Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 1 

### Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– P acific N orthwest Travel Analysis Reports

Each National Forest (NF) across the U.S. was required to co mplete a Travel Analysis Report by September 2015. The analysis process was to compile/evaluate existing information on each forests road system related to aquatic and terrestrial risks, access benefits and costs. The purpose is to eventually define a minimum road system that is safe and responsive to public needs and desires, affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal ecological effects on the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed management actions, and meets Forest Plan objectives.

Each forest was allowed to develop their own set of criteria to evaluate risks and benefits. Because of this latitude in direction, the criteria used to evaluate risks to aquatic systems is highly variable. There are some similar threads between the forests but it is difficult to understand what and where the road/water problems are. Though, where results were decipherable, often a large percentage of the road system was negatively impacting aquatic systems. Specifically,

• Olympic NF: Approximately 46% (618 miles) of needed ro ads had high risk to aquatics and 60% (409 miles) of unneeded roads had high risk to aquatics

• Gifford Pinchot NF: 28% (1,121.3 miles) were high aquatic risk; 29% (1,156.1 miles) were moderate; and 44% (1,777.8) were low.

• Mt. Baker

– Snoqualmie NF: high aqu atic risk

– 999 miles (41%); medium aquatic risk

– 492 miles (20%)

The following document highlights the criteria chosen to evaluate aquatic risks from two forests in Oregon and four forests in Washington.

Rogue

- River Siskiyou NF , Oregon

• Sediment Delivery

• Roads within Riparian Reserves

• Fish Passage through Road Crossings

• Key or Municipal Watershed Status

Sediment d elivery ; the rating system used to assess the environmental risk of excess sediment entering the stream system is based on five separate GIS analyses . Two of these analyses assign values to roads and three assign values to the impacted watershed. The highest valu e for each road is then combined with the highest value assigned to the impacted watershed in a matrix that assigns the final sedimentation delivery cost associated with that road.

1. Riparian reserves

a. 150 feet ( or 300 feet if fish bearing) contributions to sediment impacts.
2. Sub

- watershed ratings: p ercent of the total stream riparian area in the watershed that is displaced by the area occupied by roads.

a. Low: <7%, Moderate: 7%

- 15%, High >15%
3. Stream crossings f req uency individual road segment r ati ng (stream crossings per mile):

a. Low: <1, Moderate 1

- 3, High >3Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 2 4. Sub

- watershed rating: average number of road crossings per mile of stream within the
watershed.

a. Low: <0.5, Moderate 1

- 3, High >3

5. Road Density (miles/square mile) within the sub

- watershed.

a. Sub

- wa tershed rating: Low: <1.5, Moderate 0.5

- 1.0, High >1.0

Erosion p otential : Used existing information with limited field verification at a coarse scale. Soil erosion layer in GIS which is based on groupings of soil complexes, landslide potential, soil
stabi lity, geological hazard mapping.

1. Individual road segments rating: % of the road segment located within areas of high erosion, landslide potential or geological hazard risk.

a. Low: <5%, Moderate 5%

- 10%, High>10%
2. Sub

- watershed rating: 50% is based on the percentage of road miles within areas with high erosion, landslide potential, or geological hazard risk and 50% based on the percentage of the watershed that includes these areas.

Final sediment delivery impact value is calculated using a matrix that take s into account the direct impacts of each road and the combined impacts of all roads in a particular watershed.

Roads within Riparian Reserves

1. Individual road segments rating : % of the road segment located within one site tree heigh t or 300 feet for fish streams.

a. Low: <10%, Moderate 10%

- 40%, High >40%

Fish Passage through Road Crossings

1. Individual r oad segments rating: road crossings per mile o f road in fish bearing streams.

a. Low: <1, Moderate: 1

- 2, High >2

Key or Municipal Watershed A Key Watershed designation if part of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy where there is a guideline for no net increase in the total miles of road inside these watersheds and an emphasis on reducing the miles of road in areas with high erosion and hi gh sediment delivery potential.

1. Sub

- watershed rating: within a Key Watershed or As hland Creek Municipal Watershed

a. High

– if it is within a key watershed or municipal watershed; low if it is not.

Results (combination of all road risks, not just aquatics): 541 miles high risk (11%), 2543 miles medium risk (49%) and 2,099 miles low risk (40%). Totally road miles

– 5,183

Willamette NF, Oregon
The h ydrologist and fisheries biologist developed a metric to determine risk rankings that looked at both chronic and acute sources of impacts.

