Att4B_SoilDistrubanceMonitoringVol.II.pdf

Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection

By Deborah S. Page-Dumroese, Ann M. Abbott, and Thomas M. Rice

Schematics from Napper et al. (N.d.)

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Gen. Tech. Report WO-82b

September 2009

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection iii

Contents

Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................v

General Summary ..............................................................................................................vi

Introduction Electronic Data Forms Historical Context for Monitoring Forest Soils Soil Disturbance Why Use Visual Classes?

Current Forest Soil Needs Key Concepts

Relationship to Other Federal Inventory and Monitoring Programs Programs in Other Federal Agencies

Changes to the Current Protocol (Change Management)

Determining the Type of Transect To Use

Stratifying an Activity Area If the Unit Is Large The Number of Activity Areas To Monitor

Unique Monitoring Strategies Wildfire Prescribed Fire or Burn Piles Unburned Slash Piles Landings, Temporary Roads, and System Roads Root Ball or Bole of “Tip-Up”

Spreadsheet Forms Paper Field Form Portable Data Recorder and Electronic Field Form Field Data Collection—Standards and Methods

Filling in the Worksheets Data To Collect in the Office Selecting Indicators Monitoring Objectives Step-by-Step Field Survey Method

Baseline (Preactivity) Assessment Postactivity Assessment

Interpreting the Results iv Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Definitions of Attributes and Indicators Site Attributes

Soil Texture Veget Soil[Vol2].pdf ation Soil Structure Activity Area History

Soil Indicators Machine Traffic Disturbances Displacement Point Attributes Erosion Prescribed Fire and Pile Burning

Assigning a Disturbance Class

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Glossary

Literature Cited

Appendix A. Options for Monitoring Point Layout

Appendix B. Statistical Background of the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Appendix C. Examples of Worksheets Contained in the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Spreadsheet

Appendix C-1. Example Worksheet for Collecting Soil Disturbance Monitoring Data (SoLo Info)

Appendix C-2. Example Worksheet for Collecting Soil Disturbance Monitoring Results (Variable Selection)

Appendix C-3. Example Worksheet for Collecting Soil Disturbance Monitoring Results (Data Entry)

Appendix C-4. Example Worksheet for Collecting Soil Disturbance Monitoring Results (Results)

Appendix D. Paper Field Form and Tables for Determining Sample Size

Appendix D-1. Example of Paper Field Form

Appendix D-2. Determining Sample Size With a Margin of Error at ±5 Percent

Appendix D-3. Determining Sample Size With a Margin of Error at ±10 Percent

Appendix E. Example of a Form Used To Document Past Soil

Disturbance in an Activity Area

Appendix F. Technical Specifications of Portable Data Recorders

Appendix G. Core Site Descriptors for Each Activity Area

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection v

Acknowledgments

The monitoring approach and methods in volume I and volume II are the result of exten-sive collaboration between the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture National

Forest System and Research and Development. The Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Research Station in cooperation with the Northern Region led the effort. Although the development of this protocol has been guided by suggestions from a large number of regional soil program leaders, forest soil scientists, research soil scientists, university professors, and British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range soil scientists, we par-ticularly want to acknowledge the input and guidance from Sharon DeHart1, Sue Farley2, and Randy Davis3. Countless reviewers, workshop participants, students, and technicians have tested this protocol and offered input on how to make it more user friendly. Their input has been extraordinarily beneficial.

1 Former Soil Program Leader, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

2 Forest Soil Scientist, Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

3 National Soil Program Leader, Washington Office, Washington, DC.

vi Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

General Summary

This document—Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection— defines the science, statistical methods, and data storage components of a national Forest

Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. This technical guide provides the basis for a consistent method with common definitions to produce high-quality data that land managers can access and use for decisionmaking. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I: Rapid

Assessment, can be used to estimate forest management effects on the soil resource.

Information gathered using this protocol can easily be conveyed to and used by the general public to describe soil disturbance classes before and after management. Volume III:

Scientific Background for Soil Monitoring on National Forests and Rangelands, includes state-of-the-science papers from the proceedings of a workshop.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 1

Introduction

Volume I and volume II of the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) provide information for a wide range of users, including technicians, field crew leaders, private landowners, land managers, forest professionals, and researchers. Volume I: Rapid

Assessment includes the basic methods for establishing forest soil monitoring transects and consistently monitoring forest sites before and after ground disturbing management activities for physical attributes that could influence site resilience and long-term sustain-ability. Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection provides more details on the protocol, the historical context of forest soil monitoring, the use of statistics in forest soil monitoring, and interpretation.

