Att4C_R9_Soil_Quality_Standards.doc

2509.18, 2

R9 RO Supplement

EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/23/2005

DURATION: Effective until superseded or removed 2509.18, 2

FSH 2509.18 – Soil Management

Chapter 2 – Soil Quality monitoring

Forest Service handbook

Eastern Region (R9)

Milwaukee, WI fsh 2509.18 – soil management chapteR 2 – soil quality monitoring

Supplement No.: R9RO 2509.18-2005-1

Effective Date: February 23, 2005 Duration: This supplement is effective until superseded or removed.

Approved: Randy Moore

Regional Forester Date Approved: 2/23/2005

Posting Instructions: Supplements are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this supplement. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last supplement to this Handbook was ID 2509.18-2002-1 (exp. 6/20/2004) to Chapter 2 New Document

Superseded Document(s)

Digest: In order by code, summarize the main additions or revisions of direction in this interim directive.

2.02 - Describes the objectives of the Regional Soil Program

2.04a - Outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Regional Soils Program Manager.

2.04b - Outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Supervisor.

2.04c - Outlines the roles and responsibilities of the District Ranger.

2.05 - Provides further definitions of commonly used terms in Soils Management.

2.2 - Provides the regional soil quality standards.

2.4 - provides guidance on the different soil quality monitoring methods.

2.02 – OBJECTIVES

1. To meet direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the National Environmental Policy Act and other legal mandates.

2. To conserve soil and water resources and prevent significant or permanent impairment of the land (36 CFR 219.27).

3. To maintain ecological sustainability and diversity.

4. To support the mission and goals of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004) and to apply the concepts described in the Forest Service Framework for Inventory and Monitoring (Powell 2000).

5. To maintain the ability of a soil to function within a broad ecosystem, where function includes producing plant biomass, storing carbon, bioremediating wastes, regulating water quality, quantity, and timing and supporting below ground fauna and flora (Burger and Kelting 1999).

6. To maintain or restore soil conditions which reflect inherent soil and related ecological characteristics and processes to the degree practicable.

7. To establish threshold values for soil property changes that signal early warning of long-term loss of soil, land productivity, and/or ecological function.

8. To be responsive to the Montreal Process’s Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Dec. 1999), specifically the indicators under the following criteria: 3) Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality and 4) Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources. (Information can be found at their website www.mpci.org)

9. Integrate the maintenance and/or restoration of inherent soil quality and function into management plans and alternatives.

2.03 – POLICY

Application of soil quality standards provides an opportunity to prevent or mitigate long-term losses in inherent soil productivity and function. Although they encourage restoration of impaired areas, a preventative approach is preferred.

Application of these standards requires professional soil scientist oversight and expertise.

Soil quality standards are subject to revision in response to new scientific information and monitoring results.

Soil quality effectiveness and validation monitoring may be coordinated on a ecological unit basis to ensure appropriate and cost-effective extrapolation of monitoring results (e.g., within ecological provinces.)

2.04 – RESPONSIBILITY

2.04a – Regional Forester

Soils program management; coordination and technical guidance are the responsibility of the Regional Soils Program Manager.

The Regional Soils Program Manager shall:

1. Develop and update Regional soil quality standards and monitoring protocols.

2. Ensure soil quality monitoring protocols and plans are technically adequate and compatible with Regional and National strategies.

3. Evaluate soil quality monitoring results for wider application and research implications.

4. Ensure Forest standards and guides and manual/handbook supplements are compatible with Regional standards and that they are appropriately consistent among Forests.

5. Collaborate with researchers to address soil quality validation monitoring needs identified in the Region and to improve efficiency of effectiveness monitoring.

6. Coordinate with the Southern Region to improve monitoring efficiency and avoid duplication of effort, particularly in the case of shared ecological provinces.

7. Coordinate the development of specific soil quality standards within ecological provinces as needed.

8. Support the mapping and characterization of soil inventories required for baseline data.

9. Collaborate with, and incorporate the findings of, other efforts assessing soil quality condition and trends. Such initiatives include Forest Inventory and Analysis Phase 3 soil data collection and the Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) process developed by the Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute.

2.04b – Forest Supervisors

1. Consider, and incorporate when appropriate, regional soil quality standards into the Forest Plan. Develop and implement forest-level soil quality standards when needed. Ensure that Desired Future Conditions are compatible with the maintenance of inherent soil quality and function.

2. Monitor the effectiveness of soil conservation practices and management prescriptions in meeting soil quality standards. Recommend changes as warranted by monitoring results.

