This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 17 October 2014, At: 14:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction adjacent

to a river with a federally listed threatened fish
species
a a
Pamela M. Gunther & James Winfrey
a
Parametrix Inc , 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800, Bellevue , WA , 980045571 , USA E-
mail:
b
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest , 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko , NV , 89801 E-mail:
Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Pamela M. Gunther & James Winfrey (2005) Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction adjacent
to a river with a federally listed threatened fish species, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23:1, 17-27, DOI:
10.3152/147154605781765788

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765788

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 23, number 1, March 2005, pages 17–27, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
Road reconstruction
Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
adjacent to a river with a federally listed
threatened fish species
Pamela M Gunther and James Winfrey
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
Biodiversity assessment methods and analyses
were incorporated into an environmental impact
assessment for road reconstruction on US
National Forest System lands immediately adja-
cent to the Jarbidge River, the only place in Ne-
vada where bull trout, a federally listed fish
species of the western USA, occurs. The road had
been washed out by a natural flood. The biodiver-
sity analysis incorporated: floodplains; fisheries;
earth movement and landslides; soil, erosion, and
geomorphology; water quality; vegetation and
wetlands; and wildlife. Alternatives were selected
based on public comments identified during scop-
ing. The biodiversity analysis focused on sustain-
ability of the road for long-term use and protection
of bull trout and associated riparian habitat.
Keywords: sustainability; biodiversity; threatened species;
fish; environmental impact statement; alternatives
Pamela Gunther is an environmental consultant at Parametrix
Inc (responsible for preparing the EIS for the US Forest Ser-
vice), 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800, Bellevue, WA 98004-
5571, USA; E-mail: pgunther@parametrix.com. James Winfrey
is the US Forest Service project manager at the Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko, NV
89801; E-mail: jwinfrey@fs.fed.us. Contributing biodiversity
EIS interdisciplinary specialists include Robert Kimmerling,
Steve Evans, Margaret Spence, Jim Glassley, Susan Wessman,
Nick Stackelberg, Jenna Friebel, Bruce Stoker, Colin Worsley,
Peter Lawson, and Julie Grialou.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005
T
HE US FOREST SERVICE (USFS) proposed
to reestablish passenger vehicle access on the
2.2-mile South Canyon Road that provides an
entry point to the Jarbidge Wilderness in the Hum-
boldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada, USA. The
road was washed out in 1995 during a naturally oc-
curring flood. Since 1995, there have been several
attempts by the USFS to legally reestablish road ac-
cess. The difficulty was because of a June 1998
threatened fish species listing by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) in the Jarbidge River (USFWS 1998;
1999). The South Canyon Road is immediately adja-
cent to the Jarbidge River, which supports the south-
ernmost population of bull trout in the USA.
When the USFS published its first environmental
assessment in 1997 to reestablish the road and deter-
mined a finding of ‘no significant impact’ (USFS,
1997a), Trout Unlimited (an environmental organiza-
tion) filed an appeal against the USFS decision to
proceed with road restoration. Since the USFS pre-
pared a second environmental assessment, actions
were then taken by Nevada Elko County Commis-
sioners and the Elko County Road Department to
physically reconstruct the road; this was then halted
by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
Subsequently, in August 1998, the USFWS an-
nounced an emergency listing of bull trout as a feder-
ally endangered species (USFWS, 1998) under
the Endangered Species Act. In April 1999, bull trout
were formally listed as threatened (USFWS, 1999).
Over the next five years, South Canyon Road reestab-
lishment has been in US courts, mediation, and subject
1461-5517/05/010017-11 US$08.00  IAIA 2005 17
 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
to a subsequent settlement agreement on road damage,
reestablishment, ownership, and management.
Passed in 1973 and reauthorized in 1988, the US
Endangered Species Act regulates a wide range of ac-
tivities affecting plants and animals designated as en-
dangered or threatened. By definition, an endangered
species is an animal or plant listed by regulation as
being in danger of extinction. A threatened species is
any animal or plant that is likely to become endan-
gered within the foreseeable future. All federal agen-
cies are required to undertake programs for the