Electronic Data Forms

As we improve the protocol, we periodically update the electronic data forms, which users can download from http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/monitoring/forms/.

A database is being developed for storage of data collected using the FSDMP. Data recorded on the electronic field forms will be converted to database format and imported into the national FSDMP database when it becomes available. In the interim, the data should be kept locally and/or on regional servers.

Initially, the national FSDMP database will combine the features of two existing products—the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Northern Region

SoLo database and Southern Region ONSITE disturbance calculator—and will ultimately be linked to or integrated with the Natural Resource Information System.

SoLo is an online report filing system on the Northern Region computer system. It is accessible only on the Forest Service secure intranet (fsweb) and features user profile management, a secure login, keyword search capability, a data input interface, and data summary and export functions. The input interface is in seven parts: site identification, site location, site characteristics, site history, current activity and effects, summary/ conclusions, and administrative information.

ONSITE is a Microsoft® Access® database that is distributable on compact disc (CD) in either a user or an administrator version. It is designed for recording large areas of disturbance in an activity area. Within the database are forms to record site identification, location, physical characteristics, and soil disturbance types (loss/movement, alteration, fire) by area affected, plus a “Tally Sheet” that will calculate area based on the shape of the disturbance (circle, oval, rectangle, or triangle).

2 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Historical Context for Monitoring Forest Soils

Although many definitions describe what soil quality is, or should be, on public lands in the United States, maintenance of soil productive capacity is a common objective.

Maintaining soil productivity and quality on National Forest System land is governed by the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1969, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of

1976. The important role of soil productivity to sustainable forestry is clear, but which soil properties to monitor as indicators of forest sustainability are not so clear (Burger and

Kelting 1998, Page-Dumroese et al. 2000, Staddon et al. 1999).

The challenge has been the development of meaningful soil quality standards to evaluate the full range of variability found in forest soils (Page-Dumroese et al. 2000). Many forest soils are resilient to management activities (e.g., timber harvests, hazardous fuel reductions, prescribed fire, and site preparation), while others are at risk of losing the productive capacity after vegetation management because of limitations in the inherent soil properties (e.g., shallow forest floor or thin mineral mantles over bedrock [Burger and Kelting 1999]). Therefore, establishing monitoring variables and protocols that are practical to use, give meaningful information over a wide range of sites, and provide a benchmark for evaluating soil change is critical (Page-Dumroese et al. 2000). Adequate baseline assessments of important site-specific properties such as forest floor depth, soil cover, and so on will help make accurate and realistic projections of potential site changes from management activities. NFMA (and related legislation) required the United States

Secretary of Agriculture to ensure, through research and monitoring, that the national for-ests be managed to protect the permanent productivity of the land (USDA Forest Service

1983). The Forest Service established the first approximation of working soil quality stan-dards throughout the Federal regions (Page-Dumroese et al. 2000, Powers et al. 1998).

The first approximation standards were meant as monitoring tools that were presumed to reflect site potential and to mark thresholds for significantly impaired productivity.

The Forest Service program of the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity

(LTSP) program was built on the principle that, within the constraints of climate, a site’s productive capacity is governed strongly by physical, chemical, and biological processes affected readily by management. The fundamental properties of soil porosity and site organic matter govern a site’s response to management by their roles in water and gas exchange, rooting restrictions, microbial activity, soil aggregate stability, and overall resource availability (Powers et al. 2005). These LTSP sites are now 15 years old and are beginning to reach crown closure. Numerous research papers have been published

(e.g., Busse et al. 2006; Fleming et al. 2006; Page-Dumroese et al. 2006a; Sanchez et al.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 3

2006) detailing changes in site processes and tree growth. The LTSP study provides the calibrations to link the soil disturbances described within this document with changes in potential productivity.

Soil Disturbance

Soil quality is a moving target and our ideas of what it is and how to measure it have evolved over the years. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured directly (Powers et al.

1998). The conundrum is to define the functional elements of soil that sustain biological productivity and to identify soil quality indicators of these functions (Powers et al. 1998).

Useful indicators must be sensitive to variations in climate and management; integrate soil physical, chemical, and biological properties; and be practical and useable by a variety of disciplines. Therefore, defining the functional elements of soil that sustain bio-logical productivity and identifying indicators of those properties are key to the success of monitoring. Useful indicators have been proposed for agricultural systems that have less spatial variability and more management intensity (Doran and Parkin 1994, Larson and Pierce 1994, Warkentin 1995) than are commonly found in forest soils (Burger and

Kelting 1998). Because the processes and properties of forest soils are more varied and less well understood, a detailed, intensive approach (Doran and Parkin 1994) is probably not justified for monitoring forest soil quality extensively in the United States (Burger and

Kelting 1998, Powers et al. 1998).

