Forest Policy and Soil Erosion in Washington State Forests

By: Rebecca BarterEnvironmental Studies CapstoneSpring 2014

Question• How effective are state and federal

forestry policies in mitigating erosion in Washington State forests?

Hypothesis• The policies are effective– Geology terminology– Monitoring

Disciplines

• Geosciences– Erosion: long term vs. short-term– Water quality

• Political Science– Washington State Code– Language and action

Road MapBackground Information

Historical Context

Geology in a Clear-Cut Forest

Informing Policy

Conclusion

Terms

• Turbidity (NTUs)– Suspended Sediment Concentration– Clarity of the water

• Compaction– Water storage– Run off

(Ziemer 1981) (Mitchell and Stapp 2008)

Watershed Health

• Land stores and filters water• Importance of trees and tree roots– Stability– Untouched vs. clear-cut

• Forestry impacts:– Roads and timber harvesting– Compaction, erosion, turbidity

(Ziemer 1981) (Mitchell and Stapp 2008)

Why it Matters

• December 2007– Winter storm– Upper Chehalis

Basin– Weyerhaeuser

clear-cutting– 1147 landslides

in 91mi2 area– Contaminated

drinking water(Stewart 2013) (Bernton and Mayo 2008)

Why it Matters

(Armstrong et al., 2014)

• March 2014– Oso landslide– Heavy rains– Uncertain

connection– Recent clear-

cutting in 2005– Stillaguamish River

Historical Context

• Economic vs. Conservation interests• 19th century policy - agriculture• Policies to retain federal land– Watershed health and conservation

• Peak harvest levels in 1920s• Environmental policies in 60s and 70s• Northwest Forest Plan – 1994

(Washington Forest Protection Agency) (Chiang and Reese)

Geology in Untouched Forest

• Low erosion rate• 0.5ton/acre/year of sediment• Surface litter cover, tree roots• Disturbed erosion rate increase by

several magnitudes

(Lal 1999)

Untouched Forest

British Columbia. Western Forest Products timber tenure clearcutting, Glditas Daqvu, May 2008. Photo: Ian McAllisterhttp://www.firstnations.eu/fisheries/heiltsuk-glditas_daqvu.htm

Clear-Cut Forest

Geology in Clear-Cut Forests

(Brown and Krygier, 1971)

• Long term erosion• Suspended sediment concentrations• Control– Peak average of 194ppm

• Clear-cut– Peak average of 640ppm– 5 fold increase

Geology in Clear-Cut Forests

(Miller and Sias 1997)

• Short term erosion events– Hazel landslide area

• Environmental Factors: clear-cutting• Recharge of groundwater– Increase in time-average recharge of 17% =

condition failure 26% of the time

Informing the Policy

• Washington State Code– Forest Protection Rules

• Watershed analysis – levels 1 and 2• Roads – Construction and maintenance– Outsloping, planting, culverts– Turbidity

• Minimize erosion – long term

(Title 222 WAC)

Informing the Policy

• Timber Harvesting– Exposed erodible soils, saturated soils– Proximity to water

• Monitoring program for rate of timber harvests

• DNR Compliance Rates for FPR– 60-100% small forest landowners– 89-93% industrial landowners

(Title 222 WAC) (Obermeyer and Shelly 2012)

Conclusion

• Was my hypothesis correct?• Mitigating slow erosion• Landslides• Watershed health• Overall: more can be done to mitigate

erosion in Washington State forests

Conclusion

• Language– Roads; timber harvesting– Less on turbidity; landslides

• Action– Watershed analyses– Is the information acknowledged?– Uncertainty about monitoring programs– DNR and excess clear cutting

(Bernton and Mayo, 2008)

Conclusion

(Washington State Department of Natural Resources: Forest Practices Protection 2014)

Conclusion

• Economic vs. environmental interests– Still remain today

• Suggestions– Include more geology terminology• Turbidity, compaction, landslides• Long term vs. short term erosion

– Realistic and feasible monitoring programs• Information from analyses and supervision

Questions?

Special Thanks to:Dr. Claire Todd; Dr. Sid Olufs

Dr. Kevin O’Brien499 Capstone Class