conservation of endangered and threatened species,
and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or
carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed
species or destroy or modify its critical habitat.
Bull trout historically occurred in major river
drainages in the Pacific Northwest from northern
California and Nevada to the headwaters of the
Yukon River, Canada, eastward to the headwaters of
the Columbia River drainages, and into the Sas-
katchewan River in Canada (Cavender, 1978). They
are widely distributed across their range but their dis-
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
tribution tends to be very patchy, even in pristine en-
vironments (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). They have
been extirpated from many of the large rivers within
their historic range and exist primarily in isolated
headwater populations. The decline of bull trout has
been attributed to habitat degradation, blockage of
migratory corridors by dams, poor water quality, the
introduction of non-native species, and the effects of
past fish management practices (USFWS, 1998).
Project need and location
In March 2002, the USFS decided to initiate public
scoping for preparing an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS) to determine whether, and how, South
Canyon Road should be established. The project area
for the environmental analysis is focused on 0.50 mile
corridor along the 2.2-mile South Canyon Road and
11 miles of the Charleston–Jarbidge Road, the latter
of which is the only road that provides access to South
Canyon Road. Both roads are generally within 300
feet of the Jarbidge River, and mostly within 100 feet.
The roads are located in a deep narrow valley.
The town of Jarbidge, with approximately 100
mostly seasonal homes, is located along the Charles-
ton–Jarbidge Road. It was established after gold was
discovered along the river in 1910. Lands surrounding
the area are otherwise rural in character and are primar-
ily owned by two federal agencies (Bureau of Land
Management and USFS). This area of north central Ne-
vada is considered remote and is not easily accessible.
Methods
For the EIS, the USFS hired private contractors to
conduct natural resource field surveys, collect data,
use a USFS geographical information system (GIS)
18
database, and conduct quantitative and qualitative
analyses to display the environmental effects of the
different EIS action alternatives for road reestab-
lishment. A no-action alternative was also developed
whereby the road would remain unchanged from ex-
isting conditions. The USFS managed the contrac-
tors and was ultimately responsible for all written
products and decisions made in the EIS.
Field surveys were conducted to obtain informa-
tion on:
• the location of sensitive soils in the project area
(DEA and Portage Environmental Inc, 2002; DEA
and JBR Environmental Consultants Inc, 2002);
• the potential for mass earth movement locations
and alternative road and burrow locations (PanGeo,
2003);
• the presence of endangered, threatened, and sensi-
tive wildlife, fish, and plant species (Grialou and
Worsley, 2002; Pfeifer et al, 2002; O’Farrell
Biological Consulting, 2002);
• mapping of the 100-year floodplain (Stackelberg
and Friebel, 2003), development of a proposed
road management plan and water projects for
mitigation (USFS 2001, 2003a), wetland delinea-
tion and development of a weed-management plan
(USFS 2002a, Worsley 2003), and review of rec-
reational campground conditions, trails, and other
recreational opportunities in the project area.
Although project resource specialists conducted
evaluations of land uses in the project vicinity —
recreation, scenic quality, socioeconomics, public
services, utilities, cultural resources, and water qual-
ity — this article focuses on biodiversity resource is-
sues. For a complete EIS analysis, refer to USFS
(2003b). These social and physical elements were
considered equally important in the USFS evaluation
of alternatives.
The biodiversity analysis relied on an existing and
updated USFS GIS database, aerial photography,
data collected from field surveys, and background
information provided by agencies and relevant pub-
lications. Most quantifiable information displayed in
this publication is from GIS analysis, and AutoCAD.
The USFS initiated public scoping by: mailing
brochures to agencies, organizations, and individuals
on a Forest-wide mailing list; publishing newspaper
notices and a notice in the Federal Register; and
holding public meetings in four cities located in Ne-
vada and Idaho. Public comment was received at
public meetings and from written letters. Analysis
issues were developed from public comment and in-
ternal USFS discussion by resource specialists. The
issues were used to develop project alternatives.
Project issues that influenced alternative develop-
ment were:
• quality of recreational and wilderness experience,
• transportation access and use,
• aquatic habitat and bull trout presence,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005
 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction

• road sustainability, and

• location and availability of soil borrow areas for
road reconstruction. Seven project alternatives were
developed that focused on whether
Seven project alternatives were then developed that reestablishment would occur as a road
focused on whether reestablishment would occur as a
road or trail, alignment of the road at flood washout or trail, alignment of the road at flood
areas and bridges, and road-use options (Table 1 and washout areas and bridges, and road-
Figure 1). Different recreation options at the existing
campgrounds were included as alternative compo-
use options
nents but are not discussed further for this biodiver-
sity review. In addition, all action alternatives

Table 1. South Canyon Road alternative comparison

Alternative Usage Starting pointb Fox Creek 1995 flood washout areas
bridges/
existing road 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
(narrows) (Lower Fox (Gorge (Snowslide
Creek bridge) Gulch) Gulch)
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014

Alternatives 1 4-wheel-drive, South of Pine Both bridges and Low-water Low-water Low-water Avoided,
and 7a – horse, hiker, ATV Creek road remain as is crossing crossing crossing trail upslope
no-action (all-terrain Campground
(road and trail) vehicles)
Alternative 2 – Hiker, horse Pine Creek Remove both Avoided, Avoided, Avoided, Avoided,
Trail Campground bridges; reclaim trail upslope trail upslope trail upslope trail upslope
Option 2a – non- existing road
motorized
(18- to 24-inch
width)
Option 2b – Hiker, horse, ATV
motorized (42-inch
width)
Alternative 3 – Passenger Pine Creek Replace both Retaining Move Low-water Avoided,
Road and non- vehicle, crew-cab Campground bridges; reclaim wall; elevate crossing crossing with trail upslope
motorized trail pickup with 4- existing road road east of south to a minor
(18- to 24-inch horse trailer up to river narrower realignment
width) Urdahl crossing
Campground, location; new
horse, hiker, ATV bridge
(road only) elevated road
as needed
Alternative 4 – Passenger South of Pine Repair lower Gabion rock Reconstruct Culvert River
Elko County vehicle, crew-cab Creek bridge use upper and fill river bridge and crossing; river relocation to
proposal pickup with 4- Campground bridge; existing relocation approaches; relocation allow use of
horse trailer, road remains in river historical road
horse, hiker, ATV place relocation location
Alternative 5 – Passenger Pine Creek Remove both Avoided, Avoided, Avoided, Avoided,
Lower-Slope Road vehicle, crew-cab Campground bridges; reclaim road upslope road upslope road upslope road upslope
Option 5a – pickup with 4- existing road
steeper than horse trailer, except where
1.5H:1V cutslopes horse, hiker, ATV needed to access
and fillslopesc Urdahl
campground and
Option 5b – up to where not an
1.5H:1V cutslopes alternative
and fillslopesc component
Alternative 6 – Passenger 1,200 ft north of Remove both Avoided, Avoided, Avoided, Avoided,
Mid-slope road vehicle, crew-cab Pine Creek bridges reclaim road upslope road upslope road upslope road upslope
Option 6a – pickup with 4- Campground existing road
steeper than horse trailer,
1.5H:1V cutslopes horse, hiker, ATV
and fillslopesc
Option 6b – up to
1.5H:1V cutslopes
and fillslopesc
a
Notes: Alternative 7 actions only apply to the Charleston–Jarbidge Road: no action would occur on South Canyon Road under alternative 7
b
The South Canyon Road or trail terminates at the Snowslide Gulch Trailhead for all alternatives
c
Comparison of the amount of cutslope to fillslope, where 1H:1V or greater has a slope of 70% or greater

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005 19

 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014

Figure 1. Jarbidge Canyon existing conditions

included a new road maintenance plan for the
Charleston–Jarbidge Road, but this plan is not dis-
cussed further in this article.
In summary, alternative 1 was the no-action alter-
native, alternative 2 was a trail, alternatives 3 and 4
involved road reconstruction in the valley bottom (al-
ternative 3 also included a non-motorized trail in the
more sensitive areas), and alternatives 5 and 6 repre-
sented road reconstruction at higher locations away
from the river across the steep valley slope. Alterna-
tive 7 was the same as alternative 1, with the addition
of planned road improvements on Charleston–
Jarbidge Road. The South Canyon Road costs in
American dollars are provided in Table 2. Alterna-
tives 1 and 7 are not included in the table, because
no South Canyon Road improvements would occur
for these alternatives.
Results
The environmental analysis focused on 11 resource
components (land use and ownership; transportation;
recreation and scenery; socioeconomics, public

Table 2. South Canyon Road costs ($ thousands)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Aa Ba Aa Ba Aa Ba

Reclamation
Preparation costs 120.0 120.0 252.8 30.0 125.5 775.9 157.7 870.4
Erosion control and 78.0 78.0 10.2 0.0 0.6 0.6 14.4 14.4
planting costs
River relocation 532.0
Subtotal 198.0 198.0 263.0 562.0 126.1 776.5 172.1 884.8
Construction
Preparation costs 23.2 27.6 91.0 80.1 32.0 80.5 94.0 94.0
Grading costs 33.5 78.0 142.0 50.0 278.0 124.0 410.0 187.0
Structure costsb 0.0 0.0 1,946.8 95.0 200.0 6,800.0 50.0 7,400.0
Erosion control and 74.4 93.6 79.5 88.7 106.6 106.6
planting costs
Subtotal 56.7 105.6 2,254.2 318.7 589.5 7,093.2 660.6 7,787.6
Total costsc 338.7 403.8 3,347.9 1,171.3 951.8 10,466.7 1,107.5 11,534.3
a
Notes: Refer to Table 1 for a description of options within alternatives
b
All new bridges would be 15ft wide and 50ft long; bridges would be designed to pass the 100-year flood and associated debris
with the abutments outside the 50-year floodplain; bridge costs were determined using $150 per 2ft
c
Included in total costs but not shown in this table are contingencies (10%), preliminary engineering (15%), and construction
engineering (8%), which are added to the sum of preparation, grading, structures, and erosion control and planting

