## Chapter

# 9

Erosion, Sedimentation, and Cumulative Effects 

# in the Northern Rocky Mountains

Walter E Megahan and John 

### G. 

### King



### ABSTRACT Erosion and sedimentation are natural geomorphic processes characterizedby large temporal and spatialvariability. Recent radionuclide studies suggest that rare episodic events, such as large wildfires, produce massive sediment yields over time scales of thousands of years, thereby causing long-term average sediment production to exceed present-day average erosion rates by a factor of about 

### 10. Even today, in undisturbed forested watersheds, sediment production is highly variable. Early studies of the effects of grazing andwildfire and surveys ofriver basins provided a foundation for much of the subsequent research on the effects of forest practices on erosion and sedimentation.The erosionaland sedimentation effects of wildfire have been documented in many locations -ranging from none to minimal for low-intensity burns to catastrophic for highintensity burns. Managementof forestlands to regulate the risk ofwildfire effects on erosion and sedimentation is an important present-day concern throughout the region.

Research consistently has shown that roads have the greatest effect of all practices associated with forest management on both surface and mass erosion. 

### A large body of research shows, however, that much of the erosional impactofroadsis manageable through proper land-useplanning, location, design, construction, maintenance, and road closure. Considerable empirical data exists to illustrate surface erosion rates on roads, including time trends f0110~6ng construction as well as the effectiveness of a variety of erosion control practices. Effects of harvesting and associated site preparation activities on surface erosion are generally minimal andusually are controlled by providing downslopebuffers. 

### An exception is broadcast burning on harsh sites with highly erodible soils. Mass erosion, usually in the form of debris avalanches and torrents, is managed through risk assessment that uses inventory data and/or slope stability models to identlfy high-hazard site conditions. The primary management option for minimizingmass erosion resulting from roads or timber cutting is avoiding high-risk sites. Where avoidance is not possible, special design features are used, in the case ofroads, orcutting and site preparation practices are modified, in the case of timber harvesting.

Severalempiricalandprocess-based models have been developedto predict surface erosion rates, the effectivenessof a variety of erosion conti-olpractices, and downslope sediment delivery. Empirical data are the primaryA Century of&rest and Wildland Watershed Lessons

source of information for occurrence, magnitude, and downslopedelivery of landslide material. Examples of downstream cumulative effects have been documented in terms of sediment delivery and associated channel responses. Methods to predict downstream cumulative effects are crude, however, limited primarily to sediment delivery, and are more applicable to smaller basins. Linkages between downstream cumulative effects and the impacts on beneficialuses, especiallyfish habitat, are poorly defined.


### KEYWORDS: allowableimpacts,channel cross-section,cosmogenic isotopes, cumulativeeffects,episodicevents,erodible soils,erosion, erosion control, fish, legislation,particle size distribution, prescribed burning, roads, routing, salmon,sedimeiitation,sediment delivery,sediment supply,sitepreparation, surface erosion, timber harvest, time trends, variability, wildfire



### Introduction

In this chapter we describe some of the key information developed over the past 100years abouterosion, sedimentation,andassociated cumulative effects in relation to forestland management in the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM).For purposes of this review, we define the NRM to include the states of Idaho and Montana. It is impossible to include all of the important studies that have been conducted. We include enough referencesto provide an overviewofsomeofthe importantlessonslearned and present our impressions of relevant research needs.

Erosion, sedimentation, and associated downstream cumulative effects issues have long been a concern in the NRM. Prior to about 1950, the effects of sheep and cattle grazing on erosionand associated sedimentation

were the primary problem. At issue was not only the potential for downstream sedimentation damages but also the effects of erosion on on-site range productivity. After World War 11, grazing pressures decreased, and demand for construction lumber led to increasing timber harvest during the 1950s.As the harvesting progressed from more easily accessed forestlands to steeper terrain, there was increasing concern about erosional effects and associatedsedimentation damages from timber harvesting and road-buildingactivities.

A variety of legislation since the 1960s focused these concerns. Important federal legislation for managing National Forest lands such as the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources PlanningAct, and the National Forest Management Act include protection of soil and water resources as a central theme. Additional legislation 

### -including the Watershed Protection and Flood PreventionAct, the Resource ConservationAct, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Act, and subsequent revisions to the CleanWaterAct 

### -was designedto protect soil andwaterresourceson all lands, notjust national forests. Last, but certainly not least, the potential for sedimentation effects on threatened and endangered fish and amphibians identified under the Endangered SpeciesAct is a widespreadCHAPTER NINE



### concern throughout the 

### NRM. Furthermore, both 

### NRM states have developed statutes directed at erosion and sedimentationissues. 

### Early 

### Range Studies

Most early studies were directed at the effects of wildfire or grazing on erosion and sediment production; these studies provide the basis for much of the subsequent work on forestlands. One of the earliest studies, by Connaughton (1935),documented the effects ofwildfire on erosion of granitic soils in the Payette River basin of southern Idaho. He reported increasing erosion with burn intensity and slope gradient and greater erosion on previously logged areas compared to unlogged areas. Other fire-relatedstudiesdocumentedthe effects ofwildfire on runoff and downstream damages. For example, Curtis and Packer (1951) described the effects of a 100-acrerange fire that caused a flood peak large enough to close a highway with sediment deposits.

Much of the early range research was carried out in southern Idaho in conjunction with watershed surveys in the Boise River drainage (USDA 1940).The work was done to assess runoff and erosion source areaswithin the basin, in order to develop watershed management plans to protect large irrigation and flood control works. Using a sprinkling infiltrometer, Craddockand Pearce (1938)found that runoff and erosion were least on perennial wheatgrass range sites and greatest on annual weed sites and tended to increase with rainfall intensity, soil disturbance, and slope gradient in all cases. In 1939and 1940,the US Geological Survey,working in cooperation with the US Department ofAgriculture, collected dailyrunoff and sediment loads at several stations on streams in the Boise River basin (Love and Benedict 1948).Rosa and Tigerman (1951)used these data to relate sediment production to watershed conditionswithin the river basin through the use of sediment rating curves.

The sprinkling infiltrometer proved to be an important tool for several subsequent researchers for determining the effects of site factors on erosion rates. Packer (1951) showed that erosion on rangeland was inversely proportional to ground cover densityplus litter and directlyproportional
to size of bare soil openings. A second study (Packer 1953) documented increased erosionby the simulated trampling of livestock.Meeuwig (1969, 1971) found that erosion on rangeland depends chiefly on ground cover and slope gradient, with lesser effects from soil organic matter content and texture. 

### Natural Variabili5

Erosion and sedimentationare characterizedby large spatialand temporal variability. Spatial variability results from differences in site conditions, including geology, climate, topography, soils, vegetation, and proximity to erosion source.Temporalvariability results fromvarying short-termweather conditions and longer-term climatic trends, as well as natural and human-caused disturbances. Interactions between spatial and temporal components occur as sediments are routed down the watershed system.