Acute sources:Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 3 • Soil instability: % of road length in high instability categories in the Willamette National
Forest S oil Resource Inventory

• Road position: % of road length located mid

- slope along hillsides with over 70% gradient

• Stream crossing density: number of stream crossings per mile of road
Chronic sources:

• Fine sediment potential: % of road miles in 3 categories b ased on road surfacing and proximity to stream crossings

• Riparian proximity: % of road miles within 170’ of perennially flowing (Class 1

- 3) streams

• Proximity to anadromous fish & municipal water sources: % of road miles within 500’ of streams that have threatened or endangered fish, and /or contribute to a municipal watershed (Class 1 streams)

• Proximity to non

- anadromous fish: % of road miles within 500’ of streams with
management indicator species (Class 2 steams)

Gave scores between 1

- 5 (low to high risk) but the report does not include those scores or how they were distributed.

Olympic NF, Washington Defined aquatic risk as the potential for a road segment to damage water quality and fish habitat by causing landslides, introducing sediment, altering riparian areas, or limiting channel movement. Assessed 5 factors using GIS modeling:

1. Geologic hazard
2. Pr oximity to fish habitat
3. Stream crossing density

4. Proximity to stream channels

5. Upslope hazard

Gave scores of High, Medium or Low with about 1/3 in each category. The review team then
looked for stream

- adjacent road segments, potential delivery of sediment t o anadromous fish streams, and potential delivery of sediment to municipal water supplies.
Result: Approximately 46% (618 miles) of needed roads had high risk to aquatics and 60% (409 miles) of unneeded roads had high risk to aquatics.

Future refinements or field verification should include:

• Presence of unstable sidecast material and the potential for failures to initiate landslides
that would deliver sediment to stream channels

• The number and size of existing stream crossings and their associated road fil ls

• The potential for existing culvert to become plugged

• The potential for the road segment to initiate stream diversions

• Potential impacts on floodplains and riparian areas

• Existing culvert fish passage barriers

Colville NF, Washington Looked at water quality , not “aquatic risk”

.

1. Sedimentation into hydrological featuresCompilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 4 a. High

– 41

- 100% of the road is located within high risk rating zones or road is in

sloped with a native surface with more than two perennial or intermittent stream crossings greater than 3% road grade.
b. Medium

– 20

- 40% of the road is located within a high risk rating zone or road is
in

- sloped with a native surface with one o r two perennial or intermittent stream crossings greater than 3% road grade.

c. Low

– road does not meet criteria for medium or high risk
2. Non

- sediment pollution: high risk zones are defined as those within 300 feet of stream reaches or potential of Total Maxi mum Daily Load concerns, and/or dispersed camping sites and/or associated human activity, and/or cattle access provided at road

- stream crossing.

a. High

– 100% of the road is located within high risk rating zones OR the road has two or more dispersed camping sites and associated human activity within 300 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream OR road has two or more perennial or intermittent stream crossings where cattle have access.
b. Medium

– 2

- 5% of the road is located within high risk rating zones OR roa d has one dispersed camping site and associated human activity within 300’ of a perennial or intermittent stream OR road has one perennial or intermittent stream crossing where cattle have access.

c. Low

– road does not meet criteria for medium or high risk.
3. Disruption of groundwater flow and negative hydrologic surface connectivity. High risk zones are when the road is located within the riparian area and/or floodplain (300 feet from stream edge.) Parallel roads on slopes also disrupt flows.

a. High: 5

- 100% of the road is located within high risk rating zone OR 5

- 100% of road is within 300’ of perennial or intermittent stream OR there are more than 2 parallel roads (stacked roads) on slopes over 30% between the perennial or intermittent stream and ridge.
b. Medium : 0

- 5% of the road is located within a high risk rating zone OR 0

- 5% of the road is within 300’ of perennial or intermittent stream OR there are 1

- 2 parallel roads (stacked roads) on slopes over 30% between the perennial or intermittent stream and ridge.

c. L ow

- road does not meet criteria for medium or high risk.