3. Propose revised standards as needed based on soil characteristics. Coordinate with the Regional Office, Research and Development, other Forests and partners within an area having similar soil characteristics to ensure consistency.

4. Provide training in the application of soil quality standards and monitoring protocols.

5. Conduct Forest Plan soil quality related monitoring within the context of the Regional monitoring strategy.

6. Assist District Rangers with soil quality monitoring design and quality assurance. Project specific soil quality monitoring should be integrated with other related monitoring efforts to the degree possible. It should be a component of overall Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation effort where needed.

7. Map and characterize soil units required to establish soil quality monitoring baseline data.

2.04c – District Rangers

1. Consider the development of proposed actions are compatible with soil quality standards. Specify the appropriate measures, such as soil conservation practices, required to maintain or improve soil quality in environmental analysis and implementation documents.

2. Monitor and document the implementation of soil conservation practices incorporated into the project design. Where results are not satisfactory, consult with a soil scientist. Determine appropriate restoration measures and any management adjustments needed to prevent future problems.

2.05 - DEFINITIONS

1. Soil conservation practices are site specific actions prescribed to maintain or restore soil quality and function. They may be soil and water conservation practices formally adopted by the Forest Service or measures developed for a specific project.

2. Soil quality refers to the inherent capacity of a specific soil, as determined by its inherent physical, chemical and biological characteristics, to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and other ecological functions.

3. Ecological provinces are ecoregion scale ecological units that correspond to broad vegetation regions, which conform to climatic sub zones controlled primarily by continental weather patterns (Cleland et al. 1997).

4. Reduced soil quality results from activities/events that diminish the soils capacity to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and/or other ecological functions.

5. Impaired areas are activity areas (or distinct components of activity areas) that are so severely and extensively disturbed that the soil’s ability to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and other ecological functions is reduced. The soil cannot fully recover its inherent capacity or functionality within the planning horizon, or within the approximate time period required to establish the potential natural community, on the site without restoration efforts. Impairment is assumed to be highly probable when soil disturbance is severe and extensive enough that the soil quality standards discussed in 2.2 are not satisfied, unless mitigation or restoration is successfully implemented.

6. Soil quality indicators are physical, chemical and biological properties and processes that can be measured to monitor changes in the soil’s inherent capacity or functionality. For example, a 15 percent change in soil productivity is a value judged to be the smallest change detectable statistically at operational levels of monitoring (Powers et al. 1998).

7. Wetland and hydrologic function are referenced in this document as an aspect of soil function. It is dependent on the inherent capability of an soil unit to maintain water movement, storage, and quality.

2.2 – SOIL QUALITY STANDARDS

Soil quality standards are intended for application primarily at the land unit scale (i.e., soil map unit, land type and land type phase levels).

Soil quality standards are largely geared for areas of vegetation management (for example, individual timber sale harvest units, grazing allotments, and prescribed burn units), though they can be applied to other areas, such as dispersed recreation and wilderness.

The following diagram summarizes the Regional Soil Quality Standards for Detrimental Soil Conditions. Specific information follows in Exhibit 01.

Temporary roads used for vegetation management are included as areas evaluated for soil quality. System road and trails, on the other hand, and other administrative facilities within or adjacent to the activity area, are dedicated land uses and not considered detrimental soil conditions.

The Forests and the Grassland may retain or impose more restrictive standards and standards for soil quality than those presented here.

It is important to recognize that soil disturbance occurs naturally in response to fire, wind, biological activity, water, erosion, etc. and is an important ecological process in wildland ecosystems. The effects of soil disturbances vary depending on their nature, severity, extent and distribution and the ecological units affected.

Estimates of natural conditions, patterns, and processes are important considerations when defining a realistic range of desired soil conditions. The sustainability of soil conditions outside these parameters may not be achievable over broad spatial and temporal scales or may require substantial investments to maintain.

Impacts to soil quality are generally cumulative in nature over space and time. Soil quality may be affected by land management practices, natural disturbances, and unintended influences; such as infestation of non-native invasive plant and animal species, acid deposition, historic agricultural use, etc. All of these producers of detrimental soil conditions should be included in a cumulative evaluation of soil quality.

If effects analysis indicates that the soil quality standards are not met as a result of implementation of a specific management proposal, the alternative in question may be re-evaluated, mitigated or dropped from further consideration.

Minimize detrimental soil disturbance to the extent possible. Adhere to soil quality standards identified in land management plan direction. Lacking more specific forest direction, use 15%, or more, of a land unit scale area in detrimental soil condition as a standard for potentially detrimental soil disturbance.

