Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide

for
Low-Volume Roads

Gordon Keller, PE
Geotechnical Engineer
&
Gary Ketcheson
Hydrologist

Final Draft: December 15, 2012

1
1. Introduction .............................................................................. 4
1.1 SDRR Objectives ...................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Scope of the Problem .............................................................................................. 10
Flood History ............................................................................................................ 10
ERFO History ........................................................................................................... 12
Vulnerable Road Placement ...................................................................................... 13
Examples of Storm Damage ..................................................................................... 15
Definition of Risk Reduction Treatments ................................................................. 20
Open Roads ............................................................................................................... 20
Closed Roads (In Storage) ........................................................................................ 20
Relative Treatment Costs .......................................................................................... 21
2. Strategic Risk Assessment....................................................... 21
2.1 Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................. 22
Landscape Scale Considerations ............................................................................... 22
Watershed Scale Considerations ............................................................................... 23
Site Scale Considerations .......................................................................................... 25
Road Location ........................................................................................................... 26
Road Standards ......................................................................................................... 27
Failure Potential ........................................................................................................ 28
2.2 Consequence Assessment ....................................................................................... 29
Consequences of Failure ........................................................................................... 29
2.3 Overall Risk Assessment ........................................................................................ 30
3. Selection of Appropriate Treatment ...................................... 32
4. Implementation ........................................................................ 35
4.1 Planning and Preparation ........................................................................................ 36
4.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) as Mitigation ................................................ 37
5. Common Storm Damage Risk Reduction Treatments ........ 39
5.1 Road Maintenance .................................................................................................. 40
5.2 Road Surface Drainage Improvements ................................................................... 43
Adding Rolling Dips (Broad-Based Dips) ................................................................ 46
Cross-Drain Culverts (Ditch Relief Culverts)........................................................... 51
Waterbars .................................................................................................................. 54
Ditches and Ditch Treatments ................................................................................... 56
Ditch or Pipe Outlet Armoring ................................................................................. 62
5.3 Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements ...................................... 63
Culvert and Channel Maintenance ............................................................................ 63
Culvert Diversion Prevention and Overflow Protection ........................................... 64
5.4 Bridge Protection and Improvements ..................................................................... 70
Channel Maintenance and Debris/Sediment Clearing .............................................. 70
5.5 Erosion Prevention and Erosion Control ................................................................ 73
Erosion Prevention and Drainage Improvements ..................................................... 73
Physical Methods for Erosion Control...................................................................... 75
Vegetative Methods .................................................................................................. 78
Use of Deep-Rooted, Native Vegetation .................................................................. 80
Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical Erosion Control Methods ............................. 81
Gullies and Gully Prevention .................................................................................... 84
2
 5.6 Fill Slope Stabilization Measures ........................................................................... 86
Sidecast Fill Pullback for Slope Stabilization........................................................... 87
6. Less Common or Higher Cost SDRR Treatments .............. 91
6.1 Less Used Road Surface Drainage Treatments ....................................................... 91
Converting Inslope Roads to Outslope ..................................................................... 91
Surface Water Diversion Structures.......................................................................... 93
Culvert Cross-Drain Inlet Protection and Drop Inlets .............................................. 97
6.2 Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements ...................................... 99
Increasing Culvert Capacity.................................................................................... 103
Use of Trash Racks ................................................................................................. 108
Culvert Reinstallation and Realignment ................................................................. 110
Pipe Inlet/Outlet Protection..................................................................................... 116
Fords versus Culverts .............................................................................................. 119
Local Structure, Streambank, and Channel Stabilization Measures ....................... 124
Local Scour Protection ............................................................................................ 126
Beaver Plugging Prevention ................................................................................... 136
6.3. Bridge Protection and Improvements .................................................................. 141
Increasing Freeboard ............................................................................................... 141
Major Bridge Scour Protection ............................................................................... 143
6.4 Road-Stream Encroachment ................................................................................. 147
Floating Log Weirs ................................................................................................. 149
Other Channel Redirection and Bank Protection Measures (Spurs, Veins, Drop
Structures, Log Jams, Etc.) ..................................................................................... 155
6.5 Erosion Control ..................................................................................................... 156
Gully Stabilization .................................................................................................. 156
Other Gully Control Considerations ....................................................................... 160
Roadway Surfacing Materials ................................................................................. 161
6.6 General Slope Stabilization Measures .................................................................. 162
Achieving Stable Cut and Fill Slopes ..................................................................... 162
Increasing Stability with Structures ........................................................................ 167
Drainage Improvements .......................................................................................... 173
Use of Deep-Rooted Vegetation or Soil Bioengineering/Biotechnology ............... 175
Strengthening of Existing Structures ...................................................................... 179
Deep Patch Shoulder Strengthening ....................................................................... 180
Changing Road Grade, Alignment, and Width ....................................................... 181
6.7 Cold Regions Storm Issues……………………………………………………....185
6.8 Road Storage and Closure ..................................................................................... 190
7. Summary and Conclusions ................................................... 196
8. Acknowledgements ................................................................ 197
9. References ............................................................................... 199
Appendix ..................................................................................... 208

3
 Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide
for Low-Volume Roads

1. Introduction
The U.S. Forest Service manages over 375,000 miles of road throughout the nation.
Although designed to handle severe storm events, land use changes, infrastructure
degradation, and changing climatic patterns may put those roads at risk of failure.
Millions of dollars are spent on road storm damage repair each year and whole road
systems may be inaccessible for long periods of time while appropriate repairs are
determined and implemented. Stream crossing and road drainage failures have caused
extensive resource damage. Modification of stream crossings and control of road
drainage, whether generated on the road surface or intercepted by the road cut and
ditch, are the most important issues for preventing storm damage! Addressing
streamside road locations, slope stability issues, and adequate vegetative erosion control
are also important to reduce the risk of storm damage. In order to meet Clean Water Act
requirements, it is necessary to be aware of impending impacts and implement practices
capable of reducing risks associated with large storm events. This guide provides a
framework to assess the potential risks to a road system and the selection and
implementation of appropriate treatments to reduce those risks.
Storm Damage Risk Reduction (SDRR), as used in this guide, refers to non-reoccurring
treatments on existing roads that reduce the potential for resource impacts and damage or
failure of a road feature or road system resulting from storm events. SDRR treatments
are needed to:
 Reduce the potential for future damage (risk reduction);
 Reduce the magnitude of failures and resource damage that occurs when major
storms do occur;
 Add redundant systems to protect roads receiving less frequent maintenance; and
 Improve hydraulic efficiency and resilience of existing road drainage features.

These treatments relate to open and stored roads as defined in Forest Service Handbook
(FSH) 7709.58 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1995). Stored roads do
not have active traffic, but may still have many of the same erosion prevention, drainage,
and maintenance needs as an open road. However, the selection and implementation of
treatments must take into account the differences in road maintenance levels for open and
closed roads in relation to the risk of damage over the life of the treatments. Stored roads
do not have active traffic. They will receive less frequent maintenance than open roads,
but as long as elements of the road drainage system are retained and expected to function
(i.e.: culverts and ditches) some periodic evaluation or field checking is needed to assure
the long term stability and functionality of the road and to minimize environmental
damage.
In selecting maintenance frequencies, it is important to understand how geomorphic and
climatic conditions may affect the road. Some roads may be revegetated within 5 years
4
and be inaccessible. In areas where sediment supply is high, plugged culverts should be
anticipated. Maintenance and/or treatments necessary to protect drainage facilities and
runoff patterns remain as critical management functions, even on stored roads. Stored
roads must not pose any more risk to resources than open roads. Given the reality of
limited funds and less personnel today, maintenance, particularly on closed roads, will be
minimal, so the most problematic areas need to be prioritized to receive needed attention.
Forest road management must be comprehensive and multifaceted. As part of, or prior to,
the selection of SDRR treatments, basic questions need to be answered for roads and road
systems (Roads Analysis). Is the road needed? Should the road be decommissioned?
Based on site conditions and stability concerns, can the road be stabilized in its current
location, or should relocation be considered? SDRR assessments and treatment selection
should not substitute for making clear choices regarding road management. Road
decommissioning (permanent closure), while a very valuable tool for addressing critical
road issues, is outside the scope of this guide. However, decommissioning may be the
best management decision for a road. Many of the treatments described in this guide have
applicability to road decommissioning because the physical processes that affect roads
must also be accounted for when prescribing treatments to close a road.
SDRR treatments are not in the same category as capital improvements and are not
specifically road maintenance. However, there is considerable overlap across the
spectrum when it comes to some of the treatments. SDRR treatments are measures
applied to existing roads to reduce or eliminate impacts from storm-related effects on site
productivity (loss of soil and vegetation on hillslopes) and on downstream aquatic habitat
and water quality, as well as minimize road damage.
Storm-related effects include:
Outside of the Road Prism Within the Road Prism
Hillslope failure (mass wasting) Cutslope failure or erosion
Stream channel migration Road surface erosion (gully and rill)
Stream sediment and debris loads Road surface drain plugging
Flooding Fillslope erosion or mass wasting (sidecast
failures)
Formation of gullies downslope of road Culvert scour or plugging
Drainage feature damage Ditch scour or blocking
Upslope surface erosion Bridge and ford scour or failure
Stream capture Drainage diversion and cascading failures

Annual or other frequent measures taken to maintain drainage features and drivability
(including safety measures), and minimize water concentration may include measures
found in this guide. Road maintenance is defined in Forest Service Handbook (FSH)
7709.58 and the types and frequency of maintenance are defined by the road maintenance
level (ML). SDRR treatments are not prescribed and implemented on an ongoing basis;
however, the treatments may be items that require some maintenance over time to
continue to function properly. On the other end of the spectrum, SDRR treatments are not
specifically capital improvement projects, although the separation can be indistinct in
5
some cases. Capital improvement projects are implemented on a funding available basis
to improve the safety, drivability or long term use of the road. They may be projects to
move a road from one maintenance class to another. Rather than be concerned about what
program the work fits into, practitioners should understand what treatments accomplish
storm damage reduction objectives and use funding as it is available to achieve SDRR
objectives.
Some of the key SDRR measures include:
 Keeping needed road maintenance up to date.
 Having adequate road surface drainage measures to rapidly move water
off the road surface and prevent the accumulation of water.
 Having culverts in good condition, free of debris, and with diversion
prevention measures installed.
 Keeping bridge channels cleared and free of excessive debris.
 Having slopes well covered with deep rooted vegetation or other erosion
control methods.
 Pulling back marginally unstable or failing sliver fillslopes

SDRR treatments may be deemed necessary to protect the investment in a road or protect
critical natural resources while road decisions are being made, or while funding is being
sought for capital improvement work. In these instances, SDRR treatments are interim
rather than final treatments. In other instances, SDRR treatments will constitute the final
treatments for a road and will contribute to reducing future maintenance costs. The
treatments become a permanent feature of the road and will still require some regular
maintenance to function properly over time. On lower use roads, the selection of proper
treatments must take into account the need to function with infrequent maintenance. All
roads can probably benefit from SDRR treatments. In the context of this guide, SDRR
treatments are measures applied to existing roads to correct situations that contribute to a
higher risk to resources and of road damage or failure. However, many measures that are
considered SDRR should ideally be part of good road design or as road Best Management
Practices since they offer on-going protection for the road, from construction though
maintenance and decommissioning. Many SDRR measures cannot practically be added
into the road on an emergency response basis, such as when a large storm is forecast
(time and resources are not that flexible or necessarily available), so the measures should
be installed as an upgrading practice through an ongoing SDRR program.
Given the unpredictable and often extreme weather events we are experiencing today, a
great amount of emphasis is being given today concerning global climate change and its
impacts on infrastructure, including roads. Most federal agencies, including the Forest
Service, Federal Highway Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and US Geologic Survey, as well as the National Academy of Sciences,
are working to understand, model, and ideally minimize its impacts. Also many
international concerns exist and efforts are being undertaken by groups such as the
Organization of American States, the World Road Association (PIARC), World Bank, the
United Nations, and others to deal with the issue.

