaction, erosion and loss of organic matter) related to forest activities, effects of forest activities on aquatic fauna, changes in the quality and quantity of water in forested watersheds, and conversion of forest lands to other uses. During harvesting activities, off-road machinery—if used improperly—can reduce forest productivity through soil compaction and the displacement or removal of organic matter. However, monitoring can ensure that appropriate planning and construction techniques are employed to minimize such losses." CCFM p. 48

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

The State of Idaho has by law adopted Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which are to be followed by all landowners in the state. These relate to the indicator but are not specific to it. Small landowners would have a hard time using this indicator as the type of technical skills needed may not be available.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR 2.4.6 The status of decomposition and nutrient shows no significant change

GFE 20. Coarse woody debris and snags should be retained at functional levels.

Notes:

A large proportion of the State of Idaho Best Management Practices are directed towards this indicator and attendant criteria.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

"Of all the structural components of the ecosystem, soil tends to be the least renewable, and examples of loss of ecosystem sustainability have generally, though not exclusively, been related to loss or reduction of soil function. …Examples of soil damage include compaction, erosion, loss of organic matter, depletion of available nutrients and nutrient reserves, and loss or reduction of soil fauna and flora." Kimmins, 1996.

The indicator needs refinement as written because it uses value laden terms and is open ended. "Percentage of harvested area having significant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling, loss of organic matter, etc." The term significant is not defined so the reader wonders what is "significant" 10%, 20%, 50%? Also the final "etc." leaves all the attributes of the indicator open to interpretation. Even with the rewritten indicator some things are still unclear. For example, loss of organic matter is still very general and not well defined.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Soil and water are some of the most basic components of ecosystems so maintaining their functions and structures is essential to sustainable ecosystems – hence management of those systems. Nutrient, carbon and hydrologic cycles are related to this indicator.

"Ground disturbance is markedly reduced by the implementation of guidelines and codes of practice. For example, with the introduction of provincial guidelines in Alberta, the level of disturbance associated with aspen harvesting decreased from 25% of harvested areas in the mid-1980s, to 10% in 1990, and 3.5% in 1993." CCFM p. 49.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

There are many measurement methods for soil characteristics. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. For example soil compaction can be measured by either changes in porosity or by changes in bulk density. Porosity and bulk density can be measured by more than one method. Selection of a specific method depends on factors such as the type of soil, availability of specialized instruments (e.g. neutron probes), training, personal preference and experience of observer, etc. However, there are estimation techniques for soil displacement, puddling, compaction and erosion that can be used relatively inexpensively by a trained soil scientist with experience with the local soils. The question of what type of change is "significant" needs to be defined for different soils and geographic areas. (Personal communication, Kimberley Johnson, Assistant Regional Soil Scientist, Intermountain Region, June 24, 1988.)

Box L: Data Required:

Data availability of soil characteristics varies widely across ownerships and across North America.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data used in the test include are the requirements of the State of Idaho Best Management Practices. Also the Forest Plan monitoring reports for soil and water for the Payette National Forest and Boise National Forest.

"Major challenges remain in the analysis of soil properties. Soil scientists agree on what compaction is, but there is wide disagreement on what measurements(s) truly reflect compaction (for example, bulk density, penetrometer readings, visual estimate of structure). Few quantitative, probabilistic data are available. Also there is disagreement on how to assess the extent and effects of compaction and estimate of the severity of compaction on forest land are subject to dispute." USDA, Forest Service, 1997, p. 5-7.

Box N: Example Results

(INCLUDE TABLE 1 ON PAGE 12 OF NAKAMURA IN POWERS, 1990)

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

This indicator can be tracked over time. It does require that harvesting operations be monitored and evaluated by an experienced soil scientist. Some such monitoring does occur on portions of the study area. Only a selected number of harvest operations are evaluated and there is variation as to the proportion and selection criteria for projects to monitor. Progress is being made by all major landowners in the study area. In part because of national concern about endangered fishes which are related to soil and water quality. All landowners follow the State of Idaho Best Management Practices so there is movement towards consistent information for the study area.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

The information value is high if the data are gathered consistently and for a meaningful area. However there is still disagreement among soils professionals on methods and standards and how they apply to the ground.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted with reservations as it deals with a basic component of sustainability. However the definition of "significant" is not doable for the study area in the time available in this test. A good case can be made for moving this indicator into the needs further development because of the data limitations. The basic idea is deeply appealing. Practical and consistent application is more problematical

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

Rewrote to: Percentage of harvested area having greater than 25% of the area with degraded soil quality, including soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter.

Box S: References:

• Burton, Timothy A. 1998. Fisheries Program Leader, Boise National Forest. Personal communication. June 29, 1998, and July 8, 1998.
• Harvey, A. E. and others. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p.
• Kimmins, J.P. 1996. Importance of Soil and Role of Ecosystem Disturbance for Sustained Productivity of Cool Temperate and Boreal Forests. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1643-1654. November-December 1996.
• Howes, S., Hazard, J., and Geist, J.M. 1983. Guidelines for Sampling Some Physical Conditions of Surface Soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-RWM-146-1983.
• Idaho Department of Lands. 1996. Best Management Practices; Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality. Idaho Department of Lands, Coeur d’Alene, Id. 33 p.
• Johnson, K. Assistant Regional Soil Scientist Intermountain Region, personal communication, June 24, 1998.
• Juarros, L. Boise National Forest Soil Scientist, personal communication, July 8, 1998.
• Mann, L.K. and others. 1988. Effects of Whole-Tree and Stem-Only Clearcutting on Postharvest Hydrologic Losses, Nutrient Capital, and Regrowth. Forest Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 412-428.
• Marten, D. Payette National Forest Soil Scientist, personal communication, June, 19, 1998.
• Nakamura, G.M. 1990. Silvicultural Practices Impacting Productivity. In: Powers, R.F. (ed.) 1990. Sustaining Site Productivity on Forestlands: a user’s guide to good soil management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication No. 21481.
• Powers, R.F. (ed.) 1990. Sustaining Site Productivity on Forestlands: a user’s guide to good soil management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication No. 21481.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1997. First Approximation Report for Sustainable Forest Management: Report of the United States on the Criteria and Indicators for the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Washington, D.C. Various paging.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.