Information To Users

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Investigations of RunoffProduction and Sedimentation on Forest Roads
by
Beverley Coghill Wemple
A DISSERTATION
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Presented November 30, 1998

Commencement June 1999
UMI N um ber: 9 9 2 1 2 7 0
UMI Microform 9921270

Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
© Copyright by Beverley Coghill Wemple
November 30, 1998
All Rights Reserved
Doctor of Philosophy dissertation o fBeverlev rnohill Wemple presented on
November 30.1998
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Forest Science
tent of Forest Science
Dean of Graduatoftchool
I understand that my dissertation will become part o f the permanent collection o f Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any
reader upon request.
Beverley Coghill \Vemplfe, Author
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Beveriev Coghill Wemple for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Forest Science
presented on November 30,1998. Title: Investigations nf Runoff Production and
Sedimentation on Forest Roads.
Abstract Approved:_____ JfjXUx idU

J JuliaÂllen Jones
Forest roads constructed in steep mountain landscapes have been associated with a
number of effects on hydrologic and geomorphic processes. This research examined the
effects of forest roads on the flow o f water and sediment in drainage basins in the Cascade
range of western Oregon. A study conducted at the hillslope scale (< 0.1 km2) during the
1996 water year examined the factors controlling runoff production on forest roads.
Runoff response was related to climatic conditions (storm size and soil moisture) and to
the hillslope setting (size of the contributing hillslope, hillslope gradient, and soil depth on
contributing hillslopes) on which roads were located. These observations were consistent
with a theoretical model of runoff production on steep hillslopes. A study conducted at
the large basin scale (181 km2) examined erosion associated with forest roads during the
February 1996 flood. Roads functioned both as initiation sites for erosion and as
depositional sites, interrupting the flow o f water and sediment along hillslopes and in
channels. Roads constructed prior to 1960 in midslope and valley floor positions
experienced the highest frequency of erosion and deposition, and these impacts were
concentrated at elevations below 800 m, where storm precipitation was augmented by
snowmelt. Both fluvial and mass wasting processes deposited sediment on roads and
eroded sediment from roads, and multiple processes were linked in complex cascades at
many sites. Roads were a net source o f sediment in the basins studied, although they
functioned as both sources and storage sites for sediment, depending upon their location
on hillslopes. The results point to the importance of roads in both modifying physical
processes and in routing material through drainage basins. The findings have significant
implications for the management o f roads in forested landscapes.
anemia
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation represents for me the culmination o f seven years of

graduate school and the most rewarding learning experience of my life. There
are many people to whom I owe thanks for making this experience possible.
I am eternally grateful to the members o f my graduate committee and
other supportive members o f the faculty at Oregon State University, who
provided valuable guidance throughout my graduate work. Fred Swanson
launched the ideas that lead to both my masters and doctoral research with a
few fateful words uttered in 1992, “...why don’t you take a look at the roads?”
I am grateful for his constant support and encouragement. Gordon Grant
provided inspirational guidance and encouraged me to aim high and think
critically. Bob Beschta served as an outstanding teacher, carefully reviewing
my work and providing thoughtful ideas. John Selker provided critical advice
and guidance on study design, instrumentation methods and theoretical
approach. Dick Waring, Kermit Cromack, and Mike Unsworth served as
dedicated members o f my graduate committee. Julia Jones, my major
professor, has guided me through seven wonderous years o f inquiry,
frustration, and adventure. By example, she has taught me invaluable lessons
about being a scientist, pursuing dreams, and balancing professional and family
life. She has tolerated my stubbornness and never waivered in her support. I
feel very fortunate to have been her student.
Many individuals provided support in conducting the research that lead
to this dissertation. AI Levno, Craig Creel, Greg Downing, Leroy Ray, and
Terry Crier provided field assistance and aided in access to my study sites at
the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. I particularly thank Greg Downing
for providing numerous snowcat rides, accompanying me by foot to my sites
after the February 1996 flood, helping me to cut down trees to reestablish
access, and generally “watching out” for me. Don Henshaw and Hazel
Hammond helped archive my datasets and provided important assistance on
programming and analytical matters. George Lienkaemper and Barbara Marks
fielded numerous questions on GIS. Nadene Sorensen, Reed Perkins, and Paul
Crenna helped set up instrumentation for the road hydrology study. Becky
Frasier and Julie Donald collected field data for the sedimentation study.
I feel extremely fortunate to have formed friendships with peers during
my graduate schools years. I owe special thanks to Reed Perkins for his
constant willingness to accompany me in the field. Our deep conversations on
hydrology and the meaning of life will be one o f my fondest grad-school
memories. I am forever indebted to Jinfen Duan for his constant support,
guidance, and answers to my numerous questions. I also owe thanks to
numerous friends, including Laurie Parendes, Diana Sinton, Xan Augerot, Barb
Schrader, Pete Weisberg, Peter Impara, Kristin Vanderbilt, Kai Snyder, Scott
Waichler, Steve Wondzell, Shari Johnson and David Post, for the many
conversations and interactions that enhanced my education.
Finally, I wish to thank my family for their support and encouragement.
I thank my parents for always having made education a priority and for
encouraging me to pursue my goals. I also thank my parents-in-law, Don and
Anne, for their support, enthusiasm and friendship. Finally, I thank the men in
my life, Bryan and Liam, for making this all worthwhile. I will always look
forward to coming home to their smiling feces after a long day at work!
Funding for this research was provided by a grant from the U.S.
Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (Task
Order #H952-A1-0101-19). Additional funding was provided through the
U.SJD.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station for research at
the H. J. Andrews Long-Term Ecological Research site (National Science
Foundation grant DEB96-32921).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2: Hillslope and Climatic Controls on RunoffProduction on Forest Roads 8

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................9
2.2 Theory...................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Methods.................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Study area..................................................................................16
2.3.2 Road runoff measurements......................................................... 19
2.3.3 Climatic conditions.................................................................... 23
2.3.4 Field mapping............................................................................26
2.3.5 Analysis..................................................................................... 27
2.3.5.1 Road-surface runoff.................................................... 27
2.3.5.2 Runoffby subsurface flow............................................30
2.4 Results .................................................................................................34
2.4.1 Road surfaces and contributing hillslopes....................................34
2.4.2 Climatic conditions and runoff hydrographs................................38
2.4.3 Road-surface runoff....................................................................42
2.4.4 Runoff from subsurface flow.......................................................51
2.5 Limits o f data and analysis.........................................................................61
2.6 Discussion.................................................................................................64
Chapter 3: Road-related Sedimentatation in the Western Oregon Cascades During the

February 1996 Flood .................................................................................................68
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................69
3.2 Methods .................................................................................................70
3.2.1 Study she description................................................................. 70
3.2.2 Survey and field methods...........................................................75
3.2.3 Analysis of landscape position of features................................. 78
3.2.4 Analysis of process complexity and disturbance cascades.......... 81
3.2.5 Sediment mass balance...............................................................82
3.3 Results .................................................................................................84
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.3.1 Number and types of sedimentation features.............................. 84

3.3.2 Landscape position of sedimentation features............................. 86
3.3.3 Process complexity and disturbance cascades............................. 93
3.3.4 Sediment volumes and mass balance.......................................... 95
3.4 Discussion................................................................................................97
Chapter 4: Conclusions............................................................................................. 102

4.1 Summary ............................................................................................... 102
4.2 Management Implications........................................................................ 103
4.3 Future Research...................................................................................... 104
Bibliography 106
Appendices 115
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Schematic diagram of a hillslope showing possible hydrologic and

geomorphic effects o f forest roads..................................................................... 5
1.2 Relevant scales in time and space for studies in hydrology and
geomorphology. .............................................................................................. 6
2.1 Definition diagram for a hillslope...................................................................... 12
2.2 Definition diagram for components of precipitation hyetograph and

runoff hydrograph........................................................................................... 15
2.3 Study area, Watershed 3 in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, and
locations of instrumented sites......................................................................... 17
2.4 Schematic of road features and instrumentation design..................................... 21
2.5 Rating curves for 9-inch and 18-inch culverts instrumented for this
study...............................................................................................................22
2.6 Average values and standard deviations of the hourly recession

coefficient n, for each culvert and Watershed 3 ................................................ 25
2.7 Descriptions of soil profiles present on hillslopes above instrumented

culverts...........................................................................................................28
2.8 Schematic representation of the relationships among soil depth, slope

angle, and depth of the road c u t......................................................................29
2.9 Graph of slope angle and soil depth for sites instrumented in this study.............37
2.10 Values of the soil moisture index for Watershed 3 and the cumulative
precipitation between November 1,1995 and April 30, 1996.......................... 39
2.11 Plots o f precipitation depth versus average precipitation intensity for

storms.............................................................................................................40
2.12 Precipitation hyetographs and storm hydrographs from instrumented

culverts and Watershed 3 ................................................................................ 43
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
2.13 Measured hydrographs at C l and estimated road surface runoff

calculated from observed contributing area mapped during storms and
maximum possible contributing area............................................................... 49
2.14 Estimated road surface runoff as a fraction of total measured runoff for
storms during the monitoring period.................................................................50
2.15 Rainfall-runofFrelations for sites producing runoff during the
monitoring period.......................................................................................... 52
2.16 Plots of the drainage area versus runoff volume for seven rain events
during the monitoring period...........................................................................59
2.17 Unit-area runoff and storm precipitation depth for seven rain events
during the monitoring period...........................................................................60
2.18 Runoff ratios and indices o f soil moisture for seven rain events during
the monitoring period......................................................................................62
2.19 Average runoff ratios for seven rain events during the monitoring
period.............................................................................................................63
2.20 Map of the upper hillslope in Watershed 3 showing locations of

culverts and connectivity of road segments to the channel network..................67
3.1 Study area, Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds in the western
Oregon Cascades, showing extents of (a.) slope position polygons and
(b.) elevation zones.........................................................................................71
3.2 Eight types of features inventoried on roads in Lookout Creek and Blue
River............................................................................................................... 76
3.3 Summary of precipitation and snowmelt for the period February 1-10,
1996 as recorded at meteorological stations at the FL J. Andrews
Experimental Forest........................................................................................ 79
3.4 Volumes used to compute sediment mass balance.............................................83
3.5 Distribution of size classes of sediment for inventoried features........................ 87
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Page
3.6 Schematic representation o f the distribution and spatial complexity of

features inventoried in this study..................................................................... 94
3.7 Schematic representation of sediment mass balance for eight types of
sedimentation features inventoried in Lookout Creek and Blue River............... 96
3.8Function of forest roads relative to types of erosion and deposition

studied and influence o f road design on occurrence of these features............. 101
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Summary o f storm events during the study period November 1995 -
April 1996 and storm hydrographs recorded at instrumented culverts.............. 31
2.2 Characteristics o f instrumented sites.................................................................. 36

2.3 Regression models (rain events only) for the relationship between
runoff variables and storm conditions...............................................................55
3.1 Summary o f characteristics of study basins........................................................74
3.2 Eight types of erosional and depositional features identified on the road
network with point o f origin, point of deposition, and components of
sediment mass balance..................................................................................... 77
3.3 Distribution and frequency of inventoried features in Lookout Creek

and Blue River................................................................................................ 85
3.4 Distribution of road length and inventoried features by road age,
elevation and hillslope position in Lookout Creek and Blue River.................... 88
3.5 Relation between decade of road construction, elevation, and hillslope

position at Lookout Creek and Blue River........................................................90
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1 Conversion of hourly recession coefficient to a daily coefficient..................... 116

2 Primet precipitation and hydrographs recorded at instrumented culverts 117
3 Dataset of road-related sedimentation features inventoried in Lookout

Creek and Blue River................................................................................... 165
Investigations of Runoff Production and Sedimentation on Forest Roads
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the western U. S., as in many parts of the world, much o f the existing forested
land is located in mountainous regions. Steep slopes, high relief and extreme climate
conditions typical of mountain environments commonly result in high precipitation, rapid
conversion of precipitation to runoff and erosion rates that exceed most other subaerial
environments (Hewitt, 1972). An understanding of hydrologic and geomorphic
processes active in these environments is a critical component o f ecosystem science and
essential to sound land management. Water represents the greatest flow of any material
substance through a forested ecosystem (Waring and Schlessinger, 1985). Geomorphic
processes are important mechanisms for ecosystem disturbance and nutrient transport,
create landforms that provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms, and influence
water quality. In addition, land management activities that alter runoff and erosion
regimes have important implications for ecosystem function.
Forested watersheds respond dynamically to precipitation, and runoff occurs by
multiple flow processes. The dynamic nature of hydrologic response is perhaps best
evidenced by the expansion and contraction of drainage networks. These changes occur
over time scales ranging from individual storm events (Blyth and Rodda, 1973; Dunne,
Moore et al., 1975; Rochelle and Wigington Jr., 1986) to thousands of years over which
landscape evolution occurs (Smith and Bretherton, 1972; Abrahams, 1984; Dietrich and
Dunne, 1993). Early studies in forest hydrology, motivated by a need to understand
runoff generation processes, characterized dynamic changes in channel networks in
response to storms and led to the notion that runoff is produced from dynamic source
areas (Amerman, 1965; Ragan, 1968; Hewlett and HIbbert, 1967; Betson and Marius,
1969).
2
Considerable progress has been made in recent decades in understanding the

processes and mechanisms of runoff generation in steep, upland watersheds. While
runoff by infiltration-excess overland flow (e.g. Horton, 1933) is rare in forested
settings, detailed field studies have provided considerable insight into runoff by
saturation-excess overland flow (Dunne and Black, 1970) and subsurface flow
(Whipkey, 1965; Weyman, 1973; Anderson and Burt, 1978). Recognition of the
importance o f subsurface flow has led to numerous studies investigating mechanisms of
runoff production by subsurface-flow processes. Hewlett and Hibbert (1967) originally
asserted that moisture would be delivered downslope as stored water in the soil was
displaced by new precipitation, producing a piston-type mechanism that they termed
"translatory flow." Other studies point to the importance of groundwater contributions
in the near-stream zone (Sklash and Farvolden, 1979; Poinke et al., 1988). The role of
rapid pressure changes in the unsaturated (Torres et al., 1998) or saturated (Sklash and
Farvolden, 1979) zone has been invoked to explain runoff contributions from the
subsurface. Rapid, downslope delivery of water via preferential subsurface flowpaths
(e.g. macropores) has also been recognized as an important mechanism of runoff
production in forested watersheds (Aubertin, 1971; Jones, 1971; Beven and Germann,
1982; Roberge and Plamondon, 1987; McDonnell, 1990; Tsuboyama et al., 1994),
although the spatial distribution and connectivity o f macropores is poorly understood. In
most environments, runoff is probably produced by the interaction of multiple
mechanisms, and these interactions have received recent attention in field studies
(Mulholland, 1993; Montgomery and Dietrich, 1995).
The suite of geomorphic processes operating in steep, forested environments is
complex, involving multiple mechanisms of material transfer. This complex nature is
perhaps best evidenced by the variety of landforms and channel structures present in
forested settings. These landforms are produced by processes operating at varying
temporal and spatial scales (Hack and Goodlett, 1960; Dietrich and Durme, 1978;
Swanson et al., 1982a), with frequencies that range from continuous to episodic, and
rates of soil and sediment movement that range from relatively slow (10'3 - 10° m/year)
to relatively fast (101- 102 m/s) (Swanson et aL, 1982a).
3
The literature on geomorphic processes in upland, forested settings is extensive.

Considerable work has focused on examining the mechanics of individual processes
(Varnes, 1978; Iverson and Denlinger, 1987; Wilson and Dietrich, 1987; Komar and
Shih, 1992, and many others). Sediment budget and routing studies (Dietrich and
Dunne, 1978; Swanson et al., 1982b; Swanson et al., 1987). have identified the range of
geomorphic processes active in forested watersheds, rates o f material transport, and
factors controlling material storage. Within an ecological context, geomorphic processes
may be viewed as important agents of nutrient and material export from watersheds
(1982a) and as disturbance agents with variable effects on modifying terrestrial
vegetation and aquatic habitat (Swanson et al., 1998).
Geomorphic processes that operate in steep, forested settings may be broadly
grouped into those that operate on hillslopes and those that are active in channels
(Swanson et al., 1982a). On hillslopes, material transfer may include particle-by-particle
transport by surface erosion, slow, continuous downslope movement of soil by creep,
rapid detachment and transport of soil en mass —alternately termed debris slides or
debris avalanches (Swanson et al., 1982a; Dietrich et al., 1982), and slow, deep-seated
displacement of soil masses as earthflows. In channels, material transfer occurs in
solution, in suspension, or as bedload. Transport of material in solution or in suspension
typically occurs continuously, while transport of larger size classes of material typically
occurs episodically during storms. Large pulses o f organic and inorganic material may
also be transported in channels by debris flows. Bank erosion occurs by lateral channel
migration. Many of these processes work together and are inherently linked (Swanson et
al., 1982a; Dietrich et al., 1982). Processes supply sediment to depositional
environments, where it is stored and subsequently subject to transport by other
processes. In addition, one process may initiate another. Finally, soil transported by
slow, continuous processes may become vulnerable to rapid transport during large storm
events.
This dissertation examines the effects of forest roads on hydrologic and
geomorphic processes in a steep, mountain environment. It is now generally understood
that forest practices, including harvesting and road construction, affect hydrologic and
4
geomorphic processes (Figure 1.1). Forest roads can generate overland flow (Reid,
1981; Ziegler and Giambdhica, 1997), which is rare in undisturbed forested settings
(Dunne, 1978), and can intercept subsurface flow along road cuts (Megahan, 1972).
This runoff may be rapidly routed downstream when road drainage discharges directly to
channels, effectively extending the channel network (Wemple et al., 1996). Forest roads
can also increase rates of fine sediment production (Reid and Dunne, 1984; Bilby et al.,
1989) and increase rates of landsliding relative to forested conditions (Swanson and
Dymess, 1975). The contributions of road sediment to channels may adversely affect
aquatic habitat (Duncan et a l, 1987; Bilby et al, 1989). In addition, complex process
interactions, or disturbance cascades, may occur during storms when material from
hillslopes and channels is intercepted by roads, diverted by road drainage structures, and
triggers additional erosion on roads (Swanson et al., 1998).
The research presented in this dissertation was conducted in forested watersheds
of the western Oregon Cascades. Logging and road construction have produced a
mosaic of harvest units covering approximately 25% of the land area and road densities
of roughly 3 km/km2 (Jones and Grant, 1996). Details of the road network development
in these watersheds is given elsewhere (Wemple, 1994). Previous studies of hydrology
and geomorphology in these watersheds have examined the effects o f logging and road
construction on peak streamflows (Rothacher, 1970b; Harr, 1976; Harr and McCorison,
1979; Jones and Grant, 1996; Thomas and Megahan, 1998), water yield (Rothacher,
1970a), sediment yield (Swanson et al., 1982a; Grant and Wolff 1991), and erosion
during flood events (Dymess, 1967; Swanson and Dymess, 1975). While logging roads
have been implicated in changes in streaxnfiow and increased rates of erosion, little
process-based information details how roads modify key processes.
The central question addressed in this research is, how do roads modify the flows
of water and sediment in a forested landscape? Chapter 2 presents findings of a study,
conducted at the hillslope scale (10*3 - 10*2 km2) during one water year, aimed at
examining factors controlling runoff generation on forest roads (Figure 1.2). Chapter 3
presents findings of a study, conducted at the large watershed scale (102 km2), aimed at
examining how roads modify the transfer and storage of sediment during a flood of
Generation of Production
overland flow on of fine Interception of
road surface sediment on hillslope and
road surfaces channel sediment
by roads *
Delivery of Delivery of
runoff to sediment to
Interception of channels channels
subsurface flow at
road cuts * Process
interactions at
Initiation of roads. Roads
erosion by trigger change
mass wasting in form or
on roads * runout
behavior.*
Figure 1.1 Schematic diagram of a hillslope showing possible hydrologic and geomorphic effects of forest roads.
Stars (*) indicate effects examined in this study.
6
a
continental 104
river basin/
region
1Q3
“large" 102 . .
watersheds/ C
landscape2 J
io1 --
^
“small" 100. .
watersheds1
10 -1 - -
hillslopes 10 -2 - -
— 1— ----- 1-----—1------- 1------- 1-----_1--------- 1-------

10-2 10-1 100 1Q1 102 103 104
time (years)
storm season: water j landuse landscape

events year I change evolution
Notes:
1Refers to watershed scale typically examined in paired-watershed studies of effects of

landuse on water and sediment (Brooks et al., 1991).
2 Refers to scale relevant to management of public lands and important to biological
integrity of key terrestrial and aquatic organisms (FEMAT, 1993).
Figure 1.2 Relevant scales in time and space for studies in hydrology and
geomorphology. Temporal and spatial scales of investigation for Chapters 2 and 3 of
this study are shown.
7
record in the region (Figure 1.2). A central goal is to develop conceptual models for
understanding how roads function in this steep, forested landscape. Chapter 4 provides a
summary of findings, points to future research needs, and comments on management
implications of this research.
8
Chapter 2
Hillslope and Climatic Controls on Runoff Production on Forest Roads
in preparation for journal submission
9
2.1 Introduction
Forest roads constructed in steep, mountainous terrain influence hydrology

through several mechanisms. Roads generate runoff by intercepting precipitation on
compacted road surfaces and subsurface flow along road cuts. The network o f road
ditches and culverts concentrates runoff into channelized flowpaths. Where concentrated
surface runoff is routed to streams, roads effectively extend the channel network. These
factors alter pre-existing flowpaths, modify the routing of water through a basin, and
potentially alter the timing and magnitude o f runoff peaks.
By concentrating runoff and routing it to channels, roads may substantially
increase drainage density. Wemple et al. (1996) estimated increases in drainage density
ranging from 20 to 50% for two basins in the western Oregon Cascades, based on
portions of the road network assumed to be connected to channels. Bowling and
Lettenmeier (1997) estimated increases in drainage density of 64 and 52% in two basins
in western Washington. Earlier studies in the Pacific Northwest documented the
connection of roads and streams as an important factor in the delivery o f fine sediment to
streams (Duncan et al., 1987; Bilby et al., 1989).
Compaction of the road surface reduces infiltration capacity, producing overland
flow which is rare on undisturbed forest soils (Harr, 1977). Documented overland flow
rates and associated sediment production on roads is available for field studies in the
western U.S. (Reid, 1981; Foltz and Burroughs, 1990), equatorial Africa (Dunne and
Dietrich, 1982), and the humid tropics (Harden, 1992). Factors influencing overland
flow production on roads include antecedent moisture conditions on the road surface,
quality of road surfacing material and associated roughness, and degree o f compaction
(Foltz and Burroughs, 1990), as well as the slope and surface area of an individual road
segment (Reid, 1981; Bilby et al., 1989). Modeling studies have produced predictive
tools for estimating overland flow on roads. Luce and Cundy (1994), using results of
rainfall-sprinkling experiments, identified infiltration parameters for roads that produced
10
good predictions of surface runoff for a range of conditions. Ziegler and Giambelhica
(1997) estimated infiltration rates on road surfaces, agricultural fields and forested areas
and made predictions of the conditions under which roads would be expected to generate
surface runoff.
Road cuts incised into the soil profile may intercept shallow subsurface flow on
hillslopes. Empirical studies have documented subsurface-flow interception far in excess
of overland flow volumes from road surfaces (Burroughs et al, 1971; Megahan, 1972;
Sullivan and Duncan, 1981), although the occurrence may be highly variable in space and
time. In studies in Idaho, Megahan (1972) estimated that subsurface flow intercepted at
a road cut was more than seven times larger than direct runoff from the road surface.
Megahan and Clayton (1983) showed that the volume o f subsurface flow intercepted by
a road was related to the volume of stored soil water in the hillslope. No empirical study
has attempted to describe the range of conditions necessary for the interception of
subsurface flow along road cuts. While several attempts have been made to model
transient saturated subsurface flow on hillslopes (Freeze, 1972; Freeze, 1972; Beven,
1977; Beven, 1981; Beven, 1982a; Beven, 1982b) and to apply these to forested settings
(Stephenson and Freeze, 1974; Dietrich et al., 1986; Wilson et al., 1989; Brown, 1995),
I know of only one attempt to date, which met with limited success, to model the
occurrence of subsurface flow at a road cut (Mohsemsaravi, 1981).
In this study, I report findings of detailed field measurements of runoff on forest
roads. I evaluate the relative importance of surface runoff and subsurface-flow
interception as components o f measured runoff on roads in a small (1 km2) instrumented
watershed. I present a theoretical model for predicting runoff behavior on roads and
examine the relationship between runoff and the climatic conditions and hillslope setting
on sites studied.
11
2.2 Theory
Studies have shown that the storm response of steep forested hillslopes is
typically dominated by saturated subsurface flow (Dunne, 1978; Harr, 1977; Beven,
1981; Montgomery and Dietrich, 1995). Hydraulic conductivity of surface soils usually
exceeds rainfall rates, and overland flow is rare on undisturbed soils (Dunne, 1978).
High organic matter content, low weathering rates and high rates of soil turnover due to
erosion by mass movements conspire to produce thin, highly porous soils, overlying less
permeable subsoil or bedrock (Dymess, 1969; Dietrich et al., 1995). Numerous
flowpath studies have confirmed that precipitation typically infiltrates the soil profile and
produces surface runoff via one or more hydrologic mechanisms, including saturated
subsurface flow and preferential macropore flow (Dunne and Black, 1970; Jones, 1971;
Anderson and Burt, 1978; McDonnell, 1990; Tsuboyama et al., 1994; Mulholland, 1993;
Montgomery and Dietrich, 1995, and many others).
In managed forests, overland flow may occur on disturbed soils and road
surfaces, where compaction limits infiltration capacities. The rate o f runoff originating
on compacted road surfaces (Q„) may be estimated from the contributing road area (A,)
using the standard rational method (Pilgrim and Cordery, 1993)
Q „= d A r (2.1)
where i is the rainfall intensity and c is a runoff coefficient. Although it was developed
for peak flow estimation, this method provides a reasonably good estimate of overland
flow production on compacted road surfaces, assuming that runoff is immediately
delivered to a measurement station.
Runoff production by subsurface flow is considerably more complex, particularly
on steep hillslopes common in upland forested environments. On steeply inclined slopes
with thin, highly porous soils overlying less permeable bedrock, conditions often favor
the formation of a perched water table and lateral subsurface flow (Figure 2.1).
Assuming flow is parallel to the slope (sin a) and neglecting capillary
unsaturated zone
Z=0
saturated zone
Ire
Figure 2.1: Definition diagram for a hillslope inclined at angle a of constant soil depth dp measured orthogonal to the slope.
Under certain conditions, precipitation (p) promotes the formation of a pearched water table of height h, driving lateral
subsurface flow (qj. Runoffgenerated on roads may originate from subsurface flow intercepted at the road cut (q^) or
precipitation intercepted on the compacted road surface (q„). The occurrance of the former is controlled in part by the
hillslope length (L) or upslope drainage area and the ratio of the depth of the road cut (D J to the total soil depth (DJ
(measured orthogonal to the road bed, e.g. D, cos a = d ,).
13
forces, subsurface flow can be approximated by

qs = Ktsina (2.2)
where K, is the saturated hydraulic conductivity and q, is the (two-dimensional) flow rate
through a hillslope profile.
Numerous field studies conducted in forested settings confirm that hydraulic
conductivity of soils is not constant, but varies with depth into the profile and can be
expressed as a function o f water table height (h) as
K ,(h) = K 0h“ (2.3)
where Ko is the conductivity at the base of the profile and the parameter n describes the
change in conductivity as the height of the water table changes (see table in Beven,
1982b). Combining (2.2) and (2.3) gives a simple form for estimation of subsurface flow
on a hillslope as a function o f water table height
B
q« (h) = J K 0h"sina dz (2.4)
Beven (1982a, 1982b) showed that on steeply inclined hillslopes, the water table
height at steady state is controlled by the precipitation rate (p), the slope length (L), the
hillslope gradient (sin a ), and the form of the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, and is
given by
i
(n + l)pL I+n
h= (2.5)
K sin a
Antecedent moisture conditions also influence both the magnitude and timing of
subsurface flow. In the unsaturated zone, hydraulic conductivity is a function of soil
moisture content (6), and wetter conditions lead to more rapid transmission of
precipitation to the saturated zone and an associated rise in the water table. Antecedent
precipitation and soil moisture may also correlate with the height of the hillslope water
table, and influence the rate and timing of flow in the saturated zone.
The timing of runoff response is governed by the movement o f water through the
soil profile and includes two components, a lag time (Ti) controlled by the flux of
moisture through the unsaturated zone, and a concentration time (Tc) controlled by the
14
transmission of water through the saturated zone (Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2). Beven
(1982b) demonstrated that these two components would be most sensitive to soil depth,
the precipitation input rate, and the initial soil moisture conditions.
This theoretical model of subsurface flow provides a context for characterizing
subsurface flow interception by roads constructed on steep slopes. Neglecting
drawdown effects at the cutface, interception of subsurface flow would be expected to
occur as the water table rises above the depth of the road cut. Hence, subsurface flow at
the road (qrc) would be
(2 .6)
where ck = Drc cos a (Figure 2.1).