6
1.1 SDRR Objectives
Why is a Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide needed? Through the 1980s, the forest
road system rapidly expanded, received regular maintenance, and was extensively used.
Roads were constructed for efficiency of use and typically 25 year drainage design
standards were used. Construction standards were less stringent and construction often
included leaving stumps and other organic debris in fills, extensive sidecasting of fill
material and fewer and smaller drainage culverts. Large storms caused considerable road
damage and cumulative resource impacts. Repair of storm damaged facilities replaced
failed structures with similar structures – replace in-kind.
Over the last two decades, road construction on National Forest System (NFS) lands has
almost disappeared and road maintenance has been deferred due to reduced funding.
Except where forest management projects are being implemented and where roads access
popular recreation sites (campgrounds, trailheads, ski areas, etc.), road use is now
relatively minor on much of the forest road system.
Road drainage designs now typically use a 50 to 100-year storm event for design
purposes. The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) requires new
culverts, bridges, and other stream crossing structures to accommodate at least a 100-year
flood, including associated bedload and debris. The lack of maintenance and old,
undersized road drainage features leave roads at high risk of failure or damage during
climatic events. Aquatic resources that are already impacted are also at elevated risk to
impacts from increased sediment delivery from road failures. Repair costs are escalating
and storm frequency and intensity may be increasing due to climate change. Many road
features have met or exceeded their design life. Certain locations are expected to be more
susceptible than others or have a higher potential to change under climate change
scenarios; for example Rain on Snow (ROS) zones and fire-susceptible forests.
This guide is intended to provide a framework for the selection of appropriate SDRR
treatments. There are very important tasks and processes that are necessary to make
informed treatment selections that are not covered in detail in this guide, but should be
part of comprehensive road management programs. They include road condition
inventories, hazard assessments and strategic plans for treating high hazard sites.
Treatments outlined in this guide are intended to minimize road damage and the
accompanying environmental harm associated with how roads respond to storm events.
There are multiple benefits from reducing storm damage, including the following:
 Maintaining soil on hillslopes.
 Reducing rapid delivery of storm runoff and debris to streams by decoupling road
drainage runoff from the stream network.
 Reducing catastrophic sediment and debris delivery to streams.
 Maintaining stream channel structure that absorbs storm flow without damage to
aquatic habitat.
 Reducing the cost, effort, and inconvenience of having to repair damaged roads.

The treatments themselves may actually increase the number of initiation or source points
in the short term (i.e. adding culverts or waterbars). These treatments should be
constructed in locations and at a frequency using techniques that do not increase erosion
potential. With proper implementation, SDRR treatments should substantially reduce
consequences during large storms.

7
Successful implementation of SDRR treatments has additional benefits. Many treatments
will reduce chronic sediment delivery that results from road runoff during all storms. The
reduction of sediment delivery (chronic and catastrophic) to streams will reduce the risk
of failure for in-stream projects implemented to improve stream function and fish habitat.
Where appropriate, fish and other aquatic organism passage needs are to be considered
when implementing SDRR treatments. By nature of the interrelated processes, the
reduction of sediment delivery involves changing how water is intercepted and runs off
of the road network. A secondary effect of SDRR treatments may be to alter how roads
change the magnitude and timing of stream flow peaks; and, alternately reduce impacts
from storm runoff in the channels downstream. Road maintenance and storm damage
repair costs are expected to go down after implementation of SDRR treatments.
Risk reduction is a variable target. Reduce to what level of risk? Different individuals,
various managers and scientists, have differing tolerances for risk. Different sites have
characteristics that affect the tolerance of risk. It is not the intention of this guide to
prescribe treatments that eliminate all risk. It will be up to the implementation team, in
consultation with their public, to evaluate the risks, the values at risk, and the amount of
time and resources to apply to reduce the risk to a desirable level.
This guide is intended for use in the Forest Service Regions nationwide, including
Alaska. The treatments have been dominantly developed and used for the climate and
geomorphology of western landscapes, but most of the SDRR treatments apply in all
regions. Some storm damage issues specific to cold regions are briefly discussed in
Section 6.7-Cold Regions Storm Issues, but a thorough discussion on this topic is beyond
the scope of this guide. In any geographic location, assessments should be performed to
assure that the treatments discussed herein are appropriate for the situation. The
assessment should include the determination of the values at risk, site conditions, failure
mechanisms, and climatic conditions that contribute to failure.
A summary of most key SDRR, or “stormproofing” principles applicable to low-volume
and forest roads are the following:
1. Identify areas of historic or potential vulnerability.
Certain high risk sites are well known, others may be more subtle. Chronically
undersized culverts will have a history of failure. Geologically unstable materials
or slopes, roads on steep slopes with sidecast fills or roads that cross steep
channels subject to debris flows, wet slopes, areas subject to flooding, or areas of
high soil erosion near streams (inner gorges) all have increased vulnerability.
2. Avoid local problematic and high risk areas.
Consider road closure or relocation to avoid problematic areas and poor road
locations. Common problematic areas include steep slopes (over 60-70 percent),
deep seated rotational landslides and areas prone to shallow rapid landslides and
debris torrents, avalanche chutes, rock-fall areas, wet areas, saturated soils, highly
erodible soils, etc.
3. Use appropriate minimum design standards.
Road standards, particularly road width, should be minimized, while still
considering traffic safety and road user needs. Because SDRR treatments involve
existing roads, road standards are already in place. However, SDRR treatments
may be used to lower the standard as appropriate and result in less earthwork,
lower cuts and fills, and less concentration of runoff, all of which reduce risk of
damage or failure during storms.
8
 4. Employ “self-maintaining” concepts into the selection and implementation of
treatments.
Resources for road maintenance are often severely limited and the road systems
are extensive. Implementing those treatments that reduce the amount of road
miles that need frequent and costly maintenance will allow limited resources to be
applied to more of the road system where it is needed. Examples might include
outsloping (on appropriate soil types), additional cross-drains, and redundant
(back-up) or larger drainage structures.
5. Incorporate relevant, cost-effective technology.
Apply current appropriate technology to improve identification of priorities and
for planning, design, and reconstruction practices. This includes the use of ARC-
GIS and GPS technology; geosynthetics for filters, separation, and reinforcement;
mechanically stabilized earth retaining structures; current riprap sizing criteria for
bank stabilization; bioengineered and biotechnical slope stabilization and erosion
control measures, etc.
6. Perform scheduled maintenance.
Scheduled maintenance should be performed at a regularly planned frequency, to
be prepared for storms. Insure that culverts have their maximum capacity,
ditchesdrain well, and channels are free of excessive debris and brush that can
plug structures.1 Keep the roadway surface shaped to disperse water rapidly and
avoid areas of water concentration. There may be insufficient time to do the
routine work as a storm is approaching.
7. Use simple, positive, frequent roadway surface drainage measures and use
restrictions.
Good roadway surface drainage should be provided so that water is dispersed off
the road frequently and water concentration is minimized. Where soil properties
are insufficient to support traffic when wet (i.e. volcanic ash), restrict use during
wet seasons to prevent rutting and gullying. Outslope roads whenever appropriate
and practical and use rolling dip cross-drains for surface drainage rather than a
system of ditches and culverts that require more maintenance and can easily plug
during major storm events. Frequent cross-drains, insloping and outsloping, and
rolling road grades all need to be in good working order. Failed cross-drain
culverts are very common after major storm events.
8. Properly size, install, and maintain culverts.
Improperly installed, undersized, and plugged pipes are common reasons for
culvert failure during storms. Improper alignment or grade relative to channels
and ditchlines, excessive woody debris in the channel, excessive channel
constriction and headwater elevation, excessively wide inlet areas, and inadequate
capacity all contribute to pipe plugging and subsequent failure. Concrete or
masonry headwalls greatly improve the resistance of culvert to failure during
overtopping. Another common cause of culvert failure is a lack of proper
maintenance. Maintaining inlet configurations and removing debris that may plug
the pipe are essential for proper function during storms.