203

### A Cenlury of Forest and Wildland Watershed Lessons

Surface Erosion

Early studies showed the effects of spatialvariabilityon erosion on rangeland in response to changing site conditions such as ground cover density, slope gradient, and soil properties. On most undisturbed forested slopes in the NRM, surface erosion is negligible because dense vegetative cover and surface litter prevent soil movement. I-Iowever, surface erosion can

occur on undisturbed, erodible, coarse-texturedsoils, especially on south exposures where vegetation cover is sparse as a result of low soil-moistureholding capacities. Clayton and Megahan (1997) report annual surface erosion rates on undisturbed forest sites on granitic soils in southern Idaho averaging0.09 tonsper acre.Erosion rates varied from to zero to 1.6
tons per acre, depending on site factors such as ground cover density, rainfall erosivity, solar radiation loading, and soil depth. Natural disturbance, such as by fire, can increase surface erosion rates. Megahan and Molitor (1975) recorded annual erosion rates of 0.6 tons per acre the first year after wildfire on north-facing granitic slopes where there was no evidence of surface erosion prior to the fire. By the third year after the fire, erosion
rates were negligible because of rapid regrowth of understoryvegetation.
Mass Erosion (Landslides)

The vast majority of mass failures of concern to forest managers consist of debris avalanche landslides that occur on shallow soils overlying an impermeable layer, usually bedrock (Megahan, Day, and Bliss 19'78).In

some cases, slumps may also be a problem, especially on roads. Both of these types of mass failures are episodic in nature and occur when shear stresses within a slope exceed shear strength. Thus, landslide occurrence is highly variable over both time and space, almost by definition. Inventories of hundreds of landslides (Megahan, Day, and Bliss 19'78; McClelland et al. 1997) show that landslides occur almost exclusively duringvery large storm events and vary on the basis of a variety of site conditions, such as type of bedrock, slope gradient, and slope location.Natural disturbances such as wildfire, earthquakes, insects, and disease can increase the occurrence of landslides (Croft and Adams 1950).

Although landslides are a major concern in some areas of the NRM, landslide risks and occurrences are considerably less there than in other

areas in the Northwest,such as the CoastRange of California,Washington, and Oregon. In a survey of slope stabilityproblems in the western United States, Burroughs (1985) classifies about 10 percent of national forest lands in northern Idaho andwestern Montana and 12percent in southern Idaho forests as having a "high potential" for landslide occurrence.

The potential for mass erosion problems on landscapes may be evaluated through risk assessment, utilizing the results of landslide inventories to assist in the identification of high-hazard site conditions. Inventories of landslide occurrence and associatedsite characteristicshave identified specific factors associatedwith high mass erosion hazard, including geologic,CHAPTER NINE

soil, topographic,vegetation, and land-use characteristics (Megahan,Day, and Bliss 19'78;McClelland et al. 1999).

Potential mass erosion problems have been evaluated more recently through risk assessment that uses slope stability models to identifylandslide hazards at specific locations on the landscape. The infinite slope stability model accounts for the destabilizing effects of gravity and the components of friction and cohesion that resist failure. The LISA model (Hamrnond et al. 1992) uses the infinite slope stability model to determine a probabilityoffailure and is useful for relative landslidehazard evaluation. More recently, slope stability models have been developed that combine the infinite slope model with hydrologic models. These models include SHALSTB (MontgomeryandDietrich 1994)and SINMAP (Pack, Tarboton,and Goodwin 1998).Local informationon soilsandgeology and available landslide inventorydata are used to calibrate these models.

Considerable empirical data are available to illustrate the amount of sediment delivery to streams from landslides. Megahan, Day, and Bliss (1978) found an overall sediment delivery of 23 percent to channels in a survey of 629 landslides on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. 

### A subsequent inventory of landslides on the Clearwater National Forest evaluated the effects of large storm events in 1995and 1996 (McClelland
et al. 199'7). 

### An average of approximately 57 percent of the landslide materialwas delivered to streams from 907 landslides.

Ward (1994) developed a two-step approach for estimating landslide deliveryto streams.In the first step, site characteristicsoflandslide length, distance to the stream, and slope gradient are entered into a logistic model to determine whether a landslide will reach a stream. If the landslide is predicted to reach the stream, a multivariate model is used to estimate the percentage ofslidevolume being delivered.Site variables that are important for predicting delivery percent include slope gradient, distance to the stream, slide length, and ratio of slide length/distance to stream, depending on the type of disturbance at the landslide site (road prism location or natural slopes). Sediment

### Yields

Numerous publications document that sedimentyields can vary considerablyfromyear toyear in response tovaryingweather conditionsand that episodicclimaticevents can increase sedimentyields. However, long-term sediment yield data are limited to decades at best on undisturbed watersheds. Such data are available from 28 undisturbed study watersheds in Idaho ranging in size from 0.09 mi2 to 

### 6.5 mi2 (USDA Forest Service, unpublished report).Lengths ofrecords for the watersheds vary from 4 to 28 years. Records for all stationswere adjustedstatisticallyto a common 17- year period from 1966 to 1982.The average annual sediment yield from all watersheds for this dataset was 33.1 yds3mi-2 year1and the range was 7-76 yds3 year1.Statistically significant differences in sediment yield

were explained mostly by differences in average annual streamflow (82A Century ofForest and U7ildland Watershed Lessons

percent of variability) and watershed relief (3 percent of variability) between the study watersheds. These average sediment yields represent essentially pristine conditions without any human-caused or natural disturbances or major episodic climatic events.

Granger, Kirchner, and Finkel (1996) showed that cosmogenic nuclide concentrations in stream sediments accurately reflect the area-averaged long-term (thousands of years) erosion rates of whole watersheds. Kirchner et al. (1998) compiled sediment data from 34 essentiallyundisturbed,forestedwatershedsin Idaho ranging in size from 0.1mi2 to 13,550 mi2, including 25 of the basins identified above. Lengthsofrecords for the watersheds ranged from 

### 4 to 79 years and averaged about 20 years. Sediment samples were collected from each watershed and analyzed for cosmogenic nuclide content to determine long-term average sediment yield. On average, the long-term sediment rates exceed the measured short-termrates by a factor of about 10.

The Idaho watersheds had little or no glaciation, nor can the large differences between long- and short-term sediment rates be explained by climatic differences between Pleistocene and current climatic conditions. Apparently, long-term erosion rates and associated channel responses are driven by relatively rare episodic events that overshadow the short-term conditions represented by the available data sets. Episodic events are caused by large storms, often coupledwith natural disturbances 

### -especially wildfire 

### - and result in very large sediment yields that can have major impactson channel systems. Severalsuch episodic events have occurred in Idahoin recent years fromlandslidesduringlarge stormevents (Megahan, Day, and Bliss 1978; McClelland et al. 1997) and from intense wildfires (USDA Forest Service 1996; Pacific Watershed Associates 1998). 

### Effects of 

### TimberHarvest

Timber harvest practices used in the NRM have minimal effects on erosion, which are small in comparison to the effects of the road system used to support the timber harvest. For example, jammer and skyline logging on steep granitic soils in central Idaho had a six-year average annual surface erosion rate of 0.06 tons per acre 

### - only about 1.6 times the natural rate. In contrast, surface and mass erosion rates from the associated logging roads were 220 and 550 times natural rates,respectively (Megahan 1975). Megahan (1980) summarizes the reported soil disturbance from various studies of logging systems in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia; he found an average of 21 percent from tractor logging, 

### 13 percent from ground cable logging, 

### 8 percent for skyline logging, and 4 percent for aerial logging systems such as helicopter logging. Thus, one

means of controlling surface erosion is selection of a harvesting system that minimizes ground disturbance and exposure of soil. Soil losses usually

are small on harvest areas because most logging systems disturb less than about 30 percent of the soil surface, and bare areas are small, rough, and discontinuous (Rice,Rothacher,and Megahan 1972).CHAPTER NINE

Site preparation activities can have more effect on the potential for surface erosion than logging itself. Prescribed burning is the most commonly used technique for site preparation in the 

### NRM; it also is used
to reduce the hazard for wildfire. The erosional consequencesof burning depend on the severity of the burn and resulting reduction in vegetation, slash, litter, and humus. One plot studyin the mixed conifers of northern Idaho found that a spring prescribed burn under relatively moist conditions retained sufficient ground cover to cause only minimal amounts of erosion (Robichaud, Graham, and I-Iungerford 1994). At the other extreme, broadcastburning of clearcuts on south-facing slopes on granitic soils in southern Idaho accelerated erosion on the burned portions to about 8 tons per acre 

## - 66 times natural rates (Megahan, King, and Seyedbagheri 1995).At this harsh site, much of the sustained erosion is attributed to slow vegetation recovery. Clayton (1981) attributed 

### 32 percent of the first-year postlogging erosion to the broadcast burning. Thus,use offire for site preparation and fuel reduction is not appropriate for all sites. Lopping and scattering slash or a silvicultural practice that retains more of the residual stand may be more appropriate at sites with steep slopes and highly erodible soils or at harsh sites where revegetation
rates are slow.