20 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005


services and utilities; cultural resources; geology,
mass wasting (earth movement and landslides) and
soils; floodplains; water quality; vegetation (includ-
ing wetlands and weed management); fisheries; and
wildlife), many of which are considered biodiversity
components and those are discussed further below.
Soils
Surface erosion from the road and fill surfaces was
estimated for each alternative based on the USFS in-
terfaces for the Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model (Elliot et al, 1999). The WEPP
model uses the road gradient, road width and gradi-
ent, road surface material, fill width and gradient,
and distance between cross-drains or drainage
length. Weather conditions for the Jarbidge area for
a 30-year period were used for the comparison
among alternatives.
Table 3 indicates the relative change in surface
erosion from the road surface for each alternative
configuration when compared to alternative 1, which
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
is considered the baseline. Alternative 2 (trail)
would have the least land disturbance, thus resulting
in minimal erosion. Alternative 6 would have the
greatest land disturbance on steep slopes, resulting
in more annual road surface erosion.
The valley wall soils (where alternatives 5 and 6
are located) are typically sandy loams with moderate
to high surface runoff potential. The valley bottom
(where alternatives 1-4 and 7 are located) consists of
very cobbley, sandy loam with low to very low run-
off potential (DEA and JBR Environmental Consult-
ants, 2002). Both the valley wall and valley bottom
soils have a slight to moderate surface erosion haz-
ard when undisturbed. When disturbed and com-
pacted for roads, the road surface and fill has a high
potential for surface runoff and erosion, as shown in
Table 3.
The main factors that influence the amount of ero-
sion from the road and delivery to the river are the
length of road, road gradient, distance of the road
from the live channel, road configuration and mainte-
nance level, and amount of road traffic during wet pe-
riods. Road surface erosion and delivery to the river
mostly consists of sand and fines. However, because
Table 3. Disturbance length and change in trail and road surface erosion
Alternative Road lengtha Trail lengtha
(ft) (ft)
1, 7 3,048 5,166
2 8,705
3 4,971 3,735
4 8,282
5 7,890
6 9,291
a
Note: Length of area down to roads is for disturbed portions only
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005
Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
of the relatively low road density in the basin, sedi-
ment quantities introduced to the river from roadbed
sources are small compared to the sediment quantities
introduced to the river from bank erosion and tribu-
tary creek sources. Alternative 2 has the lowest poten-
tial to affect surface erosion because less area is
disturbed than in other scenarios. Alternatives 3 and 4
have a higher erosion prediction resulting from the
expected construction disturbance near the river,
whereas alternatives 5 and 6 have a high potential for
erosion because they are on steeper soils, and there
would be construction disturbance.
Mass wasting and road sustainability
Because alternative 1 has no road improvements or
demolition activities, there would be no effects re-
lated to in-stream work, excavation or filling, river
training, or borrow or waste areas. However, this al-
ternative would result in continued vulnerability of
the remaining portions of the road and/or trail to
natural mass wasting events from the Bonanza,
Gorge, and Snowslide gulches that could further
damage the existing road alignment.
The unprotected portions of the remaining road-
way sections would continue to be vulnerable to ero-
sion as the river changes course as a result of
aggradation at the mouths of the tributary gulches.
Bonanza, Gorge, and Snowslide gulches are the
three main locations where mass wasting processes
have been active in the past. They coincide with the
lowest observed levels of road sustainability. This
vulnerability is also likely to occur in the alterna-
tives closer to the river and valley bottom (alter-
natives 1-4 and 7) than those that are located higher
on the valley slope (5 and 6).
The relative importance of identified hazards to
road sustainability is presented for each alternative
in Table 4. The floodplain hazards include debris
flow mass wasting events. These alternatives are
vulnerable to periodic washouts at the mouths of the
tributaries that are subject to debris flows (Bonanza,
Gorge, and Snowslide gulches). The alternatives
would also be affected by the recurrent influx of ad-
ditional sediments through mass wasting events, es-
pecially debris flows.
Total lengtha Percentage change in mean annual road surface
(ft) erosion compared to alternative 1
8,214 baseline (0)
8,705 62% less
8,706 81% more
8,282 135% more
7,890 151% more
9,291 282% more
21
 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction

Table 4. Relative hazard assessment of mass wasting processes for South Canyon Road by alternative

Alternative Debris flow Confined Channel lateral Rockfall Avalanche Other mass wasting
events on river reaches migration processes
(landslide, soil creep)

1, 7 High Medium High Low Low Low

2 High Low Low Low Low Low
3 High Medium High Low Low Low
4 High High High Low Low Low
5 Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
6 Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate

Periodic debris flows and floods release the ma-
jority of their sediment load in the transition be-
tween the higher-gradient tributary channels
(average gradient of 16% for Bonanza, Gorge, and
Snowslide gulches) to the lower-gradient Jarbidge
River channel (about 4% to 6% gradient). In-valley
alternatives would be impacted periodically by these
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
The alignment alternatives on the valley bottom
are less vulnerable to slope process hazards than
alignments on slopes. Soil creep, raveling, and rock-
fall have the potential for relatively low impact on
the in-valley alignments, though some sections of
the alignments that are along the base of the valley
slopes may receive some material from these mass

influxes of sediment. Depending on the size of the
individual event, the direct effects may damage or
destroy up to several hundred feet of road alignment
in the areas downstream of the tributary mouths
unless the road grade is built up and the road prism
slope is armored. The impacts would be through a
combination of direct deposition of gravel, cobble,
and boulder material in project alignments and ero-
sion of roads or trails by shifting channels.
In addition to the immediate alignment impacts
resulting from debris flows, the sediment loads
would have long-term effects on the remaining por-
tions of the alignments. The sediment deposits left
by the flows migrate downstream over time, filling
additional portions of the stream channel, forcing
lateral migration and/or changing the active river
channels (USFS 1997b; 2002b). It is likely that this
process is most responsible for the first and second
washouts resulting from the 1995 event. Areas that
are most vulnerable to sediment migration effects in
the long term are the narrow portions of the valley,
such as at the first washout and between the Urdahl
campground and Snowslide Gulch.
wasting processes. Avalanches would have minor
impacts in general, as they deliver limited amounts
of debris (DEA and Portage Environmental Inc,
2002). Avalanches may cause road closures in heavy
snow years. Impacts would generally be restricted to
delivery of rock and other debris on the roadway
during spring melt and/or freeze–thaw cycles.
Table 5 summarizes the relative risk to road/trail
sustainability as a function of mass wasting processes,
by alternative. For the purposes of this comparison, a
low level of risk would be consistent with an expecta-
tion that road service loss is infrequent or non-existent
during the life expectancy of the road (also known as
design life, which is from 50 to 100 years for the roads
in the project area) and/or the time and cost to return
the road to service is minimal.
A medium level of risk would be consistent with
the expectation that loss of road service would occur
once or twice during the design life of the road and/or
the time and cost to return the road to service is within
the capability of a road maintenance crew. A high
level of risk would be consistent with the expectation
that loss of road service would occur several times