1
Clearing debris from stream channels should be limited to only smaller mobile pieces that pose an
immediate risk to a structure. Larger pieces that are integrated into the channel bed or banks or large
enough to resist movement during most flows is important for stream function and aquatic habitat. A
fisheries biologist or hydrologist should be consulted prior to any extensive debris removal.
9
9. Use simple fords or vented low-water crossings.
Simple fords or vented low-water crossings (vented fords) should be used as often
as appropriate for small or low-flow stream crossings on low-volume roads,
instead of culvert pipes that are more susceptible to plugging and failure. Protect
the entire (100 yr.) wetted perimeter of the structure, and the downstream edge of
the structure against scour, and provide for aquatic organism passage as needed.
10. Stabilize cut and fill slopes.
Unstable fillslopes should be removed or treated as necessary to improve stability.
Cut and fillslopes should be well covered (stabilized) with vegetation, to
minimize surface instability problems as well as minimize surface erosion.
Uncompacted sliver fills and settling or cracking fills are a high priority for
stabilization or removal. Fill slopes may also be undercut and over-steepened by a
stream or channel. Failing over-steep slopes from road construction where
material enters a stream can cause downstream problems, both to the watershed
and by promoting plugging of structures.
11. Use deep-rooted vegetation to “anchor” soils.
Promote slope stability by using deep-rooted vegetation for soil bioengineering
and biotechnical treatments. Combine deep-rooted plants with a mixture of
shallow-rooted grasses for good ground cover and erosion control on slopes;
preferably using native species.
12. Design high risk bridges and culverts with armored overflows.
High risk bridges and culvert structures can often be designed with armored
overflow areas near the structure in case of overtopping, or they have a controlled
“failure” point that is easy to repair and minimizes environmental damage.
Alternatively over-sizing the structure and allowing for extra freeboard on bridges
will maximize capacity and minimize risk of plugging. Do not constrict the
natural channel. Consider culverts with a span at least that of the bankfull channel
width and bridges that span the floodplain.
13. Eliminate diversion potential.
All stream crossings, especially culvert crossings, should be designed and
constructed (or upgraded) to have NO diversion potential. Stream crossings in
steep stream channels that are subject to debris flows should be designed and
constructed (or upgraded) to withstand such debris flows without being washed
out or resulting in subsequent streamflow diversion. Structure damage from a
plugged culvert may be minimal, but road damage from a stream diverted
down the road can be extensive!
14. Use scour prevention measures for structures on questionable foundation
materials.
Bridges, retaining structures, and structural foundations should be placed into
bedrock or on firm, in-place material with good bearing capacity to minimize
foundation failures. Apply foundation strengthening and scour prevention
measures when foundation conditions are known to be marginal or a bridge is
“scour susceptible”.
15. Be aware of channel morphology and stream channel changes near a bridge,
culvert, ford or road along a creek.
Significant changes in stream gradient, from a steeper reach to a flatter area, can
cause channel aggradation (deposition) and subsequent plugging of structures or a
stream jumping out of its original channel. This is particularly problematic on
alluvial fans where avulsion can damage roads and structures. Also tight bends in
10
 the channel promote concentration of flow to the outside edge, often leading to
scour. Woody debris also tends to accumulate at bends in a channel. Road work or
“improvements” might also cut off a stream’s natural access to its flood plain.

1.2 Scope of the Problem

Flood History
The western United States is subjected to severe weather that moves on shore from the
Pacific Ocean. The severity and nature of the storms is dependent on the season and
whether individual storm cells originate in the northern Pacific and Gulf of Alaska, or
from the southern Pacific and the Hawaiian Islands. Flooding in the coastal mountains
and western Cascades is most common during the fall and early winter months
(November through February) when deep low pressure pulls large quantities of moisture
from the southern Pacific Ocean. These storms may produce 24-hour rain totals of five to
ten inches or more. Flooding may be exacerbated if low elevation snow is present when
these storms arrive. These rain-on-snow storms typically cause the largest floods on
record in the coast ranges, Olympic Peninsula, and western Cascade watersheds (USDA,
Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 1992) and Northern Sierras.

Rain-on-snow events are less frequent on the east side of the Cascades and Sierras, and in
the interior of the continent. However, they do account for a significant number of the
peak flows. Rapid spring snowmelt is the more typical flood generating process to the
east of the mountains. Unlike the rain-on-snow floods of the west side that only last for a
couple days, snowmelt flooding may last for a week or more. Ice-jam flooding may also
occur during very cold winter weather followed by a rapid warm-up. In this case blocks
of river ice may form large rafts and dam across rivers, causing widespread flooding
before the dams breach. When the ice dams breach, the resulting surge flows may cause
additional downstream flooding.
Extreme weather variations and uncommonly intense and frequent storms in the
Northeast have caused local to widespread heavy precipitation, power loss, and damage.
Hurricanes have increasingly impacted the Southern Region and along the East Coast
Infamous events such as Hurricane Hugo in 1989, Katrina and Rita in 2005, and Irene in
2011 did widespread damage in those regions. Increasing droughts and violent
thunderstorms in the Southern Rockies and tornadoes in the Midwest and South have had
huge impacts on lives and infrastructure.
Some of the largest magnitude floods recorded in the Northwest occurred in the late
1890s and early 1900s during a wetter, colder climate period at the end of the Little Ice
Age. These floods preceded the onset of extensive forest management. Much of the early
and middle 1900s were marked by comparably modest floods with an occasional very
large flood. The Christmas storm of 1964 was large in magnitude and geographic extent
and reset the thinking of road construction techniques and culvert design in much of the
Northwest. Floods across the region in the late 1900s and early 2000s have led to another
look at roads and the practice of replacing road features in place and in-kind after floods.
Road relocation is now considered a viable option for consideration in planning flood
repair.
11
Toward the end of the 20th Century, many stream gage records have shown a marked
increase in the frequency of large floods (USDA Forest Service 1992; USDA Forest
Service 2010b). During the last 35 years, over 1500 bridges have collapsed nationwide, at
least half of which are attributed to flooding and scour. Whether the increase in flood
frequency is related to land use, climate change, or a combination, is a subject of
continued discussion, but there is mounting evidence of both mechanisms having the
potential to increase the magnitude and frequency of severe floods (Casola et al. 2005;
USEPA 2010). The report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” (Karl et
al. 2009) discusses many of the storm and weather changes that are predicted and that
affect land management and roads, including increasing frequency of heavy precipitation
events; increasing streamflows in some regions, particularly the East; and earlier
snowmelt in the West and Northeast. Other descriptions of weather related to global
climate change have included more radical or extreme events, more variability, warmer
and moister air, more intense storms and more droughts, unseasonable temperatures, etc.
More intense storms can be expected, but where and when are difficult to predict.
Ultimately the problem of increased risk of damage from storms, both to roads and
to the watersheds, comes from a combination of global climate change, land use
changes, and an aging infrastructure.
Information on anticipated impacts of global climate change, both nationally and
regionally, are found in the report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”
(Karl et al. 2009). It is available at:
<http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/executive-summary.pdf>

The Federal Highway Administration has been actively involved in climate change issues
and measures to lessen the impacts of more frequent and severe storms, such as disaster
planning, management and evacuation issues during disasters, and emergency and
permanent repairs, as well as emergency relief (ERFO). Useful websites for their
information are available at:
<http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publications.htm#eto>
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm>

ERFO History
The Emergency Relief of Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program administered by the
Federal Highways Administration provides the bulk of the money to repair flood
damaged roads on Federal lands. Historically, when a culvert was washed out, ERFO
would fund a replacement-in-kind, replacing the existing structure with the same
structure. No consideration was made for the probability of recurring failure, so sites
often became repeat repair projects.
From the 1950s through the 1980s the road system on National Forests expanded
exponentially and accessed higher risk terrain in response to a growing domestic and
international demand for timber. With the increase in roads came an increase in
vulnerability to damage.

12
The ERFO program covers all federal land in the United States and all causes of damage.
From 1971 to 1990 ERFO paid out over $1.1 billion on road and bridge repairs2 across
the United States. It is a rare year when there are no ERFO funding requests. When the
Pacific Northwest is quiet, Texas is ravaged by floods, or some other part of the country
has a need. On average there are 14 qualifying events each year with nearly 35 flood
related bridge projects initiated. In 2004 three major storms hit North Carolina in a row,
causing widespread devastation and $50 million in damage. Hurricane Irene in the
summer of 2011 caused widespread damage in the East and New England states with
over a 100 year precipitation event in many areas. The cost of this damage is yet to be
totally determined. Hurricane Sandy was a massive storm that caused widespread damage
and flooding throughout the Northeast in 2012. Whether the cause is climate change, an
ever expanding road system on high risk terrain, or just an aging road system with
deferred maintenance, the need for ERFO funding and the escalating ERFO repair costs
are staggering.
The major storm patterns from the Pacific Ocean shift up and down the coast. One year
northern California sustains a lot of damage, and another year northwest Oregon is
impacted. On rare occasions, the entire area from northern California to the Canadian
border is affected by major storms triggering ERFO response. For one forest in the
northwest Cascades, average annual ERFO road repair funding went from $190,000 per
event for the 1970s decade to $411,000 for the 1990s decade (actual costs) (Doyle and
Ketcheson, 2004). Forest Service Region 6 averaged over $6 million a year in ERFO
repair between 2002 and 2010. Region 5 spent over $40 million on the 1997 storm
damage program alone.
Useful information on the ERFO program, funding, eligibility and types of storm
damage, the use of Damage Survey Reports (DSR), and regulations are found in the
Federal Highway Administration publication “Emergency Relief for Federally Owned
Roads: Disaster Assistance Manual“ (FHWA, 2011). It is available at
<http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/erfo/documents/erfo-2011.pdf>.

One of the challenges around working with Federal Highways and obtaining adequate
ERFO funding is that ERFO Guidelines are still targeted at “replace in kind”. However,
Forest Service standards have changed such that what failed no longer meets those
standards. The Forests often need to acquire additional funds, over the ERFO allocation,
to fix storm damaged facilities to current standards. Obtaining the additional funds is
often difficult and may not occur in a timeframe that complies with ERFO funding time
limits
It is the intention of Forest Service, through the use of this SDRR Guide and the Travel
Analysis Process, to reduce the reliance of the Forests on ERFO funding by
implementing an effective program of storm damage risk reduction, combined with
proactive road maintenance and a vital capital improvement program that will result in
minimal storm damage to roads. Where Forests decide to decommission rather than
repair damaged roads, ERFO funds can be used for decommissioning. This has been a
major help in a number of cases.