This discussion suggests that several key factors control runoff in space and time.
Temporal variation in runoff should be controlled by the precipitation rate (equations
2.1, 2.5), although soil moisture conditions may influence the magnitude and timing of
the response. Spatial variation in runoff should be related to contributing area, the slope
gradient, and characteristics of the soil profile (equations 2.1, 2.5). Following equation
2.6,1 expect subsurface flow interception by roads to be influenced by the depth to
which the road cut intersects the soil profile. Furthermore, the above model suggests
that there is a threshold precipitation rate or depth below which the water table does not
reach the road cut and subsurface flow is not intercepted.
Accordingly, I examine the behavior of runoff generated on a series o f road
segments, constructed on steep hillslopes in a forested setting. Using the theoretical
model set forth above, I examine the influence of climatic conditions (precipitation rate
and depth, antecedent soil moisture conditions) and hillslope setting (drainage area, slope
gradient, soil depth, and depth o f the road cut) on the magnitude and tuning of road
runoff and develop a framework for understanding how roads function hydrologically in
this environment.
15
Figure 2.2: Definition diagram for components of precipitation hyetograph and runoff
hydrograph. Precipitation events are characterized by total precipitation depth OP), a
peak precipitation intensity (pp), and a time to peak precipitation (tp). Runoff is
characterized by a total discharge volume (Q), a peak discharge rate (Qp), and a time to
peak runoff (Tp). The time to peak runoff includes two components: a lag time (Ti) from
the start of precipitation until runoff begins, and a concentration time (Tc) from the start
to the peak of runoff (Beven, 1982b).
16
2.3 Methods
The study was conducted in Watershed 3 in the Lookout Creek watershed,

located approximately 70 kilometers east of Eugene. Road runoff and precipitation were
measured during the 1996 water year. Field mapping was used characterize hillslopes
and road surfaces contributing runoff to monitoring stations.
2.3.1 Study area
Watershed 3 is a 1.01 km2basin in the Lookout Creek watershed in the western

Oregon Cascades. Located within the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, the basin is
part of a paired-watershed study, established in 1952, to examine the effects of forest
practices on streamflow and sedimentation (Rothacher et al., 1967) (Figure 2.3). The
experimental treatment in Watershed 3 included roads and clearcuts. Approximately 3
kilometers of logging road were constructed in 1959. Three small patch cuts, covering
approximately twenty-five percent of the basin area, were harvested and broadcast
burned in 1963. Continuous streamflow monitoring since November 1952 provides a
record of the pre- and post-treatment hydrology o f the basin.
The basin is underlain by geomorphically unstable, volcaniclastic rocks of
Oligocene to late Miocene origin (Swanson and James, 1975). The uppermost ridge is
comprised of more stable andesite. Topographic development of the upper hillslopes in
the basin is pronounced with evidence of periodic failure o f colluvium. Soils derived
from volcanic parent material are loams to clay loams with variable stone contents.
Infiltration rates and saturated hydraulic conductivities are high, and overland flow rarely
occurs on undisturbed soils (Harr, 1977). Soil depths range from less than 1 meter to
more than 8 meters in some locations (Dyrness, 1969). Vegetation cover includes old-
growth Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and
western red cedar (Thuja plicata) (Rothacher et al., 1967).
17
Figure 2.3: Study area, Watershed 3 in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, and
locations o f instrumented sites. Heavy black line represents functional roads; open line
represents abandoned road. Shaded gray zones are locations of harvested units in
Watershed 3. Locations of culverts are shown as circles with information regarding
instrumentation status shown in the map legend.
18
H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest
Oregon
Watershed 3
Rd4o6
Culverts
• bntrumantBd, producsd nmoff, wudyzsd
• Inatnmwnted. produced wnoM, rating cunranot
® Instrumented, did not produce runoff
° Not instrumented Meters
19
Elevations in Watershed 3 range from 480 to 1080 meters. Mean annual

precipitation is 2300 mm, with roughly 80% occurring between October and April
(Greenland, 1994). Precipitation occurs most frequently in the form of rain at this
elevation, although a transient snowpack develops during some winter storms (Perkins,
1997). Snowmelt concurrent with large rain storms, so-called “rain-on-snow” events,
has produced the highest runoff events of record (Harr, 1981).
Total annual precipitation during the study period (Water Year 1996) is among
the highest on record (D. Henshaw, personal communication). Between the months of
October 1995 and January 1996, precipitation in Watershed 3 occurred as rainfall. A
period of snow accumulation began in mid-January and lasted approximately three
weeks. By early February, snowpack for the Willamette River basin in western Oregon
was recorded at 112% o f the long-term average (Swanson et al., 1998). Between
February 6-8, 1996, a flood of record occurred in the region. The three-day
precipitation recorded during this period at the Primary Meteorological Station (H. J.
Andrews Forest) exceeded 250 mm. A debris flow initiated below the 455 road in
Watershed 3 (Figure 2.3) destroyed the stream gage at the mouth of the basin.
Following the February flood, a series of mixed rain and snow events occurred through
early April, when rainfall and warmer weather resulted in melting of the accumulated
snowpack in the upper elevations of the basin. A final rain event was recorded in late
April 1996 near the end o f the monitoring period for this study.
2.3.2 Road runoff measurements
Watershed 3 has 17 functional culverts on two roads located in the upper portion
of the basin (Figure 2.3). Fourteen of these culverts were instrumented to collect storm
hydrographs from road segments (Figure 2.3). Twelve o f the instrumented culverts had
standard 18-inch (45.7 cm) inlets, and two culverts had 9-inch (22.9 cm) inlets.
Measurements were not taken at the primary channel (C17) and two blocked ditch-relief
culverts (C8 and C15).
20
Discharge at the culverts was determined through continuous stage

measurements taken at culvert inlets and rating curves constructed from field
measurements. A V-notch weir with a double 60-degree to 120-degree notch,
constructed from aluminum plate, was attached to the inlets o f 18-inch culverts to
improve resolution in the stage-discharge relations (Figure 2.4). Weirs were not used on
the 9-inch culverts at sites C4 and C6. Stage at the weir was measured by 2.5-psi
pressure transducers (Electronic Engineering Innovations, Las Cruces, NM) installed in
stand pipes. Calibration equations, established in laboratory water-tank measurements
over temperature ranges of 2° to 15°C, were used to convert millivolt output of the
transducer to water height above datum. Stage readings were recorded at 5-minute
timesteps using CR10 dataloggers (Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT) throughout the
monitoring period from November 1995 - April 1996. Peak stage at each installation
was verified using mamml crest-stage recorders of one-inch diameter PVC pipe with
floating cork. To assure quality control of the continuous record, digital measurements
of stage were compared against observed measurements taken during weekly field visits.
Stage records were converted to discharge using rating curves based on
measurements of culvert discharge during winter storms. One rating curve was
developed for each culvert dimension (18-inch and 9-inch) (Figure 2.5). The rating
curve for 18-inch culverts was based on 24 stage-discharge measurements over stage
heights ranging from 1.75 to 19 cm. The rating curve for 9-inch culverts was based on
only six stage-discharge measurements, over stage heights ranging from 1 - 5.5 cm. The
inlets of these 9-inch culverts experienced frequent overtopping during storm events.
Each stage-discharge measurement was made by measuring stage height at the culvert
inlet and timing flow into a bucket at the culvert outlet. The discharge measurement
interval varied depending upon the flow rate, with intervals o f up to 60 seconds possible
during lower-flow periods. All discharge measurements exceeded five seconds. Buckets
were sealed and returned to the lab where they were weighed to determine volumes.
upslope contributing area

crowned road surface
(runoff drains
(runoff drains to ditch)
to fillslope) cutslope
groundwater seep
/ toCRlO
datalogger
Culvert inlet
fillslope
crest
stage
recorder
weir
Culvert outlet wheel ruts
/
standpipe
pressure
transducer
Figure 2.4: Schematic of road features and instrumentation design. Runoff from road surface and subsurface-flow seeps was
measured at culvert inlets. Measurement instrumentation included weirs attached to culvert inlets and pressure transducers
installed in stilling wells. Stage at the weir was recorded on dataloggers at 5-minute intervals.
K)
22
100000
Q = 35.5 X 1320 (n=6, I2=99.9%)
10000 9-incfi culvert
18-inch culvert
1000-
Q, =4.998X , ( n = 2 0 , i2= 97.82%)
i Qz = 1.884Xz1193(n=4, i2 = 98J%)
E? 100 -
m
t
3
10 -
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
stag* (cm)
Figure 2.5: Rating curves for 9-inch and 18-inch culverts instrumented for this study.
Lines represent fitted curves. Points are measured values. Equations are of the form Q =
aX6, where Q is discharge in ml/s and X is stage in cm (for 18-inch culverts, Xi is stage <
10.cm and X2 is stage => 10 cm). Parameters a and b are obtained by regression.
23
Among the fourteen instrumented culverts, two culverts (C4 and C6) were
omitted from the analysis, since the 9-inch culvert inlets at these sites were frequently
blocked or overtopped during the monitoring period and rating curves were deemed
unreliable during these periods. Three culverts (C9, CIO, C l 1) produced no measurable
runofFbetween November 1995, when monitoring began, and late January 1996, when
access to the she was impaired by extensive treefall. The remaining nine culverts (Cl,
C2, C3, C5, C7, C12, C13, C14, C16) provide the primary dataset for analysis o f runoff
behavior on roads in this study. Monitoring at C5, C9, CIO, Cl 1, C12, C13, and C16
was discontinued after the February 5-8, 1996 flood event, due to she-access difficulty
or damage to instruments.
Storm hydrographs were extracted from the continuous runoff record collected
at each culvert when stage height rose by more than 1.5 cm and ended either when stage
height fell to 20% of the peak height or after 72 hours elapsed with steadily declining
flow. Hydrographs were described by the runoff volume, Q, defined as
(2.7)
where q(t) is the instantaneous runoff rate integrated from the start to the end of the
storm, the peak runoff rate, qp, and the time to peak runoff Tp (Figure 2.2)
2.3.3 Climatic conditions
Precipitation measurements for storms during the monitoring period were taken
from the Primary Meteorological Station (Primet), located approximately 1.4 km from
the gaging station at Watershed 3 and maintained by the H. J. Andrews Experimental
Forest. Precipitation is measured in a tipping bucket gage and recorded at a 5-minute
time step. All precipitation events that lasted at least 12 hours with average precipitation
intensity exceeding 0.5 mm/hour were selected from the continuous record for analysis
of preciphation-runoff relations. A precipitation event was defined to have ended when
24
rainfall ceased for six or more hours. Precipitation events were described by the total
storm precipitation, P, defined as
p = Z p» <2 *>
•w
where pn is the precipitation intensity at time n (using a 15-minute timestep) summed

over the storm period, the peak precipitation intensity, Pp, and the time to peak
precipitation, tp (Figure 2.2). Precipitation events were manually matched to runoff
events to create coupled hyetograph-hydrograph records of storms.
Precipitation form was described as rain, mixed rain/snow, or snow according to
the following criteria, based largely on field observations made during the study period.
Events were classified as rain if the minimum air temperature was above 1°C for the
period during which precipitation fell. Events were classified as mixed (e.g. rain-on-
snow, mixed rain and snow, or mixed on snow, sensu Perkins, 1997) when the minimum
temperature fell below 1°C and the maximum temperature was above 1°C for the
precipitation period. Snow events were those that occurred when the maximum
temperature during the precipitation period was below 1°C. Field observations (prior to
February 8 and after April 13, 1996) and reports from the H. J. Andrews field staff
confirmed classification o f precipitation for all events.
A soil moisture index 0* was developed for each culvert and for Watershed 3
following the method ofFedora and Beschta (1989). At the temporal scale of an
individual storm event, the method assumes that the influence of antecedent precipitation
on streamflow decays at the same rate as the recession limb of the hydrograph. The
method was applied to develop a general index of soil moisture conditions at a given site.
Six storms (Nov. 30, Dec. 8, Dec. 14, Dec. 28, Jan. 7, and Apr. 21), produced by rain
events and having a single, well-defined recession limb, were used to derive recession
coefficients as follows. For each storm at each site, runoff values on hydrograph
recession limbs were plotted against values preceding those observations by one hour.
The recession coefficient rh is the slope of this plot. The average recession coefficient rh
for each site (Figure 2.6), determined from the hourly runoff timeseries, was converted
to a daily coefficient rd according to
25
rd=r*24 (2.9)
(Appendix 1). This value was used to index the relative soil moisture conditions at the
time o f each storm. The daily recession coefficient at each site was used to calculate the
soil moisture index 6* from the continuous precipitation record as follows
e*t = (e*«^*rd)+Pt (2 . 10)
where Pt is the precipitation (in mm) at time t.
1.1
■e
«
15
§ 0.8
c
o
3 0.7-
I 0.6
0.5
0.4
C1 C2 C3 C5 C7 C13 C14 C16 WS3
Figure 2.6: Average values and standard deviations of the hourly recession coefficient n,
for each culvert and Watershed 3, derived according to the method o f Fedora and
Beschta (see text) from recession limbs of hydrographs at each site. Values not
calculated at C12, where runoff was only recorded during mixed rain/snow events.
Recession coefficients were used to calculate a soil moisture index (0*) for each site.
26
The seasonal soil moisture conditions were indexed by the cumulative

precipitation during the monitoring period. Indexing soil moisture by cumulative
precipitation is based on the presumption that soil moisture gradually increases
throughout the runoff season, despite finer temporal-scale fluctuations in soil moisture
over individual storms. The cumulative precipitation index P* is presumed to be a
relative measure of the seasonal soil moisture conditions at a site.
2.3.4 Field mapping
Held mapping was used to characterize the hillslopes and road surfaces
contributing runoff to road segments. Road surface maps were constructed by mapping
maximum potential and actual contributing areas. Because road surface drainage is
typically confined to rills or anastomising channels that develop on the road surface, the
contributing surface area may be difficult to define (Reid, 1981). I estimated maximum
potential contributing area by demarcating the entire road length in 10 meter segments
and measuring surface areas, delineated by drainage divides or adjacent drainage
structures, that drain to a given culvert. This area typically included only the inboard
section of the road on crowned road surfaces (Figure 2.4). During storm periods, maps
of the actual road surface areas channeling surface runoff to each culvert were
constructed by introducing dye to surface flow, observing flow paths, and mapping
runoff areas in a methods similar to that employed by Reid (1981).
Maps of the hillslopes above roads were constructed by means o f tape-, compass-
and clinometer surveys, using topographic features and culverts to delineate the
boundaries of each site. These hillslope maps were digitized into a geographic
information system in order to calculate contributing drainage area to each monitoring
station.
Soil maps constructed by Dymess (1969) were used to identify the predominant
soil unit at each site. Five mapped soil series (Limberlost, Budworm, Frissell, Slipout,
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
and soil derived from andesHe coUuvhim) intersect the portion o f the road network
monitored for this study (T. Dymess, personal communication and field reconnaissance).
Full descriptions o f the soil series are given in Hawk and Dymess (unpublished report)
and illustrated schematically in Figure 2.7.
Maps of cutbank height along the entire road network were constructed by
recording level readings on a stadia rod held in the ditch at 25-meter intervals along the
entire road network. Soil depth at the base of the hillslope, immediately upslope o f the
road cut, was probed using a standard drive probe at approximately 50-meter spacings
and at culvert locations.
A classification system to group sites based on the ratio o f road cut depth (Dro)
relative to the soil depth (D,) was developed based on soil depth and slope gradient
(Figure 2.8). Soils were classified as shallow when they were less than or equal to 2
meters, and deep when they exceeded 2 meters, based on descriptions of soil profile
development by Dymess (1969). Division of slopes into gentle and steep was somewhat
subjective, but based on field observations that roads on slopes of less than 20 degrees
had little or no cutbank excavation.
2.3.5 Analysis
Analysis of runoff was conducted in two phases. Runoff originating from road
surfaces was estimated by calculating maximum contributions based on the preciptation
record and mapped road surface area. Statistical and graphical analyses were used to
evaluate total measured runoff relative to predicted controls on runoff production.
2.3.5.1 Road-surface runoff
Estimates of the fraction of total measured runoff derived from the road surface
were calculated using the rational runoff method (equation 2.1). Precipitation intensity
values were taken from the Primet station. The contributing road-surface area for runoff
fine-textured to moderately coarse soils fine-textured to moderately-coarse deep soils stony soils >2 to over 8 meters deep
with saprolite at 0.75 - 2 meters with buried horizons, imperfectly drained
U M
1 meter 1 meter 1 meter
2 meters 2 meters 2 meters

• •
• •
(Limberlost, Budworm, Frissell) (Slipout) (Andesite Colluvium)
C l, C2, C3, C4, C13, C14, C16 C12 C 5,C 6,C 7,C 9
Figure 2.7: Descriptions o f soil profiles present on hillslopes above instrumented culverts, showing relative textural and depth
differences between soil types. Sites occurring on each soil type are noted. Sites CIO and C l 1 are located on talus deposits,
with little soil development.
Slope angle (a)
Soil depth
Figure 2.8: Schematic representation of the relationships among soil depth (D ,), slope angle (a ), and depth of the road cut (D^).
Sites on gentle slopes do not have cutbanks, and the ratio d^d, is equal to zero. Sites on steep slopes with deep soil profiles have
dn/d, ratios between zero and one, while sites on steep slopes with shallow soils have ratio d^/d, approximately equal to one.
30
measurements was taken as the area observed to produce runoff during the monitoring
period. A runoff coefficient of one (e.g. c = 1) was used, assuming that road surfaces
were perfectly impervious. This assumption provides an upper estimate of the fraction
of total runoff generated on road surfaces. Any infiltration into the road would reduce
the actual runoff from this source.
23.5.2 Runoff by subsurface flow
The remaining analysis examined the influence of climatic conditions and hillslope
setting on the interception of subsurface flow by roads. These analyses were performed
on total measured flows collected at road monitoring stations. While these flows include
contributions of road surface areas, the predominant source of runoff is presumed to
originate from subsurface flow interception, based upon estimates of minimal
contributions of road surface areas to total measured runoff.
Climatic controls on runoff behavior were examined using graphical and
regression analysis. All storms that produced measurable hydrographs at instrumented
road sites were selected to examine trends in predpitation-runoff relations (Table 2.1).
Regression analysis was performed on rain events only, since storage and release of
water in snowpacks were not expected to produce a simple relationship between
precipitation and runoff for mixed rain/snow and snow events. Regressions were
performed using the SAS statistical analysis software (SAS Institute, Chapel Hill, NC).
Hillslope controls on runoff behavior were examined by graphical analysis of
runoff response across multiple sites. Seven rain events that produced measurable runoff
hydrographs at multiple sites were used for the analysis (Table 2.1). I grouped sites into
classes of road cut depth relative to total soil depth (D r /D ,), based on differences in soil
depth and slope gradient (Figure 2.8), and examined how the magnitude of runoff
generated on instrumented roads was influenced by the size o f the contributing hillslope
area above the road, expressed as a functional relationship of the
Table 2.1: Summary of storm events during the study period November 1995 - April 1996 and storm hydrographs recorded at
instrumented culverts. Shaded areas refer to periods during which monitoring occurred at culverts1. Solid points (•) indicate
hydrographs selected for analysis of runoff. Open points (°) indicate hydrographs that were omitted from analysis due to suspected
errors. No point indicates storms that did not produce a runoff response that met the selection criteria for analysis (see text). Storms
selected for cross site analysis are listed in bold font.
Max.
Storm date2 Total Average 1/2 hour Min/
pracip. piecip. precip. Max Form3 Storm hydrographs recorded at instrumented culverts
depth intensity intensity3 temp.3,4
(nun) (mm/hr) (mm/hr) (°C) Cl C2 C3 C5 C7 C9 CIO C ll C12 C13 C14 C16
1 Nov. 25,0030* 103 1.5 7.1 2.8Z9.4

2 Nov. 27,0630 55 1.6 7.1 7.8/10.1
3 Nov. 29,09006 51 2.5 6.1 7.3Z9.5
4 Nov 30 ,12006 41* 1.7 4.6 2.5/9.3
5 Dec 1,1800 23 0.7 3.3 1.5/4.0
6 Dec 3,1200 20 1.1 4.2 1.3/7.3
7 Dec 3,0330 24 1.7 7.6 0.5/2.6
8 Dec. 8,0300s 44 1.6 6.6 0.9/9.1
9 Dec 10,1200 82 1.3 6.6 2.5/8.4
10 Dec. 14,0600 25 1.3 6.6 1.3/4.9
11 Dec. 28,1200s 165 2.6 9.1 2.8/10.2
12 Jan 2,2030 25 1.3 3.3 5.4/9.7
13 Jan 4,0030 29 0.8 3.0 1.4/3.7
14 Jan. 7 ,0500s 45 2.1 5.1 5.2/6.7
13 Jan 9,0100 28 1.5 4.0 2.916.2
16 Jan 14,1200 79 1.4 8.6 -0.6/7.2 m
17 Jan. 18,0830 172 1.9 7.6 -0,7/1.3 m
u>
Table 2.1 (continued)
Max.
Storm date3 Total Average 1/2 hour Min/
precip. precip. precip. Max Form3 Storm hydrographs recorded at instrumented culverts
depth3 intensity3 intensity3 temp.3’4
(mm) (mm/hr) (mm/hr) (°C) Cl C2 C3 C5 C7 C9 CIO C ll C12 C13 C14 C16
18 Jan 22,1700 98 1.2 5.1 -1.5/0.2 s

19 Jan 26,2000 75 1.3 6.1 -1.9/0.3 s
20 Feb. 4,2200 259 4.5 12.2 1.8/8.1 m
21 Feb 8,0030 47 2.1 10.5 5.8/8.8 m
22 Feb. 17,1500 55 1.8 3.5 1.6/8.5 m
23 Feb 20,0030 73 1.3 6.1 -2.3/8.1 m
24 Mar. 3.0230 34 1.0 4.1 0.6/5.2 m
23 Mar 10,1200 9 1.2 5.1 7.6Z9.5 r
26 Mar 11,0630 9 0.7 1.8 4.5Z8.9 r
27 Mar 21,1900 14 0.8 3.7 - -
28 Mar 30.2100 69 1.4 4.0 - -
29 Apr 9,1400 59 1.0 4.0 0.6/9.2 m