Sediment travel distance from surface erosion in areas of diffuse runoff such as timber harvest units is minimal and easily controlled by providing downslope buffers of vegetation and debris on the ground. Both Idaho and Montana have rules and regulations that provide for streamsidemailagement zones and regulate activities within these areas.We are not aware of any studies in the NRM to determine appropriate buffer widths below harvest units as a function of site characteristics.However, sediment travel from other areaswith diffuse sources ofrunoff, such as road fills,averaged only about 8 feet below the toe of the fill in one study in northern Idaho (McMurtray-Carlton, King, and Tennyson 1982) and 

### 12feet in a study in southern Idaho (Ketcheson and Megahan 1996) and varied with the volume of erosion and the amount ofobstructionson the slope (Megahan and Ketcheson 1996).

Forest vegetation often provides the margin of safety between a secure slope and a landslide by providing root strength, removing soil water by evapotranspiration, anchoring the soil mass into the fractured bedrock, and buttressing and soil-arching action behind embedded tree trunks (Gray and Megahan 1981;Ziemer 1981).Studies of loss of root strength

over time followingtimber harvesting (Burroughsand Thomas 1977)and frequency of landslide occurrence with time after timber harvesting (Megahan,Day, and Bliss 1978) suggest that landslides are most frequent 410years after logging. Unlike in coastal areas, mass erosion resulting from timber harvest is not a serious problem in the NRM. Megahan,Day, and Bliss (1978) found that only 

### 2 percent of the landslides on the Clearwater National Forest occurred on cutting units, compared to 3A Century ofForest and Wildland Watershed Lessons



### percent on undisturbed areas. In a later study on the same area, McClelland et al. (1997) found that 12percent of landslides occurred on cutting units, compared to 29 percent on undisturbed slopes. In areas where landslide risks are high, modifications to harvest practices can reduce landslide potential. Practices might include selection logging in preference to clearcutting, reduction 

### in the size ofclearcuts, establishment of vegetation leave areas, and integration of road drainage measures with vegetation leave areas (Grayand Megahan 1981).



### Effects ofRoads

Road construction results in exposure of bare soil, placement of unconsolidated material on the slope, soil compaction, destruction of soil aggregation, interception of subsurface flow, and concentration of surface runoff, all of which increase the potential for erosion and off-site sedimentation. Thus, it is not surprising that research has consistently shown that roads have the greatest effect on erosion of all practices associated

w i t h 

### forest management. Although other managementactivities,such as timber harvesting, usually occur on a larger percentage of the landscape, erosion
rates on roads are large enough that they are the dominant source of sediment in the 

### NRM. Magnitude of Road Effects



### Surface erosion from roads generally is highest during the first year following construction and decreases rapidly with time (Figure 9-1). Erosion rates during the firstyear followingroad construction of standarddesign roads on highly erodible granitic soils have been measured to exceed natural rates by up to 2,000-3,000 times, with erosion rates exceeding 90 tons per acre (Megahan and Kidd 19'72;Ketcheson, Megahan, and King 1999).The amount of surface erosion in the firstyear following construction accounted for 66-86 percent of total erosion measured over a four- to six-yearperiod. Both armoring of the soil surface and reestablishment and growth of vegetation reduce surface erosion over time. The initial high road erosion rates following construction often are attributed
to erosion of unconsolidated fill material (Megahan and Kidd 1972;King 1984).At many sites,however,fillslope revegetation is sufficientafter a year
or two, so the long-term source of sediment is from the cutslopes, road tread, and ditch system. Moreover, traffic, road grading, and ditch cleaning rejuvenate a supply of finer sediments, and ditch cleaning may reinitiate an increase in cutslope erosion. Thus, most road systems representa potential continuous source of sediment, although the source ofthe sediment will change over time. For example, a road built in the 1930s in

one small study watershed was still producing about two tons per acre of erosion 37 years after construction-about a 50-fold increase over natural rates (Megahan 1974).Much of the erosion was attributed to continuing erosion of the cutslopes (Megahan,Seyedbagheri, and Dodson 1983).CHAPTER NINE

100 Figure 9-1.Eroszon afto
c 0 80 

### .- construction of roads zn
U) Zena Creek andSilzw 2 Creek,Idaho. 

### 3 60 S

Y- O 

### % 40 

## f 

# G 20 P

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years after road construction

Roads have also consistentlybeen shown to have the greatest effect on

mass erosion of all practices associated with forest management. Inventories of landslides conducted on two national forests in Idaho following major climatic events showed that landslides associated with roads accounted for 88 percent (Megahan, Day, and Bliss 1978) and 

### 57 percent (McClellandet al. 1997)of total landslide occurrences,respectively. In tlie earlier study, delivery of material to streams from road-associated landslides varied with location of the slide source in the road prism; cutslope slides delivered an average of 33 percent, whereas fillslope slides delivered 

### 44 percent. In the later study, delivery of material to streams from road-associated landslides averaged about 25 percent. Controlling Road Erosion

Although roads represent an important potential source of sediment, a large body of research shows that many of the erosional impacts of roads

are manageable through proper land-use planning, location, design, construction, maintenance, and closure. Application of four basic principles

can reduce the erosion and sedimentation impacts of roads (Megahan 1977). A thorough knowledge of site conditions is required in applying these principles and deciding which combination of applications is best for the site and the planned activities.

Thefirst principle is preventive;itinvolvesrecognition and avoidance of high-erosion hazard areas (Megahan and King 1985). These areas include excessively steep slopes,highly erodible soils, areaswith a high risk oflandslide, and areas with a high potential to deliver sediment to streams.

The secondprinciple, alsopreventative, is to minimize the total amount of landscape disturbed by roads. This goal is accomplished in two ways: by minimizing the total length of roads and 

### by keeping the roads as narrow

as possible to accommodate transportation and drainage needs. The total mileage of roads necessary often is related to the type of yarding system used in the timber harvest operation. Some tractor and short-lead cable systems have had more than 

### 25 percent of the area in roads, whereas
209A Century ofForest and Wildland Watershed Lessons 

# -

skyline and helicopter yarding systems typicallyrequire less than 

### 4 percent of the area in roads (Megahan 1985) (Figure 9-2).Thus, selection of the logging system can be used to reduce road length. Minimizing total road disturbaice also is accomplished by making roads as narrow as possible and rolling the grade to conform to the topography. This technique reduces surface erosionby minimizing the road disturbancewidth and the heights of cut- and fillslopes. Minimizing total road disturbance also reduces the occurrence of landslides. Landslide occurrence on roads is directlyrelated to the amount of excavationrequired for the design standard of the road (Megahan,Day, and Bliss 19'78),so landslide occurrence

on larger main arterial roads is considerably higher (3.5 slides per mile of road) than for narro~ver terminal roads (0.3slides per mile of road).