2
Jennifer Rhodes and Roy Trent; An Evaluation of Highway Flood Damage Statistics. Undated report.
Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and Development, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McClean,
VA 22101.
13
Vulnerable Road Placement
Forest road systems are often damaged by floods when drainage features are
overwhelmed by water and debris. Roads located in riparian corridors and on floodplains
also face the erosive power of streamflow at streamside locations, and may be completely
removed by the river.
Roads crossing alluvial fans or located at the transition in slope steepness, from a steeper
slope to flatter terrain, are at risk since drainage channels in this area can shift over time.
Intense storms leading to debris slides or debris torrents may fill existing channels with
debris, causing the channel to shift to a new location.
The Southwest regions and parts of the West have been impacted lately by severe
droughts, fires, and then debris flows following heavy rains. Roads crossing ephemeral
channels and arroyos are at risk of damage from extreme events and the associated debris
torrents. Road-stream crossings in these areas should either involve very large structures,
such as bridges, or minimum investment structures such as simple fords. Culvert
structures have a high risk of plugging. In the Northern and Northeast regions, more
extreme events or ice and snow can lead to more ice dams, blocked structures, and high
snow loads. Inconsistent cold and warm weather can lead to more subgrade damage and
freeze-thaw damage on roads, as discussed in Section 6.7.
Road design and repair must take into account the probability of flooding and the
potential effects on the road. Older roads were often designed for small storm events and
may not be adequate to handle more severe floods. Pipes and other drainage features on
older roads are also aging and failing. For road stream crossings placed on unstable
terrain or on dynamic landscapes, stream channels may shift during storm events,
severely damaging the road or bypassing existing drainage structures. Hillside road
locations are subject to a number of threats:
 Hillslope failure that can block ditch drainage and force the flow down or across
the road resulting in rilling or gullying of the road surface and often mass failure
of the fillslope, or a cascading series of failures down slope at culvert crossings.
 Hillslope failure that can bury and plug ditch relief or cross-drain culverts causing
water to cross the road prism and erode or wash out the fillslope.
 Cutslope failures and landslides from unstable slopes either burying the road or
removing the road prism.
 Rockfall that damages the road or creates a safety problem.
 Debris slides or debris avalanches that race down small drainages and overwhelm
culverts or bridges resulting in washed out drainage crossings, or plugging and
diversion.
 Excessive ditch erosion due to the accumulation of water from long distances
between ditch relief culverts, or due to the by-passing of runoff past a plugged
relief culvert.
 Ditch plugging or loss of ditch capacity due to dry ravel of cutslope materials,
forcing runoff out of the ditch and down or across the road.
 Saturation of the road fill from subsurface moisture either from upslope or from
water ponding in flat ditch grades or sags that causes mass failure of the road fill.
 Settling of road fill materials forming open cracks at the surface that collect
surface runoff and result in mass failure of the road fill.

14
  Excessive erosion and possible rilling of the road tread on steep grades resulting
from inadequate surfacing, channeling of water in rutted or compacted tire tracks
(loss of inslope or road crown) or down tire ruts in mud or in a snowpack.
 Reduced ditch capacity over time due to vegetation encroachment into ditch and
roadside zones, forcing water onto the road.

Road systems that place several roads on a single hillside (road stacking) or a set of
switchbacks have an increased risk of loss during storms because of the domino, or
“cascading failure” effect of a road failure high on the slope. Water from upper road
segments often concentrates and accelerates as it flows down the road or down slope and
the water, eroded soil, and debris can damage roads in succession lower on the slope,
causing multiple failure areas down the road.
Roads on valley floors or floodplains are subject to some similar and some different
threats that merit special considerations depending on their specific locations:
 Roads on alluvial fans are subject to debris avalanche deposits plugging drainage
culverts, shifting drainage channels, and/or burying the road prism in debris.
 Stream channels on alluvial fans migrate and can cause erosion of the road prism
and breaching of the road.
 Rivers migrate across their floodplains forming a feature called the channel
migration zone (CMZ)3. Roads located within the CMZ of the river are subject to
washing away during floods.
 Roads on high terraces or upslope from floodplains may fail as streams undercut
the toe of the old terrace or slope.
 Road crossings, bridges and culverts, and associated approaches may be lost due
to migrating river channels.
 Roads within floodplains are subject to inundation during floods, which may
result in the compromising of road surfacing and drainage systems and erosion of
road prisms. Roads in narrow canyons are at risk of inundation or being washed
away by high water or bank scour.
 River corridors, floodplains and CMZs, are often characterized by a history of
diking and riprapping in an effort to protect roads from river migration and
erosion. Non-riprapped sections of road are at greater risk because dikes and
riprap merely translate stream energy to banks downstream.
 Roads adjacent to aggrading stream channels resulting from land use-induced
sediment delivery are threatened by increased channel instability and migration.

Figure 1 shows the inundation of the Feather River Canyon in Northern California both in
the flood of 1986 and 1997, each roughly a 100-year event (statistically). The highway is
located in a narrow river canyon that is vulnerable to flooding. Each flood resulted in
road closure for months and millions of dollars in damage repairs.

3
Channel Migration Zone is defined in numerous documents as an area adjacent to an unconfined stream
where channel migration is likely during high flow events. The presence of side channels or oxbows,
stream associated wetlands, and low terraces are indicators of these zones. (Southwest Oregon State Forests
Management Plan 2001. Glossary. Other definitions and mapping guidance in A Framework for
Delineating Channel Migration Zones. Rapp and Abbe 2003. Washington State department of Ecology
Pub. 03-06-027.
15
Figure 1—The Feather River Canyon, Plumas County, California, where floods have
resulted in major road damage and long periods of road closure. Signs in the right photo
show water levels reached in February, 1986 (left photo) and January, 1997 (right
photo).

Examples of Storm Damage

Figure 2 through figure 10 show examples of common types of forest road storm damage.

Figure 2— Severe gully erosion damaging forest roads during storm events.

16
Figure 3— Bridge scour occurring at the abutment of bridges during major storms in
Northern California because of channel constriction (upper photo) and natural stream
meander (lower photo).

17
Figure 4— A bridge abutment washed away by a debris torrent and channel widening
during a storm event in the Pacific Northwest (Courtesy of Mark Leverton).

Figure 5—This road washed out because of placement on a flood plain and channel
widening during a storm event.

18
Figure 6— Damage to a low-water ford caused by scour of the bedding material under
concrete planks.

Figure 7—Culvert plugging and a total culvert washout during major storm events.

Figure 8—Examples of road closure caused by cut and fill failures during storms.

19
Figure 9—Streambank erosion during a major flood and loss of riprap streambank
stabilization material. Surrounding land management contributes to the susceptibility of
a road to damage. In this instance grazing practices and poor riparian conditions
(compacted soils devoid of deep-rooted vegetation) contributed to severe streambank
erosion. Poor installation and under-sized riprap contributed to the problem.

Figure 10—Road-stream encroachment and flooding along the South Fork, Salmon
River, Idaho due to a rain-on-snow event (Courtesy of Tom Black).

20
Definition of Risk Reduction Treatments
As noted above, storm damage risk reduction is not road maintenance, nor is it capital
improvement. Prescribed SDRR treatments fall into a category between the two; but may
involve some combination of both types of treatments. The primary purpose of these
treatments is to reduce the risk of damage to the road and to the environment from the
stresses experienced during storm events. Understanding the hazards and controlling
water is paramount. Erosion and sediment delivery from roads to streams, and the
consequence of the sediment and related debris in the streams, are primary concerns.
Therefore these treatments are those that control surface runoff within the road prism,
increase mass stability factors for road cuts and fills, and make the road features more
resilient to forces from outside the road prism, such as upslope mass wasting and debris,
rain-on-snow runoff and other severe climatic events. Treatments will often involve
increasing the size and decreasing the spacing of drainage features, fortifying stream
crossings, and stabilizing slopes.

Open Roads
Maintenance level 3-5 roads are open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers for
standard passenger cars. Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high clearance
vehicles. The selection of treatments for open roads is constrained by the need to provide
for the passage of vehicles. Depending on the maintenance level, this may mean
consideration for passenger cars, vehicles pulling trailers (horse, camp, utility,
snowmobile, etc.), log trucks, or equipment on lowboys. Treatments that would restrict or
prevent the passage of these types of vehicles would not be selected for maintenance
level 3-5 roads.

Rolling dips (broad-based dips) may require varying design criteria depending on the
steepness of the road and whether the expected use is passenger cars and light trucks
versus logging trucks and lowboys. Where high clearance vehicles are the intended use
(maintenance level 2) more aggressive treatments that affect the travel surface may be
selected. Drivable waterbars and rolling dips may be more pronounced on maintenance
level 2 roads compared with maintenance level 3-5 roads.

Closed Roads (In Storage)

When traffic is not a factor in selecting appropriate SDRR treatments, the types of
treatments available expand significantly. However, the expectation of a lower
maintenance frequency must be factored into the selection and design of treatments. A
“closed” road, or road “in storage”, is a road that may be closed to use for a long period
of time, say 5 to 20 years, but with the expectation that it will be used again in the future.
Therefore, SDRR treatment prescriptions for closed roads should be implemented with
the understanding.
On a closed road, road width, surface roughness and drainage structures can all be viewed
differently. The road does not have to be wide enough to carry traffic so unstable fills can
be removed. Drainage structures can be completely removed and large gaps in the road
surface are acceptable, even desirable. The amount of road prism left intact on a closed
road depends on the amount of time until the next expected use, the physical setting and
failure risk posed by the local climate, the age of the road and associated drainage
structures, the return interval flow for which the existing drainage structures were
designed, and the resource values at risk of impact. In sensitive landscapes and severe
21
climates, a closed road may appear similar to a decommissioned road (permanently
closed) due to the level of treatment. The anticipated length of closure, and expected
maintenance, may affect the degree of treatment.
Closed roads remain as part of the Forest road system and should receive periodic
inspection and maintenance to protect the road and forest resources. However, the reality
is that funding and other resources available to inspect and perform maintenance on
closed roads is generally lacking. For closed roads, SDRR and closure treatments must be
prescribed with the caveat that maintenance will be very limited or not occur at all until
the road is re-opened.
Treatment selection and design criteria must result in road features that will stand up to
years of storms without an impairment of their function. As with all SDRR treatments,
the design is not expected to be for the very largest storm events. Designing for the 100-
year storm event plus debris necessitates some allowance for increased capacity and
redundancy in order to absorb some effects by the more common storms without losing
capacity or stability.

Relative Treatment Costs

The SDRR treatments described or referenced in this guide span a wide range of
implementation costs. Costs for the same treatment vary widely over time and geography,
due to specific site conditions and the availability and price of materials. Various
economic factors will determine actual costs once proposals go to bid. Cost is an
important factor in the selection of the appropriate treatment, but cost-effectiveness over
time should carry more weight in the decision.
Some treatments may be very expensive, such as bridge scour countermeasures, but
can be very cost-effective if it prevents a bridge failure. If a higher cost treatment is
warranted, a lower cost, less effective treatment should not be substituted unless is
viewed as an interim treatment to lower an imminent risk. Because of all the
variables influencing costs, this guide does not include cost items for individual
treatments, but rather categorizes treatments as to most common and lower cost, to
less common and higher cost.
Table 2 with a summary of the Storm Damage Risk Reduction measures discussed in this
guide is found in section 3-Selection of Appropriate Treatment.

2. Strategic Risk Assessment

There are essentially two risk components in the SDRR evaluation for selection of
appropriate treatments. The two factors of a hazard risk assessment are:
1. Probability of occurrence and failure (how big and frequent the storm runoff
occurrence is and the probability that it will wash out a bridge, plug a culvert, or
cause a landslide; and
2. Expected consequences (loss of life, safety, cost of damage to infrastructure,
environmental costs, etc.)
The probability of a failure is related to the factors that contribute to the potential for a
failure to occur. The consequence, should a failure occur, relates to the infrastructure or
natural resource impacts resulting from a failure. The values of natural resource(s) or the
22
road component that would incur damage is important in determining the amount of
resources to allocate towards preventing a failure and the level of risk that is acceptable.