30 Apr 15,1700 23 1.1 3.6 0.8/13.3 r
31 Apr 17,0930 23 1.1 11.7 1.0/5.1 r
32 Apr 19,0630 19 0.8 3.2 0.5/5.6 r
33 Apr.21,08006 114 1.6 9.7 2.2Z9.5 r
rain events n 7> 10 10 8 4 8 0 0 8 13

mixed rain/snow events n1 5 5 4 1 4 0 0
u>
tv)
1Periodic instrument malfunction and damage associated with the February 1996 flood resulted in failure to record during some
periods.
2 Storm date listed is the day and time on which precipitation began.
3 Storm statistics, including total precipitation depth, average precipitation intensity, maximum 1/2-hour precipitation intensity, and
maximum/minimum temperatures are given for the storm period, defined by the begin time and end time of precipitation.
4 Minimum and maximum temperatures recorded on CR10 datalogger at the 466 road.
9 Precipitation form, classified as rain (r), mixed rain and snow or rain-on-snow (m), or snow (s) (see text).
6 Denotes storm events selected for cross-site comparisons, based on occurrance as rain event that produced runoff hydrographs at
five or more sites to allow comparisons between site categories, as depicted in Figure 9.
7 Number of recorded hydrographs selected to examine the relationship between precipitation and runoff at each culvert (does not
included hydrographs that were excluded from analysis due to suspected errors).
8Hydrographs at C3 and CS had recession limbs that extended through December 1,1995. Precipitation associated with these
hydrographs was taken as 64.35 mm (sum of November 30 and December 1 precipitation events).
u>
u>
34
form
O'*-XA ko) (2 . 11)
where Qi is the total measured runoff and is the upslope contributing area for the
road segment at site i.
A series of composite variables was developed to examine the joint influence of
climatic and hillslope controls on road runoff The influence o f storm precipitation on
runoff volume was examined by controlling for drainage area, using a functional model
o f the form
(2 . 12)
where Qi/Ah® is the unit area runoff (Uj). The influence of soil moisture on runoff was
examined using a model of the form
(2.13)
where U/P is commonly referred to as the runoff ratio and I is an index of soil moisture
conditions. In this study the storm-scale soil moisture index 6* and a seasonal soil
moisture index P* were used as indices of soil moisture.
2.4 Results
2.4.1 Road surfaces and contributing hillslopes
Only a small fraction of the maximum potential contributing road-surface area at

instrumented sites actually generated and routed overland flow to culverts. Most o f the
road length in Watershed 3 is crowned and has deep wheel ruts (Figure 2.4), and only a
small fraction of the road surface drains to the inboard ditch and culvert. During storms,
I observed that road-surface runoff was held in detention storage or channeled into
wheel ruts and ultimately routed onto fillslopes over much of the road length in
Watershed 3. While maximum potential contributing road-surface areas ranged from 60
35
to 500 m2, the surface area mapped as contributing runoff to culverts during storms was,
in most cases, substantially smaller, ranging from 12 to 280 m2 (Table 2.2).
Hillslope areas above roads were an important source of runoffto instrumented
road segments. On road 466 (Figure 2.3), slope lengths from the drainage divide to the
road range from 65 meters at Cl to 400 meters at C9, with contributing areas ranging
from 0.25 to 3.6 hectares. Slope lengths above instrumented sites on road 455 range
from 100 meters at C12 to 150 meters at C16, with contributing areas ranging from 0.75
to 3.0 hectares (Figure 2.3). Convergent topography on these hillslopes develops at
slope lengths of roughly 150 meters below the drainage divide, although the exact slope
length required to produce convergent slopes probably also depends on soil properties.
Most road segments less than 150 meters from ridges are located on hillslopes that show
little topographic convergence and are generally planar. Road segments located more
than 150 meters from the ridge have upslope areas characterized by convergent slopes.
Average slope gradients range from 15 to 35 degrees. Slopes are typically steepest near
the ridge and decline in gradient with increasing distance from the drainage divide.
Soils in the study area range from shallow, fine-textured profiles with weathered
bedrock at depths of 0.75 - 2 meters, to deep, rocky profiles developed in weathered
colluvium (Figure 2.7), ranging from more than 2 to over 8 meters in depth (Hawk and
Dymess, unpublished report). The shallowest soils are those of the Limberiost series on
the hillslope above Cl. This series grades into the Budworm series, generally 1.5 - 2
meters in depth overlying relatively impermeable saprolite. Sites C2, C3, C4, C13 and
C14 are located on the Budworm series. Soils derived from andesite colluvium occur on
the slopes above C5, C6, C7 and C9. These soils have very high rock content and are
typically more than 6 meters deep. The hillslopes above CIO and C l 1 are mantled with
rocky talus deposits and have little or no soil development. Soils on hillslope above C12
are mapped as the Frissel series; however, runoff contributed to the culvert emerges
from a seep located at the contact with a Slipout soil, a poorly drained soil with high clay
content. At C16, a thin (approx. 0.5 m) soil mantle, mapped as the Limberiost
Table 2.2: Characteristics of instrumented sites
Cl C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C9 CIO C ll C12 C13 C14 C16

Drainage area
road surface (m2) • maximum1 200 204 135 355 280 185 212 300 423 383 500 60 150 113
road surface (m2) - observed1 32 42 122.5 280 50 35 20 5 5 7 100 12 30 35
hillslope (ha) 0.25 1.2 2.02 1.01 1.57 0.93 1.37 3.6 1.1 0.45 0.75 0.9 3.0 3.0
Hillslope length (m) 65 150 230 230 240 255 275 400 225 150 100 120 150 150
Slope form2 P C C P-C C C P-C C P P P P C C
Average slope angle (degrees) 35 30 20 25 30 30 35 15 25 25 35 15 30 30
Soil type9 L3 L,B B Ac Ac Ac Ac n/a n/a S.F B B L
Soil depth (m)4 0.75 1.5 2 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 <0.25 <0.25 1 >4 >4 0.5
Depth of road cut (m) 8.4 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.7 4.1 5.4 0 2.5 1.5 4.5 0 0.3 2
Surface runoff observed at

instrumented station in WY96 xs* yes yes yes yes no no no ,ye* .... 5... m ....
1Road surface drainage areas include mapped areas observed to contribute runoff to instrumented culverts during storms in WY96 and a maximum possible
contributing area draining to the culvert (see text).
2 Slope forms include planar (P) and concave (C) slopes.
9 Soil types are taken from the series names mapped by Hawk and Dyrness (unpublished internal report) and include Limberiost (L), Budworm (B), Frissel
(F), Slipout (S) and unnamed soils on andesite colluvium (AC). Slopes above CIO and Cl 1 are mantled with talus deposits and little soil development is
evident Differences in relative depth and texture of soils are shown in Figure 2.7.
4 Soil depth Immediately above the road cut as determined by drive probe measurements in the field. Maximum depth of penetration was 4 meters. Soil
depths exceeding 4 meters are noted and may be as deep as 8 meters (Hawk and Dyrness, unpublished internal report). w
o\
37
series, overlies bedrock, and subsurface runoff during storms emerges at the soil-bedrock
contact, forming a waterfall on the cutbank draining to this rite.
Instrumented rites spanned a range o f slope gradients, soil profile depths, and
roadcut depths. Roads located on hillslopes with gentle slope gradients have little or no
road cut, while roads on steep slopes have deep cuts that may or may not penetrate the
entire soil profile, depending upon soil depth. A plot of soil depth at the road cut versus
slope angle on hillslopes above roads for the instrumented sites is shown in Figure 2.9.
The road segments examined fell into three classes: sites located on gentle (£15°) slopes
and deep ( >3 meters) soils (C9, C13), sites located on steep slopes (>20°) and deep
soils (C5, C7, and C14), and sites located on steep slopes with shallow (<2 meters) soils
(C l, C2, C3, CIO, C ll, C12, C16).
4.0 + -
35 Dn/D, = 0
3.0
C14
I 2.5
I - 2.0 • C3
• C2
1.0 • Cl 2
• Cl
0.5 • Cl 6
CIO _ C11
0.0
20 25 30 40
slope (degrees)
Figure 2.9: Graph o f slope angle and soil depth for sites instrumented in this study.
Dotted lines indicate divirions between low (< 15°) and high (> 20°) slopes and shallow
(< 2.5 m) and deep (>2.5 m) soils. Categories delineated by these divisions are used in
cross-site analysis. See also Figure 2.8.
38
2.4.2 Climatic conditions and runoff hydrographs
Thirty-three storm events occurred during the study period (Table 2.1).
Observed precipitation depths ranged from 1 0 mm for short duration spring storms to
over 100 mm for winter storms. Average precipitation intensities ranged from 0.36 to
over 2 .S mm/hour, with maximum precipitation intensities from 1 to over 1 0 mm/hour.
Between January 14 and February 4, 1996 over 400 mm o f precipitation was recorded at
the Primet precipitation gage. Field observations during this time confirm that
precipitation occurred as snow beginning on January 15. Between February 5-8,1996 a
flood of record occurred in the region, triggering numerous landslides and erosion of
hillslopes, roads and channels (Swanson et al., 1998). in the upper portions o f the basin
where the two instrumented roads are located, a snowpack persisted until early April.
Indices developed from the precipitation record show patterns of short-term
(storm-scale) and long-term (seasonal) fluctuations in moisture conditions that probably
approximate fluctuations in the soil moisture conditions influencing runoff (Figure 2.10).
The storm-scale soil moisture index 9* for Watershed 3 ranges from 0 to almost 200 mm
over the monitoring period, with particularly high values for November 8-15, November
25-December 3, December 28-31, January 19-28, and February 6-10. In fact, four of the
five largest precipitation events, each with total precipitation exceeding 100 mm,
occurred early in the season. Cumulative precipitation, an index of the relative soil
moisture conditions throughout the runoff season, ranges from 0 to over 2500 mm over
the study period. Before the period of snow accumulation in mid-January, cumulative
precipitation in Watershed 3 was less than 1300 mm By late April, when the final storm
was recorded on the instrumented road segments, cumulative precipitation was over
2400 mm.
Only a subset of the precipitation events produced measurable runoff at the
instrumented sites (Table 2.1), although the threshold precipitation depth and intensity
required to produce runoff varied by site (Figure 2.11). Only storms occurring as rain
and as mixed rain/snow produced measurable runoff. Snow events on January 22 and
January 26 produced no measurable storm response at the instrumented sites. Average
200
180
rjp 160
140-■
Ie 120
I ,00'
| 80-
E 60-
1 40
20-
& u? in
5 i
3000 t -
£ 2500-
E
| 2000 ••
1500
3 1000-
500-
CO CO CO
§ I
Figure 2.10: Values of the soil moisture index (0*) for Watershed 3 and the cumulative precipitation (P*) between
November 1,1995 and April 30,1996. Arrows indicate storms compared in cross-site analysis.
u>
VO
40
Figure 2.1 1 : Plots o f precipitation depth versus average precipitation intensity for
storms. Symbols graphed for each site indicate precipitation events that occurred during
monitoring of road runoff at each installation. Circles represent rain events, squares
represent mixed rain/snow events. Closed symbols represent precipitation events that
produced measurable runoff hydrographs at instrumented road sites. Open symbols
represent precipitation events that did not produce detectable storm runoff hydrographs
(see text).
41
so
o□
8 8 . 8
O o ,. o
oo
0 > CM
IO t O N o «m ^^ nn nm ^ o to ^ CO CM O
8
8
8 8
OO
,. O OO
o o OO 2 CL
IO ^ CO CM o to CO CM o IO t n cm
IO < CO CM o
8
oo
O o
oo o
- 8 T“
o
,, o o ,. o
OO
CO
o
IO ^ CO w o ID ^ A C \| r O o IO ^ CO CM o
(jil/uiui) A^suaiuf uogeiidioaid e6ejeAe
42
precipitation intensities above 2 mm/hour and total precipitation depths of £ 40 mm were

required to produce runoff hydrographs at most sites. At C16, all but one rain event and
the two snow events produced runoff hydrographs during the monitoring period. At C9,
CIO and Cl 1, runoff was not detected at any time between early November 1995 and
mid January 1996.
Both the timing and magnitude of runoff response varied by site (Figure 2.12, see
also Appendix 2). At most sites, discharge rose within horns of the onset of
precipitation and was closely synchronized with the runoff response of Watershed 3.
The exception to this pattern was seen at C5 and C7, where runoff was less responsive
to precipitation and delayed in time. At some sites, discharge receded rapidly following
cessation of rainfall, while recession o f the hydrographs at other sites was slow, leading
to substantial baseflow between storm events. In addition, baseflow was a considerable
component of discharge at some sites (C2, C3, C5, C7, C14, Cl 6 ), but a minor
component of discharge at other sites (Cl, C12, C13) (Figure 2.12, Appendix 2).
2.4.3 Road-surface runoff
Calculations of surface runoff using equation 2 . 1 indicate that road surfaces are a
negligible source of total measured runoff at these sites. At C l, where some of the
lowest discharge rates during storms were recorded, estimated road-surface runoff
calculated from equation 2 . 1 was less than 10 % of the total storm runoff for a small
storm (December 14, 1995, precipitation depth = 25 mm) and an intermediate-size storm
(November 29,1995, precipitation depth = 51 mm) (Figure 2.13). Even when the
maximum possible contributing area is used, estimates of road-surface runoff were
considerably less than the total measured runoff at this site.
Other sites showed a similar pattern of minor contributions attributed to road
surface runoff (Figure 2.14). For most storms at each site, the estimated road-surface
runoff was less than 10% of total measured runoff. Higher estimates of the road-surface
runoff component were calculated for three small storms at four sites, including the
0 +■
lission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
e'
4
a.
i 6
8 i-
-r 10000 ■C1
35
■C2
Culverts 9000
30 *C3
8000 ■C5
25 7000 ■C7
JS t/i -C13
6000
E 20 E -C14
5000
*C16
£
43
15
10
4000
3000
1
* 2000
5
1000
» 0
23-Nov 600 1200 1800 24-Nov 600 1200 1800 25-Nov 600 1200 1800 26-Nov 600 1200 1800
1000 r 10
4 800 6
Watershed 3
JL 600 6
J 1 400 4
1 200 2 ■8
0
11/23 11/23 11/23 11/23 11/24 11/24 11/24 11/24 11/25 11/25 11/25 11/25 11/26 11/26 11/26 11/26
0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00
Figure 2.12: Precipitation hyetographs (Primet) and storm hydrographs from instrumented culverts and Watershed 3.
(a.) November 24, 1995 storm
J,E
a.
I
50 r 14000 ■Cl
Culverts ■C2
12000
*C3
*C5
10000
■C7
8000 •C13
•C14
6000 *C16
4000
10 L
2000
29-NOV 600 1200 1600 30-Nov 600 1200 1800 1-Dec 600 1200 1800
< 1500 Watershed 3 JS
Figure 2.12: (continued)

(b.) November 29, November 30,1995 storms
$
*C1
7000
-C2
Culverts 6000 •C3
20 *C5
5000 "C7
*C13
E 4000 1
•C14
10
3000 ■C18
2000
1000
6-Dec 600 1200 1600 9-Dec 600 1200 1800 10-Dec 600 1200 1600 11-Dec 600 1200 1800
1000 10
800 8
Watershed 3 O
600 6
400 _ 4
200 2
0
12/8 12/8 12/8 12/8 1219 12/9 12/9 12/9 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/10 12/11 12/11 12/11 12/11
0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

(c.) December 8,1995 storm
&
25000 ■Cl
■C2
Culverts
■C3
20000
■C5
■C7
15000 >• ■C14
■CIS
10000
5000
i i " i"
28-Dec 600 1200 1800 29-Dec 600 1200 1800 30-Dec 600 1200 1800 31 -Dec 600 1200 1800
2000 20
^ 1500 Watershed 3 15
E.
& 1000 10
500 5
o
12/28 12/28 12/28 12/28 12/29 12/29 12/29 12/29 12/30 12/30 12/30 12/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31
0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

(d.)December 28, 1995 storm
&
t-w -p t t- I | ---------1---------1--------- h
•i
■Cl
40 ■C2
Culverts
*C3
■C6
30 ■C7
£E “C14
■C16
20
10
0 h" i i i----i i— —^ T — r — ' 'I " I

7-Jan 600 1200 1800 0-Jan 600 1200 1800 9-Jan 600 1200 1600 10-Jan 600 1200 1800
1000 10
^ 800 Watershed 3 8
\ 600 6
| 400 4
I 200 2
0
1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/8 1/6 1/8 1/8 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10
0:00 6:00 12:00 16:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 16:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

(e.) January 7, 1996 storm
3
12000
40
Culverts C2 10000
30
8000
discharge (ml/s)
C14
20 6000
4000
10
2000
0
21- 600 1200 1800 22- 600 1200 1600 23- 600 1200 1800 24- 600 1200 1600 25- 600 1200 1600 26- 600 1200 1600
Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr
Watershed 3 hydrograph not available

(gaging station destroyed during February 1996 flood event)

(f.) April 21, 1996 storm
1000.00
900.00
800.00
precipitation (mm/hr)
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
. -* •
© ©
a o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
■*r to O CM CO CO
•*r **
8 a
Tf
2 a 5 1
T“ 1 1 §
•C1 (measured)
road surface (observed contributing area)
road surface (maximum possible contributing area)
Figure 2.13: Measured hydrographs at Cl and estimated road surface runoff calculated
from observed contributing area mapped during storms and maximum possible
contributing area (see text and Table 2.2).
Figure 2.14: Estimated road surface runoff as a fraction of total measured runoff for storms during the monitoring
period. Estimates of road-surface runoff are calculated from equation (2.1) using the road surface area observed to route
runoff to culverts during storms (Table 2.2).
51
December 14 storm at C13 (23%), the March 3 storm (precipitation depth = 34 mm) at
C12 (31%) and the April 9 storm (precipitation depth = 59 mm) at C l (97%) and C2
(47%).
2.4.4 Runoff from subsurface How
The time to peak runoff measured on roads (Tp) was positively related to time to
peak precipitation (tp), and the timing of precipitation and runoff were tightly coupled for
rain events throughout the monitoring period (Figure 2.15a). Statistical models for the
relationship between tp and Tpwere significant with high explanatory power (e.g. r 2 >
0.79 at all sites; all but one r 2 > 0.86) (Table 2.3a). The form of the timing relationship,
however, varied between sites. For example, during a storm that reached peak
precipitation after 24 hours, peak runoff occurred after roughly 28 hours at C l, after 35
hours at C5, and after 41 hours at C13. While theory predicts that the timing of runoff
would also be controlled by soil moisture conditions, the addition o f the soil moisture
index 0 * provided little improvement in statistical models and was statistically significant
only at C7 and C14 (Table 2.3a).
Peak precipitation intensity (pp) and peak runoff magnitude (Qp) were positively
related at most sites (Figure 2.15b), but low explanatory power (r2 < 0.35 for all but one
culvert) and lack of statistical significance at most sites (Table 2.3b) indicate that other
factors control the magnitude of peak runoff. Some of the variation in storm response
over time was explained by soil moisture conditions. For example, the soil moisture
index 0* was relatively high for the events on November 27 (#2), November 29 (#3),
November 30 (#4), December 28 (#11) and April 21(#33) (Figure 2.10), which
consistently plot on or above regression lines for rain events (Figure 2 .15b). Regression
models that included the soil moisture index 0* were significant (p < 0.1, r 2 > 0.42) at all
sites except C5 and C13. Lack of fit of statistical models at C5 and C13 may in part be
due to particularly small sample sizes (n < 6 ) (Table 2.3b). It is also possible that a
combination of precipitation variables influence the magnitude o f peak discharge on
84
72 C1 □ 29
33 if f
60 24
48
36 1 2 !^ " ^
24
12
0 . — 1..M
I. 1..... 1 1
12 24 36 48 60 72 84
c£
.
84 1 84 -I
£c 841
72- C5 72 C7 Z * 33 72 C12
S 60- 60-
,8B L 60 □ 17
18 . 48 1 ti 48 48 □ 24
36 36 36 □ 22
2 24- 24 -
0) 24 I
E 12 ■ * 3 12 • 12 •
F 0 ■------ 1------ 1------ 1 ■1------ 1------ 1------ 0- ------ h——I------ 1-------1....... 1" —H------- 0 ------1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
84
84 1 84
72 C13 72 C14 24 q *33 72 C16
60 □ 17 60 - 60 1L
48 9 1 48 • 48 K ^1
36 / 8 36 4 36-
24 24 15
24
12 ■ 3 ^
'S.
12 • 12
0 -------- 1
------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 1------- 0 ------- 1 i------- 1------- 1------- 1 l------- n t o
12 24 38 48 60 72 84 12 24 36 48 60 72 64 ) 12 24 36 48 60 72 6
Time to peak precipitation (hrs)
Figure 2.15: Rainfall-runoff relations for sites producing runoff during the monitoring period. Labels indicate storm numbers as
listed in Table 2.1. Circles are rain events, squares are mixed rain/snow and snow events. Regression lines are for rain events
only.
(a.) Time to peak runoff vs. time to peak precipitation. Regression equations are given in Table 2.3a. to
3000 12000-r-
C3 0 3 • 11
01 • 3 #11 10000 10000 4 »
2000 - 33 8000 33
•
______ • 1__________ 6000-
1
1000 - fl * 8 0 17 4000 •
□ 17
22 • W □ 16 2000- 8 □ 18
2 fh 2 f
--------- 1 — " JP 28 1--------,--------1------# t 2 L _ 0-
6 8 10 12 14 D 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
^ 6000 ■T3
C 12 □ 17
■-
8 °
□ 22
n -------1
--------- h------U 24 --------(-------- 1--------1--------
8 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
3000 25000 25000

C 13 C 14 C 16
20000- 20000
2000 -
15000- • 11 15000-
•4
10000 -• 10000
1000 - -
□ 17 □ 17 • 8 □ 17
5000 5000-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Peak precipitation intensity (mm/hr)

(b.) Peak discharge vs. peak precipitation intensity. Regression equations are given in Table 2.3b. in
u>
140 -p 1200 --------- 2000

120- 1000 . C2 C3
1500-
100- 800
80 • 11
600 1000
60 ■ □ 17
□ 17 400 • □ 17 □ 22
40-
200 •• □ 16
20 - □ 16
0 100 150 200 0 SO 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
160 i 2000 I 2000 I

• 33 1T—
140 - C13 D 17 C 14 C 16
120 1500 • 11 1500- □ 17
100- D 17 • 3
80- 1000 • 1000 • f ^ 1
• 1 4 /
60- • • 3 1
40- 500- • 1 500
20 2 4 ^ * 4
— * 1 0 * ^8 ------- -----1------------ —(-------------- 0 - -------------- 1-------------- 1------------- -(-------------- 0 # : 2 — ,----------- H -------------
0-
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Precipitation depth (mm)

(c.) Runoff volume vs. precipitation depth. Regression equations are given in Table 2.3c.
Table 2.3: Regression models (run events only) for the relationship between runoff variables and storm conditions.
a. Time to peak runoff (Tp) vs. time to peak precipitation (tp) and soil moisture index (0*)
Model 2 Model+ 0*2

Site1 n
Pi 02 r5 lev. sign.3 Pi 02 03 15 lev. sign.3
Cl 10 6.5 0.9 0.93 <0.01 7.7 0.9 -0.04 0.91 <0.01

C2 10 8.8 0.9 0.93 <0.01 18.7 1.0 -0.2 0.94 <0.01
C3 8 6.5 1.0 0.88 <0.01 10.7 1.0 -0.1 0.83 <0.01
C5 4 10.6 1.0 0.94 <0.05 51.3 1.2 -0.5 0.92 n.s.
C7 8 22.9 0.9 0.79 <0.01 40.1 1.1 -0.5t 0.93 <0.01
C13 6 -9.3 2.1 0.94 <0.01 -17.0 2.2 0.07 0.92 <0.05
C14 8 11.4 1.0 0.95 <0.01 21.4 1.1 -0.2f 0.97 <0.01
C16 13 9.5 0.8 0.86 <0.01 10.5 0.8 -0.04 0.83 <0.01
1Models are not given for Cl 2, where runoff was only recorded during mixed rain/snow events.
2 Models are Tp ^ Pi + p2tp and Tp - Pi + p2 tp + p 3 0*, where Tp is the time to peak discharge (in hours), tp is the time to peak
precipitation (in hours), and 0* is the index of the soil moisture conditions on the day of the peak (in mm); p t, P2, and P3 are regression
parameters.
3 Level of significance of the correlation coefficient, r (n.s. is not significant at an alpha level of 0.1 or less). Reported i2 values are
adjusted for degrees of freedom in Model + 0*.
f Indicates that p3 parameter is statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.1 or less.

b. Peak discharge (Qp) versus peak precipitation intensity (pp) and soil moisture index (0*)
Site1 n Model 2 Model+ 6 * 2

Pi P2 15 lev. sign.3 Pi P2 P3 i5 lev. sign.3
Cl 10 855.2 51.4 0 .0 2 n.s. -313.5 -5.9 40.5f 0.54 <0.05

C2 10 2310.3 268.6 0.04 n.s. -7321.6 7.9 165.0j 0.56 <0.05
C3 8 3801.6 456.2 0.05 n.s. -9048.8 50.6 2 1 1 .lt 0.71 <0.05
C5 4 2606.2 149.6 0.03 n.s. -16928.8 -1762.3 339.2 0,55 n.s.
C7 8 ■433.0 601.5 0.57 <0.05 -996.8 374.0 44.2 0.54 <0 . 1
C13 6 1093.8 -92.2 0.05 n.s. -359.7 -32.3 12.7 0.38 n.s.
C14 8 -1257.8 1405.7 0.29 n.s. -5792.3 72.6 273.6f 0.65 <0,05
C16 13 -3072.8 2327.5 0.35 <0.05 -377.2 6 8 8 .6 191.2f 0.42 <0.05
1 Models are not given for C12, where runoff was only recorded during mixed rain/snow events.
2Models are Qp= J5j + p2pp and Qp= pi + (32 pp + f} 3 6 *, where Qp is peak discharge rate (in ml/s), Pp is peak precipitation intensity (in
mm/hr), and 6 * is the index of the soil moisture conditions on the day of the peak (in mm); Pi, P2 , and p3 are regression parameters.
3Level of significance of the correlation coefficient, r (n.s. is not significant at an alpha level of 0.1 or less). Reported r2 values are
adjusted for degrees of freedom in Model + 6 *.
t Indicates that p3 parameter is statistically significant at an alpha level of 0. 1 or less.

c. Runoff volume (Q) versus precipitation depth (P) and soil moisture index (0*)
Site1 n Model2 Model+ 0* 2
Pi P2 r* lev. sign.3 Pi P2 P3 r* lev. sign.3
Cl 10 -1.3 0 .8 0.93 < 0 .0 1 -11.5 0 .8 0.5f 0.95 <0 . 0 1

