Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment of Sediment Risks from Forest Roads Charles Luce Tom Black US Forest Service Research and Development Rocky Mountain Research Sta.
Interstates: 47,000 mi All Nat’l Highways: 159,000 mi FS Roads: 375,000 mi
Regulatory Context ESA Clean Water Act • TMDL • NPDES?
Not all roads are the same
Most Sediment from Few Places 100% NFS, OR 90% BV, ID NFJD, OR 80% MFP, ID 70% % Sediment Delivery 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% % of Active Drain Points
What is GRAIP? • Geomorphic Roads Analysis and Inventory Package – A detailed road inventory procedure – A set of GIS tools to analyze road-related risks
What is GRAIP? • Geomorphic Roads Analysis and Inventory Package – A detailed road inventory procedure – A set of GIS tools to analyze road-related risks
Road Network Hydrology Road Segment Two flow paths • Roads – Surface type – Flowpath Drain Point vegetation • Drain Points – Nine types – Stream connection Drain Point
Local Calibration Data Black & Luce, 2013
Gully Risks SF Payette R. 1.0 0.8 Probability of Gully 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -1 0 1 2 2 Log LS Rd Segment Length Slope below road
1.0 1.0 0.8 SF Boise Probability of Gully 0.8 MF Willamette 0.6 0.6 P Gully 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 ESI 1.0 1.0 0.8 Skykomish 0.8 SF Skokomish 0.6 0.6 P Gully P Gully 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 1 10 100 0.3 1 3.2 10 31.6 100 ESI ESI
Other Risks • Culvert Demise • Overtopping • Stream Capture • Jammer Road Failure
GRAIP-Lite • Transportation Layer • Delivery Curves • Maint-Level Correlations 1.0 Wall Ck NF Siuslaw Bear Valley Seeley Lk 0.8 Probability of Connection MF Payette SF Salmon 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Distance to Stream (m)
Application to 42 12 th Digit HUCS Nash-Sutcliffe R 2 =0.93
GRAIP: Scaling Effort & Info Density Uncalibrated Calibrated GRAIP GRAIP_Lite GRAIP_Lite Line presence Transportation Transportation GPS Roads Layer Data Layer Data Surfacing Existence DEM DEM Condition Slope Slope GPS Drainpoints Streams Streams Type Location Improved Condition Vegetation Connection & Delivery DEM Slope Streams Erodibility
Varying Levels of Information 100 Percent of Sediment Delivered 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Road Road Density GRAIP_Lite GRAIP
GRAIP Examples I: Watershed Analysis 1. TMDLs 2. CFLRP The gold stars
Bear Valley Creek TMDL/4b
Connection to Instream Metrics Coarse Wall Creek and NF Siuslaw RBS – Monitoring framework proposed by Oregon DEQ Fine Southwest Crown of Continent CFLRP GNLCC funded project to understand relationship between fish habitat and road erosion Graph courtesy of Robert Al-Chokachy, USGS Bozeman
GRAIP Examples II: Legacy Roads Monitoring Program
Tracking progress on water quality goals
Post-Treatment Pre- Control 4 miles Treatment each
Post- Treatment Control
Legacy Road Monitoring Project – Initial Effects Initial Treatment Effects Decommissioned Roads SDRR Roads n=11 segments, 67.7 km n=12 segments, 86.3 km Road-Stream -9.8 km , reduced from 16.9 to -2.3 km , reduced from 24.9 to Hydrologic 7.1 km (- 58% ) 22.6 km (- 9% ) Connectivity -119 Mg/yr , reduced from 187 to -119 Mg/yr , reduced from 235 to Fine Sediment 67 Mg/yr (- 64% ) 116 Mg/yr (- 51% ) Delivery Drainpoint Reduced from 22% to 3% Reduced from 25% to 14% Problem Rate (- 86% ) (- 48% ) -1.8 Mg/yr/km , reduced from 2.8 to -1.4 Mg/yr/km , reduced from 2.7 to Unit Sediment 1.0 Mg/yr/km (- 64% ) 1.3 Mg/yr/km (- 51% ) Delivery
Improving Efficiency • Cost=Unit Cost X Percent treated X Total Road Mileage $1,200,000 Restoration Project GRAIP Non-GRAIP Survey:$135,000 Survey:$0 Treatment:$1,065,000 Treatment:$1,200,000 Miles treated: 43 Miles treated; 48 % Treated: 7.3% % Treated: 8.2% Sediment Reduced: 71% Sediment Reduced: 29%
Improving Efficiency 100% Percent of Total Delivered Sediment 80% 60% 40% 20% GRAIP GRAIP_Lite Road lines R1-R4 Road Density 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Total Road Length
Watershed Condition Framework
Climate Change Asessments
“This tool is used throughout our region when working with collaboratives, partners, NEPA projects, and landscape level analysis to determine where road work needs to be conducted. … This helps with our biological assessments we submit to Fish and Wildlife Service for concerns on different listed fish species. It also helps in our analysis of the projects.” -Faye Krueger R1 Regional Forester
Brian Staab R6 Regional Hydrologist Portland, OR
Who benefits from GRAIP? The Agency and Department Demonstrates that we know what is going on with one of our most substantial capital assets and a potentially severe source of water pollution. Faster NEPA! EPA The Manager in the Middle Other Partners District and Forest Specialists
IM&A Goals & Objectives Goal 1: Support effective decision-making by providing relevant and credible information. • Priority management questions and related core information • Integration and scalability of IM&A information • Based on relevant science • Quality and consistency of information • Information is timely and accessible Goal 2: Ensure that all IM&A activities are inclusive and comprehensive. • Understand partner and stakeholder interests • Address shared information needs. • Address issues across organizational and geographic boundaries. Goal 3: Ensure the IM&A system is responsive and adaptive to change. • Establish and maintain a dynamic IM&A system that supports management and is responsive to social, economic, and ecological change. • Ensure the IM&A system is responsive and adaptive to changing agency capacity.
Recommend
More recommend