Soil disturbance in forested ecosystems most commonly occurs from ground-based harvest and site preparation (mechanical and fire) activities, but it can also occur as sheet or rill erosion. After a review of the apparent evidence that soil productivity has declined under forest management (Morris and Miller 1994, Powers et al. 1990), changes in soil physical properties and organic matter content were noted as two factors that could alter soil quality, by changing the ability of roots to support leaf mass and primary productivity

(Powers et al. 1998).

The effects of soil disturbance on soil productivity, soil quality, or site hydrologic func-tion are dependent on the degree, extent, distribution, and duration of the effects (Clayton et al. 1987, Craigg and Howes 2007, Froehlich 1976, Snider and Miller 1985).

The degree and duration of soil disturbance effects are largely determined by inherent soil properties, such as texture, coarse-fragment content, or organic matter content. Extent, distribution, and, in some instances, degree of soil disturbance can be controlled by management constraints, such as changing the season of operation, spacing of skid roads, or the number of equipment passes.

Soil Disturbance Effects on Productivity Are

Determined by…

Degree refers to the amount of change in any one particular property (bulk density, porosity, etc.)

and the depth of change into the soil profile.

Extent refers to the amount of land surface affected by the disturbance (usually expressed as a percentage).

Distribution of soil disturbance within a management area can either be relatively evenly dispersed throughout the unit in small polygons or be concentrated in one (or more) larger feature(s).

Duration is the length of time disturbance effects persist.

4 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

To monitor and quantify changes in soil properties that could have potentially detrimental effects on site productivity or hydrologic function, we need a consistent method to assess and report soil disturbance that occurs as a result of management activities. Simply stat-ing that a single threshold beyond which detrimental soil conditions are thought to exist is neither practical nor desirable (Craigg and Howes 2007). Forest managers do not wish to degrade soil productivity or cause impaired watershed function, and they should not be unnecessarily limited in management opportunities (Craigg and Howes 2007).

The soil disturbance classification system described in this volume provides technical direction to enable effective communication of results to specialists and the public. It also provides for a comparison of operational results from one site to another.

Our objectives for this volume are to recommend common terms for describing forest soil disturbance, detail a statistically sound technique for applying visual classes for routine forest soil monitoring, and provide reliable methods for classifying the effects of management.

Why Use Visual Classes?

Forest management activities all have the potential to create soil disturbances. Some soil disturbance may be beneficial if it is planned and conducted under suitable soil conditions by the proper equipment. The removal of forest floor material, displacement of the mineral soil, compaction, puddling, erosion, and high burn severity, however, can have potentially negative effects on site productivity and hydrologic responses. The Forest Service must be able to manage soil disturbance in order to maintain sustainable production of natural resources (Craigg and Howes 2007).

Describing or defining soil disturbance in terms of variables such as soil strength, pore space, or bulk density makes assessing soil changes resulting from management activities difficult and expensive. Soil variability and variation in the pattern of equipment operations or burning activities further complicates assessments. Other factors such as climate (both macro- and micro-), vegetation management practices, genetics, and distribution of haz-ardous fuels can affect the extent and degree of soil disturbance and subsequent effects on site productivity. In addition, several forms of disturbance can occur in one location, adding to the complexity of the assessments. For example, forest floor removal, mineral soil displacement, and compaction often occur in the same location. In most forest soils, bulk density (the measure of compaction) increases with increasing depth. In soils where the topsoil has been displaced, the natural increase in bulk density could be confused with compaction.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 5

One way to simplify and standardize soil disturbance assessments is to use visual classes to describe the degree of change from natural or preactivity conditions to those resulting from management activities. Soil disturbance visual classes also enable soil scientists to more easily communicate desired soil conditions and display effects to members of the public, contract administrators, and other resource specialists. Soil disturbance occurs in a continuum over the landscape and the visual disturbance class method enables an observer to divide the continuum into meaningful, describable, repeatable segments.

Regardless of which soil indicators are ultimately selected, they should be comparable to an available baseline, be timely, be applicable over a large area, and be inexpensive and easy to use (Burger and Kelting 1999). They should also provide an effective means for communicating the effects of land management on soil resilience and productivity.

Visual classes have been used by a variety of public and private entities (e.g., Block et al.