Figure 9-2. Percentage of

area disturbed by dqferent loggingsystems.

Tractor Groundline Skyl~ne Aer~al logging System The third principle is to provide for design or treatments onroad features that reduce erosion.In the case of surface erosion, a considerable amount of research has gone into 

### quantifying the effectivenessof a variety of road erosion control practices. Guidelines have been developed that describe the effectiveness of many of these treatments (Burroughs and King 1989). Fillslope treatments that combine a surface amendment, typicallya mulch, with a revegetation measure, seeding, sprigging, or trailsplanting are more successful than either a surface amendment or revegetation measures alone (Megahan et al. 1992). Treatments that include an application of mulch with a means of holding the mulch in place on the slope (e.g., asphalttackifier, net, or crimping) in combination with seeding or seeding and transplanting can reduce fillslope erosion more than 90 percent. Much of this effectiveness can be lost, however, if direct runoff from the road tread is diverted to fillslopes (King 1979).Thus, maintenance of the designed drainage system also is critical in reducing fillslope erosion. Cutslopes,which typically are constructed with steeper gradients than fillslopes, are prone to dry ravel and sloughing processes. Erosion control
treatments on cutslopes are less successful;reported reductions in erosion for terracing and mulch applications, both with seed and fertilizer, are in the range of 30-60 percent (King 1994; Megahan, Wilson, and Monsen 2001).Theroad tread also is a source of sediment, and rutting of the roadCHAPTER NINE

tread from traffic concentrates runoff and increases surface erosion. surfacing forest roads effectively reduces erosion, and plot studies of of gravel, bituminous surfacing, and dust oil have shown in road tread erosion exceeding 77 percent (Burroughs and King 1985).Use of lowered tire pressures on logging trucks also results in surface erosion, partly because it causes less-definedwheel ruts (Foltz 1995).Plot studies on short road segments indicate a twofold to

more than afourfoldincrease in sediment production fromfreshly graded roads that become rutted (Foltz and Burroughs, 1990).Thus, routine grading or road closures to minimize rutting are additional options for erosion control.

In the case of mass erosion on roads, special design features often are used to reduce sidecast material, bench roads, compact fills, control drainage, and retain cut- and fillslopes. Excellent technical guidelines describingthese and otherroad constructiontechniquesin high-riskareas

are available (Burroughs, Chalfant, and Townsend 1976; Chatwin et al. 1994).Controlof drainage is critical in minimizing slope failures.

The fourth principle is to minimize the delivery of road-derived sediments to streams. This approach requires careful planning of road locationsto minimize the number of stream crossings and maximize slope travel distance to streams. Several empirical studies make it possible to estimate sediment travel distance below roads on the basis of local site characteristics. Haupt (1959) defines sedimenttravel distance from roads constructed on granitic materials in southern Idaho as a function of the
amount of obstructions on the slope below the road, cross-ditch spacing

on the road, fillslope embankment length, and road gradient. Packer (1967) found sediment travel distance to be controlled by cross-drain spacing on the road, slope obstruction characteristics, fillslope cover density, soilparticles greater than 

### 2 mm (characterizedby type ofgeology), and road age. Both of these studies provide prediction equationsfor total sediment travel distance. Other researchers have defined the probability of sedimenttravel distancebelow road culverts on border zone geology in northern Idaho (Burroughs and King 1989) and on granitic soils in southern Idaho (Ketchesonand Megahan 1996). Additional studies make itpossible to definenot only how far sedimenttravels below roads but also how much travels how far. Wasniewski (1995) developed relationships between cumulative sedimentvolume and travel distance below roads on granitic and gneiss/schist soils 

### in northern Idaho. King (1979) presents data for the percentage of eroded sediment volume that travels given distances below roads on border zone soils in northern Idaho, and Ketcheson and Megahan (1996) present similar data for granitic soils in southern Idaho. Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) developed a prediction equation for sedimenttravel distancebased on thevolume ofroad erosion, runoff source area, hillslope gradient, and obstructions below the road, and they provide a relationship showing sediment volume in relation toA Century of Forest and Wildland WatershedLessons

total flow length of sediment. Use of both equations makes it possible to predict the volume of sediment reaching channels and to evaluate the effects of alternative erosion control measures or road locations on the volume of sediment delivered to streams. One additional treatment 

# - placement of slash generated from road-clearing operations on or below fillslopes 

### -has been shown to be very effective in capturing sediment and reducing sediment transport distance (Cookand King 1983).

Many older roads were located in areaswith a high potential delivery of sediment to streams, such as in valley bottoms paralleling streams, often constricting the channel, or on unstable slopes with a high potential for landslides.In these cases, someform ofroad obliterationmay be desirable. Although road obliteration is becoming more widely used, little information is availableatthis time to quantify either short-orlong-termeffects on sediment production. Predicting

### Road Erosion

The number of empirical studiesof surface erosion onroads conducted

over the years in the 

### NRM has led to the developmentof empirical models for predicting on-site erosion rates, the effectiveness of erosion control practices, and downslope delivery of eroded materials. Available empirical studies have been assembled into a methodology (known as the R1-R4 SedimentYield Prediction model) for estimating the effects of roads and other forest disturbances on erosion and sediment yields (Cline et al. 1981). Further discussion of the R1-R4 model is presented in the "CumulativeWatershed Effects" sectionbelow,

In addition to empirical models, there has been considerable effort devotedto the developmentofprocess models for predicting road erosion. Simons, 

### Li, and Shiao (1977) developed the first physically based process model for predicting sediment production from forest roads from individual storm events. The ROSED (RoadSEDiment) model was applied to mine haul roads in Montana as well as forest roads in other locations (Ward 1985). The model considers 

### all components of the road prism, including cutslopes and fillslopes, the running surface, ditches, and culverts. Hydrologic processes evaluated include interception, infiltration, overlandflowrouting, and sediment detachment and transport usingraindrop splash and overlandflow shear stress.

More recently, theWatershed Erosion PredictionProject 

### (WEPP)model has been applied to forestroads, areas oftimber cutting, and burned forest

areas (ElliotandHal1 1997).Themodel is physicallybased andincludesan evaluation of runoff and erosion processes similar to those considered in the ROSED model. WEPP also uses a long-term climate generator to simulate storm events as well as snowfall and melt, and it provides estimatesof vegetation growth and the production of litter. The model was developed to replace the empiricallybased Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and its successor the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE). The
current version of the model evaluates erosion and downslope sedimentCHAPTER NINE

movement from small areas (road sections or cutting units); a watershedscale version of the model for application on forest lands is under development. 

### A simplified version of the model called X-DRAIN (Elliot et al. 1998) provides estimates of sediment deposition below forest roads for selected conditions of cross-drain spacing, road gradient, length of forest buffer area below the road, steepness of the buffer, and soil texture. The model has been tested on forest roads in Idaho and elsewhere (Elliot, Hall, and Graves 1999) for both erosion rate on the road and sediment travel downslopebelow roads.


### Cumulative WatershedEffects

Cumulative effects for the purposes of this chapter are the erosion and sedimentation consequences, both on and off site, of one or more forest practices (harvesting, road building, or fire) over time. Because the Clean WaterAct mandates the assessmentofcumulativewatershed effectsofland management activities, this issue is very relevant. Watershed case studies,
process studies, and paired watershed studies are different strategies for addressing cumulative effects in basins of concern and for developing methods to predict cumulative watershed effects elsewhere (Reid 1993). 