The selection and application of the most cost-effective Storm Damage Risk Reduction
treatment depends on a thorough assessment of the factors that place a particular road or
group of roads at risk, and an understanding of the consequences (relative to health and
safety, environmental, and infrastructure) should a road failure or damage occur. There
are a number of physical and climatic factors that need to be considered. This assessment
should involve an interdisciplinary team and should be completed early in the storm
response process, or can be completed on a whole road system in a programmatic way.
Having the risk assessment completed expedites response to storms and is invaluable for
preparing annual road maintenance plans.
This document does not offer a complete treatment of risk assessment. However, it is
intended to offer a framework for the concept and needs of a risk assessment, considering
the hazards involved and the consequences of failure, along with some tools and
references to aid in doing a risk assessment.

2.1 Hazard Assessment

It is important to understand and recognize the origin of different factors that affect storm
intensities and types, and the responses of a landscape to storms. A complex set of these
factors determines the risk of storm damage for a given road. Some of these factors are
associated with regional or landscape scale phenomena such as climate patterns, some are
expressed at a watershed or sub-watershed scale, and others are site specific factors with
very local effects.

Landscape Scale Considerations

The risk of damage from severe storms, and the severity and frequency of those storms,
relates to the regional climate and weather patterns. Understanding how a particular area
is affected by storms throughout the year is important for road design and the selection
and implementation of SDRR treatments.

Climate
Climate patterns control the types of storms that typically occur within a given watershed.
The climate overlay of the western US is heavily influenced by the Pacific Ocean and the
movement of storm cells onshore. In the Northwest, from northern California north to
Canada, deep low pressure systems arriving from the Pacific Ocean carry large amounts
of moisture that push up over the coastal or inland mountain ranges where much of the
moisture is released. Much larger quantities of moisture are released on the west and
southwest faces of these mountain ranges than east of the crest due to the prevailing
storm tracks. The air mass off the ocean in winter is relatively warmer than air masses
that travel across the cold land masses. This condition results in more frequent rain-on-
snow storms on the west side of mountains as the jet stream alternates from the Gulf of
Alaska to warmer waters of the Hawaiian Islands. Storms from Alaska bring cold air and
lower elevation snow; storms originating more southerly from the Pacific bring warm
rain and wind, that rapidly melts snow.

23
The air mass dries out and cools as it crosses the mountains and, most of the time during
winter, encounters a colder air mass on the east side, resulting in mountain and valley
snow. The snow accumulates during the winter and melts out in the spring.
The opposite occurs in the summer, when the air mass arriving from the ocean is cooler
than the air mass over land. The air mass warms over the land and holds more moisture
that may carry across to the east side of the mountains where additional heating causes
thunderclouds to form. Unstable atmospheric conditions may lead to large amounts of
energy being generated in these clouds that then release large quantities of rain during
short high intensity downpours. These intense storms can cause flash flooding. The most
damaging storms are typically isolated thundershowers or cells that stall over one
particular area or watershed for a long period of time. These localized storms are the least
predictable. This phenomenon is more prevalent on the east side of the Cascade and
Sierra mountains and the hot desert basins of eastern Washington and Oregon.
In the interior West of the United States “Chinook Winds” can blow down from Canada
and send atypically warm winds into the region from Oregon to Montana, and
particularly in the Rocky Mountain Region. These warm winds occurring in the winter
can drastically change the temperature and have been known to melt a foot of snow in a
day, resulting in local flooding.
Other phenomenon such as an “”Alberta Clipper” can rapidly move cold air from Alberta
into the northern Plains and eventually move to the East along the mid-Atlantic Coast.
These storms can bring atypically heavy snowfall over the regions. Other events, such as
“Derechos” can move very strong winds and severe thunderstorms along a relatively
narrow but long path, from the mid-West to New England, or along the East coast. Such
phenomenon are occurring more frequently in recent years.
The “El Niño” and “La Niña” weather pattern extremes have had dramatic effects on U.S.
weather patterns, as well as the weather worldwide. As ocean temperatures either tend to
be warmer than usual (El Niño) or colder than usual (La Niña) in the central and eastern
Pacific, resulting weather across the United States becomes quite variable. During El
Niño the West coast may expect a stormy winter while the North may be warmer and the
South wetter. A La Niña winter may produce a cold Northern winter and drought in the
Southern states. A La Niña year may also result in fewer Pacific hurricanes but more
Atlantic hurricanes. El Niño patterns have become more frequent in recent decades,
rather than the historic more even fluctuations between the two extremes.

Topographic Influences
In many areas along the west coast, precipitation patterns and intensities vary
dramatically due to the physical features of the landscape. Western mountain ranges
oriented north to south lift air masses moving west to east and cause higher intensities of
precipitation on the western slopes and drier “rain shadows” on the east side. The west
coast mountain ranges are characterized by large volcanic peaks that extend to greater
heights than the surrounding mountains. These peaks experience heavy precipitation on
the slopes facing the oncoming storms but also often cause a split in the airflow around
the peak. This results in a localized rain shadow on the lee (east) side the mountain range;
but, if these split storm cells converge beyond the mountain, a zone of higher
precipitation may result (Mass 2008) from the convection caused by the collision. It is

24
important to understand these influences of topography, combined with regional storm
patterns when planning for road drainage needs.

Ecoregions
The ecological hierarchy described in “Description of ecological subregions: sections of
the conterminous United States” (McNab et.al 2005) and the EPA Level III and IV
information characterize climatic differences (precipitations amounts, and patterns and
temperature), vegetation, and large-scale terrain features throughout the United States.
Characteristics of these various terrains can guide managers into areas where there may
be concerns for road stability issues. This hierarchy is refined and available locally with
Landtype Association, and landtype or soil maps. Interpretations resulting from these
mapping efforts are invaluable in determining risks associated with roads.
The EPA information on Ecoregions is available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm#Level IV>.

Watershed Scale Considerations

The geomorphology and condition of a watershed influences the runoff response to storm
events. Geomorphology partially dictates how a watershed responds to climatic inputs
(Leopold et al. 1995) and the condition of the watershed affects how the watershed
absorbs those inputs (Swanson 1980). The combination of geomorphology and watershed
condition determines the response of a watershed to storm events and the level of hazard
to be addressed.

Shape and Orientation

Watersheds in all climate regions may display an asymmetry of hillslope profiles on
opposite sides of the valley (Leopold et al. 1995). In the middle latitudes of the United
States this expression may be dramatic. South-facing slopes tend to be drier (less snow
and more rapid snowmelt; more intense sun exposure) and have greater diurnal
temperature swings; whereas, north facing slopes are wetter (hold snow longer and have
less intense sun) with more uniform moisture. Drier slopes generally have shallower soils
and are longer with fewer stream channel crenulations4. Wetter slopes may be steeper and
shorter with a higher density of stream crenulations and deeper soils. While these
characteristics are generalized and may be affected by storm patterns and how the
underlying geologic structure controls subsurface water, understanding what these
landform expressions mean for water movement is important to managing road drainage
and stability.
At river basin scales, the orientation of the watershed can influence the response of the
watershed to storms. Watersheds that are aligned with the storm track progressing from
the mouth to the headwaters will experience higher storm intensities across the higher
slopes in the watershed. Watersheds that are perpendicular to the typical storm track may
experience greater storm intensities on slopes facing the oncoming storm and lower
intensities on the lee slopes. This can alter the runoff timing from one side of the
watershed to the other and reduce the peak flows in the lower watershed. Roads located
on the slopes receiving higher intensity precipitation may require additional drainage

4
A crenulation is an indentation in a contour line on a topographic map that represents a
course for flowing water
25
facilities. This leeward effect on precipitation intensity can also result if the watershed is
oriented such that a storm travels from headwaters to the mouth.
At the watershed scale, storm duration and intensity may most influence the size of
runoff from storms. Localized variability in intensity may be similar to that discussed for
larger basins, but overall it is how rapidly the storm passes over the watershed and the
relative precipitation intensity that determines the amount of water falling on the
watershed.

Geomorhpology
The geomorphology of a watershed controls how that watershed responds to severe
storms and what stresses a road may encounter during storm events. This includes the
orientation of the watershed and the hillslope characteristics; which result from the
underlying geology and structure as well as the climate history. Particularly valuable
information can be obtained from geology, landtype association (LTA), and soil maps.
Geologic mapping identifies the underlying rock structure that influences slope stability
(the strike and dip of the bedrock in relation that of the hillslopes) and the specific rock
types and their distribution across the watershed. Soil and LTA maps show the
distribution of distinct combinations of soil types, slope characteristics (slope steepeness,
orientation, shape) and vegetation. From this information the stability of slopes and the
type of runoff expected from the watershed can be determined (i.e. flashy runoff from
shallow, unconsolidated materials). Understanding if the topography is convergent, which
concentrates surface and groundwater, or divergent, which distributes water, is important
for planning on the volume of storm water a road may need to handle.

Stream Pattern
The climate and geology of a particular area determine the development of stream
channels draining a watershed. Similarly, the stream network has a dramatic effect on the
topography within a watershed. Mountainous terrain, in wetter climates, tends to have a
higher density of stream channels that are deeply incised into the hillsides. Roads across
these hillslopes must deal with a higher number of stream channels, steeper slopes, and
deeper stream crossings. Drier climates, in general, have fewer stream channels and less
deeply incised stream channels. Roads in these watersheds encounter fewer stream
channels and typically have shallower crossings.
The geology has a broad effect on the pattern of the main stream channel in a watershed.
Geologic structure may dictate the direction of channel development, such as where a
channel may follow a straight line along a fault or a more erodible rock layer. The
location of these channels may be more set than channels that are not controlled by
geologic structure. Stream channels in watersheds with recent past or current glacial
activity may move dramatically across the glaciated valley floor. Large amounts of
glacially derived sediment tax the stream’s ability to transport the sediment, resulting in
active and continual channel shifts. Roads that cross or are located near these streams are
at a higher risk of damage from the shifting channel.
Where available, LTA, topographic, and geology maps provide invaluable information
regarding stream patterns that are useful for evaluating channel influences on roads and
appropriate SDRR treatments.