Activity areas that fail to meet the Regional standards should be considered impaired. Such areas should be restored, if feasible, to an acceptable condition as funding and management priorities permit.

2.2 - Exhibit 01

Regional Soil Quality Standard Table

DETRIMENTAL SOIL CONDITIONS

The following standards apply to the seven specific categories of detrimental soil conditions. For the more broadly distributed categories of soils, detrimental condition indicators, measures, and measurement metrics may be refined and tested on a sub-regional basis. The affected administrative units may choose to refine indicators and metrics for important soils of limited distribution. The metrics listed below for the various detrimental soil conditions apply to the individual sample units within the activity area in question (one foot linear increments and any secondary plot, subplot or point data collected) and not to the soil condition of the activity area as a whole.

Detrimental soil conditions often result from current, or past, management activities. Improperly managed vegetation management activities can produce detrimental soil condition. Poorly designed engineering activities, such as road construction or maintenance, can produce detrimental soil conditions. Other agents, including natural disturbances such as wildfire, seismic activity, wildlife concentrations, and floods, as well as invasive plant or animal species, and atmospheric deposition may produce detrimental soil conditions by modifying vegetation, soil physical, chemical or biologic properties.

Detrimental soil conditions may result in long-term net loss of soil organic matter and impaired nutrient cycling. Displacement of soil material, erosion, and mass movement in particular can remove soil surface organic matter and nutrients from a site. The alteration of soil structure by soil compaction, puddling, and rutting can prevent access to nutrients and moisture by plant roots, as well as accelerate surface erosion.

Detrimental soil conditions may also alter soil air and moisture relationships as well as hydrologic functions. Compaction of soil material may reduce available water capacity (or in some course textured soil actually increase it), typically reduces infiltration and permeability, and increases run-off. Soil displacement, puddling, and rutting can alter the flow of surface water and may result in increased erosion. Loss of soil surface organic matter through displacement, erosion, or mass movement will typically reduce infiltration and the soil’s capacity to store moisture.

Loss of soil material from a site, through erosion or mass movement, may also result in off-site environmental impacts, in the form of sediment and nutrients which can pollute down-stream aquatic systems.

2.2 - Exhibit 01

Regional Soil Quality Standard Table

COMPACTION: Increased soil density (weight per unit volume) and strength that hampers root growth, reduces soil aeration and inhibits soil water movement. Measurements pertain to the critical surface layers that typically contain a high proportion of the soil’s organic matter and nutrients and or strongly affect water retention and movement in the soil.

Moderate – consistent quantitative measurements in relatively rock and root free soils

2.2 - Exhibit 01 Cont.

Regional Soil Quality Standard Table

Absolute root limiting values based on soil texture classes. These threshold values need to be field validated relative to their impact on soil structure and water movement as well as productivity.

Plant Growth. Bulk density is an indicator of how well plant roots are able to extend into the soil. Root restriction initiation and root limiting bulk densities are shown below for various family particle size classes.

Bulk Density (g cm-3)

Family Particle Size Classes

Restriction-initiation

Root-limiting

Sandy

1.69

>1.85

Loamy coarse-loamy

1.63

>1.80 fine-loamy

1.60

>1.78 coarse-silty

1.60

>1.79 fine-silty

1.54

>1.65

Clayey*

35-45% clay

1.49

> 1.58

> 45% clay

1.39

> 1.47

High – consistent quantitative measurements; can also be correlated with soil strength

DISPLACEMENT: Excessive mechanical relocation or removal of the surface mineral and or organic soil layers sufficient to reduce long-term productivity and biodiversity of soil dependent flora and fauna. Mixing of mineral and organic soil materials is not considered detrimental displacement. However, its effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

PUDDLING: This results from in alteration of soil structure severe enough to reduce the permeability and infiltration rate of the soil. Vehicle tracks are molded and typically have well defined berms. Puddling can be caused by foot, hoof and vehicle traffic.

RUTTING: This is a more extreme form of detrimental puddling. Soils with low bearing strength (such as clays and organic soils) and those with high water tables are particularly susceptible. The ruts are molded and typically have well defined berms. They disrupt soil structure and porosity, can adversely alter local groundwater hydrology and wetland function, and provide conduits for runoff. Rutting should be prevented and should be confined to less than 5% of an activity area.

BURNED: Undesirable soil physical, chemical and biological changes can result from longer duration intense fire exposure. Such disturbances often afflict areas where coarse woody fuel concentrations with ground contact burn.

