7-28-09 CMER Meeting Materials

1
(No Transcript)
2
Summary of First Sampling Effort for the
Washington Roads Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness
Monitoring Project

• Presented byKathy Dubé

3
Effects of Roads on Surface Waters

• Analysis of sediment sources in many watersheds
  indicates roads are primary source of
  management-related sediment load
• Mass wasting
• Gullying
• Surface erosion
• Potential for changes to stream hydrology

4
Forest Practice Rules - Roads

• Reduce impacts of forest roads on surface water
• Site-specific construction/maintenance measures
• Implementation of Road Maintenance and
  Abandonment Plans (RMAP) over 15 years

5
Monitoring Objectives

• Effectiveness Monitoring (sub-basin scale)
• Assess road conditions three times through the
  15-year RMAP implementation schedule
• Determine trend in road conditions and FFR
  performance measures
• Miles of delivering road per mile of stream
• Tons of sediment delivered per mile of stream

6
Monitoring Questions

• What is condition of forest road
  sediment/delivery attributes that management can
  change?
• Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved
  over time?
• What is status of FFR road performance measures?
• What is status of road performance measures vs.
  targets by region?
• Have road sediment measures improved over time?
• Will roads judged to meet current maintenance
  standards meet performance targets?

7
Methods

• Site selection
• Random selection of 60 sites across state
• Field data collection
• Data on hydrologic connectivity and road
  conditions, GPS positions
• Sites will be monitored 3 times to enable
  comparison of change through time
• Data entered into WARSEM model to compute
  performance metrics
• All data stored in database

8
Sample Sites

• Sixty 4-square-mile area of FFR land
• Randomly selected, large and small landowners

9
Monitoring Site Locations
10
Field Inventory
11
Delivery - Is it a Stream?

• Stream has defined bed and banks
• Defined bed banks Upstreamand Downstream of
  culvert? Stream
• Defined bed banks downstreamof culvert but not
  upstream? Gully
• No defined bed or banks on eitherside of
  culvert? Swale

12
Road Prism Components Measured
Cutslope
Ditch
Tread
Fish Passage
13
QA/QC Program

• Development of standard field protocols
• Crew training
• Crew members work together and with trainer
  monthly
• Crew variability assessment
• Third party QA visits

14
Washington Road Surface Erosion Model (WARSEM)

• WDNR road surface erosion model
• Empirical
• Estimates average annual sediment input based on
  road characteristics

15

• (insert sample map E039)

16

• (Insert sample map S003)

17
Length Delivering vs. Road Density
Sediment Delivery vs. Road Density
18
Monitoring Questions

• What is condition of forest road
  sediment/delivery attributes that management can
  change?
• Have road sediment/delivery attributes improved
  over time?
• What is status of FFR road performance measures?
• What is status of road performance measures vs.
  targets by region?
• Have road sediment measures improved over time?
• Will roads judged to meet current maintenance
  standards meet performance targets?

19
Road Length Delivering/Unit Area
20
Percent of Road Network Delivering
21
Surfacing
22
Traffic
23
Rutting
24
Connectivity Class
25
FFR Road Performance Targets
Measure Target
Road length delivering to streams/stream length (mile/mile) East of Crest 0.08-0.12 Coast (Spruce) 0.15-0.25 West of Crest 0.15-0.25
Sediment delivered to streams/stream length (tons/yr/mile) East of Crest 1-3 Coast (Spruce) 6-10 West of Crest 2-6
26
FFR Metric Miles of Road Delivering/Target


27
FFR Metric Sediment Delivered/Target




28
Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream
29
Tons of Sediment/Year/Miles of Stream
30
Operator Variability Test

• Each field crew member measured 3 road test
  segments at beginning and end of each field
  season
• Estimated variance in delivering length, computed
  sediment delivery between tests
• Overall, variability is large, but no consistent
  bias
• Stresses the continued need for training, working
  together in next sampling phases

31
Summary

• First Sample Complete (2006-2008)
• High percentage of roads sampled have RMAP work
  completed
• Many sample units meet sediment and/or delivering
  mile targets
• Decreasing relationship between sediment delivery
  and percent of roads up to maintenance standards
• In some areas, may be a challenge to meet targets
  due to existing road system location
• Next round of sampling planned for 2011

32
(No Transcript)