C2 10 12.4 5.6 0.60 <0 . 0 1 -172.7 4.6 7.3f 0.67 <0 . 0 1
C3 8 409.3 8 .1 0.41 <0 . 1 -671.4 10.5 14.2f 0.72 <0.05
C5 4 54.4 6 .1 0.53 n.s. -2350.5 17.7 19.lt 0.99 <0 . 1
C7 8 76.0 5.4 0.36 n.s. -325.7 5.3 9.7 0.28 n.s.
C13 6 13.0 0.5 0.18 n.s. -47.4 0.7 0.7 0.44 n.s.
C14 8 164.6 8.7 0.50 <0.05 -577.3 8 .8 14.8f 0.75 <0.05
C16 13 -16.7 1 1 .8 0.69 <0 . 0 1 -173.9 10.7 7.2 0.69 <0 . 0 1
1 Models are not given for C12, where runoff was only recorded during mixed rain/snow events.
2 Models are Q = Pi + P2 P and Q 8 Pi + PjP + p3 0*, where Q is runoff volume (in m3), P is storm precipitation depth (in mm), and O'
is the index of the soil moisture conditions on the day before precipitation began (in mm); Pi, p2, and P3 are regression parameters.
3Level of significance of the correlation coefficient, r (n.s. is not significant at an alpha level of 0.1 or less). Reported r2 values are
adjusted for degrees of freedom in Model + 0*.
t Indicates that P3 parameter is statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.1 or less.
in
-J
58
these roads, although simple models using average precipitation intensity and total storm
precipitation did not produce improved results, and small sample sizes prohibited robust
statistical tests of complex models (Ramsey and Schafer, 1997).
Runoffvolume was also positively related to total storm precipitation on the
roads studied (Figure 2.15c), although some relationships were weak or statistically
insignificant (Table 2.3c). Regression models for rain events were statistically significant
at C l, C2, C3, C14, and C16 (Table 2.3c). The storm events of November 29 (#3),
November 30 (#4), December 28 (#11), and April 21 (#33) plotted on or above
regression lines for most sites, indicating that events with higher antecedent soil moisture
produced higher than average runoff response. Regression models that included the soil
moisture index 6 * were significant at all sites except C7 and C13, and provided
improved explanatory power at C l, C2, C3, C5, and C14, with r2 values ranging from
0 .6 8 to 0.99 (Table 2.3c).
Variation in runoff response between sites was explained in part by drainage area,
although the absolute volume of runoff generated on roads also apparently depended
upon site class (e.g. D„/D„ Figure 2.9), at least for early season storms (Figure 2.16).
Runoff volumes for seven rain events that spanned the period from late November 1995
to late April 1996 followed a general trend of increasing magnitude with increasing
drainage area. Data for early season storms (November 24,29 and 30) indicate that sites
with shallow soils on steep slopes produced greater runoff volumes per unit area than
sites on deep soils. Although only one instrumented culvert (C13) was located on deep
soil and a gentle slope, this site yielded the lowest measured volume of runoff per unit
area. These distinctions among site classes appeared to diminish over time and were
indistinguishable by late December.
The magnitude of runoff per unit area varied over time according to the size of
the storm, but precipitation depth alone only partly explained the amount of runoff
generated at these sites (Figure 2.17). hi general, larger storms produced higher unit-
area runoff. The storms ofNovember 29, December 8 , and January 7 had precipitation
depths ranging from 44 to 51 mm and produced unit-area runoff depths of less than 50
mm at all sites. Larger precipitation events, however, did not always produce higher
1000 1200
C16 O C16 O
800
Nov 24,1995 1000 . Nov 29,1995
’ C3 0
C3_ 800
600 O
600 •
400 C2 • C2
o . C14 400 C14
200 C5 C7 • C5
C1 C7 200 C1
° ,, PI3 , , O • C13
0 0
0 0.5 1 1,5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1 1.5 2.5 O Dro/D, = 0
^ 1600
............. 0 300
1400 • Nov 301995 C3 • 0 < Dro/D, < 1
| 1200 C16
300-■
Dec 8,1995 C16 0
1 1000 O C3 • Dro/D,
3 = 800 • 100 -
c 600 •
C2 C5 C14 C2
^ 400 C14
>00 -
200 " ° ' . C7 C13
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
2000 1000 2000 -r

O
C3
O
CD
1800 1800 Apr 21,1996

1600
Dec 28,1995 C3o Jan 7,1996 C16 o 1600 -
800- C14
1400 • 1400 ••
1200 • C14 600- 1200 - C2 « C7
1000 C5 C7 1000 -
800 400 • 800-
C 2° * C 7 * C3 O
600 C14 600-
400 ' C1 200 C^) 400 Cl
200 C1 200
o --- O
0 . I I 1 . 1
0 - ■-Q- i------ 1-------- 1
-------- 1
— —I-------- 1— 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1.5 2.5
Drainage area (ha)
Figure 2.16: Plots of the drainage area (A) vs. runoff volume (Q) for seven rain events during the monitoring period.
Symbols represent classes of the Drc/D, ratio.
120.0
-r 180
160
100.0 -
•• 140
■ C13
80.0 • • • 120 ■ C5
■ C7 0 < Dro/D, < 1
?
- - 100-^ □ C14
S 60.0 ■
O BC1
■C2
Df0/D, => 1
“ I □ C3
■C16
40.0- ■60
■40
20.0 -
•20
-- 0
25-Nov 29-Nov 30-Nov 8-Dec 26-Dec 7-Jan 21-Apr
Figure 2.17: Unit area runoff (bars) and storm precipitation depth (circles) for seven rain events during the monitoring period.
Bars are grouped by classes representing differences in the IV D , ratio. Note storm precipitation for November 30,1995 event
included 41.4 mm at all sites except C3 and C5, where precipitation is taken as 64.4 mm (see also Table 2.1).
8
61
unit-area runoff. The storms of November 24, December 28, and April 21 had
precipitation depths o f over 100 mm, but unit-area runoff was less than 35 mm at all sites
for the November 24 storm and ranged from 40 to over 100 mm at all sites for the
December 28 and April 21 storm.
Both short-term (storm-scale) and long-term (seasonal) soil moisture conditions
contributed to observed runoff on roads (Figure 2.18). Short-term soil moisture
conditions appeared to control runoffmagnitude during foil events (Figure 2.18a). The
runoff ratio, which controls for both drainage area and precipitation depth, was highest
for the storms of November 29 and November 30, when the value of the short-term soil
moisture index 0* was highest. However, later season storms also produced relatively
high runoff despite lower values of the storm-scale moisture index 6 *. For example, at
C7 the runoff ratio increased from 0.3 on December 28, to 0.7 on January 7, to 0.9 on
April 21, but 9* decreased from 33 mm on December 28 to 24 mm on April 21.
Similarly, runoff ratios during these three storms increased at C14 from 0.3 to 0.6, at C2
from 0.4 to 0.8, and at C3 from 0.5 to 0.8. Cumulative precipitation correlates with the
gradual trend in increasing runoff ratios for mid- to late-season storms (Figure 2.18b).
Between December 28 and April 21, cumulative precipitation increased from 1133 mm
to over 2500 mm. The interaction of short-term and long-term soil moisture indices fits
the overall trend in runoff ratios throughout the monitoring period (Figure 2.19).
2.5 Limits of data and analysis
The data collected for this study span the runoff season in one water year,
however climatic, conditions and instrument failure constrained the period over which
monitoring occurred. An extended period of snow between mid-January and late March,
1996 limited the number of runoff events that were available for analysis. In addition,
the flood event ofFebruary 1996 resulted in the destruction of several monitoring
stations and the Watershed 3 gaging station. Finally, failure of instruments to record
data during several periods resulted a discontinuous record at some sites.
(a.) 1 .2
1 .0 ■
0 .8 •
1 ■ C13 Dro/D, = 0
5o . -
0 6
■C5 _
s
0.4- ■C7 0 < Dr0/D, < 1
BC14
. -
0 2 BC1
■ C2
. -
0 0 Dm/D* => 1
BC3
25*Nov 29-Nov 30-Nov 8-Dec 28-Dec 7-Jan 21-Apr
■ C16 J
(b.) .2 y
1.0
o 0.8-
1
% 0.6- •1500
c
a 0.4-
0.2 -500
0.0-
Figure 2.18: Runoff ratios (bars) and indices of soil moisture (open symbols) for seven rain events during the monitoring
period: (a.) soil moisture index (0*) for Watershed 3, and (b.) the value of cumulative precipitation (P*) for each storm.
100000
■90000
80000
70000
60000
o*
50000
o3c
40000
Dro/D. = 0
30000
0 < D,o/D, < 1

20000
Dro/D. => 1
10000
• 8 *X P*
Figure 2.19: Average runoff ratios (bars) for seven rain events during the monitoring period. Error bars indicate the high and
low values in the runoff ratio among sites in each category. The pattern over time is closely correlated with an index that
represents the interaction of event-scale soil moisture conditions (9*) and seasonal soil moisture conditions (P*).
On
u>
64
At least three factors contribute to possible sources of error and uncertainty in

this study. First, recorded values of stage at each monitoring site were subject to
measurement error when electronic instruments M ed to record true stage heights. To
minimize this factor, recorded stage values were validated against field observations
during weekly site checks, and manual crest stage recorders at each culvert provided a
cross-validation of peak stages during storms. Second, conversion of stage records to a
continuous discharge series was subject to error if the rating curve does not accurately
reflect the stage-discharge relationship, hi this study, discharge values for certain high
flow events have a greater degree of uncertainty, since the rating curve for the highest
discharge values is based on very few observations. This problem is not unusual in
hydrology, where high flow events occur rarely and therefore provide limited
opportunity for calibration of measurement stations. Finally, the extraction of discrete
storm events from the continuous discharge record may have introduced error based on
the subjective criteria used to define the beginning and end of a runoff event. Alternative
rules for selection o f storm hydrographs from the continuous record might result in
different values for cumulative storm runoff at a given site.
2.6 Discussion
The findings presented in this study provide a foundation for a process-based

understanding of runoff production on roads constructed on steep forested hillslopes.
Climatic conditions, particularly storm size and soil moisture conditions, and the hillslope
setting, namely size of the contributing hillslope, hillslope gradient, soil depth, and
roadcut depth, influenced the magnitude and timing of runoff generated on roads. These
observations are consistent with a theoretical model of runoff production on steep
hillslopes. The findings presented here are expected to be generally applicable in humid,
steep, upland environments where undisturbed soils are highly permeable and
precipitation rates are sufficient to generate a transient saturated zone on hillslopes.
65
Runoff production on roads in Watershed 3 is strongly dependent on soil

moisture conditions. The importance of soil moisture suggests key hydrologic controls
on runoff production and subsurface flow interception along roads. First, wetter
conditions provide for the rapid transmission of precipitation through the unsaturated
zone (e.g. Torres et al., 1998) and an associated rapid runoff response. Second, the soil
moisture index probably correlates to the height of the hillslope water table (e.g. Beven,
1982a) and reflects the importance of saturated zone contributions to both baseflow and
quickflow during storms.
Theoretical models (Toth, 1963; Salvucd and Entekhabi, 1995) and field studies
(Anderson and Burt, 1978; Beven, 1978; Pierson, 1980; Anderson and Kneale, 1982)
demonstrate that slope convergence influences water table elevations and may enhance
the potential for subsurface flow interception when roads traverse convergent,
unchanneled hillslopes. Among the sites studied here, a site located on a planar hillslope
(Cl) generated a lower unit-area runoff during most storms than sites located on
convergent slopes (C2 and C3), despite the fact that soils are similar on these slopes
(Table 2.2). A site with a shallow roadcut located on a gently-sloping planar hillslope
(Cl 3) had the lowest measured unit area runoff (Figure 2.17).
This study focused on examining runoff production on roads at the hillslope
scale. Whether runoff generated on roads results in modification of downstream
hydrographs depends on at least three factors: the volume and timing of road runofij the
extent to which roads concentrate runoff by collecting and routing water through a
system of ditches and culverts, and the connectivity of roads to the channel network.
This study demonstrated that the first of those factors is highly variable in space and
time. Subsurface flow interception occurred along much of the road length in Watershed
3 where road cuts are excavated into the soil profile. In general, rainfall events
exceeding 40 mm precipitation with intensities exceeding 2 mm/hr were required to
initiate subsurface flow interception along roads, although this threshold was lower at
some sites, and subsurface flow interception never occurred at three of the monitored
sites. On the road segments studied, runoff was routed into ditches and discharged at
discrete points below culverts. At some of these locations, concentrated surface runoff
66
reaches downstream channels by overland flow (Figure 2.20), although this

phenomenon is clearly a function of antecedent soil moisture conditions and size of the
runoff event Roads in Watershed 3 are not highly connected to the stream network via
stream crossings, as only one perennial stream intersects the functional road system.
Temporal and spatial variation in the generation and routing o f road runoff in this basin
very likely determines the extent to which roads modify downstream hydrographs. This
observation might explain why statistical analysis of watershed hydrographs (e.g. Jones
and Grant, 1996; Thomas and Megahan, 1998) do not clearly demonstrate the range of
conditions under which roads in this basin have modified basin hydrographs.
Regardless of the effect of roads on downstream hydrographs, the conversion of
subsurface flow to surface runoff by roads may influence slope stability. Modification of
hillslope drainage, concentration of water, and diversion o f surface runoff onto unstable
hillslopes or into channels may increase the potential for mass slope failure and other
forms of erosion. During the February 1996 flood event, a cutslope failure occurred at
the C5 monitoring station and fillslope slides occurred at the C12 and C16 stations
(Figure 2.20). The role of roads in initiating these failures cannot be conclusively
known, although previous studies have documented increased rates of slope failure
associated with roads relative to forested conditions (Dymess, 1967; Swanson and
Dymess, 1975; Megahan, 1987). The following chapter documents the extent of road-
related landslides and other forms of sedimentation associated with roads that occurred
during the February 1996 flood.
Future research is needed to validate these findings in other regions and to
investigate the implications of road runoff on basin hydrology and slope stability.
Additional field studies in other geologic terrains are needed to test the concepts
developed in this study. Modeling studies may be most useful in determining the on-site
effects of roads on slope stability and the downstream effects o f roads on altering peak
streamflows.
67
Meters
Legend:
A/ roads • culvert
Af road segment connected to channel / \ / stream channel
A/ abandoned road , . • • * overland flowpath connected to channel
Figure 2.20: Map of the upper hillslope in Watershed 3 showing locations of culverts
and connectivity of road segments to the channel network. Connected road segments
are defined as those that discharge runoff to the channel network and are indicated by
heavy black lines. Road segments draining to C17 are directly connected to the channel
via a stream crossing culvert. Other road segments are connected to the channel
network via overland flowpaths (dotted lines) below ditch relief culverts. Much of the
road length in Watershed 3 is not hydrologically connected to the channel network.
68
Chapter 3
Road-related Sedimentation in the Western Oregon Cascades

Daring the February 1996 Flood
in preparation for journal submission
69
3.1 Introduction
Processes controlling the production, transport and deposition o f sediment in

forested settings are a key concern to scientists and land managers. These processes
affect landform evolution, soil productivity, nutrient transfer and the quality of aquatic
habitat. The analysis of sedimentation processes has therefore been the focus of
considerable study.
Many previous studies have examined the mechanics of detachment, transport
and deposition o f individual geomorphic processes (Vames, 1978; Iverson and
Denlinger, 1987; Wilson and Dietrich, 1987; Komar and Shih, 1992, and many others).
These studies, while critical, provide little insight into the movement of sediment through
whole drainage basins. Sediment budget and routing studies have been used extensively
in recent decades to construct a framework for understanding the range of processes and
process linkages involved in sediment movement at the watershed scale (Dietrich and
Dunne, 1978; Dietrich et al., 1982; Swanson et al., 1982b). More recently, the concept
of disturbance cascades has been introduced to ecosystem science as a framework for
understanding the dynamics of material flow through ecosystems and the implications for
terrestrial and aquatic biota (Swanson et al., 1998).
In February 1996, a flood of record occurred in western Oregon. Monitoring
stations at the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest in the western Oregon Cascades
recorded total precipitation depth for the three-day period between February 6-8
exceeding 250 mm. Unit area peak discharges at gauged watersheds in the Andrews
Forest averaged 2.15 m3/s/km2 and were among the highest on record for the 50-year
monitoring period (Dymess et al., 1996). Recent studies of the effects of forest roads on
mountain watersheds (e.g. Jones and Grant, 1996; Wemple et al., 1996) led me to ask
how sedimentation processes were affected by roads during the flood. O f interest were
how roads influenced erosional processes and how flood-induced erosion affected the
transportation network. By employing concepts of sediment budgeting and disturbance
70
cascades, I aim to create a landscape context for understanding the impact of an

extensive road network on the geomorphic imprint left by this flood of record.
3.2 Methods
Following the February 1996 flood, I conducted a survey in two watersheds in

the western Oregon Cascades to examine flood impacts associated with roads. The
approach to this study included four components: (1) an inventory of road-related
sedimentation features, (2) an analysis of landscape position of these features, (3) an
analysis of process complexity and disturbance cascades, and (4) a mass balance of
sediment relative to the zone of road influence.
3.2.1 Study site description
The study was conducted in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds,
located approximately 70 km east of Eugene in the western Oregon Cascades (Figure
3.1, Table 3.1). Elevations in the basins range from 400 meters to over 1500 meters,
with slopes ranging from 0 to 80 percent. The basins are underlaid by Tertiary and early
Quaternary volcanic rocks, primarily ash flows, mudflows and pyroclastic flows at the
lower elevations (below 800 meters) and andesite and basalt lava flows in the higher
elevations. The geomorphic history of the basins is shaped by glacial, fluvial and mass
wasting processes. Glacial deposits are evident in the southeast portion of the Blue
River drainage. Lacustrine sediments and varve deposits are found along the banks of
lower Blue River and Lookout Creek. Geologic mapping (Swanson and James, 1975)
and landslide inventories (Dymess, 1967; Swanson and Dymess, 1975) document the
history of deep-seated earthflows and shallow landsliding in the area.
Mean annual precipitation ranges from 2300 to over 2500 mm at the upper
elevations (Greenland, 1994). Over 80% of the precipitation falls between November to
April, typically as rain below 400 meters. Elevations between 400 and 1200 meters
71
Figure 3.1: Study area, Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds in the western
Oregon Cascades, showing extents of (a) slope position polygons and (b) elevation
zones. Light gray lines symbolize stream network. Black lines are roads. Road-related
sedimentation features are shown on each map as dots.
72
area of detail
a. Slope positions
Valley floors
■ H Upperslopes/ridges
Oregon —— _
Blue River
Lookout Creek
N
Kilometers
A 2 0 2
73
b. Elevation zo n es
g g 400 - 800 m area of detail
g i 801-1200 m
> 1200 m
Oregon
Blue River
Lookout Creek
N Kilometers
A 2 0 2 4
74
have been termed the "transient snow zone" (Harr, 1981) where precipitation fells
alternately as rain and snow. A permanent snow zone develops during most winters
above 1200 meters. Floods in the region often result from relatively warm rain events on
an accumulated snowpack (Harr, 1981).
Table 3.1: Summary of characteristics of study basins
Lookout Creek Blue River
Watershed area (km2) 62 119
Harvested area (%) 22 25
Drainage density (km/km2)* 3.0 2.9
Road length (km) 118 230

Road density (km/km2) 1.9 1.9
Area of basin in roads (%)b 3.1 3.1
Notes:
*Estimated winter baseflow drainage density (see Wemple et al., 1996).
b Computed using an average width of road cut, surface, and fill of 16 meters from Silen
and Gratkowski, 1953.
Vegetation in the basins consists of Douglas fir (Pseudoisuga menziesii), western

hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western red cedar ( Thujaplicata). Stands o f Pacific
silver fir (Abies amabilis) occur above 800 m. Forest harvesting and road construction
have occurred in both basins since the late 1930's (Jones and Grant, 1996). Harvesting
and road construction in the Lookout Creek watershed occurred primarily in the 1950's
75
and 1960's. Most of the harvesting and road construction in the Blue River watershed
occurred between 1960 and 1985.
3.2.2 Survey and field methods
A survey of the road network in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds
was conducted to inventory road-related sedimentation resulting from the February 1996
flood. During the spring and summer of 1996, the entire road network in both basins
was inventoried for erosional and deposhional features associated with roads. Each
feature was field located on 7.5' topographic maps and later digitized into a geographic
information system (GIS).
To distinguish among forms of erosion and deposition associated with roads, a
typology of features, based on the process type and the point of origin relative to the
road zone (defined as the cutslope, road surface and ditch, and fillslope), was developed
(Figure 3.2). Two general process types were considered: mass wasting and fluvial.
Mass wasting involves en masse detachment and transport of sediment and organic
debris on hillslopes (debris slides) and in channels (debris flows). Mass wasting can also
involve displacement of soil without evacuation from the site (e.g. slumps). The features
produced by these processes are referred to in this paper as mass movements. Fluvial
processes involve particle by particle transport of sediment by flowing water in channels
(bedload transport) and on hillslopes or roads (incision and gullying), and produce what
are generally refer to here as fluvial features. Four points of origin were considered
(Table 3.2): above the road, the cutslope, the road surface and ditch, and the fillslope.
Three types of debris slides were distinguished for this study: those initiated on hillslopes
above roads were termed hillslope slides, those originating on cutslopes were termed
cutslope slides, and those from road fills were termed fillslope slides. Other processes
originating above roads included debris flows and bedload transport that plugged
culverts. Processes originating within the road zone inchided slumps, ditch incision, and
gullying.
Mass wasting Fluvial processes

processes .
1. debris flow
2. hillslope slide 6. plugged culvert
3. cutslope slide 7. incised ditcl

hillslope 8. gully
cutslope 5. slump
ditch
4. fillslope slide
road surfai
fillslope
Figure 3.2: Eight types of features inventoried on roads in Lookout Creek and Blue River.
Table 3.2: Eight types of erosional and depositional features identified on the road network with point of origin, point of
deposition and components considered in sediment mass balance.
point of point of
origin deposition Components of
Volumes estimates relative to road2 relative to road 2 sediment volume
feature tvpe taken from (above/ inside') (inside/ below') Vh Vr
1 debris flow erosional scar3 above inside/ below X X

2 hillslope slide erosional scar above inside/ below X X
3 cutslope slide deposit4 inside (cut) inside X
4 fillslope slide erosional scar inside (fill) below X
5 slump1 n/a inside (surface) inside -
6 plugged culvert deposit above inside X

7 ditch incision erosional scar inside (ditch) inside X
8 gully erosional scar inside (surface, fill) inside/ below X
1Sediment volumes not applicable for slumps, which involve only in situ displacement of soil.
2 "Road" refers to cutslope, road surface and ditch, and fillslope (see Figure 3.2).
3Debris flow volumes were estimated from the volumes of hillslope slide(s) that triggered debris flows.
4 Cutslope slide volumes were measured from the geometry of the deposit, plus a visual estimate of the volume transported below
roads in two cases.
78
The length, width and depth of erosional scars and deposits were measured as
appropriate for each feature to determine sediment volumes (Table 3.2). Volumes are
reported here to the nearest 5 m3. The accuracy of volume estimates, however, varies by
the size of the feature, and reported volumes are considered to be precise only to two
significant figures.
3.2.3 Analysis o f landscape position of features
Analysis of the landscape position of inventoried features was accomplished

using GIS. A series of overlay analyses were used to determine the road age, elevation
and hillslope position for the road network and for the features inventoried in this study.
The decade o f construction for roads in the study area was determined for a
previous study (Jones and Grant, 1996) using aerial photographs and historical records ,
of timber harvesting. Road networks in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds
were digitized from stereo-photo pairs using an analytical stereoplotter. Each road
segment was assigned a year o f construction corresponding to the year prior to timber
harvesting of the nearest adjacent cutting unit. The datalayer o f inventoried features
was overlaid on the road network to determine the distribution o f features by age of the
road segment on which it occurred.
Three elevation classes were defined, based on elevational distinctions in
geologic substrate and predpitation-snowmelt gradients observed during the flood
(Figure 3.lb). The lowest elevation zone, from 400 - 800 meters, covers the extents of
relatively unstable rock types in the basins, mainly those derived from mudflows,
ashflows and pyroclastic flows (Swanson and James, 1975). The most intense rainfall
and snowmelt were also synchronized at this elevation during the flood event (Dymess et
al., 1996). A second elevation zone between 800 -1200 meters includes more stable
soils derived from andesite and basalt. In this zone, rainfall and snowmelt were
desynchronized in time, with the period of most intense rainfall preceding snowmelt by
almost 24 hours (Figure 3.3). Above 1200 meters, little snowmelt occurred during the
79
Figure 3.3: Summary o f precipitation and snowmelt for the period February 1-10, 1996
as recorded at meteorological stations at the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Black
bars represent rainfall, gray bars represent snowmelt (snowmelt data not available for
Primet station). Negative snowmelt values indicate snowpack storage o f water. Rainfall
during the flood event was concentrated on February 5-7. Snowmelt recorded at the Hi-
15 station (elevation 922 meters) began on February 6. At the Upper Lookout station
(elevation 1294 meters), precipitation was absorbed into the snowpack early in the
storm, and appreciable snowmelt did not occur until February 7. Adapted from Dymess
et al. 1996.
140 -r
120 - -
Primct: elevation 430 m
precipitation (mm) 100 -
80
60-
40 -
20 -
5 6 7 8 9
date (February)
160 -r
Hi-15: elevation 922 m
precipitation and snowmelt (mm)
data (February)
Upper Lookout: elevation 1294 m

precipitation and snowmelt (mm)
d a te (F e b ru a ry )
81
flood and much of the precipitation was absorbed by the snowpack. Elevation values
derived from a digital elevation model of the basins were classified into these three zones
using a GIS. The datalayer of sedimentation features was overlaid with the elevation
coverage to determine the elevation zone of each feature.
Three hillslope position classes were delineated from topographic maps and GIS
datalayers (Figure 3.1). Valley floors were delineated with a 200 meter buffer around
fifth-order streams and a 100 meter buffer around fourth-order streams. The extents of
the upperslopes and ridges were defined with a 100 meter buffer on a linear network of
ridges digitized from 7.5' topographic maps. The remainder of the watershed area was
defined as midslopes. Overlays of the inventoried features on these three zones provided
the attributes for hillslope position of each feature.
3.2.4 Analysis o f process complexity and disturbance cascades
Field evaluation and mapping of the location and runout paths of inventoried
features were used to assess process complexity and the occurrence of disturbance
cascades associated with roads. Here, a road-related disturbance cascade is defined as a
sequence of associated erosional or deposition processes that occurs on hillslopes, in
channels or along roads, in which the road functions to alter the form (type of mass
movement or fluvial process) or behavior (e.g. runout length, deposition) of
sedimentation processes.
Accordingly, each inventoried feature was classified according to process type,
complexity, number o f road tiers affected and evidence of multiple, associated forms of
erosion and deposition. Process complexity was evaluated based on the number of
individual features at a given location. Simple sites included locations where only one
feature was inventoried. Complex sites were characterized by multiple, associated
sedimentation features at a given location. Processes that affected only one road
location were classed as single-tier, whereas processes that traversed more than one road
82
along a hillslope were classed as multi-tiff. Maps of flowpaths o f individual features

were used to trace the runout path and impact of individual features.
At complex sites, where more than one feature was inventoried, field evidence
for association between features was assessed. Process associations were indicated by
(1) deposition of sediment that diverted surface runoff or was available for transport by
another process, (2) evidence o f surface runoff diversion that appeared to trigger
additional erosion, or (3) transport of sediment in debris slides to channels where
transformation to debris flows occurred.
3.2.5 Sediment mass balance
To evaluate the role of roads as a source or storage site for sediment, I

constructed a sediment mass balance from the inventoried features. Volumes of
sediment mobilized on hillslopes (Vh) above roads and within the road zone (e.g.
cutslope, ditch, road surface and fillslope) (Vr) were used to calculate inputs (Vin),
outputs (Vout), and changes in storage (AS) as follows. Sediment volumes from
hillslopes and roads were partitioned into the fraction stored on roads (V«) and the
fraction transported to hillslopes below roads (Vt) according to (Figure 3.4)
Vh = Vh, +Vht
Vr = Vr, + Vr, (3.1)
Inputs of sediment to roads are represented by material originating on hillslopes above
roads, while outputs are represented by the transported fractions of sediment from
hillslopes and roads, e.g.
Vin = Vh
Vout = Vht + Vrt (3.2)
Combining (1) and (2), the mass balance of sediment was computed as
AS = Vin - Vout
= (Vh. + Vh*) - (Vht + Vrt)
= Vh, - Vrt (3.3)
Vh }«.
I AS
\ Vout
Figure 3.4: Volumes used to compute sediment mass balance. Sediment is mobilized on hillslopes above roads (Vh) or
within the road zone (Vr) and may be stored on roads O O or transported through the road zone to hillslopes below (VJ.
The effect of roads on sediment storage (AS) is determined by the difference between inputs (Vin) to and outputs (Vout)
from the road.
84
where AS represents the net change in sediment storage by roads, equal to the volume of
hillslope material stored on roads less the volume of road material transported to
hillslopes below. Positive values indicate that roads function as a net sink, or storage site,
for sediment. Negative values o f AS indicate that roads function as a net source of
sediment to hillslopes.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Number and types o f sedimentation features
Erosion by mass wasting and fluvial processes during the February 1996 flood
resulted in eight distinct types of features associated with roads (Figure 3.2). Mass
wasting processes included slumps, debris flows, and debris slides, including those
termed hillslope slides, cutslope slides and fillslope slides for the purposes of this study.
Fluvial processes included bedload transport that was trapped at culvert inlets (plugged
culverts), and erosion by concentrated surface runoff that resulted in gullying of road
surfaces and hillslopes or incision of roadside ditches.
I inventoried 103 features along the 348 km of road in the Lookout Creek and
Blue River watersheds (Figure 3.1, Table 3.3). As m any as 30% of these features were
fillslope slides, while hillslope slides that intersected roads were inventoried at only five
locations, and only three sites of ditch incision were found. Other features mapped on
the road network included 12 cutslope slides, 13 slumps, 13 culverts plugged by
bedload, 10 sites where gullying of the road surface and hillslope was evident, and 16
sites where debris flows intersected roads. Although roughly 60% of these features were
mapped in the Blue River watershed, the frequency of impact was lower in the Blue
River watershed (0.27 features/kilometer) than in the Lookout Creek watershed (0.36
features/kilometer), which is roughly half the size with half the total road length relative
to the Blue River watershed (Table 3.1).
Table 3.3: Distribution and frequency of inventoried features in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds.
Lookout Creek Blue River total