26
Site Scale Considerations
Roads can cross a large variety of conditions within a watershed and even across a single
hillside. Even where the majority of the road crosses a stable landscape, missing the
proper interpretation and road drainage needs for one critical site can result a failure and
significant environmental damage. Other factors that determine the risks faced by a road
system are related to watershed condition expressed at a given road location. The
capacity of a watershed to process runoff and sediment generated during storm events is
affected by past and current land use and fire history. If a road location is affected by a
recent timber sale or a recent fire, this will modify (and likely increase) the risk of
damage.

Geomorphology
The selection of SDRR treatments relies heavily on the expression of hillslope and stream
characteristics at the site level. A clear interpretation of the different conditions along a
road route is important for selecting and implementing the appropriate treatment.
Slope characteristics are the expression of complex interactions of climate, geology, and
soils. Storm runoff patterns and intensity is a reflection of these interactions and the
influence of land use on the natural patterns.
In general, long uniform hillslopes with shallow soils tend to shed runoff faster than
complex slopes with deep soils; steeper slopes will move water faster than gentler slopes.
Deeper soils provide a larger reservoir to store rainfall and snowmelt and will release
water slower.
A history of glaciers within a watershed often produces oversteepened slopes and
deposits of glacial material that affect water movement and slope stability.
Roads on steep slopes have larger or higher cutslopes; and, depending on the
groundwater conditions, will likely intercept more subsurface water than roads on gentle
slopes. Thus roads on steep slopes will need more drainage capacity to handle the
intercepted water and lower the risk of failure during storms and are needed to disconnect
the road from the stream system.

Soils and Stability

Local soil characteristics play a major role in determining the stability of a road location.
Water movement in the slope above, at, and below the road is influenced by the soil and
bedrock features. Shallow bedrock or consolidated glacial till represents a vulnerable
failure plane where water cannot move deeper into the hillside and therefore moves
laterally across the bedrock interface, causing increased pore water pressure in the soil
and reducing slope stability. Fine textured soil layers, such as clay, may act in a similar
manner, impeding vertical water movement.
Bedrock underlying hillslopes is rarely uniform, the result of fracturing, weathering, and
erosion over time. Small “hollows” or depressions in bedrock may have been filled in
during the passage of glaciers. These in-filled hollows collect water during storms and
may remain relatively stable when undisturbed. But if a road cuts through a hollow, the
in-filled material and the road may fail due to the changes in stability resulting from the
roadcut and road runoff may increase the amount of water entering a hollow, resulting in
failure.

27
Soil characteristics affect how water moves through the soil and therefore slope stability
of cut and fill slopes. Soil texture and cohesion downslope of road drainage features
affect the susceptibility of slope to erosion or mass failure. Soil depth, combined with
slope steepness, affects the amount of bedrock into which a road is cut. While a full-
benched road may be stable because it is completely located on bedrock, runoff from
road drainage features may cause downslope failures because unstable soil and slope
characteristics.
The presence of deep seated hillslope slumps and earthflows play a major role in road
location stability. Failure planes can concentrate subsurface moisture that can then be
captured by roads or cause slope failure. Ground movement can sever roadways and pose
safety and access issues.
The soil types across which a road passes affect whether the road needs additional
surfacing to support traffic and minimize rutting and roadway erosion. Volcanic ash soils,
in particular, have very low shear strength when wet and do not support vehicles, leading
to rutting and gullying. Soils with a high clay content will also become slick when wet
and becoming safety hazards unless otherwise surfaced.

Road Location
Historical road location took advantage of easy construction along gently sloping valleys
and on flat flood plains, which placed roads in proximity to meandering channels. These
roads continue to constitute the primary connecting routes for Forest road systems. As
roads were used to access resources further upslope, roads were constructed on steeper
and steeper slopes and crossed more unstable lands. In many instances, stability problems
were recognized and design features addressed those issues; however, not all stability
issues were recognized or not appropriately addressed by designs. Some stability
problems come to light only after miles of road are constructed in a watershed. Stability
concerns that were dealt with in the original road design may again become issues due to
a lack of maintenance.
Road location considerations include:
 Landform – hillslope, canyon wall, active floodplain, stream terrace, slump scarp
or bench, etc.
 Slope position – upper, middle, lower part of the slope.
 Slope aspect –orientation as it relates to storm tracks and accumulation and melt
of snow.
 Slope shape – concave, convex, plane.
 Slope angle or steepness.
 Road stacking –are there other roads upslope; including ghost roads and skid
trails.
 Presence of unstable or erodible soils/slopes.
 Site specific morphology at stream crossings.
 Size and efficiency of upslope watershed area draining to a particular channel
crossing.
 Land use and watershed condition above road and any stream crossings.

28
Road Standards
Road standards also dictate varying considerations for SDRR treatment selection. As
noted in the introduction of this guide, SDRR applies to open and closed (stored) roads,
but certain treatments may also have applicability to decommissioned roads.
Road standards relate to the drivability and type of vehicles appropriate to the road, and
have a bearing on the type and frequency of maintenance needed to meet the road
standard. Knowledge of the maintenance history of the road is important since many
roads do not receive the prescribed maintenance over time due to lack of funding. In
many instances maintenance is more dependent on funding than the Road Management
Objective (RMO) or road maintenance level. As important as the maintenance history is,
the expected future level of maintenance also has a bearing on the selection of treatment.
Lower standard roads typically have less risk to storm damage than higher standard
roads. Factors that contribute to the reduced risk are that lower standard roads:
 May be single lane, disturbing considerably less area than a wider two-lane road.
 Have lower design speeds allowing the road to have rolling grades, and smaller
cuts and fills (less earthwork).
 May use fords and dips rather than culverts and cross-drain pipes, thus having a
lower risk of plugging and failure during a storm.

Nevertheless, lower standard roads may still have high risk sites for diversion potential
and be located on highly unstable slopes or cross steep drainages subject to debris slides.
Low standard roads with low use levels may have less design requirements, poor
construction quality control, and receive less inspection and maintenance than higher
standard, high use roads. Figure 11 shows some of the differences in a low (left figure)
and relatively high standard road (right figure).

Figure 11—Varying risk of low standard roads with small cuts and fills and a ford (left
figure) versus a higher standard road with pipes and larger cuts and fills (right).

A specific road may have originally been built to a certain standard. A subsequent
administrative decision could change that standard, either higher or lower, yet little
physical change may have occurred to the road. Any SDRR treatment will need to be
consistent with the current road standard. The full history of the road (when available)
and expected future management are important when considering risk and proper
treatment. Knowing the original standard to which the road was built, if different from
the current standard, has a bearing on how the road may respond to storm stresses.
29
Construction Practices/ Methods
How the road was built often greatly affects long term performance, and especially
susceptibility to damage during storms. This information may be unknown. Often the age
or year of construction is used as a surrogate to represent to most common construction
practices at the time. Examples of practices that increase hazard (or reduce long term
stability/performance) include sidecast construction/ loose sliver fills and use of “organic
retaining walls” (burying logs behind stumps to retain loose fill) on slopes that are too
steep for the fillslope to “catch”. When identification of these things can be integrated
into risk assessment or prioritization at a watershed, sub-watershed, or site scale, it can
greatly help target treatment locations and solutions. When left untreated, these sites will
fail and often necessitate expensive solutions, such as retaining walls or a difficult road
re-alignment. The failures can cause considerable damage to site productivity and streams
downslope.

Failure Potential
The above hazard discussion demonstrates the complex nature of factors that influence
the potential of damage or failure during storm events. An assessment of these factors is
critical to selecting the proper treatment to lower the risk. A number of procedures have
been developed by forests to rank the failure risks of roads. Many potential risk factors
exist, but only a short list is presented here.
Factors contributing to risk for failure include:
Watershed Factors:
 Rain-on-snow.
 Stream Density.
 Debris (wood and sediment) loading on slopes and in drainages.
 Various land management activities that affect vegetation, soil properties and
runoff.
 Fires and lack of ground cover.
 Best Management Practices implementation.
Slope Factors:
 Slope angle.
 Presence of unstable soils; Historic mass wasting.
 Soil texture and stratigraphy: shallow and dry versus deep and wet, presence of
fault traces and restrictive layers.
 Upslope vegetation type and age.
 Presence of “bio perturbation” (riverine and mtn. beaver).
Road Factors:
 Road location and grade.
 Road stacking.
 Age of road/ type of construction; i.e. sidecast.
 Ability to maintain ditch integrity.
 Cutslope stability and ravel.
 Diversion potential: debris plugging culverts, filled ditches, uniform road grade.
 Road maintenance history.

30
2.2 Consequence Assessment
The consequence assessment takes a look at the values at risk; the infrastructure or
natural resource impacts, should a failure occur.
There are three general categories considered within the SDRR umbrella. First, the
potential for effects on life and safety should be considered. SDRR treatments can
contribute to alleviating some of the risk to health and safety merely by reducing the
potential for failure. Road failures pose a threat to persons travelling forest roads. Users
may be stranded due to road or bridge washouts without proper supplies to endure and
extended stay. Limited sight distances on low volume roads may obscure washouts and
debris across the road. Upslope road and slope failure may threaten private property
downslope.
Second, there is the value of the infrastructure itself. The loss of or damage to road
components, campgrounds, and other buildings, roads, culverts and bridges downslope
may impair or prevent use until repaired. These require the expenditure of precious funds
and other resources to repair or replace.
Third, there are environmental values at risk. Impairment of site productivity results
when hillslopes fail or when upslope debris and soil bury downslope forest areas. The
delivery of sediment and road debris to stream channels poses significant risks to aquatic
biota and can disrupt normal channel processes for extended periods of time, extending
over miles of river channel. Many salmonid populations are at risk of extinction due to
habitat degradation from sediment impacts. Some stream reaches are designated as water
quality impaired and included on the State’s 303d list5 due to direct or indirect sediment
impacts. Riparian plant communities are impacted by streams migrating around debris
jams and sediment deposits. Downslope wetlands and other sensitive habitats may also be
severely impacted by sediment and debris deposition from upslope failures.