2002, Craigg and Howes 2007, Curran et al. 2005, Heninger et al. 2002, Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b) for the assessment of change in soil disturbance from preactivity to post-activity. Visual classes offer a method to efficiently and consistently gather information about soil disturbance. Curran et al. (2007) report that visual disturbance categories pro-vide a practical method for describing soil disturbances in a forested setting. Several soil scientists in the western United States (e.g., Craigg and Howes 2007, Curran et al. 2005, Curran et al. 2007, Heninger et al. 2002, Howes et al. 1983, Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b) have conducted research on using visual indicators. The previous authors of visual indica-tor research provide additional background information on the visual indicators used in the FSDMP (table 1). Selection of these indicators is based on several field seasons of research and testing across the forested United States and collaborative work with the

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range and published literature.

Forest floor impacted

Forest floor material includes all organic horizons above the mineral soil surface.

Topsoil displacement

The surface mineral soil primarily includes the A horizons, but if the A horizon is shallow or undeveloped, it may include other horizons. This disturbance is usually due to machinery but does not include “rutting” described below.

Rutting Ruts vary in depth but are primarily the result of equipment movement. Ruts are defined as machine-generated soil displacement or compression. Often soil puddling is also present within the rut.

Burning (light, moderate, severe)

Burn severity includes only effects on the forest floor and mineral soil, not on above-ground vegetation.

Compaction Compaction by equipment results in either a compression of the soil profile or increased resistance to penetration.

Platy structure/ massive/puddled

Platy or tabular structure in the mineral soil. Massive soil indicates no structural units are present and soil material is a coherent mass. Puddled soil is often found after wet weather harvest operations. Soil pores are usually smeared and prevent water infiltration.

Table 1.—Visual indicators and their definitions.

6 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

In this FSDMP, disturbance classes (table 2) are used as a proxy to determine whether observed soil disturbances could be considered detrimental to soil productivity or hydrologic function. Ideally, validation of vegetative response or changes in hydrologic function will occur for various soil types, logging practices, and forest types. After a soil disturbance class is determined at each sample point within an activity area, the informa-tion can then be aggregated to calculate how much detrimental soil disturbance exists in an activity area and what the amount and distribution of detrimental soil disturbance could mean for long-term productivity.

Soil disturbance class 0

Soil surface:

• No evidence of compaction; i.e., past equipment operation, ruts, skid trails.

may be present.

Table 2.—Soil disturbance classes used in the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Soil disturbance classes increase in severity of impact from class 0 to class 3.

* Accessory items are those descriptors that may help identify individual severity classes.

Soil disturbance class 2

Soil surface:

deeply charred or consumed. Surface-soil water repellency increased compared with the preburn condition.

Soil compaction:

• Increased compaction is present from 10 to 30 cm deep.

Observation of soil physical condition:

fine and medium roots may not.

• Erosion is moderate.

Soil disturbance class 1

Soil surface:

• Faint wheel tracks or slight depressions evident and are <5 cm deep.

with subsoil.

• Burning light: Depth of char <1 cm. Accessory*: Litter charred or consumed. Duff largely intact. Water repellency is similar to preburn conditions.

Soil compaction:

• Compaction in the surface soil is slightly greater than observed under natural conditions.

• Concentrated from 0 to 10 cm deep.

Observations of soil physical conditions:

• Erosion is slight.

Soil disturbance class 3

Soil surface:

• Burning severe: Depth of char is >5 cm. Accessory*: Duff and litter layer completely consumed. Surface soil is water repellent.

Surface is reddish or orange in places.

Soil compaction:

• Increased compaction is deep in the soil profile (>30 cm deep).

Observations of soil physical conditions:

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 7

Current Forest Soil Needs

The FSDMP was developed in response to a growing need for a common understanding of soil disturbance monitoring in forested settings. The protocol is designed to meet a wide range of needs, including project-level implementation or effects monitoring. The

FSDMP is a rapid assessment tool that is easy to implement and is usable at different scales and intensities. In addition, because it is used in a consistent manner, data can be aggregated. The FSDMP was developed to address vegetation management effects to soil quality in forested ecosystems. Other monitoring protocols, such as the Monitoring

Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosystems (Herrick et al. 2005), are more appropriate for assessing the effects of management to soils supporting shrubland and grassland ecosystems.