4. Sedimentation into hydrological features because roads that cross streams can prevent or inhibit fish passage.

a. High: road has 2 or more crossings on Class 1 or 2 streams
b. Medium: road has 1 stream cr ossing on Class 1 or 2 streams

c. Low: road has no stream crossings on Class 1 or 2 streams

5. Impact on bull trout, cutthroat trout, redband trout and designated critical habitat where high risk zones are roads within 300’ of water documented to have listed fish or designated critical habitat.

a. High: 51

- 100% of the road is located within high risk rating zones OR the road has 2 or more stream crossings on water documented to have listed fish or
de signated critical habitat.
b. Medium: 1

- 50% of the road is located within high risk rating zones of water documented to have listed fish OR the road has 1 stream crossing on water
documented to have listed fish or critical habitat.Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 5 c. Low

– 0% of the road is located within high risk rating zones of water documented to have listed fish OR the road has no stream crossing on water
documented to have listed fish or critical habitat.

Results of the aquatic risks were not easily discernable.

Gifford Pinchot NF, Washington This forest assessed six criteria for aquatic risks and used “professional judgment” to base the
level of risk.

1. Fish bearing crossings: road segment c rosses a fish

- bearing stream

a. High

– road crosses the GPNF mapped distribution and/or the critical habitat designated by US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for the Endangered Species Act listed species: lower Co lumbia River coho, Chinook and steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout.
b. Moderate

– road crosses the GPNF mapped distribution of non

- ESA

- listed fish species.

c. No Risk

– road does not cross any mapped fish bearing streams.
2. Fish culvert barriers: road culvert is a barrier to fish migration

a. High

- road segment has a culvert barrier blocking 0.1 miles or greater of fish
habitat.
b. Moderate

- road segment has a culvert barrier blocking less than 0.1 miles of fish
habitat.

c. No Risk

- road segment does not have a culve rt barrier.
3. Stream crossings: road segment crosses stream Crossings per road segment for road segments less than 1 mile :

a. High

- equal to or greater than 3 stream crossings.
b. Moderate

- 1 or 2 stream crossings.

c. No Risk

- no crossings. Average Crossings per mile for road segments 1 mile or longer : d. High

- equal to or greater than 3.0 stream crossings per mile.

e. Moderate

- up to 3.0 stream crossings per mile.
f. No Risk

- no crossings.
4. Sediment delivery: road segment produces sediment from road surface and delivers t o
streams

a. High

- relative high rate of sediment delivery from road surfaces to streams.
b. Moderate

- relative low rate of sediment delivery from road surfaces to streams.

c. No Risk

- no delivery to streams (no stream crossings and road not near stream).
d. Not Rated

- road segment was not rated for this criterion.

5. Mass wasting: road segment crosses known landslides or potentially unstable soils

a. High

- road segment crosses known landslides.
b. Moderate

- road segment crosses potentially unstable soils.

c. No Risk

- road segme nt does not cross known landslides or potentially unstable soils.
d. Not Rated

- road segment was not rated for this criterion.
6. Riparian occupancy: road segment is within riparian reserve for stream, lakes, ponds
and wetlands

a. High

- road segment is within Rip arian Reserve for 0.3 continuous miles or greater.Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 6 b. Moderate

- road segment is within Riparian Reserve for 0.2

- 0.29 continuous miles.

c. No Risk

- road segment is not within Riparian Reserve for stretches over 0.19 miles.

Results: 28% (1,121.3 miles) were high aquatic risk; 29% (1,156.1 miles) were moderate; and 44% (1,777.8) were low

.

Mt. Baker

- Snoqualmie NF, Washington

Aquatic Resource Potential Risk Factors Assessment
The roads

- aquatic resource risk factors rated for each road segment, were the following factors of potential failure:

1. location of road segment in Washington State rain

- on

- snow zone and type of contributing upslope area

a. 2 = rain

- on

- snow (1500’

– 3500’ z one)
b. 1 = rain or snow dominated (rain: 500’

- 1500’; snow: 3500’

- 5500’)

c. 0 = lowland or highland (lowland: 5500’)

2. percent of area occupied by road on unstable soils, highly eroded glacial, alluvial fan, or recessional outwash deposits and highly fractured / unstable base geology

a. 5 = over 50 percent b. 3 = 31

- 50 percent

c. 2 = 10

- 30 percent d. 0 = < 10 percent
3. history of road associated failures from sources which have not been corrected includes replace