ERODED: Rills, gullies, pedestals, and soil deposition are indicators of accelerated surface soil erosion. Accelerated erosion related to management activities can be prevented or minimized by controlling the amount, location, and duration of mineral soil exposure, thus avoiding concentrations of runoff and ensuring adequate revegetation. The distinction between a gully and a rill is one of depth. A gully is a consequence of water that cuts down into the soil along the line of flow. It is an obstacle to wheeled vehicles and is too deep to be obliterated by ordinary tillage. Rill erosion is the removal of soil through the cutting of many small, but conspicuous, channels where runoff concentrates. Rills are shallow enough that they are easily obliterated by tillage. Sheet erosion is subtler but can result in pedestals and obvious soil deposition when it is more severe. It is characterized by the more or less uniform removal of soil from an area without the development of conspicuous water channels (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1996).

Where surface soil erosion is a concern forests may choose to develop surface soil loss tolerance parameters to aid in effects analysis and monitoring. The standards however emphasize the use

2.2 - Exhibit 01 Cont.

Regional Soil Quality Standard Table of soil conservation practices to manage the quantity, extent, nature and distribution of surface soil disturbance and ensure adequate dispersal of runoff.

GROUND COVER: Lack of adequate effective ground cover usually results in accelerated surface erosion. Effective ground cover can include low growing vegetation including lichens and mosses, rock, litter, and duff. The amount of effective ground cover needed to prevent erosion varies by precipitation regime, slope and soil texture. The metrics should be defined by a consensus of scientists within each ecological province.

MASS MOVEMENT: Soil mass movement (slumps, debris flows, etc.) accelerated above natural background levels or initiated by management activities.

LONG-TERM NET LOSS OF ORGANIC MATTER AND IMPAIRED NUTRIENT CYCLING: Determinations must rely on applicable scientific evidence for support. Soil factors to consider include historic evidence of soil organic matter, mineral weathering rates, base saturation, nutrient imbalances and aluminum mobilization. Forest functions to consider include biomass accumulation, indicators of forest health and changes in forest composition. Other indicators may include changes in stream water chemistry. Trigger mechanisms may include atmospheric deposition, invasive species, forest harvesting, changes in soil organic matter decomposition rates and forest biomass accumulation.

High – quantitative measurements

2.3 – SOIL QUALITY MONITORING PROJECTS AND PLANS

Multi-year, regional soil quality monitoring strategies may be developed and incorporated into the Regional Inventory and Monitoring Program Plan. This strategy could identify the priority issues related to soil quality. It would define regional monitoring goals and objectives, including integration opportunities, additional sampling, data analysis and interpretation needs, funding and reporting mechanisms, and the role of involved partners and contractors. Operational soil quality monitoring will be appropriately integrated with those monitoring efforts associated with air and water quality, vegetation management, and other related areas. The forests should place emphasis on documenting the implementation and effectiveness of soil conservation practices and management prescriptions, in maintaining and improving soil quality and desired future conditions.

2.4 – MONITORING METHODS

1. Implementation monitoring: This consists of appropriate documentation of the on-the-ground application of management practices designed to maintain and restore soil quality. Contract administrators can often accomplish such monitoring during project implementation with soil scientist input as needed.

2. Effectiveness monitoring: A major objective of soil quality monitoring is to ensure that soil conservation practices and management prescriptions designed to maintain or maintain soil quality are effective. Did they maintain the soil in an acceptable condition or achieve restoration objectives? Effectiveness monitoring can be qualitative or quantitative or both.

a. Qualitative Assessments (mostly ocular): Are made by or under the direction of experienced soil scientists. A qualitative assessment is made of the activity area (or portion thereof, where applicable) focusing on observable evidence of disturbance. The intent is to ascertain whether the soil conservation practices and/or management prescriptions produced the acceptable results anticipated during the environment analysis. Scenarios that appear to not meet Regional soil quality standards should be fully documented and recommendations made to mitigate adverse impacts. More quantitative data collection (see below) may be required to properly evaluate effectiveness. The effectiveness of soil conservation practices and management prescriptions should be evaluated for a suitable range of representative soils within the ecological provinces.

b. Quantitative Monitoring: May focus on the high-risk scenarios identified through the qualitative assessment process above. The percentage of an activity area impacted by the detrimental soil conditions may be measured. It may be desirable in some cases to track non-detrimental moderate disturbance conditions to address site-specific cumulative effects concerns, such as anticipated future management entries affecting the same ground.