Watershed Watershed
No. No./km. No. No./km. No. No./km.
1. debris flow 9 0.08 7 0.03 16 0.05

2. hillslope slide 4 0.03 1 0.004 5 0.01
3. cutslope slide 1 0.01 11 0.05 12 0.03
4. fillslope slide 18 0.15 13 0.06 31 0.09
S. slump 1 0.01 12 0.05 13 0.04
6. plugged culvert 3 0.03 10 0.04 13 0.04
7. ditch incision 1 0.01 2 0.01 3 0.01
8. gully 5 0.04 5 0.02 10 0.03
total 42 0.36 61 0.27 103 0.30

86
The features inventoried on the road network were not evenly distributed
between the two basins (Table 3.3). Hillslope slides occurred seven times more
frequently, and fillslope slides and debris flows occurred roughly 2.5 times more
frequently in the Lookout Creek watershed than in the Blue River watershed, hi
contrast, cutslope slides and slumps occurred five times more frequently in Blue River.
Among features produced by fluvial erosion and deposition, culverts plugged by bedload
occurred more frequently in Blue River, while gullying occurred twice as frequently in
Lookout Creek.
hi general, mass wasting processes mobilized larger volumes of sediment than
fluvial processes (Figure 3.5). Debris slides were skewed toward the larger size classes.
Hillslope slides and all but two o f the 31 fillslope slides ranged from 100 - 10,000 m3.
The volumes of cutslope slides were slightly smaller, with most of these features ranging
from 10 -1000 m3. In contrast, most of the fluvial features ranged from <10 m3 - 100
m3. Eleven of the 13 plugged culverts and seven o f the 10 gullies had sediment volumes
of 10 - 100 m3. Debris flows ranged from < 100 m3 to over 5000 m3.
3.3.2 Landscape position o f sedimentation features
There are some important differences in the distribution of roads by time of

construction, hillslope position and elevation in the two basins. While road densities are
similar in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds (Table 3.1), more than 60% of
the road length in Lookout Creek was constructed prior to 1960, while roughly 70% of
the road length in Blue River was constructed between 1961 - 1980 (Table 3.4). Both
basins have only a small proportion (< 25%) o f the total road length constructed above
1200 m, but in Lookout Creek almost 50% of the total road length is concentrated in the
lowest elevations (400 - 800 m) while in Blue River 50% o f the road network is in the
mid elevations (801 - 1200 m). Finally, roughly 60% of the total road length in both
basins is located in midslope positions, but in Lookout Creek, 15% of the road length is
in valley floor positions and 23% is in upperslope/ridge positions, while in Blue River
35
•c 30 -
1
%
c 25 -
<0
£
3
20 -
debris flows
hillslope slides
£ 15 -
cutslope slides
E
I3
E
3
10 •
fillslope slides
plugged culvsrts
incised ditches
gullies
o
100 1000 10000
Volume (ms)
Figure 3.5: Distribution of size classes of sediment for inventoried features (slumps not included). Volumes are material mobilized
on hillslopes ( V i„ ) and within the road prism ( V r) as applicable (see Table 3.2).
00
Table 3.4: Distribution of road length and inventoried features by road age, elevation and hillslope position in the Lookout
Creek and Blue River watersheds.
Lookout Creek Watershed Blue River Watershed

road length inventoried features road length inventoried features
km % no % per km km % no % per km
RoadAge (e.g. decade ofroad construction)

<1960 72 61 35 83 0.49 41 18 26 43 0.63
1961-1970 42 35 6 14 0.14 76 33 13 21 0.28
1971-1980 2 2 1 3 0.5 86 37 16 26 0.19
1981-1990 2 2 0 0 0 27 12 6 10 0.22
total 118 100 42 100 0.36 230 100 61 100 0.27
Elevation
400-800 58 49 38 90 0.66 61 27 36 59 0.59
801-1200 36 31 3 8 0.08 116 50 25 41 0.22
>1200 24 20 1 2 0.04 53 23 0 0 0
total 118 100 42 100 0.36 230 100 61 100 0.51
Hillslope Position
valley 18 15 19 45 1.06 23 10 13 21 0.57
mid 73 62 21 50 0.29 132 57 45 74 0.34
upper 27 23 2 5 0.07 75 33 3 5 0.04
total 118 100 42 100 0.36 230 100 61 100 0.27
00
00
89
only 10% of the road length is located on valley floors and 33% is located on
upperslopes and ridges.
The distribution of inventoried features is not a simple function of the length of
road in a given landscape position (Table 3.4). Over 80% o f the features in the Lookout
Creek watershed and more than 40% of the features in the Blue River watershed
occurred on roads constructed prior to 1960, although much of the total road length in
Blue River was constructed after 1960. Ninety percent (90%) of the inventoried features
in Lookout Creek and almost 60% of the features in Blue River occurred on roads in the
lowest elevation zone (400 - 800 m), proportions that are significantly higher than the
proportion of road length in this elevation zone. Finally, most (74%) of the features in
Blue River occurred on midslope roads, whereas in Lookout Creek only half o f the
features occurred on midslope roads, and all but one of the remaining features occurred
on valley floor roads.
The interactions between road age, elevation and slope position reveal important
patterns in the frequency of inventoried features (Table 3.5). Of the 36 possible
combinations of road age, elevation and hillslope position examined, roughly half o f the
road length in the Lookout Creek watershed fells into three classes: low-elevation,
valley-floor and midslope roads constructed prior to 1960, and mid-elevation, midslope
roads constructed prior to 1960 (Table 3.5a). Most of the inventoried features in
Lookout Creek were found on these roads (Table 3.5b), particularly on roads
constructed prior to 1960 in the lowest elevation zone (400 - 800 m), resulting in a high
frequency of occurrence on these roads (Table 3,5c). hi the Blue River watershed,
roughly half of the road length falls into five classes: low-elevation, valley-floor roads
constructed before 1960 and midslope roads constructed in the 1960's, and mid
elevation, midslope roads constructed between 1961-1980 phis ridge roads constructed
in the 1970's (Table 3.5a). Most of the inventoried features in Blue River were found on
these roads (Table 3.5b), but a high concentration of features on roads constructed prior
to 1960 in the lowest elevation zone resulted in a high frequency of occurrence on these
roads (Table 3.5c).
Table 3.5: Relation between decade of road construction, elevation, and hillslope position in the Lookout Creek and Blue River
watersheds, (a) Kilometers of road. Bold font indicates classes with highest concentration of road length, totaling 50% of network
length in each watershed (see text)
Lookout Creek Watershed BlueRiver Watershed

— decade of road construction — — decade of road construction —
<1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total <1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total
1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990
Elevation 400-800 m
valley floor 11.4 2.8 0.3 0 14.5 16.2 2.6 1.6 0 20.4
midslope 28.6 5.3 0 0.3 34.2 9.0 14.4 9.3 0.8 33.5
upper slope 4.7 4.7 0 0 9.4 1.4 4.0 0.9 0.4 6.7
total 44.7 12.8 0.3 0.3 58.1 26.6 21.0 11.8 1.2 60.6
Elevation 801-1200 m
valley floor 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.0 1.7 0 2.7
midslope 16.8 8.2 1.2 0.4 26.6 2.7 25.3 31.8 9.9 69.7
upper slope 4.7 1.7 0.6 0 7.0 1.4 10.7 20.5 11.0 43.6
total 24.0 9.9 1.8 0.4 36.1 4.1 37.0 54.0 20.9 116.0
Elevation >1201 m
valley floor 0 0.9 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0
midslope 1.8 10.6 0 0.8 13.2 7.3 13.4 7.0 2.3 30.0
upper slope 1.4 7.8 0 0.7 9.9 3.2 4.3 13.4 2.8 23.7
total 3.2 19.3 0 1.5 24.0 10.5 17.7 20.4 5.1 53.7
grand total 71.9 42.0 2.1 2.2 118.2 41.2 75.7 86.2 27.2 230.3
8
Table 3.5 (continued), (b) Number of features inventoried. Note inventoried features occurred in only eight of 36 possible classes in
the Lookout Creek watershed and 15 of 36 possible classes in the Blue River watershed. Bold font indicates highest concentration of
features.

— decade of road construction — —decade of road construction —
<1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total <1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total
1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990
Elevation 400-800 m
valley floor 16 2 1 0 19 8 2 1 0 11
midslope 13 4 0 0 17 12 5 5 3 25
upper slope 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
total 31 6 1 0 38 20 7 6 3 36
valley floor 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
midslope 3 0 0 0 3 5 3 10 2 20
upper slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3
total 3 0 0 0 3 6 6 10 3 25
Elevation >1201 m
valley floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
midslope 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
upper slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
grand total 35 6 1 0 42 26 13 16 6 61
VO
Table 3.5 (continued), (c) Number of features per kilometer of road. Bold font indicates highest frequencies in each basin (note
frequencies > 1.0 that are not highlighted result in classes with < 3 kilometers of road and are considered inadequate sample sizes to
assess susceptibility).

- decade of road construction — decade of road construction -
<1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total <1960 1961- 1971- 1981- total
1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990
Elevation 400-800 m
valley floor 1.4 0.7 3.3 0 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 0 0.5
midslope 0.5 0.8 0 0 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.5 3.8 0.7
upper slope 0.4 0.0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0
total 0.7 0.5 3.3 0 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 2.5 0.6
valley floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0.7
midslope 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3
upper slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.1
total 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2
Elevation >1201 m
valley floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
midslope 0.6 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0
upper slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
grand total 0.5 0.1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
93
3.3.3 Process complexity and disturbance cascades
Flood impacts to the road network occurred as both simple, isolated events and
as complex cascades o f multiple erosional and deposhional processes (Figure 3.6).
Certain types of processes commonly occurred in isolation, while others typically
occurred in association with other forms of erosion. All o f the slumps occurred as
simple, isolated features, whereas all of the incised ditches were associated with another
feature. Four of the five hillslope slides and nine of the 13 plugged culverts occurred in
isolation, while nine of the 10 gullies resulted when channelized surface runoff was
diverted by deposition of sediment from an another feature.
Of the 103 features mapped in the study area, 58 were simple features affecting
roads in only one hillslope position (Figure 3.6). Most o f these features were mass
movements that occurred within the road zone. Only five o f these features occurred on
ridge roads, and the remainder were found on midslope (38 features) and valley-floor
roads (15 features).
The remaining 45 features inventoried in this study resulted from complex
cascades of erosion and deposition (Figure 3.6). These cascades fell into two general
classes: (1) debris flows, cutslope slides or plugged culverts that deposited sediment at
roads, caused diversion o f channels or ditchflow, and triggered fillslope slides, gullying
or ditch incision, and (2) hillslope or fillslope slides that entered channels and became
debris flows. Most of these complex features affected roads in only one hillslope
position, although one hillslope slide and one debris flow affected midslope and valley-
floor roads, and five fillslope slides initiated on midslope roads became debris flows that
impacted valley-floor roads. No complex associations occurred on upperslope/ridge
roads. These complex features were concentrated on midslope roads, and all but four of
the complex features on valley floor roads were triggered by erosion that also affected
midslope roads.
simple complex Totals

one-tier one-tier multi-tier
mass fluvial
massmvt: fluvial massmvt massmvt massmvt massmvt myts features all
&fluvial &fluvial
o o
tiroads
5 0
24 3* 60
66
32
Figure 3.6: Schematic representation of the distribution and spatial complexity of features inventoried in this study. Closed
symbols represent mass movements ( # debris flows,^hillslope slides, ^cutslope slides,▼fillslope slides, and
• slumps). Open symbols represent fluvial features (Oplugged culverts, tm incised ditches, and | | gullies). Features
are positioned relative to point of origin, on hillslopes above roads or within the road zone(represented by gray bars). Arrows
indicate features that triggered erosion of associated feature, and show impacts to multiple tiers of roads where applicable.
X
95
While most of the features were a result o f erosion that occurred within the road
zone, one-third (34 features) of the inventoried features were the result o f erosional
processes that began on hillslopes outside the road zone. The importance o f these
features increased from ridge to valley floor. None of the features inventoried in the
uppermost hillslope position resulted from sediment transported into roads from above.
However, on midslope roads, roughly one-third (20 of 66 features) of the inventoried
features were hillslope slides, debris flows or plugged culverts that resulted from erosion
on hillslopes above roads. On valley-floor roads, almost half (14 of 32 features) of the
inventoried features originated on hillslopes or in channels above roads. Many of these
were the result of erosion on midslope roads and were involved in complex associations
of erosion and deposition on valley-floor roads.
3.3.4 Sediment volumes and mass balance
Sediment volume measurements indicate that over 32,000 m3 of sediment was

mobilized by the processes that occurred within the road zone (cutslope slides, fillslope
slides, incised ditches and gullies) (Figure 3.7). O f this volume, over 80% was mobilized
by fillslope slides and 60% was from fillslope slides on midslope roads. Cutslope slides
accounted for 14% o f the sediment mobilized from roads, predominantly from midslope
roads; however, most of this sediment remained within the road zone, with little net
contribution to hillslopes. Less than 5% of the total sediment volume eroded from road
cuts, surfaces or fillslopes was mobilized by ditch incision or gullying.
In addition to the sediment mobilized from roads, over 25,000 m3 of sediment
eroded on hillslopes and in channels (e.g. hillslope slides, debris flows and bedload that
plugged culverts) intersected roads (Figure 3.7). Of this volume, roughly 67% was from
debris flows, and almost 50% was from debris flows that intersected valley-floor roads.
The remaining volume of hillslope material was transported onto roads via hillslope
slides (30%) and bedload that plugged stream-crossing culverts (3%). These processes
debris hillslope cutslope fillslope plugged incised gullies Total AS

flows slides slides slides culverts ditches
5450 - 5450
12,475
19110 27,130 -14,655
13,160
6135 + 7025
Figure 3.7: Schematic representation of sediment mass balance for sedimentation features inventoried in Lookout Creek and Blue River.
Sediment volumes are partitioned into volumes transported into the road zone from hillslopes (Vin), volume of material eroded within
the road zone (Vr) from cutslopes, ditches, and road fill, and volume of material transported to hillslopes below roads (Vout). Volumes
of sediment stored on roads (Vs) are italicized. Changes in storage of sediment by roads are calculated from (3.3).
£
97
resulted in at least partial deposition o f sediment on roads, although hillslope slides and
particularly debris flows also triggered additional erosion on roads.
The role of roads as sources or storage rites for sediment varied from ridge to
valley floor (Figure 3.7). Upperslope/ridge roads were a net source o f sediment,
although a modest one. Midslope roads were a considerably more important source of
sediment, producing almost 2.5 times the volume of sediment than was trapped from
hillslope and channel erosion above these roads. Valley-floor roads, however, trapped
four times the volume of sediment than was eroded on roads and served as a net storage
site for sediment. In total, more sediment was eroded from roads than was stored on
roads, and the entire road system functioned as a net source o f sediment in the basins
studied.
3.4 Discussion
The flood of February 1996 resulted in considerable erosion in the Lookout

Creek and Blue River watersheds, and various types of erosion and deposition were
associated with forest roads. Maps of the locations of road-related sedimentation
indicate that there were "hot-spots" of erosion concentrated below 800 m on certain
midslope and valley floor roads, where the road was involved in complex cascades of
erosion and deposition. Mass wasting accounted for the greatest number of inventoried
features and most of the mobilized sediment in road-related erosion, but the
consequences of erosion and deposition by fluvial processes is important for at least two
reasons. First, bedload that plugged stream-crossing culverts resulted in complete
blockage of channels. Second, ditch incision and gullying created new surface channels
that could divert flow during future storms and possibly contribute to future slope
instability. These findings show that fillslope slides represented the most common form
of road-related erosion in these basins. Furthermore, if the associated forms of erosion
that were linked to fillslope slides are considered, the importance o f this process to the
overall impact of roads during the flood is even more significant. These findings also
98
show that erosional processes occurred in large numbers on midslope roads, but the
relatively am«n proportion of road length on the valley floor o f these basins was heavily
impacted. Finally, while the overall effect of roads was to serve as a net source of
sediment in these basins, roads functioned as both sources and storage sites for sediment
depending upon their location on hillslopes.
Certain types of processes may be under-represented in this study, either because
they do not commonly occur in these particular basins or because I foiled to identify
them in the inventory. One erosional feature along a tributary to Lookout Creek was
classified as a fillslope slide, although field evidence suggested that it may have been
caused by lateral migration o f the channel and undercutting of road fill, rather than the
typical failure mechanism of most fillslope slides. Lateral channel migration and
undercutting of road fill may be common along channels in other sites, especially in
places where roads are adjacent to less constrained streams. One fillslope slide that was
inventoried appeared to be associated with road drainage, since the point of initiation
was tens of meters below a culvert, although the slide was not technically on road-fill
material. Association o f such features with the road does involve some subjective
judgment. Finally, failures at stream crossings that were inventoried as plugged culverts
included only those where deposition of sediment was sufficient to divert of surface
runoff and visibly effect the road. Many other culverts may have been partially blocked
during this event, and other fully-blocked culverts may have had little erosional
consequence to the road and surrounding hillslope.
Several factors may limit the generality of the findings presented in this study.
The basins examined were subject to a specific landuse history that includes roads
constructed according to practices that pre-date current standards, with considerable
length in midslope positions. Many o f these older roads were also constructed in the
most geologically unstable portions of the basins. In addition, in the last 30 years, these
basins have experienced two significant flood events that have tested the effectiveness of
road location and construction practices. The flood of 1964 resulted in numerous road-
related landslides in this area (Dymess, 1967; Swanson and Dymess, 1975). Finally,
there are unique characteristics o f this storm that may have contributed to the pattern of
99
erosion found. Snowmeh was synchronized with the period of most intense rainfall only
in the lowest elevation zone. More extensive snowmeh might have produced more
erosion in these basins. The duration of precipitation during this event was shorter than
the 1964 flood, when higher rates of road-related debris slides (e.g. cutslope slides and
fillslope slides) were recorded. Longer-duration precipitation during this storm might
have resulted in fillslope slides where slumps occurred, and would have elevated the
erosion rate attributed to roads.
The findings presented in this study should, however, be generally applicable to
publicly-owned forested lands under federal management in the Pacific Northwest. Road
construction on these lands has typically included main-entry roads along the valley
floors of most drainage basins and midslope roads that were constructed during a period
when harvesting and yarding practices required multiple points of access on hillslopes,
with construction practices that have been improved in recent decades (Ruth and Silen,
1950; Silen, 1955; Sessions et al., 1987). The practice o f constructing roads on or near
ridges has evolved over the last two to three decades with improvements in harvesting
technology and a recognition of adverse environmental effects of midslope roads
(Sessions, Balcom et al., 1987). The frequency of road-related sedimentation recorded
in this study is similar to that found in other studies conducted in the region following
this flood. Skaugset et al. (1997) inventoried road-related landslide (e.g. cutslope and
fillslope slides) rates that were typically between 0.1 to 0.5 slides/kilometer, although
rates ranged from 0 to 1 slide/kilometer in the areas they studied throughout western
Oregon. Thiesen et al. (unpublished draft) found similar rates oflandsliding and surface
erosion on roads in the Klamath River basin in northern California, and noted similar
patterns of erosion along a gradient from upper to lower hillslope positions.
Key implications o f this study for road engineering and watershed management
may be summarized as follows. First, high rates of erosion on midslope roads indicate
that these roads constitute a significant concern for erosion, slope stability and associated
ecological impacts. Second, the high frequency of failure on valley-floor roads is
particularly important, not only because they lie in close proximity to mainstem channels,
but also because these roads typically provide access to the entire road network in a
100
drainage basin. In the Lookout Creek watershed, for example, access to most o f the
118-ldlometer road network was cut off by a debris flow that obliterated a valley-floor
road at several sites. Third, the higher frequency of road-related erosion in the Lookout
Creek watershed, coupled with the fact that this watershed experienced a higher
frequency of more catastrophic erosion in the form of hillslope slides, fillslope slides, and
debris flows suggest that older road location and construction practices contributed to
the form and impact of erosion in this basin.
These findings lead to several important interpretations of the geomorphic
function and ecological effects o f roads (Figure 3.8). Forest roads function both to
interrupt flows of water and sediment along hillslopes and channels and to accelerate the
rate of erosion in the basins studied. In some cases, the processes that affect roads
originate on hillslopes above roads, and road design has little to no influence on their
occurrence. In other cases, the types o f erosion that occur on roads may be directly
attributed to design factors, including oversteepened road cuts and fills placed on steep
slopes with high M ure potential, culverts undersized to pass water and sediment
mobilized during large storms, and high diversion potential (e.g. Furaiss et al., 1998)
present at many stream crossings. The potential ecological effects o f these impacts are
an important consideration. When roads interrupt the natural downhill flows of water
and sediment, channels may be deprived of sediment or, more importantly, of large wood
that provides channel stability and habitat structure. When roads accelerate the rates of
erosion, changes in the amount and size distribution of sediment delivered to channels
may result.
roads interrupt
theflow o f water
debris flow and sediment
roads increase
plugged culvert the rate of
erosion
cptslope slid incised dii gully
slump
fillslope slide
roads designfactors
influence occurrence
roads design has minimal

influence on occurrence
Figure 3.8: Function of forest roads relative to forms of erosion and deposition studied and influence of road design
on occurrence ofthese features.
o
102
Chapter 4
Condnsions
4.1 Summary
The central question examined in this research is, how do roads modify the flows
o f water and sediment in a forested landscape? The studies described in Chapters 2 and
3 were conducted at spatial scales ranging from individual hillslopes (< 0.1 km2) to large
watersheds (181 km2) and at temporal scales ranging from a single extreme flood to part
of a water year.
The analysis presented in Chapter 2 supports a theoretical model o f runoff
production on roads, driven by subsurface flow intercepted along road cuts. In
Watershed 3, a tributary to Lookout Creek, interception of subsurface flow dominated
runoff generated on the roads examined, and the magnitude of intercepted runoff was
controlled by the area of the contributing hillslope, soil depth, hillslope gradient, road-cut
depth, the size of the precipitation event, and antecedent soil moisture conditions.
Runoff generated on these roads has larger-scale implications, including possible
modification o f downstream hydrographs and contribution to slope instability.
The findings presented in Chapter 3 demonstrate the range of erosional processes
affected by roads in the Lookout Creek and Blue River watersheds during the February
1996 flood. Roads were involved in eight distinct types of sedimentation, including
erosion and deposition by both fluvial and mass wasting processes. Roads constructed
prior to 1960 in midslope and valley floor positions experienced the highest frequency of
erosion and deposition, and these impacts were concentrated at elevations below 800 m,
where storm precipitation was augmented by snowmelt. Roads were involved in
complex cascades of associated erosion and deposition that typically resulted from the
transformation o f debris slides into debris flows, or from the deposition o f sediment on
roads, diversion of surface runoff and the initiation of new erosional processes. While
103
overall roads served as a net source of sediment in these basins, roads functioned as both
sources and storage sites for sediment depending upon their location on hillslopes.
4.2 Management Implications
At least three distinct factors relevant to land management in the Pacific

Northwest underscore the need for an improved understanding o f how roads function in
forested basins. First, legal imperatives associated with the protection of threatened and
endangered species and changing social values have focused considerable attention on
ecosystem restoration and protection in recent years. Road restoration and road removal
have received special attention, and guidelines for prioritizing road treatments are
needed. Second, reduced maintenance budgets, equipment and staffing have limited the
upkeep of currently existing road systems and dramatically reduced funds for new road
construction. Finally, the record storms of 1996 highlighted the need to develop storm-
proofing measures for existing road networks and to predict sites of likely future storm
damage.
There are no simple management prescriptions for minimizing the effects of
existing roads, although this research provides insight into important management
considerations. Midslope roads deserve particular attention in maintenance or
deconstruction efforts, since these roads appear most likely to intercept groundwater,
increase erosion, and aha* the routing of water and sediment during storms.
Maintenance efforts might usefully focus on reducing the opportunity for diversion of
water and sediment along roads and roadside ditches, and attention also should be given
to reducing the connectivity of roads with streams. Designing drainage structures that
can accommodate both wood and sediment, as well as water, is an important need. On
valley floor roads, attention should be given to designing drainage structures that would
allow for passage o f debris flows or excessive bedload, since these roads are critically
important for transportation access.
104
4.3 Future research
This research points to a number of areas for further study. Additional field data
are needed to document the conditions leading to subsurface flow interception on roads
in other areas. Field studies should be designed to assess the roles of topography, soil
properties, and precipitation regimes in driving subsurface flow interception by roads.
Reid documentation of differences in subsurface flow drainage on hillslopes before and
after road construction would be particularly beneficial. The conceptual model
developed in Chapter 2 provides a foundation for physically-based numerical modeling of
the conditions required to drive formation of perched water tables on steep hillslopes and
the interception of subsurface flow along road cuts. Such efforts are likely to provide
the most insight if models are used to assess the range of conditions that drive these
phenomena and to assess sensitivities o f road design and landscape condition to
interception of subsurface flow. Finally, modeling efforts at the watershed scale are
needed to test potential downstream effects on peak flow generation caused by the
interception of subsurface flow along roads.
Additional work is needed to assess the effect of improved road design practices
in minimizing the effects of roads on erosion during large floods. These studies should
be conducted in a landscape context, in order to disentangle the potentially interactive
influences of engineering practices and inherent landscape susceptibility in contributing
to the patterns of erosion that result from severe storms. In the Lookout Creek and Blue
River basins, more work is needed to assess the delivery o f road-derived sediment to
channels during the February 1996 flood. Finally, collaborative studies with ecologists
should be undertaken to assess the ecological effects of erosional and hydrologic impacts
associated with roads.
A management-oriented analytical framework is needed for assessing risks of
road-related impacts on hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological resources. The
framework should be adaptable to varied environments and should include tools that
allow measurement and quantification of potential road effects. Such tools might include
105
indices that can be measured in the field and extrapolated spatially using GIS in order to
develop objective criteria for road maintenance or deconstruction.
106
Bibliography
Abrahams, A. D. 1984. Channel networks: a geomorphological perspective. Water

Resources Research 20:161-188.
American, C. R. 1965. The use of unit source watershed data for runoff prediction. Water
Anderson, M. G. and T. P. Burt 1978. The role of topography in controlling throughflow

generation. Earth Surface Processes 3:331-344.
Anderson, M. G. and P. E. Kneale. 1982. The influence o f low-angled topography on

hillslope soil-water convergence and stream discharge. Journal of Hydrology, 57: 65-
80.
Aubertin, G. M 1971. Nature and extent of macropores in forest soils and their influence
on subsurface water movement, USDA Forest Service Research Paper.
Betson, R. P. and J. B. Marius. 1969. Source areas of storm runoff. Water Resources
Research 5(3): 574-581.
Beven, K. 1977. Hillslope hydrographs by the finite element method. Earth Surface
Processes 2: 13-28.
Beven, K. 1978. The hydrological response of headwater and sideslope areas.

Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 23(4): 419-437.
Beven, K. 1981. Kinematic subsurface stormflow. Water Resources Research 17(5):

1419-1424.
Beven, K. 1982a. On subsurface stormflow: predictions with simple kinematic theory for
saturated and unsaturated flows. Water Resources Research 18(6): 1627-1633.
Beven, K. 1982b. On subsurface stormflow: an analysis o f response times. Hydrological

Sciences Journal 27(4): 505-521.
Beven, K. and P. Germann. 1982. Macropores and water flow in soils. Wats’Resources
Research 18(5): 1311-1325.
Bilby, R. E., K. Sullivan, et al. 1989. The generation and fide of road-surface sediment in
forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35(2): 453-468.
107
Bfyth, K. and J. C. Rodda. 1973. A stream length study. Water Resources Research 9(5):
1454-1461.
Bondi, M 1993. Progress in the understanding of runoffgeneration dynamics in forests.

Journal of Hydrology 150: 217-275.
Bowling, L. C. and D. P. Lettemneier. 1997. Evaluation of the effects of forest roads on

streamflow in Hard and Ware Creeks, Washington. Seattle, WA, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Washington.
Brooks, K. N., P. F. Ffolliott, et al 1991. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds.

Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press.
Brown, D. L. 1995. An analysis of transient flow in upland watersheds: interactions

between structure and processes. Department of Soil Science. Berkeley, University of
California at Berkeley. 225 pp.
Burroughs, E. R_, Jr., M. A. Mardsen, et al. 1971. Volume of snowmeh intercepted by

logging roads. ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting, Phoenix, AZ.
Dietrich, W. E. and T. Dunne. 1978. Sediment budget for a small catchment in

mountainous terrain. Zekschrift Geomorphologie 29: 191-206.
Dietrich, W. E. and T. Dunne. 1993. The channel head. Channel Network Hydrology. K.
Bevin and M. J. Kirkby, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 175-219.
Dietrich, W. E., T. Dunne, et al. 1982. Construction of Sediment Budgets for drainage
basins. Sediment Budgets and Routing in Forested Drainage Basins, Corvallis, OR,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report PNW-141.
Dietrich, W. E., R. Reiss, et al. 1995. A process-based model for colluvial soil depth and
shallow landsliding using digital elevation data. Hydrological Processes 9(3-4): 383-
400.
Dietrich, W. E., C. J. Wilson, et al 1986. Hollows, colluvium, and landslides in soil-

mantled landscapes. Hillslope Processes. A. D. Abrahams, Allen and Unwin Ltd.: 361-
388.
Duncan, S. H , R. E. Bilby, et a l 1987. Transport of road-surface sediment through

ephemeral stream channels. Water Resources Bulletin 23(1): 113-119.
Dunne, T. 1978. Field studies of hillslope flow processes. Hillslope Hydrology. M. J.

Kirkby. New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons: 227-293.
108
Dunne, T. and R. D. Black. 1970. Partial area contributions to storm ru no ff in a small

New England watershed. Water Resources Research 6:1296-1311.
Dunne, T. and W. Dietrich. 1982. Sediment Sources in Tropical Drainage Basins. Soil
Erosion and Conservation in the Tropics. Madison, WI, American Society of
Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America.
Dunne, T., T. R. Moore, et al. 1975. Recognition and prediction of runoff-producing

zones in humid regions. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 20(3): 305-327.
Dymess, C. T. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, P.N.W. Research Station, Corvallis, OR. (541)
750-7250. Personal communication.
Dymess, C. T. 1967. Mass soil movements in the H. J. Andrews experimental forest.

Portland, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Statioa
Dymess, C. T. 1969. Hydrologic properties of soils on three snail watersheds in the

western Cascades of Oregon. Portland, Oregon, USDA Forest Service PNW Research
Statioa
Dymess, C. T., F. J. Swanson, G. E. Grant, S. Gregory, J. Jones, K. Kurosawa, A. Levno,

D. Henshaw, and H. Hammond 1996. Flood of February, 1996 in the H.J. Andrews
Experimental Forest. Available: http://sequoia.fel.orst.edu/lter/pubs/
spclrpts/flood.htm: 23 p w/figures.
Fedora, M. A. and R. L. Beschta. 1989. Storm runoff simulation using an antecedent

precipitation index (API) model. Journal o f Hydrology 112: 121-133.
FEMAT. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: an ecological, economic and social

assessment, Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U. S.
Government Printing Office: 1993-793-071.
Foltz, R. B. and J. Burroughs, E. R. 1990. Sediment production from forest roads with
wheel ruts. Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action, Symposium Proceedings of IR
Conference, Durango, ASCE.
Freeze, R. A. 1972. Role of subsurface flow in generating surface runoff: 1. Base flow
contributions to channel flow. Water Resources Research 8(3): 609-623.
Freeze, R. A. 1972. Role of subsurface flow in generating surface runoff: 2. Upstream

source areas. Water Resources Research 8(5): 1272-1283.
109
Fumiss, M J., T. S. Ledwith, et al. 1998. Response o f road-stream crossings to large
flood events in Washington, Oregon and northern California. San Dimas, CA,
U.SJD.A. Forest Service Technology and Development Program.
Grant, G. E. and A. L. Wolff. 1991. Long-term patterns of sediment transport after

timber harvest, western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, U.S.A. Sediment and Stream
Water Quality in a Changing Environment: Trends and Explanation, Vienna, IAHS.
Greenland, D. 1994. The Pacific Northwest regional context of the climate o f the H. J.
Andrews experimental forest long-term ecological research site. Northwest Science
69: 81-96.
Hack, J. T. and J. C. Goodlett. 1960. Geomorphology and forest ecology of a moutain

region in the central Appalachians. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 347.
Harden, C. P. 1992. Incorporating roads and footpaths in watershed-scale hydrologic and

soil erosion models. Physical Geography 13: 368-385.
Harr, R. D. 1976. Forest practices and streamflow in western Oregon. Portland, USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Harr, R. D. 1977. Water flux in soil and subsoil on a steep forested slope. Journal of
Hydrology 33: 37-58.
Harr, R. D. 1981. Some characteristics and consequences of snowmelt during rainfall in

western Oregon. Journal of Hydrology 53:277-304.
Harr, R. D. and F. M. McCorison. 1979. Initial effects o f clearcut logging on size and
timing of peak flows in a small watershed in western Oregon. Water Resources
Research 15(1): 90-94.
Hawk, G. and C. T. Dymess, unpublished report. Vegetation and soils ofWatesheds 2 and
3, H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Corvallis, OR, U. S. D. A. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Henshaw, D. Statistician and information manager (H. J. Andrews, Long-term Ecological

Research Site), U.SD.A. Forest Service, P.N.W. Research Station, Corvallis, OR.
(541)750-7335. Personal communication.
Hewitt, K. 1972. The mountain environment and geomorphic processes. Mountain

Geomorphology. O. Slaymaker and H. J. McPherson. Vancouver, Tantalus. B. C.
Geographical Series No. 14: pp. 17-34.
no
Hewlett, J. D. and A. R. Hibbert. 1967. Factors affecting the response o f small watesheds
to precipitation in humid areas. International Symposium on Forest Hydrology,
Pergamon Press, New York.
Horton, R. E. 1933. The role o f infiltration in the hydrologic cycle. Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union 14:446-460.
Iverson, R. M and R. P. Denlinger. 1987. The physics o f debris flows —a conceptual

assessment. Erosion and Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim, Corvallis, OR, IAHS
Publication No. 165.
Jones, A. 1971. Soil piping and stream channel initiation. Water Resources Research 7(3):
602-610.
Jones, J. A. and G. E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clearcutting and roads in small
and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4): 959-
974.
Komar, P. D. and S. M Shih. 1992. Equal mobility versus changing bedload grain sizes in
gravel bed streams. Dynamics of Gravel-Bed Rivers. P. Billi, R. D. Hey, C. R. Thome
and P. Tacconi. Chichester, UJL, John Wiley & Sons: 73-106.
Luce, C. H and T. W. Cundy. 1994. Parameter identification for a runoff model for
forest roads. Water Resources Reseach 30: 1057-1069.
McDonnell, J. J. 1990. A rationale for old water discharge through macropores in a steep,
humid catchment. Water Resources Research 26(11): 2821-2832.
Megahan, W. F. 1972. Subsurface flow interception by a logging road in mountains of

central Idaho. National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition, Colorado State
University, American Water Resources Association.
Megahan, W. F. 1987. Effects of forest roads on watershed function in mountainous

areas. In: Balasubramaniam et al. (eds.), Environmental Geotechnics and Problematic
Soils and Rocks. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Megahan, W. F. and J. L. Clayton. 1983. Tracing subsurface flow on roadcuts on steep,

forested slopes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47(6): 1063-1067.
Mohsenisaravi, M. 1981. Forecasting subsurface water flow and storage on forested

slopes using a finite element model. Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University
of Idaho: 162 pp.
Montgomery, D. R. and W. E. Dietrich. 1995. Hydrologic processes in a low gradient

source area. Water Resources Research 31(1): 1-10.
Ill
Mulholland, P. J. 1993. Hydrometric and stream chemistry evidence o f three storm

flowpaths in Walker Brandi Watershed. Journal of Hydrology 151: 291-316.
Pearce; A. J., M. K. Stewart, et al. 1986. Storm runoffgeneration in humid headwater

catchments: I. Where does the water come from? Water Resources Research 22(8):
1263-1272.
Perkins, R. M. 1997. Climatic and Physiographic Controls on Peakflow Generation in the

Western Cascades, Oregon. Department o f Forest Science. Corvallis, OR, Oregon
State University. 190 pp.
Pierson, T. C. 1980. Piezometric response to rainstorms on forested hillslope drainage

depressions. New Zealand Journal of Hydrology, 19(1): 1-10.
Pilgrim, D. H and I. Cordery. 1993. Flood Runoff. Handbook of Hydrology. D.

Maidment. New York, McGraw H91, Inc.: pp. 9.1-9.42.
Poinke, H B., J. R. Hoover, et al. 1988. Chemical-hydrologic interactions in the near-

stream zone. Water Resources Research 24(7): 1101-1110.
Ragan, R. M. 1968. An experimental investigation of partial area contributions.

International Association for Scientific Hydrology 76:241-249.
Ramsey, F. L. and D. W. Schafer. 1997. The Statistical Sleuth. A Course in Methods of

Data Analysis. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Reid, L. M. 1981. Sediment production from gravel-surfaced forest roads, Clearwater

basin, Washington. Seattle, University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute.
Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from road surfaces. Water
Roberge, J. and A. P. Plamondon. 1987. Snowmek runoff pathways in a boreal forest

hillslope, the role of pipe throughflow. Journal of Hydrology 95: 39-54.
Rochelle, B. P. and P. J. Wigington Jr. 1986. Surface runoff from southeastern Oklahoma
forested watersheds. Proceedings o f the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 66: 7-13.
Rothacher, J. 1970a. Increases in water yield following clear-cut logging in the Pacific
Northwest. Water Resources Research 6(2): 653-658.
Rothacher, J. 1970b. Regimes of streamflow and their modification by logging. Forest

land uses and stream environment, A symposium, Oregon State University.
112
Rothacher, J., C. T. Dymess, et al. 1967. Hydrologic and related characteristics o f three
small watersheds in the Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR, USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Ruth, R. H. and R. R. Silen. 19S0. Suggestions for getting more foretry into the logging
plan. Portland, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station.
Salvucci, G. D. and D. Entekhabi. 1995. Hillslope and climatic controls on hydrologic

fluxes. Water Resources Research, 31(7): 1725-1739.
Sessions, J., J. C. Balcom, et aL 1987. Road location and construction practices: effects
of landslide frequency and size in the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal of
Applied Forestry 2(4): 119-124.
Silen, R. R. 1955. More efficient road patterns for a Douglas fir drainage. Timberman
56(6): 82-88.
Silen, R. R. and H. J. Gratkowskl 1953. An estimate o f the amount o f road in the

staggered-setting system o f clearcutting. Portland, USDA Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Skaugset, A , Swall, S., and K. Martin. 1997. The effect of road location, construction
and drainage standards on road-related landslides in western Oregon associated with
the February 1996 storm. In: A Laenen, ed., The Pacific-Northwest Flood of
February 1996: causes, effects and consequences. Proceedings o f the October 1996
Water Issues Conference o f the Oregon Water Resources Research Institute and the
American Institute o f Hydrology, Portland, OR.
Sklash, M. G. and R. N. Farvolden. 1979. The role of groundwater in storm runoff.

Journal of Hydrology 43:45-65.
Smith, T. R and F. P. Bretherton. 1972. Stability and the conservation of mass in

drainage basin evolution. Water Resources Research 8(6): 1506-1529.
Stephenson, G. R. and R. A Freeze. 1974. Mathematical simulation of subsurface flow

contributions to snowmelt runofl; Reynolds Creek Watershed, Idaho. Water
Resources Research 10. 284-294.
Sullivan, K. O. and S. H. Duncan. 1981. Sediment yield from road surfaces in response to
truck traffic and rainfall. Centralia, WA, Weyerhaeuser Research Report.
Swanson, F. J., L. E. Benda, et al. 1987. Mass fiultures and other processes of sediment
production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. Streamside Management: Forestry
113
and Fisheries Interactions, University of Washington, Institute o f Forest Resources,
Seattle.
Swanson, F. J. and C. T. Dymess. 1975. Impact of dear-cutting and road construction on

soil erosion by l«nrfgKA»g in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology: 393-396.
Swanson, F. J., R. L. Fredriksen, et al. 1982a. Material transfer in a western Oregon

forested watershed. Analysis o f coniferous forest ecosystems in the western United
States. R. L. Edmonds. Stroudsburg, PA, Hutchinson Ross Publishing: pp. 233-266.
Swanson, F. J. and M. E. James. 1975. Geology and geomorphology of the EL J.

Andrews experimental forest, western Cascades, Oregon. Portland, Or, USDA Forest
Service.
Swanson, F. J., R. J. Janda, et al. 1982b. Introduction. Sediment Budgets and Routing in
Forested Drainage Basins, Corvallis, OR, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-141.
Swanson, F. J., S. L. Johnson, et aL 1998. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain

landscape. Bioscience 48(9): 681-689.
Thiesen, S., M. Furaiss, et a l, unpublished draft. Road Risk Analysis, Bluff Creek
Watershed, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Oreleans Ranger District, Six Rivers National
Forest.
Thomas, R. B. and W. F. Megahan. 1998. Peak flow responses to dear-cutting and

roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion. Water
Resources Research 34(12): 3393-3403.
Torres, R., W. E. Dietrich, et aL 1998. Unsaturated zone processes and the hydrologic
response of a steep, unchanneled catchment Water Resources Research 34(8): 1865-
1879.
Toth, J. 1963. A theoretical analysis o f groundwater flow in small drainage basins.

Journal of Geophysical Research, 68(16): 4795-4812.
Tsuboyama, Y., R. C. Sidle, et al. 1994. Flow and solute transport through the soil matrix
and macropores of a hillslope segment. Water Resources Research 30(4): 879-890.
Varaes, D. J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. Landslides: Analysis and
Control R. L. Schuster and R. J. Krizek. Washington, D. C., National Academy of
Sdences. Transportation Research Board, Commission on Sodotechnical Systems,
National Research Council: pp. 11-33.
114
Waring, R. H. and W. H. Scfalessmger. 1985. Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and
Management San Diego, Academic Press.
Wemple, B. C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two
basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Department of Geosciences. Corvallis, Oregon
State Univarsity: 88.
Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, et a l 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in

two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32(6): 1195-1207.
Weyman, D. R. 1973. Measurements o f the downslope flow o f water in a soiL Journal of

Hydrology 20:267-288.
Whipkey, R. Z. 1965. Subsurface stormflow from forested slopes. International

Association of Scientific Hydrology Bulletin 10(2): 74-85.
Wilson, C. J. and W. E. Dietrich. 1987. The contribution of bedrock groundwater flow to

storm runoff and high pore pressure development in hollows. Erosion and
Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim, Corvallis, OR, IAHS Publication No. 165.
Wilson, C. J., W. E. Dietrich, et al 1989. Predicting high pore pressures and saturation
overland flow in unchanneled hillslope valleys. Hydrology and Water Resources
Symposium, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Ziegler, A. D. and T. W. Giambdhica. 1997. Importance of rural roads as source areas

for runoff in moutainous areas of northern Thailand. Journal of Hydrology 196:204-
229.
115
Appendices
116
Appendix 1
Conversion o f hourly recession coefficient to a daily coefficient
The recession coefficient r, derived according to the method o f Fedora and

Beschta (1 9 8 9 ), is based on the assumption that discharge on the recession limb of the
hydrograph may be approximated by the equation
Qt = Qoi* (A l.l)
where Qt is discharge at some time t and Q0 is discharge at a base time. When the
recession coefficient is derived from an hourly timeseries o f discharge, equation (Al. 1)
may be rewritten as
Qtft) = Qo Tb*' (A1.2)
where the subscript h refers to an hourly timestep. Expressing the relation for discharge at
a daily timestep, Equation (A l. 1) becomes
Q<d) = Q .r / d) (A1.3)
where the subscript d refers to a daily timestep.
Irrespective of the timestep on which discharge is expressed, discharge at time t is
the same, e.g.
Q t(d )-Q t(h ) ( A 1 .4 )
Using equation (A1.4), conversion from an hourly recession coefficient to a daily

coefficient is given by
Qo Td**0 = Qo Tk®
r(fS |k «M*o (A 1 5 )
where t(h)/t(d) is the number o f hourly timesteps in a daily timestep and is equal to 24, so
rj= rh“ (A1.6)
117
Appendix 2
Primet precipitation and hydrographs recorded at instrumented culverts
118
azQiz/zi ■oe^t 91/zt