Key Concepts

The FSDMP is meant to be a rapid assessment of preactivity and postactivity soil disturbance that provides a consistent and repeatable method to describe visual physical soil indicators. It is intended for use by field soil scientists and watershed specialists, with broad application for other disciplines. Field soil scientists and managers can predeter-mine the types of information they need as they plan activities that cause soil disturbance and the subsequent need for monitoring projects. This protocol also offers an opportunity to consider what kinds of decisions will need to be made, how information will be used, what need exists for highly precise information (risk), and how much the monitoring effort will cost (Howes 2006).

For use in forested settings, this monitoring protocol assesses soil surface disturbance.

The protocol can be used to monitor preactivity and postactivity area disturbance and was designed to be flexible enough to be used following a variety of forest management practices on the full range of soil types. Some changes (such as compaction and rutting), however, are linked to an increase in that property at depth. Numerous equipment trips or deep ruts are often evidence of deep soil compaction, but not always. A shovel or metal probe may be needed to determine the actual depth of compaction.

Sampling protocols similar to this have been used in Forest Service Regions 1 and 6 for both research and operational studies. They have been used to monitor the effects of soil compaction on initial height growth of ponderosa pine (Cochran and Brock 1985), the effect of feller-bunchers on soil disturbance (Laing and Howes 1988), and the effect of tractor yarding and machine piling on 24 timber sales (Sullivan 1987) and to determine the effects of wildfire and salvage logging on soil disturbance on all the national forests

Rapid Assessment

The FSDMP provides for a variety of alternatives to suit the monitoring objective. You can—

1. Vary the intensity of sampling by changing the confidence level,

2. Vary the number of soil attributes used for calculating sample size, and/or

3. Use ONSITE to calcu-late the areal extent of large features.

8 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol in the Forest Service Northern Region (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b). In addition, similar visual class systems are being used in British Columbia (Curran et al. 2005) and Saskatch-ewan (Block et al. 2002). Information gathered from these monitoring efforts can be used to adjust harvest and site preparation practices (Howes 2006).

Because the results of management activities on soil productivity vary by soil type (Fleming et al. 2006, Gomez et al. 2002, Page-Dumroese et al. 2000, Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b, Powers et al. 2005), this document does not prescribe any disturbance class as detrimental disturbance. The FSDMP establishes a standard inventory, monitoring, and assessment tool.

In addition, it provides common terms. Storing data in the SoLo database (see appendix C for a description of the FSDMPSoLo monitoring worksheets) will allow for consistent data interpretation at local, regional, and national levels and will facilitate data sharing.

Monitoring results can also help determine if current Forest Service Regional Soil Quality

Standards are being met.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 9

Relationship to Other Federal Inventory and Monitoring Programs This volume of the FSDMP presents a protocol for field measurement of physical soil disturbance. The protocol is for site-specific analysis of management-induced soil dis-turbance in an activity area (e.g., a harvest unit or prescribed burn). This protocol differs from other Forest Service or other Federal agency monitoring programs because it is designed to collect site-specific data at the project level.

Programs in Other Federal Agencies

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national soil survey pro-gram. This program is a mid-scale soil mapping and characterization project that informs field soil scientists as they plan their workload for site-specific forest management proj-ects. Nationwide, many national forests have or are working toward having a soil survey completed for the forest, excluding wilderness areas.

10 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Changes to the Current Protocol (Change Management) Volumes I and II, which detail the FSDMP, are dynamic documents; changes to the outlined protocol are inevitable as sites are monitored and data are analyzed. Changes to the protocol must be carefully considered, however, so that the objective of having a consistent approach to obtaining physical soil data is met. New science related to soil monitoring or management effects may initiate a review and suggest changes to this protocol. Changes to the FSDMP can also be initiated from the field, but they must be subject to peer and research review. In addition, collaborations with industry, private, tribal, and international land management organizations could lead to the development of other soil disturbance monitoring and conservation procedures. These collaborations will allow for continuous evolution of best management practices, enable coordinated devel-opment of training and tools, facilitate reporting, and enhance the exchange of research results (Curran et al. 2005).

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 11

Determining the Type of Transect To Use

Transects can be positioned in a variety of ways within the activity area. Three examples are outlined in appendix A.

12 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Stratifying an Activity Area

As outlined in volume I, many monitoring strategies are available. Because of site vari-ability, it can be useful in some cases to stratify an activity area to increase monitoring efficiency and to provide better estimators when there are discrete areas of homogeneous disturbance. For example, disturbance may be confined to one area or it could be dis-persed across the entire activity area. Stratifying an activity area may help improve both the accuracy and precision by finding the most efficient monitoring polygons. Monitoring efficiency is defined as resulting in lower variability estimates than would have been achieved without stratification.