3. Validation monitoring: This type of monitoring quantifies short and long term effects associated with soil disturbances. It tests the assumptions behind the operational soil quality standards. The Long Term Soil Productivity plots within the Eastern Region provide critical validation information. Integrative and practicable physical, chemical and biological soil quality indices (Powers et. Al. 1998) may be included in ecological province strategic monitoring plans when they are available. Validation monitoring needs and approaches should be developed in collaboration with appropriate research partners.

2.41 – Arial Extent Sampling

The following examples of aerial extent monitoring methods may be considered based on the quantity and quality of data desired.

1. Statistical Point Sampling Method: follow protocols in Howes et al. (1983): 5-6. Sampling intensity should be five 20-point transects per 10 acres, all random. This is an average of 10 data points per acre.

2. Random Points: A minimum of 2 random data points per acre, with a minimum of 30 data points per analysis area.

3. Transects: A minimum of 1 transect across a representative section of an analysis area. Continuously observe surface soil conditions, recording the number of paces in each soil disturbance class. If there are different conditions in different parts of the analysis area, a transect should be made through each area, with an estimate of the percent of the analysis area represented by the transect. There are usually several hundred data points per transect. This is not a statistical sample.

The resulting quantitative soil disturbance data will serve to calibrate less rigorous rapid ocular field assessments. It can be used to validate and refine operational soil disturbance monitoring categories.

The resulting data may be analyzed and interpreted several ways. A series of compatible activity area data sets within an ecological province could be analyzed simultaneously to determine if the Regional soil quality standards are being met on a consistent basis. If the standards are not being met, or a forest imposed more restrictive standards and standards that are not being met, then Forest Plan procedures must be followed to make the appropriate management adjustments. The activity area data sets should be examined individually also. Even though the practices or prescriptions have proven generally successful based on the evaluation of a number of sample areas within the Forest and ecological province, an occasional activity area may demonstrate unfavorable results. This is a project level issue that requires site-specific restoration measures and the development of contingency measures to ensure future success.

Monitoring of soil disturbances should be conducted immediately after treatment or use. Pre-sampling may be required, in some cases, to assess the impact of previous site impacts or to establish a sufficient measure of “natural” baseline variation. Correct interpretation of soil disturbance data requires an adequate understanding of the inherent variability of physical, chemical and biological soil properties.

Where accelerated surface soil erosion is a concern, the success of effective ground cover requirements should be evaluated on representative activity areas, usually about one year following treatment. Photo points are recommended to document site recovery and response.

Soil reference sites may be established within the various ecological provinces to measure and assess soil quality trends. Soil reference site sampling protocols should be developed in coordination with Forest Service Research and Development and other partners. An example might be to monitor air quality effects on soil quality in conjunction with the integrated Forest Health Monitoring (Forest Inventory and Analysis Phase 3) plots, either as they exist or an expanded sample.

A number of soil quality monitoring protocols are currently being used within the Eastern Region and the rest of the National Forest system.

REFERENCES:

Burger, J.A. and D.L. Kelting. 1999. Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand management. Forest Ecology and Management. 122:167-185.

Clayton, J.L., G. Kellogg and N. Forester. 1987. Soil disturbance- tree growth relations in central Idaho clear-cut. Research Note INT-372. Ogden, Utah: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 p.

Cleland, D. T., P. E. Avers, H. McNab, M. E. Jensen, R. G. Bailey, T. King and W. E. Russell. 1997. National Hierarchy of Ecological Units. Pages 181-200 in M. S. Boyce and A. Haney, editors. Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Howes, S., J. Hazard and J.M. Geist. 1983. Guidelines for sampling some physical conditions of surface soils. Region 6-RWM-146-1983. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 34 p.

Powell, D.S. 2000. Forest Service framework for inventory and monitoring. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32 p.

Powers, R., A. Tiarks and J. Boyle. 1998. Assessing soil quality: practicable standards for sustainable forest productivity in the United States. SSSA Special Publication No. 53. 28p.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. National Soil Survey handbook, title 430-VI. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Stone, D.M. 2000. Logging options to minimize soil disturbance in the Northern Lake States. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 19:115-121.

Stone, D.M. and J.D. Elioff. 2000. Soil disturbance and aspen regeneration on clay soils: three case histories. Forestry Chronicle 76(5):747-752.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2004 Revision). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 84 p.

Detrimental Soil Conditions

Collectively < 15%

Mass Movement

Ground Cover

Eroded

Burned

Compaction

Displacement

Puddling/ Rutting

_1019647627.doc