Consequences of Failure
Should a road fail, what are the life and safety concerns? Are there structures downslope;
are they inhabited? What is the use level of the road and can access be blocked readily?
What would be the expected type and amount of damage to the road and would it cost to
repair the road?
What would be the disposition of the failure material (sediment and debris)? What is the
likelihood of a debris jam forming and creating a dam-break flood in the stream? This
could extend the potential damage farther downstream.
If the material travels a short distance downslope and comes to rest in the forest or on a
river terrace, the harm would be less than if that debris entered a critical environmental
site such as a wetland or a salmon spawning stream reach. An evaluation of the probable
fate of the failure material (i.e. sediment and debris delivery potential) is important to
determine risk tolerance for the site. For delivery to aquatic sites, the volume and grain
size of delivered material is important to assess the potential harm.
Downslope factors should be evaluated in order to predict the disposition of the failure
material:
5
States are required by the Clean Water Act to maintain a list of “impaired” waterbodies. The 303(d) list
identifies waterbodies where reliable data show water quality is impaired (does not meet State water quality
standards) and what pollutants are responsible for the impairment.
31
  Topography; presence of broken slopes with terraces or benches to catch material,
versus steep straight slopes that deliver directly to water or wetlands.
 Distance downslope to valuable resources; how much material would travel the
distance?
 The resource affected; how resilient is it to impacts?
 Additional infrastructure downslope; will other road segments be involved, or
other improvements?
 Downstream culverts or other structures.
 Potential for road failure to initiate a mass failure, debris torrent and/or dam-break
flood.
Understanding both the hazard (potential for failure) and the consequences relating to a
failure is paramount to selecting treatments and appropriately setting treatment priorities.
Not all hazard sites will be high priority for treatment, particularly if the consequence is
low. All high consequence sites should be high priority for treatment, but may also be
ranked based on the details of the consequences and an assessment of the level of
acceptable loss.

2.3 Overall Risk Assessment

The Risk Assessment is the combination of the Potential Hazard Assessment and the
Consequence to values at risk. This guide does not provide a detailed process for
conducting a risk assessment; however, it should be stressed that an accurate and
comprehensive risk assessment be incorporated into all SDRR programs. The following
Table 1, adapted from the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Handbook
(FSM 2520, 2010-1 Interim Directive) (USDA, FS. 2010) demonstrates a possible
scenario. The first consideration may use a numerical or magnitude rating for the
magnitude of the consequence. The second factor considers probability of damage or
loss. The factors result in a combined ranking of risk from Very High to Very Low. This
risk rating would then influence the priority of the work.

Table 1—Risk Assessment Matrix

Probability of Magnitude of Consequences

Damage or Loss Major Moderate Minor
RISK
Very Likely Very High Very High Low
Likely Very High High Low
Possible High Intermediate Low
Unlikely Intermediate Low Very Low
.

32
 Probability of Damage or Loss:
The following descriptions provide a framework to estimate the relative
probability that damage or loss would occur: (to reduce the subjectivity of
these ratings, criteria should be developed to express these more
quantitatively)
-Very likely- nearly certain occurrence (>90%)
-Likely- likely occurrence (>50% to < 90%)
-Possible- possible occurrence (>10% to <50%)
-Unlikely- unlikely occurrence (<10%)

Magnitude of Consequences:
-Major- Loss of life or injury to humans; major road damage; irreversible
damage to critical natural or cultural resources.
-Moderate- Possible injury to humans; likely long-term, but temporary
road closure and lost use of major road or road system, degradation of
critical natural or cultural resources resulting in considerable or long term
effects.
-Minor- Road damage minor, little effect on natural or cultural resources
resulting in minimal, recoverable or localized effects.

Risk and Priority:

A. Very High and High Risk. Highest priority for SDRR treatments.

B. Intermediate Risk. SDRR treatments needed; may be incorporated into

annual maintenance

C. Low and Very Low Risk. SDRR treatments may not be necessary

Proper risk assessment is not only imperative for setting meaningful priorities for SDRR
treatments, but useful for making all road management decisions. There are a number of
formal and informal risk assessment procedures to help as a guide. The comprehensive
document “Upslope Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Guidance, Part X of
California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual” (Weaver et. al. 2006) provides
considerable information on site assessment.
Depending on the resource values and the complexity of the site, a site evaluation or area
assessment may require a data intensive site review. One such tool is the “Geomorphic
Roads Analysis and Inventory Package” (also known as GRAIP) (USDA Forest
Service, 2010a). GRAIP is a tool that has been developed by the Forest Service, Utah
State University, and the EPA to help predict the impacts of roads or a road segment and
prioritize where reconstruction work is most needed. It uses resource data and field road
inventory data in an ARC-GIS platform to predict and quantify sediment production,
diversion potential, or slope stability risks. It is also useful to assess hydrologic
connectivity of roads to streams. This information can be used to identify, prioritize, and
help select SDRR work. A comprehensive field-based inventory of existing and potential

33
road-related sediment sources is cheap compared to the widespread application of
SDRRs. Information on the GRAIP analysis method is available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/index.shtml>.
Another tool that may be helpful in assessing road treatment needs and priorities is
NetMap <http://www.netmaptools.org/>.
The San Dimas TDC publication Soil and Water Road-Condition Index-Field Guide
(Napper, 2008) is another tool that can help assess the condition of a road and identify
problem areas which may be exasperated during a major storm event. These sites would
often be good candidates for SDRR treatments. This document is available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/php/library_card.php?p_num=0877%201806P>.
The following discusses various factors and processes that should be addressed using a
two tiered assessment of hazards and consequences.

3. Selection of Appropriate Treatment

This guide assumes that an inventory of all potential hazard areas and road conditions
is completed or will be completed as part of the process. Selection of the appropriate
treatment will depend on the assessment of priorities, the hazards and values at risk, and
funds available. This should be an interdisciplinary process. The development of this
guide relied on the experience of long-term road managers and other specialists. Each
evaluation team should seek out and rely on those with the greatest experience with road
management and the resources at risk. However, keeping the process and selection as
simple as possible is desirable. Treatment selection also depends to a certain extent on
whether the treatment is a repair of existing damage, or preventative, to reduce the risk of
future failure. Once a failure has occurred, repair and treatment of the road to reduce
future risk may be quite different from a preventative treatment that would reduce the risk
of a failure.
Table 2 presents a summary of the many storm damage risk reduction measures used.
The most commonly used treatments are listed first (and discussed in section 5), followed
by the less common treatments that are typically more costly or more difficult to
implement (discussed in section 6). Note that having separate sections 5 and 6 does
create some redundancy in the document, but it was done to best highlite the most
common and cost-effective treatments used by practitioners, and yet still be
comprehensive.

Table 2—Summary of Storm Damage Risk Reduction Measures

Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness
Short Long
MOST COMMON TREATMENTS Low High
Term Term
Easy, Low Cost, or Cost-Effective
Road Maintenance
Normal grading, cleaning, and shaping * *
maintenance items
Road Surface Drainage
Add rolling dips * *
Add ditch relief culverts (cross-drains) * *
34
 Add waterbars * *
Ditch treatments/armoring/check structures * *
Add leadoff ditches * *
Cross-drain pipe/dip/ditch outlet * * *
protection/armoring
Stream Crossing Structures
Culvert maintenance * *
Minor channel debris removal and clearing * *
Culvert diversion prevention/armored * *
overflow protection

Bridge Protection and Improvement

Channel maintenance and debris/sediment * *
clearing around footings
Erosion Protection
Physical erosion control measures * *
Vegetating barren areas/deep-rooted, * *
native plants
Gully prevention (limiting water * *
concentration)
Slope Stability Measures
Side-cast fill pull back/sliver fill failure * *
prevention
LESS COMMON TREATMENTS

Medium Cost Treatments

Surface Drainage
Converting inslope to outslope road (only * *
on appropriate soil types)
Other surface water diversion structures * *
Cross-drain pipe inlet protection or drop * *
inlets
Stream Crossing Structures
Increase culvert capacity * *
Use of trash racks * * *
Culverts reinstallation/realignment * *

Culvert pipe inlet/outlet protection, * * *

armoring, adding headwalls

Converting problem culverts to low-water * *

crossings
Local stream channel stabilization * *
measures
Local scour protection * *
Beaver protection * *
Road-Stream Encroachment
Floating log weirs * *
35
 Relocating road away from stream * *
Erosion Protection
Soil bioengineering and biotechnical * *
methods
Gully stabilization * *
Adding roadway surfacing materials * *
Slope Stabilization Measures
Modifications to cut and fill slopes * *
Slope drainage improvements * *
Use of deep-rooted vegetation * *
Strengthen existing structures (launched * *
soil nails)
Deep patch shoulder repair * *
Road Storage and Closure Issues
Road closure/storage * *

High Cost Treatments

Bridge Protection and Improvement
Increasing freeboard on bridges * *
Major bridge scour protection * *
Slope Stability Measures
Adding retaining structures * *
Changing road grade/alignment/width * *

Simple, inexpensive, and cost-effective preventative measures should always be the first
priority, and thus are most commonly used. Mitigation measures should be a second
priority. More expensive treatments reduce the number of miles of road that can be
treated using limited resources. The simpler preventative treatments are often the less
expensive types, but cost-effectiveness should carry more weight than cost alone. Less
costly treatments might include work such as:
 Maintaining or improving roadway surface drainage.
 Adding cross-drains and leadoff ditches.
 Armoring ditches and drain outlets.
 Vegetating barren slopes and exposed areas.
 Preventing gully formation with improved drainage.
 Adding armored overflow dips, secondary culverts, or diversion prevention
dips/drains on high risk culverts.
 Minor channel debris clearing at culvert inlets and bridges.
 Excavating (pulling back) unstable fill material.

Other treatments that involve much more work, major land disturbance, higher cost, or
more detailed site evaluation and design detail may be important but more difficult to
implement. These types of treatments will likely be implemented less often. Items with
long term effectiveness in this category include:
 Reconforming the road surface (from inslope to outslope).
36
  Replacing or increasing culvert capacity.
 Raising a bridge deck for added freeboard.
 Moving the road away from a stream.
 Reshaping a slope to a flatter angle.
 Strengthening retaining structures or adding a deep patch fill repair.
 Realigning a road section.
 Stabilization of unstable cut and fill slopes.
 Adding biotechnical slope stabilization and erosion control measures.

Short-term or less effective treatments may include:

 Adding trash racks to culverts; or
 Adding streambank stabilization measures.

Evaluation and prioritization of the many factors involved in treatment selection can be
difficult. It is very important to accurately assess the risk and the values at risk and then
tailor the treatment to reduce the risk to an acceptable (agreed upon) level using the most
cost effective treatment. At times, these decisions may be very controversial and
agreement may be difficult to obtain. Good interdisciplinary communications and
thorough study of the situation are critical to this process. Agreeing on effective solutions
for high use roads that are also at high risk of failure can be difficult and controversial
when the treatment options are limited by site conditions and funding.
Climate change may add to the uncertainty as to what level of risk is tolerable for some
sites. Channel margin/CMZ areas and Rain on Snow (ROS) zones, may be “riskier” in
the future. Certain species may be more vulnerable to impact due to the effects of climate
change on their habitat. Conversely, in some areas climate change might basically be a
nonissue. Local climate experts may be helpful in evaluating these risks.