### All three of these approaches have been used in the NRM.
Case Studies

The best example of a case study on cumulative effects is the South Fork Salmon River basin. Historically, the South Fork Salmon River was the single most important summer Chinook salmon spawning stream in the Columbia River basin (Mallet 1974).Intensive logging and road construction took place between 1945and 1965.The combination of highly erodible soils, steep slopes, soil disturbance from road building and timber harvest, and large climaticevents in 1955, 1962, 1964,and 1965 delivered large quantities of sediment to the river, and by 1965 sediment quantities

were in excess of the stream's transport capacity. There was deposition of predominantly sand-sized material throughout much of the river system, and prime salmon spawning and rearing areas were buried with sand. As a result, a moratorium on logging and road constructionwas imposed by the USDAForest Servicein 1966for much of the basin. Assessments of the basin were performed in 1965 to estimate sediment volumes by source (USDA 19651, and over time rehabilitation practices were installed to reduce surface erosion and mass erosion. More than 400 miles of roads

were closed and stabilized.

River responses following the moratorium were monitored through photographic documentation, channel cross-sectionsurveys, and transects to evaluate the particle size distribution of the river bed in spawning and rearing areas (Megahan,Platts, and Kulesza 1980).The watershed rehabilitation program reduced sediment supply to a level at which the river began to remove excess sediments. Conditionswithin the river improved with time (Figure 9-3) (Platts and Megahan 1975; Megahan, Platts, and Kulesza 1980).In 1978the moratorium was lifted, and a new land-use planA Century ofForest and Wildland Watershed Lessons 

# -

allowed cautious reentry into the basin. Monitoring continued to assure continuing improvement of the river conditions. 

### A comparison of sediment storage in the river channel between 1965 and 1989 indicated that about '78 percent of the sand and gravel had been transported out of the river (Bohn and Megahan 1991). Such case studies or basin-wide
assessments provide useful information on types and magnitudes of problems, sources of sediment, rehabilitation needs and priorities, and quantified time trends in recovery.

Figure 9-3. (a)1966: Cloy Hole almost complete~jlled with sand; (b) 1972:most sand isgone, and m'ginal rubbMoulderstreambed surfaceis ~-euealed. Source:i'Itegahan, Potyondy, and Sqedbagheri (1992).Reprinted withpermission of thepublishm



### PairedWatershed Studies



### A second strategyfor assessing cumulativesedimentationeffectsis paired watershed studies,which usually are carried outin conjunction 

### with other studies to define and describeprocesses of erosion, sedimentdelivery, and sediment transport. Much research in the 

### NRM relative to the cumulative effects issue has been conducted in small, paired watersheds 

### -most less than 1 mi2 in area 

### - on granitic and metasedimentary geology. Management treatments have been evaluated on I1 watersheds (Horse Creekand Silver Creek studyareas), representing 102station-years of data for pretreatment conditions and 109 station-years following treatment. Pairedwatershed approachestypicallycompare the effects of selected forest practices in treated watersheds with an undisturbed control watershed. These watersheds typically are monitored for a sufficientnumber ofyears in an undisturbed condition to determine natural rates and variability in erosion and sedimentation processes. Various forest activities are applied
to each watershed, and conditions and processes are monitored for a suEciently long period to allowfor substantialrecoveryofdisturbedareas. The types ofpractices that have been monitored includedifferent types of yarding systems, different sizes of clearcuts and amounts of timber harvested, different site preparation techniques, and different types of road standards and treatments. Measurements of conditions and processes 

### vary by watershed but have included climatic variables, streamflow variables, sediment production, channel storage of sediment, hillslope storage of sediment,and erosion and site conditions on undisturbed slopes, harvest units, and road features. These small watershed and process studies haveCHAPTER NINE



### been extremely useful in understanding processes and developing relationships that can be extrapolated to other areas in the NRM. PredictionMethods

In the late 1970s Forest Senice researchers and soil scientists and hydrologists from the Northern and Intermountain Regions of the National Forest System collaboratedin integrating information from small watershed studies and process studies with relevant research from other geographic areas to develop a methodology for estimating the erosional and sedimentation consequences of land management activities (Cline et al. 1981). This Guide for Predicting Sediment Yieldsfrom Forested Watersheds estimates average sediment production over time from harvesting, road building, and fire activities.

This methodology, known as the R1-R4 Sediment Yield Prediction model, was developed principally for national forests and similar lands on watersheds in or generally associatedwith the Idaho batholith, but it has been applied elsewhere in the NRM. 

### A landscape stratification procedure (Wendt, Thompson, and Larson 1975) provides the basic geomorphic response units for assessing erosion and sediment delivery to channels. The procedure provides an estimate of on-site erosion for a given management activity, modifies the amount of erosion according to erosion mitigation measures (best management practices) and general land-unit characteristics, delivers the eroded material to the stream system, and
routes it through the watershed to a critical stream reach. The sediment delivery ratio approach used for sediment routing through channels provides unrealistic sediment supplies in larger watersheds because the effects of channel storage on the attenuation of the sediment wave are not considered. The procedure is widely used on national forest lands, primarily as a land-use planning tool to compare the effects of alternative land management activities on sediment production. It is structured so that new information and local data can be used to refine the procedure; thus, many variations of this procedure now exist.

Megahan, Potyondy, and Seyedbagheri (1992) document application of the sediment yield prediction methodology, as adapted to the Boise National Forest in southern Idaho (Reinig et al. 1991),to compare sediment production from alternative timber harvest activities and wildfire in a major tributary of the South Fork Salmon River (Figure 9-4). Potts, Peterson, and Zuuring (1985) used the R1-R4 model to illustrate the possible effects of wildfire and post-fire timber salvage on sedimentyields in the NRM. There has been limited comparison of modeled versus actual erosion or sediment yields using this procedure (Gerhardt 1992; Ketcheson, Megahan, andKing 1999).The latter comparison was done on

aresearch studyareain the southern part of the Idahobatholith. The evaluation showedthatmodel predictions of on-site erosion were very close to that measured but that predicted sediment delivery to and down streams

was substantially higher than that recorded on study watersheds. TheA Century ofForest and Wildland Watershed Lessons



### researchers conclude that the primary reason for overprediction of sediment delivery to streams is the fact that the Rl-R4 procedure assumes average conditions forlandscape units andignoresroad location in relation to proximity to streams.

1300 2 S 1200 

# 5
I100 Improved roaddesign Maximum mitigation
I 1000 Helicopter logging
E Figure 9-4.Comparisonofmodeled
.1 900 time trend insedimentyieldsfor alter- 

### 2

c 800 native land managementpractices for 

### E SouthFork ofthe Salmon tributary. < 700 0 Source: Megahan, Potyondy, and 

### 2 600 Seyedbagheri (1 992).Reprinted with 

# F

mil pemzission ofthepublishex

400

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 Year


### An effort has been made to develop a basin-scalephysical process model to evaluate cumulative effects of alternative land management activitiesin the Gospel Hump area of the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho. This model consisted of an expansion of the original ROSED model to a watershedscale;itwas adapted to snowrnelt hydrologyconditionsthat are common in central Idaho. The model, called SNOSED (SNOwrnelt-SEDiment) (Simonset al. 1981),included routines for sediment routing on the basis ofmeasured channel conditions.The model was used to compare expected consequences ofvarious long-term land management scenarios on streamflow and sediment production. However, SNOSED was evaluated on a small watershed for which sediment, streamflow, and climatic data were available. The results of the evaluation suggested the need for improvement ofthe model, especiallywith regard to how itmodels subsurface flow, before it can be considered sufficientlyreliable (Barber 1982). 