If the Unit Is Large

It may not be feasible to monitor a large activity area (100 ha (~250 acres or more) in its entirety. As noted in the following text, however, a large area can be stratified into more discrete units to make monitoring more efficient. Use the following options as a guide to help determine the most appropriate monitoring strategy.

Complete a rapid assessment of the entire activity area and take a • minimum of 30 sample points. This option is recommended if the activity area is uniform relative to the soils, vegetation, slope, and aspect.

If the activity area is not uniform ecologically or in terms of disturbance (e.g., • different habitat types, sensitive soils, log decks, skid trails), it is recommended to stratify the sample. Stratification will allow for detailed monitoring on areas that have had previous entry; have mechanical, ground-based equipment off system roads; or are ecologically sensitive. As long as the point samples are collected at random or systematically (see appendix A for options on how to lay out sample points) and are based on the established protocols, the statistics of this subsample will be valid. The key is to document what was monitored and why.

Activity areas may not need a large number of sample points if the amount of variability is low. The number of monitoring points needed depends only on the variability within the activity area and not on its size. Validation monitoring completed in the Northern

Region suggests that sample points spaced ~20 m (~65 ft) apart were close enough to determine the variability within activity areas that were ~50 ha (~125 acres) in size

(Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b).

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 13

The Number of Activity Areas To Monitor

It is important to consider how the data are going to be used, what the soil disturbance risk is, and what the variability of the individual activity area and analysis area are when determining how many areas to monitor. Use the FSDMP on enough activity areas within an analysis area so it is possible to interpret ratings for existing and detrimental disturbance and for mitigations, monitoring, or restoration prescriptions. If past monitor-ing or research demonstrates that similar activities, under similar climatic conditions and management, have resulted in disturbance levels well within the accepted maximum, then it is sufficient to visit the site and confirm that this is a typical activity area.

14 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Unique Monitoring Strategies

Monitoring points may fall on unusual features such as on large boulders, in down wood, under fallen trees or “tip-ups,” on stumps, within bushes, and in stream beds. If such monitoring points occur, you can offset a small distance from the transect line. Plan before you leave the office for what rules you will use to offset from unusual features.

For instance, you may want to decide that offsetting 1 m (3 ft) west from any feature is appropriate, or you may decide that if a point falls on an unusual feature, it will be listed as “did not count.” Because the FSDMP assesses soil surface condition, it is important to note what the soil surface is. If you cannot assess the disturbance at or near a point because of obstacles (rocks, downed wood, stumps, etc.), record the presence of the obstacle(s), but then indicate “did not count” in the comment field and exclude that point from the data analysis by entering a period (.) in the cell for each indicator. Do not record either a “1” (present) or a “0” (absent) for any indicator at that point and do not leave a blank space. Keep in mind, however, that on some sites it is “normal” to have a larger number of surface rocks. If this condition is the case, a monitoring point falling on this feature should be counted.

Wildfire

Wildfires are not assessed with this protocol. This protocol is designed to describe land management activity effects to the soil resource.

Prescribed Fire or Burn Piles

The effect of these management activities is considered in the FSDMP. These types of burns may or may not be detrimental to subsequent vegetative growth. Guidelines for assessing prescribed burn intensity are contained in the disturbance class definitions

(table 3).

Disturbance type

Severity class

0 1 2 3

Equipment impacts

Past operation None. Dispersed. Faint. Obvious.

Wheel tracks or depressions

None. Faint wheel tracks or slight depressions evident (<5 cm deep).

Wheel tracks or depressions are >5 cm deep.

Wheel tracks or depressions highly evident with a depth being >10 cm.

Table 3.—Examples of soil visual indicators and management activities. (1 of 2)

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 15

Disturbance type

Severity class

0 1 2 3

Table 3.—Examples of soil visual indicators and management activities. (2 of 2)

Equipment trails from more than two passes

None. Faintly evident. Evident, but not heavily trafficked.

Main trails that are heavily used.

Excavated and bladed trails1

None. None. None. Present.

Penetration and resistance2

Natural conditions.

Resistance of surface soils may be slightly greater than observed under natural conditions.

Increased resistance is concentrated in the surface (10 cm).

Increased resistance is present throughout the top 30 cm of soil.

Increased resistance is deep into the soil profile (>30 cm).

Soil structure Natural conditions.

Change in soil structure from crumb or granular structure to massive or platy structure in the surface (10 cm).

Change in soil structure

structure is generally continuous. On older sites, large roots may penetrate the platy structure, but fine and medium roots may not.

