Monitoring Road-Watershed Monitoring Road-Watershed PerformancePerformance

An Initiative for Efficient An Initiative for Efficient and Effective Road and Effective Road Performance Monitoring: Performance Monitoring:

Combine effort to complete Combine effort to complete DSRs and INFRA to achieve DSRs and INFRA to achieve road performance monitoringroad performance monitoring

mj furniss, PNW. 2005

Roads are a focus of Roads are a focus of watershed monitoringwatershed monitoring

But roads vary greatly in But roads vary greatly in performance performance

Most Most do notdo not fail fail Failures tend to cluster in Failures tend to cluster in areas of inherent instabilityareas of inherent instability

Why?Why? Failure sites create a useful Failure sites create a useful dataset for defining road dataset for defining road performance through timeperformance through time

Failures define the limits of Failures define the limits of practice in various landscape practice in various landscape situationssituations

When experienced road managers When experienced road managers retire, mission-critical knowledge retire, mission-critical knowledge could be conserved could be conserved

Why?Why?

Little added effort for Little added effort for substantial value returnedsubstantial value returned• INFRA in place and workingINFRA in place and working• DSRs completed DSRs completed • Related monitoringRelated monitoring

What you getWhat you get

Ability to determine thresholds Ability to determine thresholds of performanceof performance

Ability to determine relative Ability to determine relative risk of failurerisk of failure

Quantitative description of Quantitative description of risksrisks

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Fa

ilure

s/m

ile o

f R

oa

d

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 251

Distance from Stream (m)

ONF M ass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Distance to Stream

0.0000

0.0200

0.0400

0.0600

0.0800

0.1000

0.1200

0.1400

0.1600

0.1800

Fa

ilu

res

/mil

e o

f R

oa

d

50 150 151

Distance to Stream

SNF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Stream Proximity

Willam ette NF Cum ulative Road Failures by Distance to Stream

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Distance to Stream (m)

Fa

ilu

res

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cumulative %

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Fa

ilure

s/m

ile o

f R

oa

d

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 251

Distance from Stream (m)

ONF M ass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Distance to Stream

0.0000

0.0200

0.0400

0.0600

0.0800

0.1000

0.1200

0.1400

0.1600

0.1800

Fa

ilu

res

/mil

e o

f R

oa

d

50 150 151

Distance to Stream

SNF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Stream ProximityWillamette NF Cumulative Road

Failures by Distance to Stream

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Distance to Stream (m)

Fa

ilu

res

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cumulative %

Failure Rate vs Distance from Stream

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Fa

ilu

res

/mil

e o

f R

oa

d

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 500

Slope (%)

ONF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope

<10%10-50%

>50%

<34

34to66

>66

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Fai

lure

s/m

i

Slope Class

Slope Position

WNF: All Failures by Slope Postion and Slope Class

<34

34to66

>66

0.0000

0.5000

1.0000

1.5000

2.0000

2.5000

3.0000

Fai

lure

s/m

ile

of

Ro

ad

30 70 71

Slope Class (%)

SIUS NF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Position

Mass wasting road failures per mile of road in slope classes(Multiple watersheds)

0.09 0.030.14 0.13

0.32

0.550.68

0.90

1.69

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

0-10 % 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90%

Slope class by percent

Ro

ad

fa

ilu

res

/mile

of

roa

d

Distribution by slope class of 229 mass wasting road failures sites

Slope Class Failures Road by Percent per mile Failures Mileage 0-10 % 0.09 4 45.91 11-20% 0.03 3 98.67 21-30% 0.14 21 147.86 31-40% 0.13 25 187.46 41-50% 0.32 53 165.52 51-60% 0.55 60 109.15 61-70% 0.68 36 53.33 71-80% 0.90 17 18.88 81-90% 1.69 8 4.73

Failure Rate vs Slope Class

Mass wasting road failures per mile of road in slope classes(Multiple watersheds)

0.09 0.030.14 0.13

0.32

0.550.68

0.90

1.69

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

0-10 % 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90%

Slope class by percent

Ro

ad

fa

ilu

res

/mile

of

roa

d

Distribution by slope class of 229 mass wasting road failures sites

Slope Class Failures Road by Percent per mile Failures Mileage 0-10 % 0.09 4 45.91 11-20% 0.03 3 98.67 21-30% 0.14 21 147.86 31-40% 0.13 25 187.46 41-50% 0.32 53 165.52 51-60% 0.55 60 109.15 61-70% 0.68 36 53.33 71-80% 0.90 17 18.88 81-90% 1.69 8 4.73

<10%10-50%

>50%

<34

34to66

>66

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250F

ailu

res/

mi

Slope Class

Slope Position

WNF: All Failures by Slope Postion and Slope Class

<34

34to66

>66

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Fa

ilu

res

/mil

e o

f R

oa

d

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 500

Slope (%)

ONF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope

0.0000

0.5000

1.0000

1.5000

2.0000

2.5000

3.0000

Fai

lure

s/m

ile

of

Ro

ad

30 70 71

Slope Class (%)

