summary of first sampling effort for the washington roads sub-basin scale effectiveness monitoring...
TRANSCRIPT
Summary of First Sampling Summary of First Sampling Effort for the Washington Effort for the Washington Roads Sub-Basin Scale Roads Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness Monitoring
ProjectProject
Presented by:Presented by:Kathy DubéKathy Dubé
Effects of Roads on Surface Effects of Roads on Surface WatersWaters
Analysis of sediment sources in many Analysis of sediment sources in many watersheds indicates roads are primary watersheds indicates roads are primary source of management-related sediment source of management-related sediment loadload Mass wastingMass wasting GullyingGullying Surface erosionSurface erosion
Potential for changes to stream hydrologyPotential for changes to stream hydrology
Forest Practice Rules - RoadsForest Practice Rules - Roads
Reduce impacts of forest roads on surface Reduce impacts of forest roads on surface waterwater Site-specific construction/maintenance Site-specific construction/maintenance
measuresmeasures Implementation of Road Maintenance and Implementation of Road Maintenance and
Abandonment Plans (RMAP) over 15 years Abandonment Plans (RMAP) over 15 years
Monitoring ObjectivesMonitoring Objectives
Effectiveness Monitoring (sub-basin scale)Effectiveness Monitoring (sub-basin scale) Assess road conditions three times through Assess road conditions three times through
the 15-year RMAP implementation schedulethe 15-year RMAP implementation schedule Determine trend in road conditions and Determine trend in road conditions and
FFR performance measures FFR performance measures Miles of delivering road per mile of streamMiles of delivering road per mile of stream Tons of sediment delivered per mile of streamTons of sediment delivered per mile of stream
Monitoring QuestionsMonitoring Questions What is condition of forest road sediment/delivery What is condition of forest road sediment/delivery
attributes that management can change?attributes that management can change? Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved over Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved over
time? time? What is status of FFR road performance measures?What is status of FFR road performance measures? What is status of road performance measures vs. targets What is status of road performance measures vs. targets
by region?by region? Have road sediment measures improved over time?Have road sediment measures improved over time? Will roads judged to meet current maintenance Will roads judged to meet current maintenance
standards meet performance targets?standards meet performance targets?
MethodsMethods
Site selectionSite selection Random selection of 60 sites across stateRandom selection of 60 sites across state
Field data collectionField data collection Data on hydrologic connectivity and road conditions, Data on hydrologic connectivity and road conditions,
GPS positionsGPS positions Sites will be monitored 3 times to enable comparison Sites will be monitored 3 times to enable comparison
of change through timeof change through time Data entered into WARSEM model to compute Data entered into WARSEM model to compute
performance metricsperformance metrics All data stored in databaseAll data stored in database
Sample SitesSample Sites Sixty 4-square-mile area of FFR landSixty 4-square-mile area of FFR land Randomly selected, large and small Randomly selected, large and small
landownerslandowners
Monitoring Site LocationsMonitoring Site Locations
Field Field InventoryInventory
Delivery - Is it a Stream? Delivery - Is it a Stream?
Stream has defined bed and banksStream has defined bed and banks Defined bed & banks UpstreamDefined bed & banks Upstream
andand Downstream of culvert? Downstream of culvert? Stream Stream
Defined bed & banks downstreamDefined bed & banks downstreamof culvert of culvert but notbut not upstream? upstream? Gully Gully
No defined bed or banks on No defined bed or banks on eithereitherside of culvert?side of culvert? Swale Swale
Road Prism Components Road Prism Components MeasuredMeasured
Tread
Cutslope
Ditch
Fish Passage
QA/QC ProgramQA/QC Program
Development of standard field protocolsDevelopment of standard field protocols Crew trainingCrew training Crew members work together and with Crew members work together and with
trainer monthlytrainer monthly Crew variability assessmentCrew variability assessment Third party QA visitsThird party QA visits
Washington Road Surface Erosion Washington Road Surface Erosion Model (WARSEM)Model (WARSEM)
WDNR road surface erosion modelWDNR road surface erosion model EmpiricalEmpirical Estimates average annual sediment input Estimates average annual sediment input
based on road characteristicsbased on road characteristics
(insert sample map E039)(insert sample map E039)
(Insert sample map S003)(Insert sample map S003)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Road Density (miles/sq mi)
We
igh
ted
Ro
ad
Le
ng
th D
eliv
eri
ng
(m
i)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 2 4 6 8 10
Road Density (miles/sq mi)
Se
dim
en
t De
live
ry (
ton
s/yr
)
Length Delivering Length Delivering vs. Road Densityvs. Road Density
Sediment Delivery Sediment Delivery vs. Road Densityvs. Road Density
Monitoring QuestionsMonitoring Questions What is condition of forest road sediment/delivery What is condition of forest road sediment/delivery
attributes that management can change?attributes that management can change? Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved over Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved over
time? time? What is status of FFR road performance measures?What is status of FFR road performance measures? What is status of road performance measures vs. targets What is status of road performance measures vs. targets
by region?by region? Have road sediment measures improved over time?Have road sediment measures improved over time? Will roads judged to meet current maintenance Will roads judged to meet current maintenance
standards meet performance targets?standards meet performance targets?