- in

- kind that have not been sized larger or replaced by a bri dge; culvert spacing is too far for amount of runoff; large debris load existing up the channel

a. 2 = repeated
b. 1 = some

c. 0 = no history

4. number of large channel crossing culverts (>36” diameter or with >3’ of fill)

a. 2 = more than one

b. 1 = one

c. 0 = none

5. num ber of channel crossings per 500 feet of road (using GIS stream and road layers)

a. 2 = 3 or more crossings

b. 1 = 2 crossings

c. 0 = no crossings

6. method of construction: if constructed before 1970, assume sidecast excavation, if constructed after 1970, assume layer placement excavation

a. 2 = sidecast

b. 1 = layer placement

c. 0 = full bench

7. average side slope of road

a. 3 = > 60 percent

b. 2 = 40

- 60 percent

c. 0 = < 40 percentCompilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 7 8. vegetative cover: percent of area above road seg ment having stand age of >35 years (use either stand year of origin or young stands 0

- 5, 6

- 30, 31+ years GIS data layers; if no GIS available, use aerial photos)

a. 3 = <20%

b. 2 = 20

- 49%

c. 1 = 50

- 70%

d. 0 = >70%
9. road stacking upslope from the road segment; if the r oad segment is a mid

- slope road, rate as 1 even if there is not a road segment upslope. If the road segment upslope is a ridge

- top road, rate as 1 rather than a 2)

a. 3 = two or more segments above
b. 2 = one segments above

c. 1 = road segment is a ridge top seg ment

In addition to these potential risk factors, the following “consequence of failure” factors were identified and rated according to a 1

– 4 scoring key:

a. bench, terrace, or floodplain of enough size to trap potential failure debris (organic and inorg anic) is present between the road and any channel, wetland, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource ........................................1

no bench, terrace or floodplain of enough size to trap potential failure debris (organic and inorganic) is present between the road and any channel, wetland, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource ............................ go to b

b. average side slope below the road segment is < 20 percent; channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource > 50 feet from the road...... ..1

perennial channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource < 50
feet from the road ...................................................................2

average side slope below the road is > 20 perc ent ............................ go to c

c. average side slope below the road is > 20 percent and < 40 percent; channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource > 1000 feet from the
road ......................................................................................... 1

channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource > 5 00 feet but
<1000 feet from the road.....................................2

perennial channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural resource < 500 feet from the road .............................................................. .... 2

average side slope below the road is > 40 percent .............................. go to d

d. average side slope below the road > 40 percent and intermittent channels >1500 feet from the road and no wetlands, infrastructure, or other valuable natural
resource below the road ................................................................................... 1Compilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 8 perennia l channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other natural resource > 1500 feet
from the road .............................................................................. 2

intermittent channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other natural resource > 500 feet
but < 1500 feet from road ....................................................... ......... 2

perennial channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other natural resource >500 feet
but < 1500 feet from road ..................................................................... 3

intermittent channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other natural resource < 500 feet
from road ........................................ ............................................ 3

perennial channels, wetlands, infrastructure, or other natural resource < 500 feet
from the road ............................................................................... 4

The overall risk rating was obtained by multiplying the sum of the potential for failure scores (J) by the consequence of failure score (K), placing more emphasis of the effects of potential failure rather than just the probability of failure. The followin g table depicts this overall aquatic risk factor rating procedure:

Road Segment # Potential for
Failure Factors
Scores
A B C D E F G H I Sum of A

– I Failure Scores (J) Consequence of
Failure Score (K) Overall Risk Rating Score (J x K)

2560

- 120 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 12
2250

- 155 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 13 2 26
2620

- 100 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 14 3 42

Aquatic Resource Values Assessment : The six aquatic resource values were rated by the following High, Medium, Low procedure. (1) Fish Passage Needs (Risk) High = presence of both anadromous and resident fish with 1⁄4 mile or more of habitat could be made accessible Medium = presence of only resident
fish with 1⁄4 mile or more of habitat could be made accessible Low = less than 1⁄4 mil e of habitat made accessible or presence of no fish passage problem

(2) Key Watershed Designation (Value or Use) High = yes, contains Chinook salmon, steelhead and / or bull trout Medium = no, but contains Chinook salmon, steelhead or bull trout Low = no, and does not contain Chinook salmon, steelhead or bull trout