0 SZVZIZV ■OCZt 91/Zl
oeaz/zi oca sun
azaz/zi ■■■ o e o g i/z i
aeet uzv ocaisuzi.
aezi uzv ‘ OEZt Sl/zt
05 9 U Z I -i ’ 0E-'9SlVZt
oeo wzi " oe osu zi
ossicE m 0C81 tt/Zt
OCZlOEm oe z i v i / z i
aesa e/u 0&9PUZI.
aeo aem oeopu zu
O eatS Z /U 0C8t Z lfZ l
OCZlBZm oe z i e t / z i
oesezm oe-'9 et/zt
0C06Z/U
4
O ZO B l/Z i
OCTl 8Z m 0C8U Zl/Zi
a z z iw u OCZl Zl/Zl
o£ 9 a m ocszt/zt
a eo m u oeozwzt
□&8L Z Z / l l 0£8l H/Zl
aezuztii OCZl U/Zl
aeaizni 02-9 U fZ l
oZ O L Z J l l o e o it/z i
0C 8 t 9Z/U o e v io i/z t
aezi x /i i OfcZt Ol/Zl
0C99Z/U 0£9 Ol/Zl
0CO9Z/U t oeooi/zi
(3^81 SZ/U
T 0£8ia/Zt
OEÎSZ/U
OKZ16VZI
a sssz m 0£9 EYZl
aeoszm ocoe/zi
0 £ 8 lK m o e -8 t a/zi
a e z itm i o e z i a/zi
oesfrz/u Og:9 8/Zl
oeovzm ■ocoa/zi
jo e s ie z /u ■oc8t azt
IO C ZIEZ/U
■OE^t Z/Zt
0C9EZ/U
0C9//ZI
-asoezm • oco//zi
Primary Meteorological Station
» 0 & 9 1 Z Z /U
'-a e ziza u v oesi g/zi
- - OEZl g/zi
5-0C9ZZ/VV
^ -a e o z z u i _ ■06=9 9/Zl
f oe^g/zt
0 £ 8 l 12/1.1
3 -o e z t v a n 0C81 S/Zl
QC9 ta u o e z is /z i
o e o ia u 0C9S/ZI
oew ozm • OE^JS/Zt
o e a io a u OS-81 wzi
oc9ce/u J OCZl WZI
-aeo azm oe-9 p/zi
0C8V6UU OCOWZl
aszi 6 i/u 0631 E/Zl
05 9 6 1 /U OE-zt e/zi
-H 1— H CC06WH. f 0S:9E/Zl
-i
at to N o i o ^ n c i - o H h H—i- H H o&oe/zi
o o « N o i n ' r n i v - - a
(jttfuu})dd
119
00910071
007100/Zl 009101/1
0090071 007101/1
0090071
00901/1
O0916Z/ZI 0 0 9 0 1 /1
(E 7 i6 Z 7 i 00:81 Zl/1
0095271
- 0071 Zl/1
0096271 - - 0 0 9 Z l/ l
0 0918Z71 - - 0 0 9 Zl/1
00718Z7i 0091 11/1
-0099271 00 7 1 11/1
O098Z71 - 0 0 9 11/1
0091/Z/ZI 0 0911/1
- 0071/z /z i 009101/1
007101/1
-0 6 9 z o z i
azomzi 00 9 0 1 /1
- 00 9 0 1 /1
-00919271
0 0 7 i9 z /z i 0 0 9 1 6 /1
0 0 7 1 6 /1
-0099271
0 0 9 6 /1
0099271
0 0 9 6 /1
-00913271
o o 7 is z /z i - 00918/1
oo9sz7i 00 7 1 8 /1
O09SZ/Z1 J - 0 0 9 8 /1
0 0 9 8 /1
00911771
00711771 0091//I
0071 // I
-a s9 « 7 i 0 0 9 2 /1
- 0091771
0 0 9 //I
-0091071
0071e z 7 i O091S/1
00 7 1 9 /1
O0 9 0 Z7 1 ' - 0 0 9 9 /1
o c o e z /z i
0 0 9 9 /1
-0091 ZZ71
00 9 1 S/1
00712271
009ZZ71 0 0 7 1 S/1
- 009ZZ71 009S/1
- 00911271
5-0E9SK.
0071 1271 0 0 9 1 Wl
0 0 7 1 Wl
009 771
-0091271
009m
0 0 9 Wl
-00910271
00:810/1
-00710271
00 7 1 0 /1
0090271
0 0 9 8 /1
0090271
0 0 9 0 /1
00916171
-00:812/1
00716171
-0 0 7 1 2 /1
0096171
-0 0 9 2 /1
0096171
-0 0 9 2 /1
00:818171
00:811/1
00718171
00711/1
0098171
0 0 9 l/l
0098171
0 0 9 1 /1
00912171 00:811071
00712171
J- 0 0 7 1 1 0 7 1
0092171
—f— —f— 0 0 9 1071
0092171 H h
eo <D IO n 0091071
cm »- o
o at at <o w ■«*■ co w O
( n i/u ju i) |d d
120
058101/2
o s b iix ii
052101/2
a e z iiz ii
059 0 1 /2
a e a iz ii
05001/2
c e o iz /i
0 58 1S 2
0&819Z71 -0 5 2 1 0 2
0C219Z71
±05902
0C99ZfV
05002
0Z09Zn 058102
a z s is a i
052102
cezisz/i 05902
C E 9SB I
05002
a eo sa i
o s b iu z
a z e iv m
a e z iu z
■ o e z iv z /i
aeauz
O E & v z /i
a sou z
a s o v z ii
05819 i z
-a e s ie z /i
052102
■ o s z ie a i
0 5 9 9iz
OEBZUl
a z o e z ii
05002
058102
a e w zzn
a z z iz z ii
052102
-a ssza v
05992
o e o s /z
a e o z z /i
o s b i iz ii
-058iw z
0521W 2
a e z i iz ii
a z 9 \z j v
-o e sw z
J- 0 5 0 W2
o c o im
058102
O Z B ltX J l
a e z ia a i
052192
ce& aai
05902
o e o a z ii
-0 5 0 0 2
a z B ie u i
■0581 ZIZ
o e z ie u v
05212/2
ossem 0592/2
a e o e in OZOZ/Z
058181/1 - 0581 UZ
a & z is in ■ a szv u z
-o e s e in -0 5 9 i/z
-05081/1 •o eo u z
0581 £1/1 - 0 5 8 t 101
3- 0531 £1/1
■ -0521 veti
o sblu i
■059 101
q e » £ in 0 5 0101
058191/1 0581001
052191/1 0521001
05991/1 059001
05091/1 -0 5 0 0 0 1
058i s m £ 058162/1
05Z ism 0521 e z n
059SWI 059 e z n
050SI/1 05oezn
0591* 1/1 058182/1
a s z iv u i 052192/1
059M/l 05982/1
05 0 * w 1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—\ 050 s z n
vncM>'Oa)ON<oiovnr4<-o iovnN<-oa(OMDio«n(Mt-o
(nyiuu4idd
(xiuiiilidd
121
0881 VZ!Z o e e ie ie
■■0881 W/Z o e z ia e
asQvziz -0896(8
azavziz 080618
ae&iez/z 0881918
a zzisziz f 08819(8
0 8 9 8 Z(Z 0899(8
0808Z/Z 080918
+ aesizz/z 08818/B
^ ceziza z 0881 i/8
* ■089ZZ/8 0 8 9 i/8
asozaz 0 8 0 i/8
oe9i vuz 08819(8
^ 0881 18/8 08819(8
089 18/8 0899(8
azavziz 0809(8
aevi caz 089198
088108/Z 08Z 198
CEsaaz 08998
aeooe/8 08098
0 8 8 1 61/Z 0881w e
T 088161/8 08z i w e
08961/8 089we
08061/8 080w e
0891 8 l/Z 088198
oezi 8i/z 08Z 198
08981/8 08998
oeoai/z T -oeosie
088iii/8 -0 8 8 1 9 8
088181/8 -08818(8
08981/8 089818
^-aesui/z 0808(8
i -aeoi 9i/z 0881 1/8
- - 088191/8 08ZI U8
■ 08991/8 089 WE
- ’ 08091/8 080 we
aeaisi/z 089168/8
oezisi/z 088168/8
- 089SI/Z 08968/8
oeosi/z 08068/8
-089i*i/z 088188/8
0881*1/8 - 088188/8
-ae9*i/z 0898Z/8
■asovuz .* 08088/8
- 0891 Cl/Z 088189Z
-aeziei/z 0881 8Z(Z
-oesei/z 0898Z/8
ocoei/z -oeoiz/z
-089izi/z - 08819Z/8
-aezizi/z 088198(8
~• 08981/3 08998/8
-aeozi/z 08098/8
-a88i ii/z 0881SZ/8
-oezi ii/z 0881S8/8
-o e » ll/Z - 08998/8
I H —t——
i--- 1--1-- 1-- 1---H -ocoii/z —t - H H -+080S8/Z
o a> o u> v n n <- o o a eo CO
(ni/iuui) |dd
122
-o e s te z /e 0E 8t9flr
- o e z ie z /e 0 E Z l9 fr
-o e s e o e 0 E 9 9 fr
o eo ez/e CEOO*
o e a tz z /e 0E819*-
o e z iz z /e O EZtSfr
oeozoe OEOSftr
o eo zz/e OEOSfr
0E 81 to e 0E81 Vfr
OEZtIOC OEZIW*
0E9 V2/E -oeow*
-a e o tz fe -aeowv'
o e s i ce/e 0E8tefr
o e z ia z /e OEZlOtr
0C9CK/E oeoe/fr
aeoaz/e j CEoeft^
0E8t6W e ■0E81 Zfr
o e z ie w e J-oeztzfr
- QC96WE oeoz»>
0ETO61/E OEOZ/fr
0E8t8W E OEBl U>
- a e z ie u e OEZl W*
OE9 SUE 0E 9 Wfr
CEO 9 l/E oeo uf
- a e a iz u e 0E81 IOE
-oeztzue oezi toe
-OEOZWe 0E9 to e
aeo zw e oeo toe
0E8l9Ue 0E810OE
0EZt9We O E Z tooe
CEO 9 WE -0E90Oe
CE09UE -O E oooe
□£81s u e 0£8t6Z /E
o e z ts u e *3-0Ezt6Zfe
-0£9SUe —-0 E 96 Z /E
-o e o s u e aeosz/e
-CEOtfrUE 0£8t8Z/E
o e z ifru e o£ziez/e
□£9*1/6 c ^C EO SO e
-o e o n /e o -0EO8Z/e
- a e s te u e ■- 0E8tZZ/E
- o e z ie u e c/a ^-oEZtzz/e
oeoeue •a
o 0E9ZZ/E
c£0 ewe OEOZZTC
‘5b
- a e e tz u e o 0E8t9Z/e
- a e z tz u e -oEztsz/e
: CEO Z WE 4o> 0E99Z/E
ceozw e a -0EO9Z/E
CE8t twe 2 -- 0E81 sz/e
o e z t i we □Eztsoe
0 £ 9 LWC & CEOSZ/E
ceo i we - o eo sz /e
c eo io u e
•I
Oh • -QEsttae
4-o ezio w e - oeztfrz/e
oeooue - 0E9trZ/e
I 1---1---H H H oeooue - + - — t— aeo*z/e
O O B N O I f l t O N ' - O o a> OD ia
(ji|UJUi) »dd (mnuu4idd
123
00003 *
a m oat -0081 MS
003103/* • - 0031 MS
oo®as* 08® MS
oooei/* - 0 88 MS
008161/* 08:818/5
O R lS lfr 003186
00®61/* -0 8 8 8 6
08081/* 08086
00:8181/* 088135
aozisi/* 083136
00981/* 089 3 5
_g-aH)zi/* 08035
"T 0081 LlAr 0881 1 6
.^ O O Z l/l/* 083116
008/!/► 08916
00091/* 08016
008191/* 088108/*
00-Z191/* 083100*
00891/* 08908/*
OOOSW* 08008/*
009151/* - - 088163/*
OOZISI/* 083163*
■ 0 0 9 SI/* - - 08863/*
000*1/* 08063*
-■0081*1/* - 088183*
-aozi*u* 083183*
009*1/* 08983*
oooei/* 083)83/*
oo8ieu* 0 8 8 1 /3 /*
oo3tew* 0 8 3 1 /3 /*
00981/* 0 8 9 /3 *
00031/* 0 8 0 /3 *
008131/* 088193/*
003131/* 083193*
00931/* 08993/*
OOOll/* 08093*
088153*
008111/*
083153*
003111/*
08953*
0 09 LI/* eo 08053*
aoooi/* 0881 *3/*
0081'01/* 0831*3/*
003101/*
089*3*
00901/* 080*3/*
aooa* 088183*
00816/* 083183/*
-003161* 08983*
" 0 0 9 6 /* 08083/*
0008/* 0 88 1 33 *
© - 00819/* 083133*
2 - 00318/* 08933/*
0098/* 08033*
1 ooo//* 0881 13*
•c ■■0081 //* 083113/*
Oh 0 0 3 1 //* 089 13/*
- 0 0 8 Z/* 080 13/*
i—i— I— i— i— I— i—i— i— i—i— i—i— i— i—1-0009/* o
u jo « ô o « N o o tn p iô (■y m ^ y y
(JM/iuui)|dd
124
-0 looQ
-a ft390
OOZl
-0
- OOZl
a f t090
- OOZL
0 LZ ~>N
OOZl
0 SZ*on
OOZl
0 »Z«N
OOZl OOZl
0 EZ AON °°%
0 IZ*°N
i
0 O Z AON
I
0 61AOf|
io « n n «- o a SOOÂNi-O o ^ n i y t - oo o o MD i o ^ n N i - o
(U13)*6B)S
125
■ 0 z i« « r
11“ T
-OOZl
-o ft" 0
-OOZl
-o 9u»r
■OOZl
OOZl -OOZl
a f t 3*0
OOZl
0*"°
I—(■ ♦ I > I I I I I -I I- I rH- 0 L13*Q

io-»eoNt-oa»eor«-cDiO'*-«CM*-o n«nN<-oaosoio«nN<-o
(uo)afl«|s (« a )< A q t
126
-008k
OOZl
OOZl
-o iz«*r
-oozi
-oozi -oozi
-oozi
-ooei
ie««r
OOZl
n»r
io<rnNT'Oi(esson«ncii-o gomsan*nN<-oa«saio«nNT-o
W r fr r r f f r r r
(uo)*0(|t (UO)«fl*)S
127
t:
I3 J"3
u u
HI I I I I I I I I I—I—t- ■+" ^ -i H H-
n«nN f°aaK eotnN <*o o a <o K1 r- O
( U B ) lf ll |l (UB)iAqt
128
0081-
00ZI>
■- ooo
o ez«n
-ooei
--OOZl
-009
o zzm t
-ooet
-oozi
-009
-0 lZ-«»»
-ooei
-oozi
008
-0 OZ«W
-ooei
-oozi
OOB
-0 61-"*
■ooei
-OOZl
-ooe
-0 81««
-ooei
-OOZl
-008
-0 Zl«H
-ooei
-OOZl
-008
-0 91 "W
-ooei
OOZl
-008
-0 81 " H
-ooei
-OOZl
-008
-o n w
-ooei
-OOZl
-008
-o ei«w
-ooei
OOZl
ooe
H-o z ia m
ooei
oozi
ts 008
0
1 -ooei I3
-oozi U
ooe
I 1-- 1-- 1-- 1---1—I-- 1-- 1-- h 0 Ol-mW I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-
O O O S B B t P l N ' - O o a o o s o o t i ' i N ’- o
(UO)«0«)S (u B )iA q t
129
-ooei.
oozi
-ooe
-o t f m «
-ooei
-OOZl
- ooe
-o eAm
-ooei
-oozi
- ooe
o zfm
ooei
oozi
ooe
o lAN
ooei
oozi
ooei
oozi
ooe
0 6Z**V
ooei
oozi
ooe
o ezJdv
ooei
oozi
ooe
o 1Z **4
ooei
r OOZl
-ooe
-o ez**v
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o sz**v
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o
ooei
-oozi
-ooe
o ez-*<*v
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ZZ*i
-ooei
-oozi
Culvert 1
-ooe
I —( I I i H— I— 0 1Z ^ t
ncNJ-ooooMDio^nN'-o
130
-ooei
oozi
■ooe
-o zs*a
-ooei
■oozi
-ooe
-o i3«a
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o 06aon
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 6ZA0N
-ooei Oder
-oozi
-ooe0
a g r1
-OOZl
-ooe
-0 ZZAOfi
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ezAON
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o sz aon
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
■o »ZA«N
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
0 £Z aon
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 ZZaon
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 IZAON
-ooei
N -oozi
-ooe
.> 0 0ZAON
*3 -ooei
u
-oozi
-ooe
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 0 61 aon
n«nNT-oa«Koio«nNT-o n ♦ n n o o> SO IO tnN rO
(u»)«6«)s (ue>)
131
-ooei.
- OOZL
- OOZl
-o ziu*r
- OOZl
- - 0 u«*r
-o o i « r
-oozi.
- OOZl -oozi
-o 8u«r
-o
-oozi.
-o jlu»r
-o ss r 0
-OOZl -oozi
OOZl
-o s««r
-os r °
-OOZl -oozi
-odft5" 0
-OOZl -oozi
-0 £“"T
-OOZl
-o z««r
-OOZl -oozi
oifir
I I I I I I I I -t I I 'I t ' I—► 0 ZIMQ

uT»T
t»nf-N^ r o^ a a s n i o t n N r o
t S 2 ^ ? S aas<D<0^ n N '*0
(U D )d ll|t (UB)a0i}S
132
-0081.
OOZI.
-°»o
"■ o r*
OOZl
-008
0 6W
0081
OOZl OOZl
008
0 8W
0081
OOZl
008
0 «wr 0 IW
-ooei
-OOZI- -oozi
ooe
-0 9<M
-0081 -ooei
OOZI. OOZl
-008
-0 s w
0081 -ooei
OOZl -OOZl
008
■o izw r -0 frW
-ooei
OOZl
-ooe
-o ozu»r -o e<w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 61-Wf -o z w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o 8 n « r -o i w
0081
- OOZI -OOZl
-ooe
-o z iw r -o ieu*r
ooei
oozi. oozi
ooe
-o »tu«r - o oeuer
N -ooei
-oozi
-oozi.
cLiwr
I
3
V
-008
-o ez««r
-0081
-oozi -OOZl
-008
HWf I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I M M I I - -o
8zu*r
lO^nNr - OaONOO^n Nr - O OMXWWt-oaBMOIWWPli o
(un)*0ci* (u»)
133
tz w
OOZl
0081
-OOZl
91 Q*d
LI W
MW
OOZl
St w
►Iw
ooei
oozi
et o«d
-oozi
z tw ooei
I—I—I—I—I—I—t- ¥-i--\—I—I—I—I—H ttw o a»