### DefiningWhat's Allowable

One major problem facing forest managers dealing with sedimentation effects of alternative management practices is to define how much sediment, of what kind, is allowable.There has been some effort toward such
assessmentsin the NRM, but much more needs to be done.Wilson, Patten, and Megahan (1982) used an adaptation of the R1-R4 model on the ClearwaterNational Forest to develop a methodology to define how much change in annual sedimentyield is needed to upset the geomorphic equilibrium of channels in headwater basins. First they made a comparison of R1-R4 predicted versus measured annual sediment yields for nine basins; there was reasonable agreement. Next, watershed characteristics for 

### 65 watersheds were used to predict annual sediment yields for undisturbed conditions and the existing disturbance condition. Low-gradient channel reaches at the mouth of each watershed were sampled for evidence of channel aggradation.The researchers developed a scattergram by plottingCHAPTER NINE

predictedundisturbed sedimentyield for each watershed againstpredicted sediment yield increase from management activities, expressed as a percentage over natural. Points on the scattergramwere labeled for evidence of agg-adationin the channel. There was a clear break between channels with and without aggradation that suggested that increases in annual sedimentyields of about 

### 100percentwere needed to cause channelaggradation.

Defining allowable sediment yield increases is linked most often to the need to know the impacts on beneficialuses, especiallyaquatic habitat and fish populations. In response to this need, fisheries biologists with the USDA Forest Service and the University of Idaho developed the Guide for Predzcting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields inIdaho Baiholiih Watusheds (Stowell et al. 1983). This procedure uses the predicted average annual sedimentyields from the R1-R4 model as input. Relationshipswere developed between predicted sediment yield and existing habitat conditions

on selectedwatersheds and combined with relationshipsbetween habitat conditions andfish populationresponsesfromfield and laboratory studies. This procedure is useful in land management planning to comparerelative differences between management alternatives on fish populations. I-lowever, our ability to predict temporal and spatial responses in downstream habitats resulting from sediment yield increases from upstream land management practices is lacking.

Only limited studieshave been done to develop process-based models of sediment transport and habitat conditions. In one study of a Chinook salmon spawning reach of the South Fork Salmon River, a "salmonid spawning analysis model" was developed to model streamflow and sediment transport through the spawning reach, intrusion of fine sediment into Chinook redds, redd attributes of temperature, particle size distribution, interstitialvelocities, and dissolved oxygen concentration (Havisetal. 1993). This model perlormed well relative to data collected in artificial and natural 1-eddswithin the reach, but it does require calibration and known inputs ofupstream streamflow, sediment,and stream temperature. This model is not directly linked to upstream erosion and sediment generated from forest activities.


### Research Needs

Watershed scientists in the 

### NRM region have made tremendous strides in understanding watershed processes and functions.This understanding has led to the development of useful sediment control methods and assessment tools that find application in management in this region and elsewhere. Nevertheless, we recognize the need for some additional research on erosion and sedimentation in the 

### NRM. Variability in outputs of water and sediment from watersheds was recognized early in the research in this region. There is a need to develop a better understanding of natural variability and the factors influencing it, as well as how natural variability should be factored into decisions about forest management activities. Sediment delivery from upslope erosion sites and sedimentA Century ofForest and Wildland Watershed Lessons

routing connect hillslopes to streams and critical reaches. Progress has been made in understanding the factors influencing routing of sediment, but there is a need to develop practical methods for routing sediment through channel conditionsthat are representativeof mountainous forested watersheds. In addition, we need to know how the delivered sediment affects different channel types or habitats and how this sediment impacts beneficial uses. Although assessment tools such as SNOSED and R1-R4 have been developed in the 

### NRM, there is a need to improve and test prediction models at the watershed scale. Watershed managers are being challenged to provide increasingly precise and robust assessments and to evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple management activities. Watershed models andwatershed assessment tools provide the most effective

means of meeting those demands.

KEY LESSONS LEARNED IN THE NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS

Erosion on rangeland is inversely proportional to ground cover and increases with slope gradient.
Natural surface erosion rates in the NRM region are low. Long-term (1,000-year) erosion rates are an order of magnitude greater than background erosion rates measured at gaging stations, probably reflecting rare major hydrologic or disturbance events.
In the NRM, mass erosion from harvest units is not a major problem.
Roads are a major source of sediment to streams from both surface erosion and mass wasting. Four principles for minimizing erosion from roads are avoiding highhazard (steep, erodible) areas; reducing disturbance caused by roads by minimizing their length and width; designing and treating roads to reduce erosion; and minimizing delivery of sediment to streams. Cumulative effects have been studied using case studies, paired watershed studies, and process studies.
Tools are available to predict sediment impacts from forest operations in this region.
More research is needed to define allowable impacts from forest operations, but one study suggests that an increase of about 100 percent in background sediment loads is needed to cause measurable changes in channel aggradation.

Literature Cited

Barber, B.S. 1982.Application and evaluation of the Gospel-Hump 'SNOSED" model on a small forested water-shedinnorth-central Idaho. Master's thesis, University of Idaho. Bohn, C.C., and W.F. Megahan. 1991. Changes in sediment storage in the South Fork Salmon

River, Idaho. In Proceedings oftheFzfth Federal Interagenq Sedimentation Conference,ed. S. Fan and Y. Kuo, 12-23 to 12-29.March 18-21, 1991, Las Iregas, NV. Washington DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.CHAPTER NINE

Burroughs, E.R., Jn 1985. Survey of slope stability problems on forest lands in the West. In

Proceedings of a Wo-rkshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solu,tions inForest Management. General technical report PhW-180. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Burroughs, E.R., Jr., andJ.G. King. 1985. Surface erosion control on roads in granitic soils. In

Proceedings, WatershedManagement in the Eighties, ed. E.B.Jones and T.J. Ward, 183-90. April 30-May 1, 1985, Denver, GO. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.



### -. 1989.Reduction ofsoil erosion onforest roads. General technical report INT-264. Ogden,UT:

Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and B.R. Thomas. 1977.Declining root strength inDouglaslfir after felling as a

factor in shpe stability. Research paper INT-190. Ogden, UT: In~ermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Burroughs, E.R., Jr., G.R. Chalfant, and M.A. To'ivnsend. 1976. Slope stabili9 in road construction:A

guide to the construction ofstabb roads inwestern Oregon and northern California. Portland: Oregon State Office, US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Chatwin, S.C.,D.E. Howes,J.M': Schwab,andD.N. Swantston. 1994.A guide for management oflandslideprone terrain in the PaciJic Northwest, 2nd ed. Victoria, BC: Research Program, Ministry of Forests. Clayton, J.L. 1981. Soil disturbance caused by cbarcutting and helicopteryarding in theIdaho batholith.

