Soil and Water
Road Condition Index
SDTDC
Prepared by:
Carolyn Napper 10/06
Project Update 10-17-06
• Literature search of existing indices
• Internal search of FS road data collection
tools and methodologies
• Development of a draft index
• Field testing of index nationally
Maine S&PF
BMP
evaluation
methodology
developed by
S&PF
Partially
funded by EPA
and developed
software
program during
beta-testing
R-5 LTBMU
•Characterization of roads
for public information
•WEPP as comparison
R-5 Los Padres
Closed road
R-5 San Bernardino
STEEP
hillslopes
Road
segmentation
R-2 Bighorn NF
Existing survey by
watershed
Identify work, implement
contracts to reduce
sediment delivery to
streams on all road levels.
R-2 White River
Road-stream
connectivity
Gully formation
R-2 WCP
handbook
Breckenridge
Ski Area
R-6 Okanogan NF
R-10 Tongass
Subsurface
Drainage
R-9 White Mountain NF
Level 2-gated
URCI- Bob
Eaton,
process for
evaluation of
a road
segment
R-8 Ozark-St Francis
TNC &FS road inventory
Trimble w/Infra and Terra
Sync software
10 mi/rd per day/crew
R-8 Ouachita NF
Road surveys for
Roads analysis,
NEPA, using
WEPP, relative
abundance of
benthic fish tied
to roads.
Pursuing KV
dollars for road
improvement
work.
Infra data not
reliable
Goal of SWRCI Project
• Need to measure the performance of the
road improvement and road maintenance
programs in meeting our responsibility for
protecting watersheds.
– Soil and Water road condition index
– Photo Guidebook to determine SWRCI
– Training module
Soil and Water Road Condition Index
9/27/2006
Road #
Segment Length_________________
Total road length________________
Reviewed by:___________________
Road Template/Surface shape
Inslope
Road Segment Location on
hillslope
Road Surface Material
Surface Traffic
Outslope
Crown
upper 1/3
climbing segment
middle 1/3
within SMZ
lower 1/3
Native
High
Gravelled
Low
Paved
Closed
Good
Fair
Poor
Road Surface Drainage
25-50% blocked, scour at
>50% blocked, scour at outlet
outlet
25-50% of ditch shows
>50% of ditch shows
No signs of erosion or scour
Ditch
erosion/scour
erosion/scour
Open/ no deposition/ no
25-50% deposition, scour,
>50% deposition, scour, erosion
Drainage dips
scour
erosion at outlet
at outlet
Open / no deposition/ no
25-50% blocked, scour at
>50% blocked, scour at outlet
Overside drains
scour
outlet
25-50% of segment with
Gentle road grade, frequent
>50% of segment with
long slope lengths,
relief drainage
concentrated flows in road prism
Entrenched
concentrated flows
Surface and subsurface flow
25-50% of surface,
>50% of flows, channelized,
is not disrupted by turnpiked
subsurface flows are
changing hydrologic regime
Turnpiked
section
concentrated
25-50% of structures failed
>50% of structures failed or
Open & Functional
Condition of Stream Crossing
or reduced capacity
plugged
Intercepts subsurface flows
25-50% of ditch eroded,
>50% of ditch eroded, evidence of
with no adverse effect to
evidence of vegetation
vegetation change.
Road Subsurface Drainage
vegetation & no ditch scour
change
25-50% of structures with
>50% of structures with diversion
No diversion
Diversion Potential at Crossings
diversion potential
potential
Hydrologic Connectivity
Percent of category 1 road
Hydrologically Disconnected
25-50% connected
>50% connected
length connected?
Percent of category 2 road
Hydrologically Disconnected
25-50% connected
>50% connected
length connected?
25-50% of segment has rill
Ditch relief culverts
Open / no deposition/ no
scour
Road template/Surface Shape
information
• Stratify roads pre-post documentation
• Focuses the reviewer on what they should
anticipate from a given road
• Insloped roads may have a ditch and relief
culverts
• Outsloped roads with drainage dips, may
want to focus on road gradient, soil texture
associated with that type of design.
• Could be set up electronically
Ditch Relief
Culverts
Good
Fair
Poor
Cross drains are
free of sediment
and debris, no
indications of
scour or plugging
at inlet. No
erosion at outlet.
25-50% of cross
drains show
indications of
scour or plugging.
Erosion at outlet
>50% of cross
drains culverts
show scour or
plugging. Erosion
at outlet.
Good
Ditches
Ditch
accommodates
runoff without
indications of
erosion or scour.
Fair
Poor
25-50% of ditch
has erosion and
downcutting from
long ditch
lengths.
>50% of the ditch
has erosion,
downcutting, or
scour.
Road-stream connectivity
Good
Road-stream
Connectivity
Road is
hydrologically
disconnected
from channel
network. Road
template design
is outslope, any
surface water
from road prism
reinfiltrates into
soil, and any
ditches present
are not connected
to the stream.
Fair
25-50% of the
road segment is
hydrologically
connected to the
channel network
from drainage
ditches or crossdrain outlets.
Poor
>50% of the road
segment is
hydrologically
connected to the
channel network
from drainage
ditches or crossdrain outlets.
Soil Texture and WEPP
Soil Texture
Good
Fair
Poor
Sandy loam
Silt loam
Clay loam
Colors–Numbers-Adjectives
• Pavement Condition Index 0-100 to rate
pavement condition
• SWRCI is additive, and the higher # is the
rating
• Could develop a rule set if a tie
• Focuses on visual indicators
• Useful in the ID team setting
Page 2 of SWRCI
• Environmental considerations
• Causal factors for erosion and sediment
transport
• Site specific immediate concern issues
Performance Accountability
• USDA FS Strategic Plan Goal 5 Improve
Watershed Condition
– Program issues for CMRD include:
• Lack of road maintenance $ = degraded forest
road conditions.
• Negative impacts to natural resources
Key Outcome Measures of PAS
• % of high clearance & stored roads
incompliance with soil and water BMPs (R-10
uses RCS method) Unclear on how RCS
identifies compliance and at what scale?
• % of car passenger miles meeting soil and water
BMPs (% of roads with no identified critical
resource protection deferred maintenance
needs) SWRCI can identify drainage, erosional
concerns
• Revised Infra 7/06 task list identifies critical
resource=drainage (roadway, x-drain, erosion)
National BMP & EP
• On-going effort to develop a national
program for all regions.
• The effectiveness protocol will meet Goal
5-2 for monitoring water quality impacts of
all activities on National Forest Service
system lands.
• Time frame estimate 18 months
Needs or should be done…
• Complete the documentation including
references for each indicator. More
pictures – limitation is due to
• Develop a web page that would have all
the existing forms being used. Showcase
the forms, uses, and findings. Foster
information exchange.
• Form needs a software application to
increase its use.
Discussion, questions, next steps
Discussion & Feedback
Next Steps