Table 5. Relative risk to road/trail sustainability due to mass wasting effects at historical mass wasting locations for South
Canyon Road

Alternative Bonanza Gulch Gorge Gulch Snowslide Gulch

Road Trail Road Trail Road Trail

1 and 7 Medium n/a High n/a n/a Medium

2 Medium n/a n/a Low n/a Medium
3 Medium n/a Medium n/a n/a Medium
4 Medium n/a High n/a High n/a
5 Medium n/a Medium n/a Medium n/a
6 Medium n/a Medium n/a Medium n/a

22 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005


over the life expectancy of the road and/or the time
and cost to return the road to service would be likely
to exceed the capabilities of a road maintenance crew.
All alternatives have the potential for impacts
from mass wasting processes. However, alternative
2 has the lowest potential for future trail loss that
would result in a substantial cost and long repair
time. Alternative 4 has the highest potential for fu-
ture substantial road loss with the highest cost and
longer timeline for road repair. Alternative 4’s risk is
because of its placement within confined reaches
and the channel lateral migration zone. Alternatives
1, 3, 5, and 6, and 7 have a medium level of risk
compared to the other alternatives.
Floodplain
The sustainability of each alternative located within
the 100-year floodplain and channel migration zone
(CMZ) is dependent on the erosive force of the river,
sediment transport and deposition rates, and the na-
ture of the material protecting the road. The sustain-
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
ability of alternative segments located within the
100-year floodplain and CMZ were evaluated as-
suming that: segments within confined reaches
would be least sustainable; segments outside the
confined reaches but within the 100-year floodplain
would be less sustainable; segments outside the con-
fined reaches and 100-year floodplain but within the
CMZ would be more sustainable; and segments out-
side confined reaches, the 100-year floodplain, and
the CMZ would be the most sustainable.
Refer to Table 6 for the amount of South Canyon
Road within each of these areas. The river would not
affect sustainability of road segments outside these
areas. Alternative 6 has the least acreage in hydrau-
lic zones. Because alternatives 5 and 6 are upslope,
all options for these alternatives have less area cov-
ered by roads within hydraulic zones than the other
road alternatives (1, 3 and 4) but more than alterna-
tive 2 (the all-trail alternative).
Table 6. Summary of alternatives with segments within hydraulic zones (acres) for South Canyon Road
Alternativea
Confined reaches
1, 7: No-action 0.30
2a: Non-motorized trail 0.01
2b: ATV trail 0.01
3: Road and ATV trail 0.21
4: Elko County proposal 0.53
5a: Lower-slope road (1:1) 0.00
5b: Lower-slope road (1:1.5) 0.00
6a: Mid-slope road (1:1) 0.00
6b: Mid-slope road (1:1.5) 0.00
a
Note: Refer to Table 1 for a description of options within alternatives: areas calculated for each hydraulic zone are not additive, thus,
confined reaches and the 100-year floodplain may be within the channel migration zone
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005
Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
Vegetation
For vegetation, the alternatives are compared based
on the amount of vegetation gained or lost from con-
struction, road/trail operation and maintenance, and
reclamation of the existing road, where planned (Ta-
ble 7). For noxious weeds and threatened, endan-
gered, and sensitive (TES) plant species, all the
action alternatives would affect these plants in a
similar manner. Existing noxious weed populations
are not expected to be disturbed during construction
and operation; however, construction equipment
could accidentally introduce noxious weeds into the
project area from outside locations (Worsley, 2003)
where noxious weed seeds and reproductive parts
may have become attached to the wheels or other
parts of the equipment. These weeds would then be
introduced into the project area where the equipment
is used and could spread over time. USFS Noxious
Weed Risk Rating form (USFS, 2003c) was used to
assess the risk of spreading noxious weed popula-
tions in the project area. The risk of all proposed al-
ternatives is low.
No TES plants were observed or expected to oc-
cur in the project area. Implementation of any of the
alternatives is not expected to affect TES plants. Al-
ternative 2 (the all-trail alternative) would result in
an overall increase in vegetation primarily because
existing roads would be reclaimed for vegetation
restoration, and the trail would require less disturbed
area, whereas all other alternatives would result in
an overall net vegetation decrease. A wetland survey
was also conducted in the project area (USFS,
2002a). Implementation of any project alternative
would affect less than 0.1 acre of wetlands.
Fisheries
Fisheries resources affected by the alternatives in-
clude bull trout, redband trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and other fish species present in the
Area of alternative (acres)
100-year floodplain Channel migration zone
0.48 2.05
0.02 0.11
0.03 0.20
0.33 2.02
0.91 2.46
0.05 0.69
0.02 0.54
0.02 0.13
0.01 0.10
23
 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction

Table 7. Direct effects (acreage) on vegetation for each alternative of South Canyon Road

Alternative

Vegetation type 1, 7 2Ab 2Bb 3 4 5Ab 5Bb 6Ab 6Bb

Aspen 0 –0.09 –0.16 –0.68 –0.84 –1.62 –1.3 –0.02 –0.01

Juniper
Mountain mahogany 0 –0.06 –0.08 –0.2 –0.19 –0.71 –0.58 –4 –3.19
Sub-alpine fir 0.34 0.28
Mountain sagebrush 0 –0.49 –0.61 –1.77 –1.1 –4.61 –3.6 –5.6 –4.47
Mountain shrub 0 –<0.01 –<0.01 –0.01 –<0.01
Sagebrush/perennial grass
Mountain riparian 0 –0.13 –0.22 –2.63 –1.68 –3.54 –3.08 –0.74 –0.6
Total affected areaa 0 –0.77 –1.07 –5.28c –3.81 –10.40c, d –8.56c –10.7d –8.55
Approximate reclaimed area n/a 3.01 3.01 3.01 n/a 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01
Net total 0 2.24 1.94 –2.27 –3.81 –7.48 –5.55 –7.69 –5.54
a
Notes: Affected area was determined using 40ft construction width for roads and no additional width for trails outside the trail footprint
b
Refer to Table 1 for a description of options within alternatives
c
Total affected area includes up to 2 acres of borrow area
d
Affected area includes a wider road construction width on 1:1 slopes (50-ft width)

Jarbidge River. The alternatives may directly or in- potential to be detrimental to bull trout during con-
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014

directly affect these resources by altering the aquatic
habitat necessary for the various life stages of the
fish. Relevant elements addressed in this evaluation
include riparian habitat, stream temperature, large
woody debris (LWD), in-stream fish habitat and
pools, stream substrate, streambank stability, sedi-
mentation and stream crossings, all of which are
considered riparian management objectives as de-
fined by the inland native fish strategy (INFISH)
guidelines (USFS, 1995).
The fisheries evaluation includes analysis of com-
pliance with these INFISH guidelines, as reviewed
in a biological opinion issued by the USFWS (2003),
and an evaluation of whether the alternatives support
fisheries recommendations in the Jarbidge River
Watershed Analysis (USFS, 1997b) (Table 8). Al-
though the USFWS (2003) recommends reducing
any fish passage problems associated with culverts
and water diversions, none of these problems cur-
rently exists (Pfeifer et al, 2002).
Some of the INFISH riparian management objec-
tives identified are currently not being met under ex-
isting conditions. It should be noted that, for some
parameters (such as stream temperature and pool
frequency), the numeric criteria might not be met in
the immediate future (less than 10 years) under any
alternative. Meeting the criteria would likely require
an intensive, large-scale restoration effort over the
entire project area. This is because of the existing
natural local geological, climatic, and channel mor-
phologic conditions. For example, the West Fork
Jarbidge River, in its current north–south alignment,
will generally have a lack of effective shade during
the middle part of the day.
Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 would result in the most
favorable bull trout habitat conditions because a trail
(alternative 2) is more sustainable over the long term
and alternatives 5 and 6 are located upslope and fur-
ther from the Jarbidge River. Alternative 4 has the
struction when in-water work would occur and dur-
ing future mass wasting events because the road is
not sustainable in its pre-1995 location. Alterna-
tive 3 provides an option of locating the road in the
valley bottom, but minimizing long-term impacts to
fish through road construction that avoids sensitive
locations where the road is most likely to be washed
out in the future and impact aquatic fisheries habitat.
Wildlife
From review of federal, state and local wildlife data-
bases, the project area has potential habitat to sup-
port the presence of nine endangered, threatened,
and sensitive wildlife species. Wildlife surveys were
conducted to search for these species and determine
whether appropriate habitat was present. These spe-
cies were the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), peregrine fal-
con (Falco peregrinus), flammulated owl (Otus
flammeolus), mountain quail (Oreortyz pictus),
three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), Co-
lumbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), western big-
eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), and
spotted bat (Eudema maculatum). Of these only
the northern goshawk was observed in the project
area (although it was established that appropriate
goshawk breeding habitat did not occur within the
vicinity of the road alternatives). Thus, disturbance
of endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife
species was not expected.
The breeding season surveys included observa-
tions of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals
(including sampling for bats), although surveys using
traps or other equipment for small mammals and
amphibians were not conducted. Results from these
surveys did not indicate that a unique wildlife species
or species habitat would be disturbed from imple-
mentation of any project alternative. A qualitative

24 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005

 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction

Table 8. Comparison of alternative effects on riparian management objectives and other fish habitat parameters for South
Canyon Road

Parameter Standard South Canyon Road alternative

1, 7 2 3 4 5 6
(baseline
conditions)

