1 / 32

Presented by: Kathy Dubé

Summary of First Sampling Effort for the Washington Roads Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness Monitoring Project. Presented by: Kathy Dubé. Effects of Roads on Surface Waters. Analysis of sediment sources in many watersheds indicates roads are primary source of management-related sediment load

llonnie
Download Presentation

Presented by: Kathy Dubé

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of First Sampling Effort for the Washington Roads Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness Monitoring Project Presented by:Kathy Dubé

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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?

  6. 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

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

  8. Monitoring Site Locations

  9. Field Inventory

  10. 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

  11. Road Prism Components Measured Cutslope Ditch Tread Fish Passage

  12. 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

  13. Washington Road Surface Erosion Model (WARSEM) • WDNR road surface erosion model • Empirical • Estimates average annual sediment input based on road characteristics

  14. (insert sample map E039)

  15. (Insert sample map S003)

  16. Length Delivering vs. Road Density Sediment Delivery vs. Road Density

  17. 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?

  18. Road Length Delivering/Unit Area

  19. Percent of Road Network Delivering

  20. Surfacing

  21. Traffic

  22. Rutting

  23. Connectivity Class

  24. FFR Road Performance Targets

  25. FFR Metric – Miles of Road Delivering/Target

  26. FFR Metric – Sediment Delivered/Target

  27. Miles of Road Delivering/Miles of Stream

  28. Tons of Sediment/Year/Miles of Stream

  29. 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

  30. 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

More Related