Research note INT-305. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Clayton,J.L., andW.F. Megahan. 1997. Natural erosion rates and their prediction in the Idaho

batholith.Journal oftheAmerican WaterResourcesAssociation (33)589-'703. Cline, R., G. Cole, W.F. Megahan, R. Patten, andJ. Potyondy. 1981. Guide for predicting sediment yields from forested watersheds. Missoula, MT, and Ogden, UT: Northern Region and Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service. Connaughton, C.A. 1935. Forest fires and accelerated erosion.Journal ofForestq 59:751-52. Cook, M. J., andJ.G. King. 1983. Construction cost and erosion control effectiveness ofJilter windrows on

fill slopes. Research note INT-335. Ogden, UT: IntermountainForest and Range Experimental Station, USDA Forest Senice. Craddock,G.W., andC.K. Pearce. 1938.Surface run-ofand erosion ongranitic mountain soils ofIdaho

as injluenced by range cova; soil disturbance, slope, and precipitation intensity. Circular no. 482. Washington, DC: US Department ofAgriculture. Croft,A.R., andJ.A. Adams. 1950.Landslides and sedimentation inthe north fork of OgdenRive? Maj 1949. Research paper 21. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Curtis,J.D., and P.E. Packer. 1951.The ranch that blocked a highway. The Land 10(2):171-76. Elliot, WJ., and D.E. Hall. 1997. Water erosion predictionproject (WP) forest applications. General technical report 365. Ogden, UT: Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Elliot, \V.J., D.E. Hall, and S.R. Graves. 1999. Predicting sedimentationfrom forest roads.Journal

OfForesQ 97(8):23-29. Elliot, MTJ., S.R. Graves, D.E. Hall, andJ.E. Moll. 1998. TheX-DRAIN moss drain spacing and sedimentyield model.Publication 9877-1801. San Dimas, CA: Technology and Development Center, USDA Forest Service. Foltz, R.B. 1995. Sediment reduction from the use of lowered tire pressures. SAE 1994 Transactions, Journal of Commerciallhhicles2(103):37&81. Foltz, R.B., and E.R. Burroughs,Jr. 1990.Sediment production from forestroads with wheel ruts.

InProceedings, Vl'atershedPlanning andAnalysis in Action, 26675.July 9-11, 1990,Durango, CO. NewYork: American Societyof Civil Engineers. Gerhardt,N. 1992.Comparison ofmeasured andmodeled sedimentyields on selected streams of

the Nez Perce National Forest. In 2nd Annual Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Results Workshop.Boise: Division of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Health andWelfare.A Century of Forest and Wildland Watershed Lessons

Gray,D.H.,andW.F. Megahan. 1981.Forest vegetationremovaland slope stabilzty intheIdaho batholith.

Research paper INT-271. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Granger, D.E., J.W. Kirchner, and R. Finkel. 1996. Spatially averaged long-term erosion rates

measured from in-situ cosmogenic nuclides in alluvial sediment.Journal of Geology 104:249-57. Hammond, C.,D. Hall, S. Miller, and P. Swetik. 1992.LevelIstability analyszs (LISA)documentatzon

for version 2.0. General technical report INT-285. Ogden, UT: IntermountainResearch Station, USDA Forest Service. Haupt, H. F. 1959. Road and slope characteristics affecting sediment movement from logging

roads.Journal @Forestry57(5):329-32. Havis, R. N., C. V. Alonso,J. G. King, and R. F. Thurow. 1993. A mathematical model of salmonid

spawninghabitat. Water Resources Bulletin 29(3):435-44. Ketcheson, G.L., and W.F. Megahan. 1996.Sedimentproductzon and downslope sediment transport from forest roads zn granztzc watersheds. Research paper INT-RP-486. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Icetcheson, G.L., W.F. Megahan, andJ.G. King. 1999. "Rl-R4" and "BOISED" sediment yield

prediction model tests using forest roads in granitics.Journal of the Ammcan WaterResources Association35(1):83-98. King, J.G. 1979. Fillslope erosion from forest roads. In Proceedings, 34thMeetingAmm'can Soczety of

Agncultural Enpneers. October 2-5, 1979, Boise, ID. Paper 79-404. St.Joseph, MI: American Society ofAgricultural Engineers.

. 1984. Ongozng studies zn Horse Creek on waterquality and wateryzeld. Technical bulletin 435. New York: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.



### -. 1994. Streamflow and sediment yield responses to forest practices in north Idaho. In

Proceedzngs, Interzor Cedar-Hemlock-White Pine Forests: Ecology and Management, ed. D.M. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, andJ.R. Tonn, 213-20. March 2-4, 1993, Spokane, WA. Pullman: Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University. Kirchner, J.W., R.C. Finkel, C.S. Riebe, D.E. Granger, J.L. Clayton, and W.F. Megahan. 1998.

Episodic erosion of the Idaho batholith inferred from measurements over 10-yearand 10,000- year timescales. Abstract in EOS Supplement, Transactions,Amm'can Geophysical Union79:F338. Love, S.K., and P.C. Benedict. 1948. Dzscharge and sediment loads in the Boise River drainage basin,

Idaho. Water Supplypaper 1048.Washington, DC: US Geological Survey. Mallet,J. 1974.Inventory ofsaEmonand steelhead resources, habitats use and demands. Job Performance Report. Boise: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. McClelland, D.E., R.B. Foltz, W.D. Wilson, T.M! Cundy, R. Heinemann, J.A. Saurbier, and R.L.

Schuster. 1997.Assessment @the 1995 &1996floodsand landslideson the CleanuaterNationalForest. Part 1: Landslide Assessment. USDA Forest Service Report. Missoula, MT: Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. McClelland, D.E., R.B. Foltz, C.M. Falter, W.D. Mrilson, T. Cundy, R.L. Schuster, J. Saurbier, C.

Rabe, andR.Heinemann. 1999. Relativeeffectsona low-volumeroad system of landslides resultingfrom episodic storms in northern Idaho. TransportationResearch Record 1652(2):235-43. McMurtray-Carlton, M.,J.G. King, andL.C. Tennyson. 1982. On-siteerosionon natural and disturbed

sozls, and natural bedload sediment productzon zn first-order drainages in the GospelHump area. Project Completion Report INT-80-115-CA. On file at Boise, ID: Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Meeuwig, R.O. 1969. Infiltration and soil erosion on CoolwaterRidge, Idaho. Research note INT-103.

Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.



### . 1971.Soil stability on high-eleuatzonrangeland inthe intermountainarea. Research paper INT94. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Megahan, W.F. 1974.Erosion overtimeonsevere4 disturbedgranzticsoib:A modcl. Research paper INT156. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.



### -. 1975.Sedimentation in relation to logging activitiesin the mountains of central Idaho. In

Sedzntent-Yzeld Workshop, Proceedings. November 28-30, 1972, Oxford, MS. Report ARS-S-40.CHAPTER NINE

Oxford, MS: Sedirnent Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

-. 1977. Reducing erosional impacts of roads. In Guidelinesfor Watershed Management,

237-61. FA0 Conservation Guide. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

-. 1980. Nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities in the western United States:

Results of recent research and research needs. In US.Forestrj and WaterQuality: Vllzaf Coursein the 80k? AnAnalysis ofEnvironmenta1andEconomic Issues. Proceedings, 92-151. June 19-20, 1980, Richmond, VA. Washington, DC: Water Pollution Control Federation.

-. 1985.Road effects and impacts-watershed. In Forest Transportation Symposium;Proceedings,

57-97. December 11-13, 1984, Casper, T4Y Lakewood, CO: Engineering Staff Unit: Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service. Megahan,T4'.F., and G.L. Ketcheson. 1996.Predicting downslopetravel ofgranitic sediments from

forest roads in Idaho.Joumaal oftheAmerican WaterResourcesAssociation 32(2):371-82. Megahan, W.F., and I4T.J. Kidd. 1972.Effect of logging roads on sediment production rates in the Idaho

batholith. Research paper INT-123. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Megahan, Mr.F.,and P.N. King. 1985. Identification of critical areas on forest lands for control of

nonpoiilt sources of pollution. EnvironmentalManagement 9(1):7-18. Megahan, T4'.F., and D.C. Molitor. 1975. Erosional effects of wildfire and logging in Idaho. In Watershed Management Symposium, American. Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation & Drainage Division,423-44. August 11-13, 1975, Logan, UT. Megahan, W.F., N.F. Day, and T.M. Bliss. 1978. Landslide occurrence in the western and central

northern Rocky Mountain physiographic provinces in Idaho. I11 Forest Soils and Land Use, Proceedings,Fyth NorthAmericanForest Soils Colzference, 126-39. August 6-9, 1978,Ft. Collins, CO. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. Megahan, W.F.,J.G. King, and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1995. Hydrologic and erosional responses of a

granitic watershed to helicopter logging and broadcast burning. Forest Science (41):777-95. Megahan, W.F., W.S. Platts, and B. Kulesza. 1980. Riverbed improves over time: South Fork