»^«(MT-oa»c»s«io^nci»*o
^ ^ ^ ^ f“
(un)
(UO)«flB|S
134
0081-
OOZl
-008
0 6ZAH
0081
OOZl
-008
-o zz*n
0081 -0 61 Ay
-oozi
-008
-o izah
-ooei -0 81 AV
-oozi
-008
-o oz"n -0 ZlAw
-ooei
-oozi
008
0 61AH -0 91AV
0081.
OOZl
008
0 81 AH
; - 0 SI A y
0081
OOZl
- 008
0 Z1AM
0081
00Z1
008
0 91 AH
0081
0 61 AV
OOZl
- 008
0 SI a h
0081
OOZl
008
0 HAH
0081
OOZl
008
0 61 a h -0 01 AV
0081
OOZl OOZl
008
0 Z1AH
<s 0081
t: 00Z1
- 008
i3 -o iiA n
u 0081
OOZl
- 008
I— I— I— (-— I- -t- H 1- H f—- 0 01an
O A 0 S CD IO ■ O CM r-
» C
(U O )
(«o)
135
OOZl
- OOZl
-OOZI.
- OOZl
-oozi
-oozi
Culvert 2
o^ncMi-oaassMvnNt-o
(u » )
136
-ooei
--oozi OOZl
“ •o
-o o ei lodtfi090
-OOZl
-0 1 “ o
-OOZl -OOZl
|0 0 9 0
0 (KAON
-OOZl
0 6Z a° N
«0
fo ^ i390
OOZl -OOZl
“ "o
jo ^ i090
-OOZl OOZl
|0 0 9 0
0 ZZAON
f o t f i 090
-OOZl -OOZl
ra o
{a&i?0
OOZl
0 SZ aon
-ooei \o& r°
OOZl -OOZl
--0 TO AON
°°b
foAf0
-OOZl OOZl
-o ezAow
-ooei odbf°
-oozi f OOZl
°°%
-0 ZZAON
oAf0
-j-oozi
IZaon °°%
-ooei o d f0
oozi
000
0 O Z AON o
ooei
oozi
009
0 C°®0
iMôa>aoseio«nN«-o
6 1 AON
IO^(ONf-0«CBN*)IO<,nN*-0
(U D jiA q t (u c )a 6 * ts
137
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
“ o -o ei««r
afa090
foazi -oozi
“ o ■o zi««r
-ooei
-OOZl -oozi
°°^0 -o i i “*r
0& 390 -ooei
-OOZl -oozi
o°®0 -o oiu»r
fo & "0 -ooei
-oozi -oozi
°~0
o& r0 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
Mo
0Si090
toozi -oozi
"o
l o f t 090 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
«0 -o eu*r
ofo090 -ooei
-OOZl -oozi
' ° 0 ®O
} o f t" 0 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
““o -o fru«r
l o f t 090
-OOZl -oozi
'“ o -o e u®r
{<&**
-OOZl -oozi
°“ o -o zu*r
o f t 090
f OOZl
Mo
o f t 390
+ OOZl
008
I I i n I i‘i i i n n - i - o ziswa I K I I I I ( I- ( I I I I I I
lo^’nMi-oacoNwiovnNô uxnNT-ooi«oi>-oio'»ntM>-i
(UO)
138
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 £Z«»r
-ooei O&l**
-oozi
-ooe
-0 eei»r
-ooei
-oozi ooei
-ooe
-0 szi»r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 « u « r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi
-ooe
0 ezw r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
0 zziwr
-ooei -o o ei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-0 iz«»r
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
0 OZUBT
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-0 6i«»r
-ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe
-0 eiu»r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 u^m r leuBr
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-0 ei«»r -0 oeu®r
-ooei
c~> -oozi -oozi
£ -ooe
-0 siu«r
-ooei 3
u
-oozi
-ooe
- 0 H «r 111111
u ^ n N t - o o i a s v i o ^ n N ^ o0
(uo) aOmft
(ue)<
139
-aoei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
0 K W -o 6-«W
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
o ezw -o e-nw
-ooei -ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o z z w -o l * w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o i z w -o e-»w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-0 o z w -o s«w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-0 61W -o
ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-0 81 w -o 6J«W
ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
ooe -ooe
-o ziq®d -o z«w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-0 81 w -o i«w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o s i w -0 8 Z W
-ooei -ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe -ooe
■o h w -o e z w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o e i w -o z z w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o z i w >
3 -o e z w
-ooei O -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
--QU LL(IU
rv \ 1 "1" o szw
l Y n N i - o a a N o e t n M i - oO O G» CO t n w <• o
(lie ) (ud)«6b| c
140
-ooei 0001
-o o zi -OOZl
ooe - 009
-o ez«w 0 OZJdV
-o o ei 0081
-oozi OOZl
-ooe -ooe
o zz«w - 0 8l-«*V
-ooei -ooei
-oozi OOZl
-ooe ooe
-o iz«w -0 81J*V
-ooei -ooei
-oozi OOZl
-ooe ooe
o a zm i -o
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe ooe
-0 61JBW -o eudv
-ooei -ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe ooe
-0 8l-»W -0 Sl*lV
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe ooe
-o L \m i -o vudv
-ooei ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe ooe
-0 91 -o eudv
-ooei ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe - ooe
-o si-»w -0 ZlJdV
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe ooe
-o n-«w -0 UJdV
-ooei ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o ei-»w -o 01JdV
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe - ooe
0 zu»w -0 6JdV
-ooei t; -ooei
Culvert 3
-oozi -oozi
-ooe J
3 ooe
-o u O -o e*Jv
ooei -ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
i 1------1- H H —
i—i—i—--n nLjbmi 0 L**
O 0) CO v O ID ♦ n n >- « 1
—
O 0> co r» co cs ■*- o
(un) a6**s ( u n )'
141
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o » a«w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o e*»w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o Z * * ti
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o i fm
-ooei
-oozi
oo%
-oozi
-ooe
-o ez-Kfv
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ezJdv
-ooei
-oozi
-- ooe
-o a * i
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ezJdv
ooei
-oozi
-ooe
0 SZJdV
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 *z*bi
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
■ o ez*«v
t; -ooei
J -oozi
3 -ooe
-o zz-rfv
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
I I I I I I I I I I* I I I I — o iz*V
loôNT-oaooNOio^nN*-
(uo)a6«|s
142
-ooei
-ooei -oozi
-oozi
-ooe ‘" o
-o z<»a l o f t 090
-ooei -oozi
-oozi
-ooe + «»o
-o i°*a oSl390
-ooei oozi
-oozi
-ooe + ooe0
-o ogaon
-ooei o&h*0
-oozi OOZl
-ooe °“ o
-0 8ZAON
-ooei ofil390
-oozi OOZl
°°*o ô
odfc390
OOZl OOZl
-ooe ‘“ o
- 0 ZZAON
-ooei odtfl390
-oozi oozi
-ooe ra o
-0 9ZAON
-ooei otto390
-oozi oozi
-ooe
-o szaon
-ooei 0&f°
-oozi OOZl
-ooe °°%
-o waon
-ooei o&F0
-oozi oozi
-ooe
0 EZ AON
-ooei odfef0
-oozi OOZl
-ooe
0 ZZ AON °°%
-ooei o & r0
-oozi OOZl
-ooe
-0 IZAON °°s
IT) -ooei oStf0
t; -oozi OOZl
Io
-ooe
-o ozaon
-ooei
S
3
ooe
o y 3»a
ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
>-1- ■>-1 i i i i i- i i i ♦-<--0 61aon o £o«a
lovnMi-oaesniovnN*'
(U P )
(ue)
143
ooei -ooei
-I-oozi oozi
“ “o ooe
-o eiusr
o& r° ooei
-I-oozi -oozi
«0 -ooe
-o zi««r
0SK”° -ooei
t OOZl -oozi
“ ‘‘o -ooe
o uu*r
aSK"0 ooei
t OOZl oozi
°“ o -ooe
-o oi«*r
la f e 090 ooei
OOZl -oozi
ooe
“ “o -o eu«r
jaSv090 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe
“ “o -o e«»r
{a S T 0 ooei
OOZl oozi
ooe
"o -o zu*r
f o f e 390 -ooei
-OOZl oozi
ooe
°“ o -o e««p
o ssr0 -ooei
OOZl oozi
-ooe
“ "o -o su*r
l o f t 390 ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe
"o -0 frUBT
l o d f t 390 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
+ 0090 -ooe
-o e««r
}o8K"° -ooei
OOZl -oozi
-ooe
““ o 0 ZUBf
M "0 -ooei
in -oozi
-OOZl
-ooe
““o -o i««r
•I -ooei
0# l ° ^
+ OOZl -oozi
ooe -ooe
I I 1-4- I I I1 I I I I I I I -I 0 L i 3*0 I I I r I I I I I I I I I I + - o leoBa
lovnNvoacBKeio^nNô i o ■» « m » - o o» a o i>» ® i o co cm « -o
(uB)a0cts (no)
144
■0081 -ooei
OOZl -oozi
■- 000 -ooe
o zz<»r 0 o it o
ooei -ooei
■ooei -oozi
■ooe -ooe
o az««r -0 6<TO
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi J
-ooe -ooe r
o sz««r -o e r o
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe r- -ooe
-o »z«»r i -0 ZTO
-ooei -ooei
oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
o ez««r -o t w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi \ -oozi
--ooe \ -ooe
-o zzu»r \ -o s w
•ooei \ -ooei
-oozi \ -oozi
-ooe I -ooe
-o iz««r \ -0 » to
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
o ozu»r -o e w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
- o ei<«r -0 ZTO
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
--0 ei««r - 0 l TO
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o zi «*r -o icu*r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o e i w r - o oeu*r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
- o si««r s
-o 6zu*r
-ooei 3 -ooei
-oozi U
-oozi
-ooe -ooe
i i i ii i i i I I I 'h-h- o n u » r —i— i— i— i— i— r —i— i— i— o iezm»n
lO^nWfOaeoNOBX'ncMT-o i ® «D J N O W O CJI ^ 9
(un) fuo)
145
-a m
-ooei. --oozi
-oozi
-ooei
-aft300
-oozi
-ooei -a ft380
-oozi
-o re«>N
-ooei -o ft" 0
-oozi -oozi
-0 6Z -ofil380
OOZl OOZl
-aft* * -a m
OOZl
0 AZ""N
-a m
-oozi
-0 9ZA0N
a f t" 0
OOZl
-0 SZAON
-a m
-oozi
-0 frZ aon
OOZl
o ez aon
-ooei
-oozi
0 ZZ AON
-ooei
-oozi
-0 IZAON
-oozi
0 OZ AON o
0 81 AON lO^’OtMÔaoOMDlD'fnN'-O o
iovnN i-oaas«io«nN ô
<M»> (UO)
146
ooei
-oozi t ooei
ooe
t o e i» r
ooei
ooei fooei
ooe
-o ziuer
ooei ooei
-oozi
ooe
-0 liuer
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-o OlUBf
ooei
t oozi
ooe
- 9Z30Q t o 6<*r
ooei
oozi
ooe
o eu*r
ooei
oozi
ooe
0 Z.UBT
ooei
aozi
ooe
o 9 u*P
ooei
oozi
ooe
o suer
ooei
oozi
ooe
-0 fruer
ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o euer
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
BIOBQ -o z«*r
-ooei
r~- -oozi
ooe
8109Q
i> -o i«*r
3 -ooei
V -oozi
ooe
0 I—I—I—f- -I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—h o i£3»a
i o«nN<- oa aBNi oi o«nNr - o l o^nMi -oaaNiDiovnNi-o
(u»)a0K|s (uc) a&qs
147
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
ooe -ooe
-o zz«»r -o oi w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -ooe
-o ezw r -o 6W
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o szu*r -o e w
ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o frzwr -o ii<W
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -009
-o ezu«r -0 9Q»d
-ooei -ooei
-oozi - OOZl
-ooe -ooe
-o zz“*r -o s w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe 009
- o iz«»r -o ► w
-ooei ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe 009
-o oz««r -o e w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o eiu ir -o z w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
- o ei«»r -o i w
-ooei -o o ei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe 009
0 il» f -o ieu®r
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -o o zi
•ooe -009
- o eiu«r o oeuBr
-ooei -o o ei
r- -oozi -o o zi
-ooe -ooe
! -o siu*r o 6z u*r
3 -ooei 3 - ooei
u -oozi u -o o z i
-ooe -ooe
(■I I H I I I I I' I I I I I I-- - n hr ri lo
---ir o ez w r
iovnN<-oaeN(Bio«nN'-oO w |I i| 1I I1 rI I I t I I I I I I t
n o o K a
M M -+
(u»)
148
ooei
■oozi
-0 0 9
-0 K W
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
0 EZW
ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
o zzw
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o i z w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o o z w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o o i w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
- o 8 iw -o
-ooei
- - OOZl -oozi
-ooe
- o a w -o zj«w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-0 91W -o i*w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o s i w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o n w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
-o e i w -o a w
-ooei -ooei
t: -oozi -oozi
1 -ooe
-o z i w
-ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe
t—h I I i1*1 I I I I I I I- H -- o u w
lO'tnNvoanseio^nMô
(UE>)
149
ooei
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o £Z*W -ooe
-ooei + o oz-rfv
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
o zcm i -ooe
-ooei -0 6lJdV
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o iz«w - ooe
-ooei 0 81
OOZl -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o oz-«w -ooe
-ooei -o zi-*iv
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-0 61-nn ooe
-ooei -0 9lJdV
-oozi ooei
-ooe -aozi
-o e i« n -ooe
-ooei -0 SIJdV
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o -ooe
-ooei -o n-rfv
-oozi -ooei
■009 -oozi
■0 91 -ooe
-ooei -o eiJdv
-OOZl
-ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o si* w -ooe
-ooei -o zi*iv
-oozi -ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o -ooe
-ooei -0 UJdV
-oozi ooei
-ooe -oozi
-o ei* w -ooe
•0 0lJdV
-ooei -ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o zi«w 0 6JdV
-ooei -ooei
•oozi
Culvert 7
t; -OOZl
-ooe -ooe
-o u « w §► •o e * v
-ooei 3 ooei
-oozi u
oozi
■009 -ooe
I 1 H ■0 0l«W H 1-- 1-- 1-- h 0 L**1
o a> co >» CD
oI a1-o- 1--
s oH i o ' f n M ' - o
(uo) (U O )
150
0
•ooei
-ooei
-o e*«w
ooei
-ooei
-o e**w
-ooei
-ouei
-o i Xbm
-ooei
O l O t f l N ^ O
(uo)«B*|s
151
-ooei -ooei
-oozi OOZl
-ooe 009
-o zzu*r -o o i w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -009
o 9Z«*r -o eqaj
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o sz»»r -0 9Q»d
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe -ooe
-o »zu«r -o iW
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -oozi
-ooe ooe
-o ezu*r -0 9Q*d
-ooei ooei
-oozi -I-OOZl
-ooe ooe
-o zzu«r -0 s w
-ooei -ooei
-oozi -I-OOZl
-ooe ooe
-0 IZUBT f o frW
-ooei ooei
OOZl OOZl
-ooe -ooe
-o ozu«r -o eq«d
-ooei ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
-o si wr l-o z w
-ooei - - ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
-o si u«r 0 IW
-ooei ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
-o z n » r o icuer
-ooei ooei
-oozi oozi
-ooe ooe
-o 9i«»r o ocu«r
N -ooei N ooei
-oozi oozi
i -ooe
-o s iw r
t:
>
ooe
o ezutr
•i -ooei ooei
o -oozi & oozi
-ooe ooe
h I—t1-t ^ I I- I ^ I t - - nw kt tnf*
ww--. | | I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 9ZU*T
IO«nC4<-oa<OS(DIOVAM<-0 O -o n
(U O ) (no) aficjs
152
-ooei
--ooei
-000
- 0 ¥ZW
-0081
-ooei
-ooe
-o e e m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-o e e m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-0 1
-o o ei
-ooei
-ooe
■o o e m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-0 e i w
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-0 e i m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-o u m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-0 a i m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
--0 s i m
ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-o n m
-ooei
-ooei
-ooe
-o e i m
cs -ooei d
-ooei
-ooe
I - o e im
3 -ooei
o -ooei
-ooe
+0 uw I—I--- 1---1— I-- 1—
—
lo^mMT-oasNeio^nMôo O 0» o s o i i i « n N > -
(uo) (u r > ) s f i c t *
153
'' 0081
O (EAOM
O 6ZAON
C«N
O ZZAON
O 9ZA0N
0 SZAON
O trZAON
0 CZAon
■O ZZ AON
ooei
0 IZAON
r*i
t:
a>
-0 0ZA O N _>
3
u
9 61 ™>N i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i- H—H eooa
n t n N < - o a « M B i o i in(Mi-o<r iatniM<-oaoMoio«nN<-0':
(ao) a&qs (uo)aB«|s
154
■ooei.
-oozi.
-009
o zzu«r
-ooei
-oozi.
-ooe
-o 9zu»r
-ooei.
-oozi
-ooe
-o szu»r
-ooei
-oozi
ooe
-o *zu»r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ez««r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o zzu*r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o izu»r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-0 OZU*f
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o 6i««r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o eiu«r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o ziu«r
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o eiu»r
-ooei
tn -oozi cn
-ooe ts
-o siu«r
I3 -ooei 3
o -oozi o
-ooe
I t--| I -H I I I I H H + 0 HMf
ioôN<-oataN<Dio«nN<-o
^ r* ^ ^ ^ ^
(u eJiA q t (ue)aBt)«
155
--ooei
• OKI
-ooe
- o frJW
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o K<W
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
o zzw
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o iz<m
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
■ 0 oz<w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
0 61W
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o e iw
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o iv w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o e i w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o s i w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o n w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o e i w
-ooei
-oozi
-ooe
-o z i w
ooei
-oozi
-ooe
o u w
^nNt-ottoseio^nrK-o
(UO)
156
-ooei 008L
OOZL OOZL
-008
-o 33®a
0081 O^L3"0
-OOZL OOZL
008
-0 13*0
• 0081 o fiL 380
00ZL -I-OOZL
-008 "o
o ocm n
■008L OlfiL380
OOZL t OOZL
-008 "o
0 6ZAON
-008L OtSt380
OOZL -OOZL
-008.
0
■00BL ofil380
-OOZL OOZL
- 008 + °080
-0 ZZMN
•0081 fodrft380
-OOZL OOZL
008
0 8 Z ao n
°°*
- 0081 offli380
-OOZL OOZL
-008 °«b
-0 SZaon
■0081 O & f0
OOZL t OOZL
- 008 °°%
- 0 WAON
-008L O& P0
-OOZL t oozi
008 °°%
o ezAON
-0081 fodbf0
-OOZL OOZL
-008 °°%
- 0 ZZAOf|
- 0081 <AV°
OOZL OOZL
-008 °°%
-0 LZ aon
- 008L jo
Culvert 14
OOZL -OOZL
- 008 009
0 OZAON to
0081 008L
-OOZL t OOZL
008 009
I I M I I II t -H t- I I I1 I I H 0 61 aon I I I I I I I I I lf l I I I I I I I 0 £3*0
i1n ' r r r r r r
OOMOO^nNT-OOONCDIO^nCH-O
(un)»6«i* (UI3)aflB)S
157
-- 0081 -ooei
OOZL -OOZL
-008q -008
-o en«r
- a f t 380 0081
-OOZL -OOZL
008o -008
- o ZL««r
^ o ft" 0 - - 0081
OOZL -OOZL
0080 -0 0 8
- 0 LL«»r
-aSSC"* -008L
OOZL
-OOZL
-ooe0 008
0 OLUBT
008L
-OOZL OOZL
-0080 008
-0 6U«T
- OOBl 008L
-OOZL OOZL
-008o 008
0 8««r
- - 008L
OOZL OOZL
008q -008
-0 U*T L
- o S ? 9 0
008L
OOZL OOZL
-008.0 008
-0 8 UBT
■ - OOBL -- 008L
OOZL OOZL
008
■°°®o -0 SU*T
- < & ° Q Q
008L
OOZL OOZL
- 006-0 008
-0 *U*f
-OOBL ■- 008L
OOZL -OOZl
-008.0 -008
-o eu«r
-OOBL -- 0081
OOZL -OOZL
-0080 008
-o Z “» r
-aStf90 Tf -008L
-OOZL
ts -OOZL
008fl -008
I3 > -o ii» r
3 -- 0081
U - o N T 0
u
OOZL -OOZL
-008 -008
-r g i -r T-i- 0 LE3<*a
o s o i o ^ n c 'i T 'O o i a N v i o ^ n c i r °o eONOJp
o N o io Y n N ^ o o a )N B iD < n N » -o
(un)afl*}s
158
008k -008k
OOZl -OOZk
-008 00%
0 zz««r
008k
OOZk -OOZk
-008 008
-o 8 z « r -0 6 W
008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -- 008
-o sz«»r -0 8W
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
-o *z<»r -0
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
-o ezu*r -0 9 W
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
-o zz««r -o s w
008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
008 -008
-o kz«»r -0 VW
008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
-o oz««r -o e w
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -- 008
-o ek««r -0 z w
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
-o 8ku»r -0 k<Wd
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -ooe
o u««r -o kei»r
-008k -008k
OOZk -OOZk
-008 -- 008
-o 8k « r o oe««r
-008k 008k
-OOZk OOZk
Culvert 14
-008 -008
-0 Sk««f -o szu«r
-008k -008k
-OOZk -OOZk
-008 -008
i i i i i i i i i i *i i i i -t -o u u « r III I I I I I I I I I I lit - o 8zu«r
»«ON<-oo(»soiO'«nNi-o
^ T* ^ ^
(tin) s t e p (uo )*S k|s
159
0081-
- OOZt
-ooet
-•008
-oozi.
-0 t z w
-008
- - ooet
0 6-<*W
-oozt
-ooet
-008
-oozt
0 K W
-008
0081
-0 8JBN
-- OKI -ooet
-- 008
-oozt
0 zzw
-008
- - 0061
-0
- - OOZt
-ooet
- - 008
-oozt
- 0 IZW -008
- - ooet
-0 9«N
- OOZt
-ooet
-008
-oozt
-o a s m
-008
- - 0081
-0 SAN
- OOZt
-ooet
-008
-oozt
-0 6tW
-009
0081
-0 fr«N
0031
-ooet
-008
-oozt
-o e t w
-008
- - 0081
-o e«N
OOZI
-ooet
008
-oozt
0 Z tW
-009
-0081-
-0 Z«N
OOZI
-ooet
008
-oozt
-009
- 0 9 tW 0 t«N
-008I-
OOZI.
-ooet
-008
-oozt
- 0 sim -008
-oo et
0 6ZW
- - OOZI
•ooet
-008
-oozt
-009
-o n < w -o e z w
- - 0081 -ooet
- - 00ZI -oozt
008
-o e t w
-009
-0081.
-0 zzw
-00ZL
-ooet
ts -008
-oozt
0 z tw
-008
I
3 -o o e t I 0 9ZS®d
-ooet
o -o o z t 3
-008
CJ -oozt
I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I
-008
- 0 ttw H K-
io^nw»-o««NBiotBWt-o H 1---1--- h - o sz w
o C* »
(wo) •te)*
160
0081 \ -o o e t
■OOZI. 1 -o o zt
008 1 -008
0 a m ' 0 OZ-K*
■0081. -o o e t
■OKI ■oozt
008 -008
0 a m -0 6t
■0081. ' -o o et
■oozi. > i -o o zt
008 ' -008
■0 IZAH 1, - 0 8 t* V
ooet • -o o e t
■ oozt -o o zt
009 -008
-0 CJZ«H - 0 L l* * V
0081. -o o e t
oozi. -o o z t
-008 -008
0 6 t« * » - 0 9tJdV
ooet / -o o e t
■OOZt ir -o o zt
008 / -009
-0 8 t " H I -0 S tx lv
ooet 1 -o o et
■oozt / -o o zt
■008 I -009
■ 0 £ t* H \ -0 n * v
ooet \ -o o et
oozt < -oozt
008 } -0 0 9
-0 9 t J « n } -0 e t - K t y
■ooet -o o e t
■oozt 1 -o o z t
-008 ) -009
0 8 l« W 1 -0 Z lJ < lV
ooet -o o e t
oozt -o o z t
-008 -008
-0 0 tt-Kty
ooet -o o e t
oozt -o o z t
008 -009
-0 etJ» w ■-0 OtJ<V
-o o et -o o e t
■oozt -o o z t
■008 -009
-0 Z t« H -0
■ooet -< -o o et
-o o z t £ -o o zt
■008 £ -009
Is -0 t
-o o e t
t 3
W
-0 8JdV
-o o et
U -o o zt -o o zt
-008 006
I 1--1--1--1--H H-- 1—H _. n m ifw ....................... . n i jH w
o a a s o i o t n N < - © 0 9 0 s <D 10 t CO CM C>
(UI9)S0V)S
161
-ooet
-ooet
-o o zt
-o o e t
-o o z t
-o o e t
-o o z t
-o o z t
-o o e t
-o o zt
-0 frZ-WV
-o o z t
-o o z t
n'rflNfOaasviovnNT-o
(U » )« 0 K }S
162
-ooet -o o et
IMQ -o stoaa
o oeaon -o n « » a
6 Z « JN -o eta«a
8Z"°N -0 Z to a a
-oozt
LZ AON -o ttJ» a
-oozt -oozt
-o otooa
-oozt
0 SZ*O N
-oozt
r Z A°N -o 83®a
-oozt
0 CZAON ■o
-ooet
-oozt -oozt
-ooet
tZAON
-0 0ZAON
6 t Aon o eaaa
^ o ia N S io ^ n N p o a a s v n v n N t-o
(uo)
(u » )
163
-ooet -ooet
■- OOZt oozt
009 009
t oewa -o etuBr
0081 ooet
t OKI t oozt
009 aoe
t ezoea O Ztuer
aoei ooet
-oozt t oozt
009 ooe
- 923*0 tO tlU Bf
aoet ooet
-oozt aozt
009 -aoe
- Z23*a -o otu»r
ooet ooet
oozt aozt
009 aoe
9Z3*a o 6»*r
ooet ooet
oozt oozt
009 009
szo*a o euer
ooet ooet
oozt oozt
009 ooe
frZOOQ 0 zuer
aoet ooet
aozt aozt
009 aoe
ezoea 0 9«*r
ooet aoet
aozt aozt
□oe □09
zzoaa O suer
ooet ooet
aozt aozt
009 aoe
tz3*a 0
aoet aoet
aozt aozt
009 ooe
ozoaa o euer
aoet ooet
oozt oozt
□09 aoe
VO etoaa o zubt
ooet ooet
VO
I
3
o
aozt
009
8 i3 * a
t:
24>
aozt
aoe
0 tUBf
ooet 3 ooet
oozt U oozt
ooe 009
>-I > I HI I I I I I I I 1«1 I I I I I 0 Itoaa >-t-t i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i 0 L£330
(u e )a fi« i* (u o ) s fic p
164
OOZt
-oozt
-o zz«*r
-oozi
-o a z « r
-ooet
oozt
o szu«r
-oozi.
-o *z««r -o z w
-ooet
-oozt -oozt
-o ezu»r
-oozt -oozt
-o zz««r
-ooet
-oozt -oozt
-o tzu»r
-ooet
-o ozu«r
-ooet
-oozt -oozt
-o stu«r
-ooet
-oozt
-o et«»r -o t
-oozt
-o ztu*r -o teu»r
-o et««r
-- 0061 -ooet
-oozt
-o s t « r
iNr-oaasoio^nnro
(u » )* 6 « t« (uo)
165
Appendix 3
Dataset of road-related sedimentation features inventoried in Lookout Creek and Blue

River
166
eaturef type Mde* Vh* VS* ■vt» VC* Vouf basto4 decade4 n-i—
o vp postoonuassoc 1
1 If 23 0 0 0 180 180 to 60 3 m
2 hs 2 670 665 5 5 10 to 60 1 m
3 If 22 0 0 0 1130 1130 to 60 2 m
4 cf 0 0 0 35 0 to 60 2 m
5 ff 21 0 0 0 215 215 to 60 1 m
6 If 20 0 0 0 6255 6255 to 60 1 m
7 ff 19 0 0 0 290 290 to 60 1 m
8 hs 36 315 215 100 0 100 lo 60 1 m
9 dT 7.77 2010 1910 100 0 100 lo 60 1 V
10 ff 0 0 0 225 225 to 60 1 V 9
11 g 0 0 0 35 35 to 60 1 V 9
12 g 0 0 0 50 50 to 60 1 V 9
13 a 0 0 0 15 15 to 60 1 V 9
14 a 0 0 0 30 30 to 60 1 V 9
15 id 0 0 0 80 80 to 60 1 V 9
16 PC 35 35 0 0 0 to 60 1 V
17 df 77 745 0 745 400 1145 to 70 1 m
18 ff 7 0 0 0 865 865 to 70 1 m 17
19 dr 6 50 50 0 0 0 to 60 1 m
20 if 5 0 0 0 150 150 to 60 1 m 19
21 if 35 0 0 0 485 485 to 60 1 m
22 PC 290 290 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
23 PC 270 270 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
24 id 0 0 0 480 480 br 80 2 m 22,23
25 PC 65 65 0 0 0 br 80 1 m
26 cf 40 0 0 0 90 0 br 60 2 m
27 s 0 0 0 0 0 to 60 1 m
28 g 0 0 0 80 80 to 60 1 m 29?
29 df 8.90 2085 1500 585 0 585 to 60 1 V
30 ff 17 0 0 0 180 180 to 60 m
31 hs 33 335 335 0 0 0 to 60 1 V
32 ff 0 0 0 70 70 to 60 1 V
33 hs 18 240 200 40 0 40 to 60 1 V
34 PC 100 100 0 0 0 to 50 1 V
35 df 9-21,8( 3000 0 3000 550 3550 to 50 1 V
36 df 1 15 10 5 0 5 to 50 1 V
37 PC 25 25 0 0 0 to 70 1 V
38 df 13 240 200 40 0 40 to 70 1 m
39 ff 12 0 0 0 225 225 to 70 1 m 38
40 ff 10 0 0 0 600 600 to 60 1 m
41 ff 9 0 0 0 3910 3910 to 60 1 r
42 ff 4 0 0 0 415 415 to 60 1 r
43 df 52 40 35 5 5 10 to 80 1 V
44 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
45 cf 82 0 0 0 385 135 br 80 2 m
46 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
47 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 60 2 m
48 df 3 5000 4750 250 0 250 br 60 1 V
49 g 0 0 0 170 170 br 60 1 V 48
50 if 26 0 0 0 1915 1915 br 60 1 m
51 hs 3 6000 1000 5000 0 5000 br 70 1 m
52 iff 94 1750 1250 500 90 590 br 80 1 m
53 PC 20 20 0 0 0 br 60 m
54 PC 25 25 0 0 0 br 60 1 m
55 ff 81 0 0 0 220 220 br 60 1 m 100
56 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 70 1 V
57 df 45 175 120 55 35 90 br 70 1 m
58 ff 44 0 0 0 1980 1980 br 70 1 m
167
eatural typo isid s' Vh* Vs* vt» VIs Vout* bant4 decade4 OffJV position0 assoc
1 if 23 0 0 0 180 180 to 60 3 m
2 hs 2 670 685 5 5 10 to 60 1 m
3 ff 22 0 0 0 1130 1130 to 60 2 m
4 cf 0 0 0 35 0 to 60 2 m
5 ff 21 0 0 0 215 215 to 60 1 m
6 ff 20 0 0 0 6255 6255 to 60 1 m
7 ff 19 0 0 0 290 290 to 60 1 m
8 hs 36 315 215 100 0 100 to 60 1 m
9 df 7.77 2010 1910 100 0 100 to 60 1 V
10 ff 0 0 0 225 225 to 60 1 V 9
11 g 0 0 0 35 35 to 60 1 V 9
12 g 0 0 0 50 50 to 60 1 V 9
13 g 0 0 0 15 15 to 60 1 V 9
14 g 0 0 0 30 30 to 60 1 V 9
15 id 0 0 0 80 80 to 60 1 V 9
16 PC 35 35 0 0 0 to 60 1 V
17 dr 77 745 0 745 400 1145 to 70 1 m
18 if 7 0 0 0 865 865 to 70 1 m 17
19 dr 6 50 50 0 0 0 to 60 1 m
20 if 5 0 0 0 150 150 to 60 1 m 19
21 ir 35 0 0 0 485 485 to 60 1 m
22 PC 290 290 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
23 PC 270 270 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
24 id 0 0 0 480 480 br 80 2 m 22,23
25 PC 65 65 0 0 0 br 80 1 m
26 cf 40 0 0 0 90 0 br 60 2 m
27 s 0 0 0 0 0 to 60 1 m
28 g 0 0 0 80 80 to 60 1 m 29?
29 dr 8,90 2085 1500 585 0 585 to 60 1 V
30 ir 17 0 0 0 180 180 to 60 m
31 hs 33 335 335 0 0 0 to 60 1 V
32 ff 0 0 0 70 70 to 60 1 V
33 hs 18 240 200 40 0 40 to 60 1 V
34 PC 100 100 0 0 0 to 50 1 V
35 df 9-21,8( 3000 0 3000 550 3550 to 50 1 V
36 df 1 15 10 5 0 5 to 50 1 V
37 PC 25 25 0 0 0 to 70 1 V
38 dr 13 240 200 40 0 40 to 70 1 m
39 ff 12 0 0 0 225 225 to 70 1 m 38
40 ff 10 0 0 0 600 600 to 60 1 m
41 ff 9 0 0 0 3910 3910 to 60 1 r
42 ff 4 0 0 0 415 415 to 60 1 r
43 dr 52 40 35 5 5 10 to 80 1 V
44 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
45 cf 82 0 0 0 385 135 br 80 2 m
46 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 80 2 m
47 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 60 2 m
48 dr 3 5000 4750 250 0 250 br 60 1 V
49 g 0 0 0 170 170 br 60 1 V 48
50 ir 26 0 0 0 1915 1915 br 60 1 m
51 hs 3 6000 1000 5000 0 5000 br 70 1 m
52 dr 94 1750 1250 500 90 590 br 80 1 m
53 PC 20 20 0 0 0 br 60 m
54 PC 25 25 0 0 0 br 60 1 m
55 ff 81 0 0 0 220 220 br 60 1 m 100
56 s 0 0 0 0 0 br 70 1 V
57 cff 45 175 120 55 35 90 br 70 1 m
58 ff 44 0 0 0 1980 1980 br 70 1 m
168
Notes:
1 Type o f feature, includes hillslope slides (hs), fillslope slides (ff), cutslope slides (cf),
debris flows (df), stumps (s), plugged culverts (pc), incised (fitches (id), and gullies (g).
2 Refers to identification number in Swanson/Wallenstein inventory of landslides.
3 Volume estimates for features, includes volume of hillslope material (Vh), volume
stored on the road (Vs) and transported through the road (Vt), volume of road material
(Vr), and volume yielded below the road (Vout).
4 Refers to basin where feature was mapped: Lookout Creek (lo) or Blue River (br).
5 Refers to decade o f construction for road on which feature was mapped: before 1960
(60), 1961-70 (70), 1971-80 (80), 1981 - 90 (90).
6 Refers to elevation zone in which feature was mapped: 400- 800 m (1), 801 - 1200 m
(2), > 1200 m (3).
7 Refers to number of associated feature.
IMAGE EVALUATION
150m m
ItV W G E . I n c
1653 E a st Main S tre e t
R ochester. NY 14609 USA
P hon e: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989

Information To Users

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Information To Users

Uploaded by

Copyright:

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Presented November 30, 1998

UMI Microform 9921270

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

Major Professor, representing Forest Science

tent of Forest Science

Beverley Coghill \Vemplfe, Author

Abstract Approved:_____ JfjXUx idU

This dissertation represents for me the culmination o f seven years of

Chapter 2: Hillslope and Climatic Controls on RunoffProduction on Forest Roads 8

Chapter 3: Road-related Sedimentatation in the Western Oregon Cascades During the

3.3.1 Number and types of sedimentation features.............................. 84

Chapter 4: Conclusions............................................................................................. 102

1.1 Schematic diagram of a hillslope showing possible hydrologic and

2.1 Definition diagram for a hillslope...................................................................... 12

2.2 Definition diagram for components of precipitation hyetograph and

2.4 Schematic of road features and instrumentation design..................................... 21

2.6 Average values and standard deviations of the hourly recession

2.7 Descriptions of soil profiles present on hillslopes above instrumented

2.8 Schematic representation of the relationships among soil depth, slope

2.11 Plots o f precipitation depth versus average precipitation intensity for

2.12 Precipitation hyetographs and storm hydrographs from instrumented

2.13 Measured hydrographs at C l and estimated road surface runoff

2.20 Map of the upper hillslope in Watershed 3 showing locations of

3.4 Volumes used to compute sediment mass balance.............................................83

3.5 Distribution of size classes of sediment for inventoried features........................ 87

3.6 Schematic representation o f the distribution and spatial complexity of

3.8Function of forest roads relative to types of erosion and deposition

2.2 Characteristics o f instrumented sites.................................................................. 36

3.1 Summary o f characteristics of study basins........................................................74

3.3 Distribution and frequency of inventoried features in Lookout Creek

3.5 Relation between decade of road construction, elevation, and hillslope

1 Conversion of hourly recession coefficient to a daily coefficient..................... 116

3 Dataset of road-related sedimentation features inventoried in Lookout

Considerable progress has been made in recent decades in understanding the

The literature on geomorphic processes in upland, forested settings is extensive.

— 1— ----- 1-----—1------- 1------- 1-----_1--------- 1-------

storm season: water j landuse landscape

1Refers to watershed scale typically examined in paired-watershed studies of effects of

Hillslope and Climatic Controls on Runoff Production on Forest Roads

Beverley Coghill Wemple

in preparation for journal submission

Forest roads constructed in steep, mountainous terrain influence hydrology

forces, subsurface flow can be approximated by

q« (h) = J K 0h"sina dz (2.4)

where ck = Drc cos a (Figure 2.1).

The study was conducted in Watershed 3 in the Lookout Creek watershed,

2.3.1 Study area

Watershed 3 is a 1.01 km2basin in the Lookout Creek watershed in the western

H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest

Elevations in Watershed 3 range from 480 to 1080 meters. Mean annual

2.3.2 Road runoff measurements

Discharge at the culverts was determined through continuous stage

upslope contributing area

Q = 35.5 X 1320 (n=6, I2=99.9%)

10000 9-incfi culvert

2.3.3 Climatic conditions

where pn is the precipitation intensity at time n (using a 15-minute timestep) summed

where Pt is the precipitation (in mm) at time t.

The seasonal soil moisture conditions were indexed by the cumulative

2.3.4 Field mapping

2.3.5.1 Road-surface runoff

1 meter 1 meter 1 meter