Change in soil structure extends beyond the top

continuous. On older sites, roots do not penetrate the platy structure.

Displacement

Forest floor None. Forest floor layers present and intact.

Forest floor layers partially intact or missing.

Forest floor layers missing.

Mineral soil None. Soil surface has not been displaced and shows minimal mixing with subsoil.

Mineral topsoil partially intact and may be mixed with subsoil.

Evidence of topsoil removal, gouging, and piling. Soil displacement has removed most of the surface soil. Surface soil may be mixed with subsoil or subsoil may be partially or totally exposed.

Erosion None. Slight erosion evident (i.e., sheet erosion3).

Moderate amount of erosion evident (i.e., sheet and rill erosion3).

Substantial amount of erosion evident.

Gullies, pedestals, and rills noticeable.

Burning None. Fire impacts are light. Forest floor is charred but intact.

Gray ash becomes inconspicuous and surface appears lightly charred to black.

Soil surface structure intact.

Fire impacts are moderate. Litter layer is consumed and humus layer is charred or consumed. Mineral soil not visibly altered, but soil organic matter (OM) has been partially charred.

Fire impacts are deep.

The entire forest floor is consumed and top layer of mineral soil is visibly altered. Surface mineral structure and texture are altered.

Mineral soil is black due to charred or deposited OM or is orange from burning.

1 Evaluate on main trails but not necessarily for wheel tracks or depressions.

2 Soil resistance to penetration with a tile spade or probe is best done when the soil is not moist or wet.

3 USDA NRCS (1993).

16 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Unburned Slash Piles

Unburned or partially burned slash piles can be found on former landings, on skid roads, or in the previously harvested activity area. When these features are on landings or skid roads, they should be assessed as part of those structures because the underlying soil will probably be similar to the surrounding affected area. Similarly, if an old slash pile is located in the harvest activity area, it is likely that the soil beneath the pile could be affected to the same degree as the surrounding soil. It is often difficult to examine the soil beneath some slash piles, however, so if an inference is made about the soil beneath the slash pile from the surrounding soil, a note should be made in the comments. If a confident prediction cannot be made about the soil under a slash pile, then indicate “did not count” on the Data entry worksheet (see appendix C-3).

Landings, Temporary Roads, and System Roads

System roads generally are not included in the activity area. System roads are part of the permanent transportation system and the land has been removed from the productive land base.

Landings and temporary roads that are outside the activity area are not included. •

Landings and temporary roads usually limit vegetative growth by their very nature.

If desired during monitoring, an acreage (length times average width based on a traverse study, aerial photo, or ONSITE worksheet) of these features can be kept if needed for existing condition, project effects, and cumulative effects discussions.

Landings and temporary roads that are inside the activity area are counted and • contribute to the amount of disturbance within an activity area. In addition to recording the disturbance class of these features, acreage (length times average width based on a traverse study, aerial photo, or similar method) of these features can be recorded to describe the existing condition, project effects, and cumulative effects.

Root Ball or Bole of a “Tip-Up”

If a monitoring point lands on the root ball or bole of a fallen tree, it is counted as coarse wood with a remark in the comment section stating “roots of fallen tree” or “tip-up.” If the reason for the tree tip can be determined, it should be noted. If the tree tip can be associated to human activity and a monitoring point falls on it, then that point is assigned a disturbance class based on what is observed immediately adjacent to the monitoring point. If the tree tip is not associated with human activity, the monitoring point is assigned class 0.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 17

Examples of the four electronic worksheets used for the FSDMP are shown in appendix C

(SoLo Info, Variable Selection, Data Entry, Results) and we provide an Attachment work-sheet for uploading maps, photos, or other important site information (form not shown).

As we endeavor to improve these methods, these worksheets may change. Check the fol-lowing Web site for the most recent version before starting work in the field: http://forest.

moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/InfoPath/monitoring/documents.php (look in the “FORMS” section). The worksheets were designed so forest soil monitoring consistently evaluates a standard set of soil disturbance indicators; this is the rationale behind having to fill out each column completely before moving on to the next monitoring point. Do not modify the field form; the field form was also designed to make data entry into the electronic database quick and easy. Storing the data in an electronic database is part of the FSDMP.

Paper Field Form

Field data can be collected on paper field forms and then transferred into the electronic spreadsheet. Do not modify any of the worksheets within the spreadsheet as they will directly link to the electronic database. You can select the soil attributes you need, but do not change any of the fields. All data collected, whether on paper or electronic forms, should be entered into the FSDMPSoLo database.