Salmon River. In Symposium on Watershed Management, Proceedings, vol. 1, 380-95. July 21-23, 1980,Boise, ID. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers. Megahan, T4T.T.F, J.P. Potyondy, and RA. Seyedbagheri. 1992. Best management practices and cumulative effects from sedimentation in the South Fork Salmon River: An Idaho case study. Chapter 15in WatershedManagement:BalancingSustainabili$ with Environmental Change, ed. R.J. Naiman, 401-14. KewYork: Springer-Verlag. Megahan, \\'.F., K.A. Seyedbagheri, and P.C. Dodson. 1983. Long-term erosion on granitic roadcuts based on exposed tree roots. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 8:19-28. Megahan, JV.F., M.Uiilson, and S.B. Monsen. 2001. Sediment production from granitic cutslopes

onforest roads in Idaho, USA. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms 26(1):1-11. Megahan;W.F., S.B.Monsen, M.D.TVilson, N. Lozano, D.F. Haber, and G.D.Booth. 1992. Erosion

control practices applied to granitic roadfills for forest roads in Idaho: Cost effectiveness evaluation. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 3:55-65. Montgomery, D.R., and W.E. Dietrich. 1994. A physically based model for the topographic

control on shallow landsliding. K'aterResour-ces Research 30:1153-71.
Pacific Watershed ,4ssociates. 1998.Aaial reconnaissance evaluation of recent storm qfects on upla~zd

mountainous watersheds ofIdaho. Arcata, Gk Pacific Watershed Associates. Pack, R.T., D.G. Tarboton, and C.N. Goodwin. 1998. The SINbfAP ,approachto terrain stability

mapping. Proceedings ofthe 8th CongressoftheI?zternational Associatio~a ofEngineeringGeology Sept. 21-25, 1998, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Packer, P.E. 1951.An approach to watershed protection criteria.Journal $Forestry 49(9):639-44.

. 1953. Effects of trampling disturbance on watershed condition, runoff, and erosion. Journal ofForestry 51(1)28-31,

. 1967. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control sediment.Forest Science 13(1):2-18. 221A Century ofForest and Wildland WatershedLessons

Platts, W.S., and W.F. Megahan. 1975.Time trends in riverbed sediment composition in salmon

and steelhead spawningareas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. In NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Proceedings, 229-39. March 16-19, 1975, Pittsburgh, PA. Washington,DC: Wildlice Management Institute. Potts, D.F., D.L. Peterson, andH.R. Zuuring. 1985. Watershedmodeling forfire managementplanning in theNorthern Rocky Mountains. Researchpaper PSW-177. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service. Reinig, L., R.L. Beveridge, J.P. Potyondy, and F.M. Hernandez. 1991. BOISED user's guide and

program documentation. Boise, ID: Boise National Forest,USDA Forest Service. Reid, L.M. 1993.Research and cumulative watershed effects. General technical report PSW-GTR-141.

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Rice, R.M.,J.S. Rothacher, and W.F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional consequences of timber harvesting: An appraisal. In National Symposium on Watershedsin Transition, 321-29. Middleburg, VA: AmericanWater Resources Association. Robichaud, P.R., R.T. Graham, and R.D. Hungerford. 1994. Onsite sediment production and

nutrient lossesfrom a low-severityburn in the interiorNorthwest. InInterior Cedar-Hemlock-White Pine Forests: Ecology and Management, Proceedings, ed. D.M. Baumgartner,J.E. Lotan, andJ.R. Tonn, 227-32. March 2-4, 1993, Spokane. Pullman: Department of Natural Resources, Washington State University. Rosa, J.M., and M.H. Tigerman. 1951. Some methods for relatzng sediment production to watershed

conditions. Research paper No. 26. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,USDA Forest Service. Simons, D.B., R.M. Li, and L.Y. Shiao. 1977.Formulation ofa road sediment model. Report CER76

77DBSRMLLYS50.Fort Collins, CO: Colorado StateUniversity. Simons,D.B., R.M. Li,R.T. Combs,and C.C.Baggs. 1981.Forest managementimpactsonsnowmeltand

rainfallsedimentyield zn mountazn stream,vol. 1. Projectreport. Boise, ID:Intermountain Station, USDA Forest Service. Stowell, R., A. Espinosa, T.C. Bjornn, W.S. Platts, D.C. Burns, andJ.S. Irving. 1983. Guide for predzctzngsalmonid response to sedzment yields inIdaho batholithwatersheds.Missoula,MT and Ogden, UT: Northern Region and Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1940. Run-off and waterflow retardation and soil erosion

prevention for flood control purposes
- The Boise Rivm Survey report. Field Flood Control Coordinating CommitteeNo. 17B.

. 1965.SouthFork SalmonRiver stormandflood rqbort.KrasselRangerDistrict, PayetteNational Forest,USDA Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Emergency watershed protection propam measure, North Fork Boise River

flood, Boise and Elmore Counties, Idaho. Unpublished report. Boise, ID: Boise National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Ward, T.J. 1985. Sediment yield modeling of roadways. In Soil erosion and conservation,ed. S.A. ElSwaify,W.C. Moldenhauer,andA. Lo, 188-99. Ankeny,IA: SoilConservation Society ofAmerica.

. 1994.Modeling delivery of landslide materials to streams. WRRI Report 288. LaCruces: New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Wasniewski, L.W. 1995. Hillslope sediment routing below new forest roads in central Idaho.

Master's thesis, Oregon State University. Wendt, G.E., R.A. Thompson, and K.N. Larson. 1975. Land systems inventmy, BoiseNationalForest,

Idaho: A basic inventoryfor planning and management. Boise, ID: Boise National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Wilson, D., R. Patten, and W.F. Megahan. 1982. A systematicwatershed analysis procedure for

ClearwaterNationalForest. Leachates:Terrain analysis. TransportationResearchRecord 892:50-56. Ziemer, R.R. 1981. Roots and the stability offorested slopes. IAHS publication 132, 343-61.

Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrologic Sciences.

# A 

# Century 

# of Forest 

# and Wildland

Watershed Lessons

George 

### G. Ice and 

### John 

### D. Stednick Editors

Society ofAmerican Foresters Bethesda, MarylandCopyright 02004 by the Society ofAmerican Foresters

Published by The Soclety ofAmerican Foresters 5400 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda,MD 20814-2198 www.safnet.org Tel: (301) 897-8720 Fax: (301) 897-3690 ISBN 0-939970-88-0

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproducedin any form or by any means, electronicor mechanical, including photocopying, recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.Address inquiries to Permissions, SocietyofAmerican Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda,MD 20814-2198.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A centmy of forest and wildlandwatershed lessons I George G.Ice and JohnD. Stednlck,editors.

p. cm. Includesb~bl~ographcal references. ISBN 0-939970-88-0(pbk.) 1.Hydrology, Forest 2 Forestmanagement. 3.Watershed management. I.Ice, George G. I1 Stednick, John D. 111. Soc~ety ofAmerican Foresters.

Printed in the United StatesofAmerica 10987654321

Cover images

ICenneth M. Gale, Dave Powell. SAX archives SAX archives www.forestryimages.org USDA

## ores st Service, www.forestryimages.org