INFISH riparian management objectives

Water temperature No measurable increase in maximum _ 2 1 –1 2 2
water temperature. Maximum water
temperature below 59°F within adult fish
holding habitat and below 48°F within
spawning and rearing habitat
Large woody debris >20 pieces per mile; >12 inch diameter; _ 2 –1 –1 2 2
> 35 ft length
Pool frequency Wetted width of 10 ft = 96 pools per mile; _ 1 –1 –1 1 1
wetted width of 20 ft = 56 pools per mile
Width to depth ratio <10, mean wetted width divided by mean _ 0 0 1 0 0
depth
Streambank stability >80% stable _ 2 0 –2 2 2
Other fish habitat parameters
Riparian vegetation Minimize disturbance in RHCA _ 2 1 –1 2 2
Stream crossings n/a _ 2 1 –2 2 2
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014

Sedimentation and turbidity n/a _ 2 1 –2 2 2

Substrate n/a _ 1 1 –1 1 1

Key to effects as compared to baseline conditions:

1 = Slight beneficial effect; facilitates improvements –1 = Slight negative effect; retards improvements
2 = Moderate beneficial effect; facilitates improvements –2 = Moderate negative effect; retards improvements
3 = Substantial beneficial effect; facilitates improvements –3 = Substantial negative effect; retards improvements
0 = Equivalent to baseline conditions

assessment was developed comparing project alter- Conclusions

natives relative to:
• direct effects from vegetation changes through
road, trail, and roadside vegetation clearing and
through vegetation plantings;
• direct effects from temporary noise and visual dis-
turbance as a result of road and trail construction
and maintenance; and
• indirect effects from long-term disturbance and
potential increased mortality from increased hu-
man access and use (Table 9).
Alternative 2 would have the lowest effect on wild-
life because it is a trail alternative that maximizes
vegetation restoration and minimizes overall land
disturbance. Alternatives 4-6 would result in the
greatest construction disturbance.
This biodiversity analysis demonstrated how road
location (distance to the Jarbidge River) affected
geological and mass wasting properties, which, in
turn, affected fisheries habitat. Although locating the
road further from the river and on steeper portions of
the terrain would result in less erosion and mass
wasting events reaching the river, the mass wasting,
debris flow, avalanche and rock fall would have a
greater probability of occurring.
There was no action that would be without im-
pacts to the environment. Selection of the preferred
alternative would thus be based on which environ-
mental element is most important to the decision-
making process. In the case of a threatened and
endangered species, impacts to bull trout were to be
minimized at the expense of road construction and

Table 9. Comparison of effects of alternatives on wildlife for the project area

South Canyon Road alternative Number

Type of Effect 1, 7 2 3 4 5 6

Net change in vegetation 0 1 –1 –1 –1 –1

Temporary noise and visual disturbance (from road and trail construction and 0 –1 –1 –2 –2 –2
maintenance or from proposed mitigation projects
Long-term disturbance and potential increased mortality (from increased 0 –1 –1 –2 –2 –2
human access and use)

