2. Summary of First Sampling Effort for the Washington Roads Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness Monitoring Project Presented by: Kathy 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 Mass wasting Gullying Gullying Surface erosion 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 Site-specific construction/maintenance measures Implementation of Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plans (RMAP) over 15 years 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 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 Miles of delivering road per mile of stream Tons of sediment delivered 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 Random selection of 60 sites across state  Field data collection Data on hydrologic connectivity and road conditions, GPS positions Data on hydrologic connectivity and road conditions, GPS positions Sites will be monitored 3 times to enable comparison of change through time 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 Upstream and Downstream of culvert? Stream  Defined bed & banks downstream of culvert but not upstream? Gully  No defined bed or banks on either side of culvert? Swale

12. Road Prism Components Measured Tread Cutslope Ditch 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 MeasureTarget 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 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 In some areas, may be a challenge to meet targets due to existing road system location  Next round of sampling planned for 2011