Road Length Delivering/Unit AreaRoad Length Delivering/Unit AreaState-wide (Percent)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1.0 1.0-1.2
Delivering Length/Unit Area (miles/sq mi)
Pe
rce
nt o
f Sa
mp
le U
nits
acr
oss
S
tate
Coast/Spruce
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1.0 1.0-1.2
Delivering Length/Unit Area (miles/sq mi)
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
West of Crest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1.0 1.0-1.2
Delivering Length/Unit Area (miles/sq mi)
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
East of Crest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1.0 1.0-1.2
Delivering Length/Unit Area (miles/sq mi)
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
Percent of Road Network DeliveringPercent of Road Network DeliveringState-wide (Percent)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Percent of Road Network Draining to Streams
Pe
rce
nt o
f Sa
mp
le U
nits
acr
oss
S
tate
Coast/Spruce
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Percent of Road Network Draining to Streams
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
East of Crest
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Percent of Road Network Draining to Streams
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
West of Crest
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Percent of Road Network Draining to Streams
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n
East of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Asphalt Good gravel Pitrun/ worn gravel Native
no s
trea
ms
in s
ampl
e un
it
Coastal/Spruce
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Asphalt Good gravel Pitrun/ worn gravel Native
West of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Asphalt Good gravel Pitrun/ worn gravel Native
SurfacingSurfacing
TrafficTraffic
East of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Very heavy Heavy Mod Heavy Moderate Light Occasional None
no s
trea
ms
in s
ampl
e un
it
Coastal/Spruce
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Very heavy Heavy Mod Heavy Moderate Light Occasional None
West of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Very heavy Heavy Mod Heavy Moderate Light Occasional None
RuttingRutting
East of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Not Rutted Rutted - not interfering Rutted - Interfering
no s
trea
ms
in s
ampl
e un
it
Coastal/Spruce
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Not Rutted Rutted - not interfering Rutted - Interfering
West of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g R
oa
d L
en
gth
Not Rutted Rutted - not interfering Rutted - Interfering
Connectivity Connectivity ClassClass
East of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g P
oin
ts
Direct Direct via gully 35% Delivery 10% Delivery Stream Parallel
no s
trea
ms
in s
ampl
e un
it
Coastal/Spruce
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g P
oin
ts
Direct Direct via gully 35% Delivery 10% Delivery Stream Parallel
West of Crest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Units
Pe
rce
nt
of
De
live
rin
g P
oin
ts
Direct Direct via gully 35% Delivery 10% Delivery Stream Parallel
FFR Road Performance TargetsFFR Road Performance Targets
MeasureMeasure TargetTarget
Road length delivering to Road length delivering to streams/stream length streams/stream length (mile/mile)(mile/mile)
East of Crest 0.08-0.12East of Crest 0.08-0.12
Coast (Spruce) 0.15-0.25Coast (Spruce) 0.15-0.25
West of Crest 0.15-0.25West of Crest 0.15-0.25
Sediment delivered to Sediment delivered to streams/stream length streams/stream length (tons/yr/mile)(tons/yr/mile)
East of Crest 1-3East of Crest 1-3
Coast (Spruce) 6-10Coast (Spruce) 6-10
West of Crest 2-6West of Crest 2-6
FFR Metric – Miles of Road Delivering/TargetFFR Metric – Miles of Road Delivering/TargetState-wide (Percent)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream/Performance Target
Pe
rce
nt o
f Sa
mp
le U
nits
acr
oss
S
tate
Above TargetBelow Target
Coastal/Spruce
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
East of Crest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
West of Crest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
FFR Metric – Sediment Delivered/TargetFFR Metric – Sediment Delivered/Target
West of Crest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
State-wide (Percent)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3
Tons of Delivered Sediment/Year/Mile of Stream/Performance Target
Pe
rce
nt o
f Sa
mp
le U
nits
acr
oss
S
tate
Above TargetBelow Target
East of Crest
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3
Tons of Delivered Sediment/Year/Mile of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
Coastal/Spruce
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3
Tons of Delivered Sediment/Year/Mile of Stream/Performance Target
Num
ber
of S
ampl
e U
nits
in R
egio
n Above TargetBelow Target
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of StreamMiles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Roads in Sample Unit Up to Standards
Mile
s of
Roa
d D
eliv
erin
g/M
iles
of S
trea
m
Exp
ress
ed a
s P
erce
nt o
f R
egio
nal T
arge
t
East of Crest Coast (Spruce) West of Crest
Above Target
Below Target
Tons of Sediment/Year/Miles of StreamTons of Sediment/Year/Miles of Stream
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Roads in Sample Unit Up to Standards
To
ns o
f Se
dim
ent
/Yea
r/M
iles
of S
tre
am
Exp
ress
ed a
s P
erce
nt o
f Re
gion
al T
arge
t
East of Crest Coast (Spruce) West of Crest
Above Target
Below Target
Operator Variability TestOperator Variability Test
Each field crew member measured 3 road Each field crew member measured 3 road test segments at beginning and end of test segments at beginning and end of each field seasoneach field season
Estimated variance in delivering length, Estimated variance in delivering length, computed sediment delivery between testscomputed sediment delivery between tests
Overall, variability is large, but no Overall, variability is large, but no consistent biasconsistent bias
Stresses the continued need for training, Stresses the continued need for training, working together in next sampling phasesworking together in next sampling phases
SummarySummary
First Sample Complete (2006-2008)First Sample Complete (2006-2008) High percentage of roads sampled have RMAP High percentage of roads sampled have RMAP
work completedwork completed Many sample units meet sediment and/or Many sample units meet sediment and/or
delivering mile targetsdelivering mile targets Decreasing relationship between sediment delivery Decreasing relationship between sediment delivery
and percent of roads up to maintenance standardsand percent of roads up to maintenance standards In some areas, may be a challenge to meet targets In some areas, may be a challenge to meet targets
due to existing road system locationdue to existing road system location
Next round of sampling planned for 2011Next round of sampling planned for 2011