Note: For key to effects, see Table 8

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005 25

 Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
There was no action that would be
without impacts to the environment:
selection of the preferred alternative
would thus be based on which
environmental element is most
important to the decision-making
process
environmental impacts that would occur from either
locating the road upslope (with resulting geological
impacts) or avoiding road construction altogether
(trail alternative) and decreasing recreational access
to the Jarbidge Wilderness. A compromise alterna-
tive was to rebuild the road adjacent to the river but
outside the floodplain to the extent feasible to mini-
mize the potential of geological events affecting
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
fisheries habitat within the Jarbidge River and
improve road sustainability.
The EIS alternative analysis was an interdiscipli-
nary strategy involving both biodiversity and social
effects from road reestablishment. When combining
these results, there was no single action alternative
that was clearly a favorite, as summarized below:
• Alternative 2 had the least effects to bull trout and
the surrounding aquatic habitat but precluded mo-
torized access to the Jarbidge Wilderness entry
point. This is the favored environmental alterna-
tive, but would prevent access similar to historical
usage prior to the 1995 flood.
• Alternative 3 would be located in the valley bot-
tom and, although the road would be located out-
side the 100-year floodplain, riparian habitat
conditions for bull trout would not result in an
overall habitat benefit because of the loss of ripar-
ian habitat adjacent to the river. Alternative 3
would also only provide motorized access on
1.1 miles of South Canyon Road with the remain-
ing 0.6 miles as a trail to the Jarbidge Wilderness
entry point. However, this alternative would be
located in a similar road prism to the pre-1995
flood, while avoiding the potential for future
impacts similar to those that occurred in 1995 be-
cause the more sensitive floodplain areas would
be avoided. This alternative provided for a more
sustainable road location in the valley bottom.
• Alternative 4 returns the road to its pre-existing
condition prior to 1995, subjecting it to the possi-
bility of a similar washout as previously occurred,
because portions of the road are located in the
100-year floodplain and the channel migration
zone, where the river is expected to naturally
change course over time. Riparian habitat condi-
tions would be the most detrimental under this al-
ternative because of short-term construction
26
aquatic habitat impacts from in-river work and the
potential for similar future road washouts from
flooding.
• Alternatives 5 and 6 are located away from the
valley bottom and river but are subject to in-
creased erosion, debris flow events, rockfall, ava-
lanche, and other mass wasting processes because
they are on the steep mid-valley slope. Alterna-
tives 5 and 6 are least likely to affect the Jarbidge
River and bull trout if any future erosional
processes were to occur because of the distance of
the road from the river. These alternatives have
substantially higher economic costs.
Findings from this analysis demonstrate that,
although an in-depth biodiversity analysis can dem-
onstrate substantive quantitative differences among
alternatives, social impacts are also important in
selecting the preferred action. Thus, although alter-
native 2 is clearly the environmentally preferred one,
motorized access to a Wilderness area would be
precluded.
This detailed study helped the interdisciplinary
team design an alternative (3) that allowed closer
motorized access to the Wilderness area while pro-
tecting the Jarbidge River and increasing road sus-
tainability over returning it to its original condition.
This analysis has aided the USFS in finalizing the
design for a selected alternative so that potential im-
pacts can be predicted and avoided using detailed
mitigation plans that recognize the potential impacts
of road construction and maintenance over both the
short and long term.
The findings of this paper were obtained from the
published draft EIS (USFS, 2003b). The final EIS is
not yet published because of court proceedings on
future ownership and maintenance responsibility for
the Charleston–Jarbidge Road.
References
Cavender, T M (1978), “Taxonomy and distribution of the bull
trout, Salvelinus malma (Suckley), from the American North-
west”, California Fish and Game, 64(3), pages 139-174.
DEA (David Evans and Associates) and Portage Environmental
Inc (2002), “Jarbidge River stream channel integrity inventory.
Elko County, Nevada”, prepared for the USFS, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
DEA (David Evans and Associates) and JBR Environmental Con-
sultants Inc (2002), “Jarbidge River south canyon soil survey,
Elko County, Nevada”, prepared for the USFS, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
Elliot, W J, D H Hall and D L Scheele (1999), “Forest Service in-
terfaces for the Water Erosion Prediction Project computer
model. USFS, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Di-
mas Technology and Development Center”, available at
<http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp>, last accessed 9
February 2005.
Grialou, J, and C Worsley (2002), “Jarbidge River sensitive spe-
cies survey”, prepared by Parametrix Inc for the USFS, Hum-
boldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
O’Farrell Biological Consulting (2002), “Final report: bat survey on
the Jarbidge River within the Humboldt National Forest, Elko
County, Nevada”, prepared for Parametrix Inc and the USFS,
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005

PanGeo Inc (2003), “Jarbidge Canyon geotechnical engineering
and mass wasting hazard analysis”, prepared for Parametrix
Inc and the USFS, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko,
Nevada.
Pfeifer, B, M Burger and P Lawson (2002), “Jarbidge River fisher-
ies inventory”, prepared by Parametrix Inc for the USFS,
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
Rieman, B E, and J D McIntyre (1993), “Demographic and habitat
requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical
Report”, USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden Utah.
Stackelberg, N, and J Friebel (2003), “Waterways resource report
for Jarbidge South Canyon Road Project”, prepared by Pa-
rametrix Inc for the USFS, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest,
Elko, Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (1995), “Inland native fish strategy
(INFISH), decision notice/finding of no significant impact, envi-
ronmental assessment, interim strategies for managing fish
producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, Western Montana, and portions of Nevada”, US De-
partment of Agriculture, Coeur d’Alene ID. See also Federal
Register 60(150):39927-39928.
USFS (US Forest Service) (1997a), “Preliminary environmental
assessment proposal to reconstruct the Jarbidge Canyon
Road from Pine Creek Campground to Snowslide Gulch Trail-
head, Elko County, Nevada”, Humboldt-Toiyabe National For-
est, Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (1997b), “Jarbidge River Watershed
Analysis”, Jarbidge Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 14:38 17 October 2014
USFS (US Forest Service) (2001”, “Jarbidge River Water Pro-
jects”, prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest,
Elko, Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (2002a), “Jarbidge Canyon Wetland
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2005
Biodiversity issues for road reconstruction
Assessment Report”, prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (2002b), “Management techniques for
riparian restorations, road field guide volumes I and II”, Rocky
Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-
GTR-102.
USFS (US Forest Service) (2003a), “Draft road management plan
Jarbidge Road”, prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest, Elko, Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (2003b), “Jarbidge Canyon draft EIS”,
prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko,
Nevada.
USFS (US Forest Service) (2003c), “Noxious weed risk rating”,
prepared by D Clarke, Mountain City District, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) (1998), “Endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants; emergency listing of the Jar-
bidge River population segment of bull trout as endangered”,
Federal Register 63:42757-42762.
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) (1999), “Endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened
status for bull trout in the coterminous United States”, Final
rule 1 November 1999, Federal Register 64:58910-58933.
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) (2003), “Biological opinion
on effects to bull trout form continued implementation of the
USFS Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan, as amended by the interim strategy for
managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and
Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and portions of Nevada
(INFISH)”, USFWS, Region 1, Reno, Nevada.
Worsley, C (2003), “Jarbidge Canyon integrated weed manage-
ment plan”, prepared by Parametrix Inc for the USFS,
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.
27