When using the paper field form, use the sample size table (see appendix D for both the paper field form and the sample size tables) must also be used. Users should stop at the end of the first 30 monitoring points and calculate the proportion of disturbed points within the first 30 by adding the number of “1s” entered and then dividing by 30 (see appendix B for the statistics behind the FSDMP). This proportion is p̂ and should be entered in the column labeled visual class proportions. The visual class proportion must then be located in the sample size table along with the associated sample size. Determin-ing the sample size can be done for each indicator variable in the Data Entry form (see appendix C-3) or for the indicator that is the primary concern. Of primary interest are the most commonly occurring indicators. After the sample size is determined for each indica-tor variable, the largest sample size from the list of monitoring attributes should be used for the activity area sample size. An exception to this rule could occur if a single indicator variable is more variable than all the others, resulting in one sample size being much greater than all the rest (where “much greater” is defined as being more than 1.5 times the sample size of the next lower sample size) and the professional judgment of the observer is such that the indicator variable in question is not representative of the activity area and/

Spreadsheet Forms

18 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol or a concern on that soil type. In this case, the next lower sample size should be selected and a thorough explanation must be made in the comments.

It should be noted that the sample sizes calculated from the first 30 points are likely to be different from those calculated from a greater number; varying the intensity of the sample

(lowering the confidence interval) may reduce the total number of sample points needed.

The observer is free to choose some number higher than 30 for the first set, which may be more efficient if it initially appears that the soil disturbance within an activity is highly variable. The observer can also recalculate the sample size a second time if the initial sample size is quite large.

Portable Data Recorder and Electronic Field Form

It is recommended that all data be entered into an electronic database that is searchable by any ecological state, location, characteristic, or activity. To use the electronic Data Entry worksheet (see appendix C-3) in a portable data recorder (PDR) (see appendix F), the user must enter the confidence level. Although the full range of confidence levels is avail-able (from 70 percent to 90 percent), each site should be assessed individually to select the best one. All columns for data entry must be filled in. Do not leave blanks within the form, or the sample sizes and confidence intervals will be incorrect. We recommend filling out the columns for each sample point as the point is actually observed. If a point is not observable, fill in the column for that point with periods (.) and document the reason why the point “did not count” (see the Unique Monitoring Strategies section for defini-tions). DO NOT FILL IN THESE POINTS WITH ZEROS.

The electronic spreadsheet (on the Data Entry worksheet; see appendix C-3) calculates sample size and confidence intervals automatically and updates each additional monitor-ing point (on the Results worksheet; see appendix C-4); however, until the first 30 monitoring points are entered, the values for sample size are preset to 30 and confidence intervals are invalid. It is important to note that if the worksheet is prefilled with zeros, the sample sizes and confidence intervals are likely to reflect an inaccurately low level of variability and are likely to be incorrect.

The required sample size shown on the electronic spreadsheet is the largest of the sample sizes calculated for the individual indicator variables. The individual sample sizes can be seen by changing to the Results worksheet (see appendix C-4). If the required sample is more than 1.5 times larger than the next lower sample size and the professional judgment of the observer is that the indicator variable is an anomaly within the activity area, the next lower sample size can be chosen and a thorough explanation made in the comments.

Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection 19

Field Data Collection—Standards and Methods

The core soil disturbance indicators (table 1) should be collected at each monitoring point, but the user has the ability to “turn off” soil indicators (changing the number of indicators) that do not pertain to the project area being monitored (see Variable Selection worksheet, appendix C-2). After the soil indicator data have been collected, additional data can also be collected using other published protocols (e.g., bulk density or soil hydrophobicity). When using other protocols, document what they are and on which sites they were used.

20 Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol

Filling in the Worksheets

Data To Collect in the Office

Before beginning a field evaluation of soil disturbance on an activity area, available exist-ing information sources should be studied and applicable information should be recorded the SoLo Info worksheet (see appendix C-1) and additional information on these site descriptors can be found in appendix G. Time spent in the office gathering information before field sampling and determining the kind of transect, the number of points, and the indicators needed can reduce field time and monitoring costs.

In general, the following steps should be followed before going in the field:

1. Consult the most current subsection map (McNab et al. 2007) and available landtype association maps for general site characteristics. The SoLo database may require some of this information, which can help stratify the area for sampling. It is important to note, however, that such broad-scale maps are not appropriate for the more detailed site information needed to assess soil quality.

2. Consult available soil surveys and terrestrial ecological unit inventories (TEUIs) for more detailed site information and for the description and morphology of the soils that occur in the project area.