SIUS NF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Steepness

Slope Position vs Failure RateSlope Position vs Failure Rate

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Fai

lure

s/m

ile

of

Ro

ad

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

Slope Position (%)

ONF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Position

<10%10-50%

>50%

<34

34to66

>66

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Fai

lure

s/m

i

Slope Class

Slope Position

WNF: All Failures by Slope Postion and Slope Class

<34

34to66

>66

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

Fai

lure

s/m

ile o

f R

oad

33 67 68

Slope Position (%)

SNF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Position

Road failures per mile of road in slope positions (multiple watersheds)

0.14 0.17

0.078

0.38

0.50

0.14

0.51

0.67

0.06

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Upper Middle LowerSlope position

Roa

d fa

ilure

s/m

ile o

f roa

dSurface Erosion (90)

Mass Wasting (229)

All Failures (319)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Fai

lure

s/m

ile

of

Ro

ad

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

Slope Position (%)

ONF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Position

<10%10-50%

>50%

<34

34to66

>66

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Fai

lure

s/m

i

Slope Class

Slope Position

WNF: All Failures by Slope Postion and Slope Class

<34

34to66

>66

Road failures per mile of road in slope positions (multiple watersheds)

0.14 0.17

0.078

0.38

0.50

0.14

0.51

0.67

0.06

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Upper Middle LowerSlope position

Roa

d fa

ilure

s/m

ile o

f roa

d

Surface Erosion (90)

Mass Wasting (229)

All Failures (319)

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

Fai

lure

s/m

ile o

f R

oad

33 67 68

Slope Position (%)

SNF Mass Wasting Road Failure Rates by Slope Position

Mass wasting road failures per mile of road by bedrock geology(Bluff Creek Watershed)

0.87

0.71

0.61

0.27 0.24

0.12

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Serpentinite Diorite Phyllite Metasediments Metavolcanics Schist

Bedrock geology units

Roa

d fa

ilure

s/m

ile o

f roa

d

Geology and Failure Rate

Olympic National ForestOlympic National Forest

ONF Northwest DistrictONF Northwest District

Pistol Cr.

Bonidu Cr.

Calawah R.N. Fk.

Headwaters

Use Topograpy to Define Use Topograpy to Define Landscape Types for Landscape Types for Chi-square AnalysisChi-square Analysis

Slope:<=15%, 15-30%, 30-45%, >45%

Slope Position:<=20%, 20-55%, 55-85%, 85-100%

Distance to Stream:<34m, 34-74m, 74-135m, <=135m

Example Landscape Units for Example Landscape Units for 22

Chi-Square Results:Chi-Square Results:

Landscape types with fewer failures than Landscape types with fewer failures than expected were generally in gentler slope expected were generally in gentler slope areas; those at lower slope positions and areas; those at lower slope positions and further from streams. further from streams.

Types with more failures than expected were Types with more failures than expected were generally at higher slope positions, steeper generally at higher slope positions, steeper slopes, and closer to streams.slopes, and closer to streams.

A Need for More Specific Risk A Need for More Specific Risk InformationInformation

Combine 509 known failures with 1008 randomly selected locations.

Use slope, slope position, and stream proximity to estimate relative risk of road-related landslides.

Logistic Regression Modelling:

Logistic Regression Sample Units Logistic Regression Sample Units

Logistic Regression Model:

ln(odds) = -1.8802 + 0.0238Slope + 0.0192Slope

Position – 0.016Distance + 0.0001SlopeDistance

Relative Odds of Road-Related Relative Odds of Road-Related Landslides Landslides

Reference Segment:Slope 3%Slpos 8%Distance 213m

Slope 7% Slopos 4% Distance 27mLandslide Odds 19XReference Segment95% CL: 7, 51

Slope 23% Slopos 19% Distance 27mLandslide Odds 39XReference Segment95% CL: 15, 100

Relative Odds Compared to 2% Slope, 2% Relative Odds Compared to 2% Slope, 2% Slope Position, 200m to Stream Slope Position, 200m to Stream

73

167

127

72

50

53

65

17

Average Relative Odds by Average Relative Odds by Watershed Watershed

Point swarms show problem areas clearly

How you get it…How you get it…

Add DSR points and attributes Add DSR points and attributes to INFRAto INFRA

Attributes of failure type, Attributes of failure type, cause, coarse magnitudecause, coarse magnitude

How you get itHow you get it

1.1. Modify description block in DSR to Modify description block in DSR to include:include:

Failure typeFailure type

CauseCause Volume Volume (quantity classes)(quantity classes)

TotalTotal To streamTo stream To riparian area To riparian area (within 50 m)(within 50 m)

Cause Attributes…QuestionsCause Attributes…Questions

Perpetrator or innocent Perpetrator or innocent bystander?bystander?

Context Context Impact Impact

Sometimes roads Sometimes roads catch and preventcatch and preventsediment deliverysediment delivery

Other road monitoringOther road monitoring

Use categories created in this Use categories created in this effort for consistency and effort for consistency and combined analysiscombined analysis