(3) P roximity to Riparian Reserves (Value or Use) High = within riparian reserves having fish bearing channels Medium = within riparian reserves but not having fish bearing channels Low = no within a riparian reserve

(4) Watershed Analysis (WA) & Watershed Re storation (WR) Status (Value or Use) High = road restoration work recommended in WA, opportunities existing for WR Medium = no road restoration work recommended in WA, but information exist about potentialCompilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 9 for WR Low = no road restoration recommended, and no restoration potential known;
no WA done

(5) Water Quality Value (Clean Water Act 303(d) Listed Water Body (Value or Use) High = road or road segment is within contributing area to water body listed for a water quality/quantity parameter or characteris tic considered to be directly sensitive to road management (fine sediment, turbidity, etc.) Medium = road or road segment is within contributing area to water body listed for a water quality/quantity parameter or characteristic considered to be indirectly sensitive to road management (temperature, dissolved oxygen, fish habitat) Low = road or road segment does not contribute to a listed water body, or the water body is listed for a water quality/quantity parameter not sensitive to road management

(6) Muni cipal Watershed (Value or Use) High = road or road segment lies within contributing area of a large municipal watershed (city of Bellingham, Everett, Tacoma, etc.) Medium = road or road segment lies within contributing area of a small municipal watershed ( Verlot, Maple Falls, Glacier, etc.) Low = road or road segment does not lie within contributing area of an municipal watershed As stated before all these aquatic resource values, except for fish passage were assigned these ratings at the fifth

- field

waters hed scale. Fish Passage ratings were applied to each road segment.

Combining the Aquatic Potential Risk Factors and Aquatic Resource Values With both the aquatic risk rating and the aquatic value rating, the next step was to combine these two procedures in order to provide the overall road analysis process one aquatic resource assessment rating to be consistent with other resources of concern (vegetation, wildlife, and heritage resources). This was obtained using the matrix below:

Matrix for Rating Aquatic Resources (Risk Factors + Values)
Factor or Value High Medium Low Composite Risk Factor Rating (A) Composite score of 27
or greater Composite score between 15

– 26 Composite score of 14
or less Fish Passage Needs (B ) Anadromous & resident fish present,
1⁄4 mile or more
habitat Only resident fish present with 1⁄4 mile
or more of habitat Less than 1⁄4 mile
habitat or no fish
present

Key Watershed Status (1) Yes, contains listed
ESA listed fish No, but contains ESA
listed fish No, and does not
contain ESA listed fish Proximity to Riparian Reserves (2) Within riparian reserves having fish bearing channels With riparian reserves
but does not have fish bearing channels Not within an riparian

reserve

WA and WR Status (3) Road restoration
recommended in WA and opportunities
exist for WR No road restoration recommended in WA, but opportunities
exist for WR No road restoration
recommended and no opportunities

Water Quality Status (4) Within an area with impaired water body Within an area with impaired water body Not within an area with impaired waterCompilation of Risk Factors to Aquatic Resources from U.S. Forest Service

– Pacific Northwest Travel Analysis Reports April 2015 10 directly affecting a WQ parameter indirectly affecting a WQ parameter body o r WQ parameter not affected Municipal Watershed
Status (5) Within an area of large municipal
watershed Within an area of a small municipal
watershed Not within a municipal watershed

In rating both aquatic risk factors and aquatic values, more impor tance was assigned to the composite risk factor rating (A) and the aquatic value of fish passage (B). The overall aquatic resource rating for each road segment was obtained by following scoring scheme:

• If both (A) and (B) is rated High, regardless of the ratings for (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) then overall rating is High

• If either (A) or (B) is rated High, and 3 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is High

• If either (A) or (B) is rated High, and 2 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is Medium

• If either (A) or (B) is rated High, and just 1 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is Low

• If (A) or (B) is rated Medium, and 4 or 5 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is High If (A) or (B) is rated Medium, and 3 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is Medium If (A) or (B) is rated Medium, and 1 or 2 of (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) is rated High, then overall rating is Low If (A) and (B) is rated low, regardless of the ratings for (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), then overall rating is Low

Results: Nearly 41% of the total road system (2,440 miles) has a resource concern of medium or high. The listing of numerous species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and a large amount of unstable landscapes contribute to the high mileage of
resource concern roads. high aquatic risk

– 999 miles (41%) medium aquatic risk

– 492 miles (20%)