4. Implementation
Implementation of SDRR measures will vary from forest to forest, greatly depending on
funds available to accomplish this work. A lack of specific funding to implement SDRR
treatments does not necessarily preclude taking actions to increase road resistance to
damage. The routine application of Best Management Practices and many actions
inherent in preventative maintenance on the road system can go a long way toward
reducing storm damage. Preventative maintenance practices are discussed in section 5.1.
Our goal is to reduce road damage as well as the overall resource impacts resulting from
a major storm. The objective is to implement SDRR measures as resources and funding
allow. However; planning and preparation for storm events before they come is also
desirable. This work is valuable considering that predicting storms is difficult, storms are
unique, and some damage will always happen from the largest storms, no matter how
much SDRR work is done.

4.1 Planning and Preparation

Major storm events will happen! The question is not if, but rather of when, where, and
how often or how big. Thus to minimize the damage and impacts of natural disasters, a
“storm damage risk reduction mind set” needs to be developed. This mind set should
37
permeate all aspects of road management, from inventory and design through storm
response, maintenance, and repair.
Planning before a disaster occurs includes issues such as having good inventories of the
transportation system and identifying alternative routes to use in case of closures;
knowing the “weakest links” in the transportation system; being prepared for temporary
repairs; and having a reliable system of communication.
Each Forest should develop a process that maximizes their ability to prevent storm
damage and minimizes resource impacts and the disruption of the transportation system.
Some key elements include:
 A transportation inventory that includes:
 All drainage features, ranked as to vulnerability.
 Culvert and culvert condition inventory.
 Road segments or sites of greatest risk or vulnerability.
 List of priority sites for pre-storm inspection and storm patrols (based on historic
damage and projected vulnerability), including maps to facilitate planning;
 Prioritized work lists of:
 Systematic inspection schedule.
 Prioritized sites for SDRR treatment.
 Storm Contingency Plan:
 Identification of alternative transportation routes.
 Available maintenance equipment.
 Temporary bridges on hand.
 An organization such as the Incident Command System (ICS) in place to deal
with disaster coordination.
 Available maps and a reliable system of communication in-place that
functions during a disaster.
 Storm damage patrol organization (Incident Command System (ICS) or other
identified structure).
 Preparations for storm damage assistance, such as cooperation with other
agencies.

A note on storm patrol organizations. The organization should be identified and ready to
respond as needed. Map and communication resources should be readily available and
operational. Cooperative agreements with other agencies should be in place and
communication protocols established.
Storm patrols can be highly successful in preventing severe damage to sites by relieving
blockages at culverts and bridges, but storm patrols can also be dangerous and costly
should personnel and equipment get stranded or harmed during storms. Knowledge of the
magnitude of precipitation that triggers potentially damaging events in different areas can
be used to mobilize storm patrols and limit patrols into dangerous conditions. During
storms, limited patrols may be used on easily accessible main roads. To remain safe and
still effective, patrols should occur prior to the major runoff season or in the fall; and
after the peak of major storms has passed. Damage from the next storm may be prevented
by clearing the latest storm debris and repairing drainage features.
The “Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation
Professionals” contains useful information on the use and structure of the ICS system for
38
overall coordination during disaster conditions, particularly with regard to transportation
facilities. It is available at:
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ics_guide/>.

4.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) as Mitigation

The regular application of roads Best Management Practices is a powerful tool for SDRR
implementation, and should be viewed as part of a “storm damage risk reduction mind
set”. BMPs result in the following:
 Less storm damage.
 Less environmental damage and water quality degradation.
 Less impacts from road delays, closures, and repair costs.
Roads are a vital part of the infrastructure of societies and are used by most people in the
daily pursuits of their lives. They are critical for resource extraction and land
management. At the same time roads can produce significant adverse environmental
impacts. Thus roads need to be built, protected, inspected, and maintained as well as
possible with appropriate design standards and mitigation measures. The application of
Best Management Practices helps to achieve these goals. They also help guarantee a
reasonable level of design quality and environmental protection which are useful when a
major storm hits.
An "environmentally friendly" road is a road that is well located, constructed with
minimum ground disturbance, is hydrologically disconnected from the watershed
drainage network, and is well drained and appropriately surfaced to control surface
erosion and minimize the loss of surfacing material. Road drainage structures are suited
to the site and have adequate flow capacity; cut and fillslopes are stable; and erosion
control measures are effective and minimize sediment delivery to hillslopes and stream
channels.
To function properly and realize the benefits of “best practices”, a road must receive
regular inspection and maintenance. Then it can best serve the needs of the user and
minimize adverse environmental impacts. Most of these items are directly related to
SDRR treatments discussed in the following sections. Many BMPs useful for roads are
outlined and summarized in the USAID/US Forest Service publication titled “Low-
Volume Roads Engineering-Best Management Practices Field Guide”. It is available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/global/topic/sfm/low_resolution_roads_bmp_guide.pdf>.

The Forest Service publication “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality
Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1” (USDA, Forest Service,
2012) provides a general set of best practices for most aspects of forest management,
including roads. This National Core BMP guidance should be used in new planning
efforts, NEPA analysis, and evaluation of proposed activities, particularly if those
projects affect water resources. The National Program will contain the National Core
BMPs, standardized monitoring protocols, national directives, and the data management
structure. The Core National Best Management Practices Guide is available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_Apri
l2012.pdf>.

39
40
5. Common Storm Damage Risk Reduction Treatments
A wide variety of storm damage risk reduction measures exist that can be cost-effective
and reasonably implemented or incorporated into forest roads to reduce their likelihood
of failure and minimize their adverse environmental impacts. Their use depends first on
an assessment of the risks involved, and then on priorities and funds available to
accomplish the work. Treatments are grouped into the following categories:
 Road Maintenance.
 Road Surface Drainage Improvements.
 Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements.
 Bridge Protection and Improvements.
 Road-Stream Encroachment.
 Erosion Prevention and Erosion Control.
 Slope Stabilization Measures.
 Road Storage and Closure.
In each of these categories there are some preventative measures that are relatively
simple to implement or are very cost-effective. The most common, useful, and cost-
effective treatments or measures used are consolidated and discussed in this section 5-
Common Storm Damage Risk Reduction Treatments. Other less common measures that
involve structure replacement, road relocation, major rehabilitation, structural
improvements, or are more expensive to implement, are discussed in section 6-Less
Common or Higher Cost Storm Damage Risk Reduction Treatments.
While these are important treatments for consideration in the right application, some may
be less practical, have only a short-term benefit, require excessive maintenance, possibly
be quite expensive, or be less cost-effective, and therefore less commonly implemented.
Their use should be justified by the analysis of risk, potential damage, and cost-
effectiveness.
The analysis team, with knowledge about the entire Forest road system, must weigh the
trade-offs of high cost treatments at a few sites and the treatment of a larger number of
high risk sites with lower cost treatments. Leaving more sites untreated in order to treat a
few sites with high cost solutions may leave more resources at risk than treating more
sites and cutting back on the higher cost treatments. It cannot be overly stressed that
cost-effectiveness both by site and across a landscape needs to be carefully considered.
Keep in mind that many SDRR treatments are very site specific so field analysis and
good judgment are needed for prescribing and designing on-the-ground treatments.
This guide is not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential treatments, so there
may be other treatments of equal or greater value that are not covered in this
document.
PIARC, the World Roads Association, has presented a general discussion of all natural
hazard impacts and reduction options in their publication “Natural Disaster Reduction for
Roads” (PIARC, 1999). Additionally, the Forest Service publication “Burn Area
Emergency Response Treatments Catalog (BAER)” (Napper, 2006) describes a number
of drainage, channel, and erosion control treatments useful to minimize damage from
41
storms after a forest fire, but treatments also apply to general storm damage risk
reduction. It is available at
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdf/BAERCAT/hi_res/06251801.pdf>.

Road drainage deficiencies are typically the Number One priority for SDRR
treatments, including road surface drainage measures and drainage crossing structure
and channel problems that can lead to structural failures. Relatively inexpensive road
surface drainage improvement measures are particularly cost-effective and can prevent
significant road damage, hillslope erosion, and sediment delivery to streams.
Drainage crossing structures like culverts, bridges, and fords are typically expensive; and
failure may result in significant resource damage, sediment production and loss of road
use for a significant period of time. Risk of failure may be caused by poorly designed
structures, lack of flow capacity or freeboard, poor location, foundation scour, or
problems with the channel such as a confined reach or excessively sharp bend. Roads that
remain closed while repair decisions are made will not receive maintenance beyond the
damage site, perhaps increasing their potential for further damage. Thus these structures
can be a high priority for SDRR measures.
One of the most fundamental actions that can be taken is staying current with needed
road inspections and road maintenance. This work should be routine or periodic, and not
just a function of the road crew. The agency culture should expect, and provide a process
for all employees to actively engage in observing and reporting road drainage problems;
even taking small measures to correct situations that may cause larger future problems.
Blocked ditches, rutted roads, loss of road crown, damaged culverts, etc. all contributes to
additional damage during major storm events.
Erosion protection measures around structures, in exposed areas, along road shoulders
and fillslopes, in quarries, etc. are critical to prevent erosion and subsequent
sedimentation and water quality degradation. Erosion control measures are also often
relatively inexpensive.
While road erosion presents a widespread, chronic source of pollution and may reduce
land productivity, a landslide can be an acute catastrophic source of sediment. Landslides
can close roads for significant periods of time, and be very costly to clean up or stabilize.
The resulting resource damage may be difficult and expensive to clean up or mitigate.
Thus landslide stabilization or slide prevention can be a specific goal in storm damage
reduction on some specific cut and fillslopes.
Road closure and storage, decommissioning, or obliteration are other ways to eliminate
problematic or potentially damaging roads.

5.1 Road Maintenance

Road inspection and maintenance is a fundamental part of road system management.
Therefore it should be done both routinely for many items and periodically for recurring
issues. This is important for roads to function properly any time of year, and particularly
when the large storms occur. Figure 12 shows a road badly in need of road maintenance
that is very vulnerable to additional damage from any storm. When a large storm hits,
needed inspection and maintenance becomes critical, particularly properly functioning
road surface drainage and stream crossing culverts. This applies to roads of all
maintenance levels. Also talk to local personnel about priorities and problem areas.
42
Knowledgeable local individuals often have a great deal of useful historic
information on problem sites. Document the information, and develop a list of
priority areas, based upon local experience, that should receive maintenance first.
Keep in mind, however, that road surface and ditch maintenance will lead to
increased sediment production following the maintenance (Luce and Black, 2001).
Thus, road maintenance should only occur when really needed, particularly when
road surface drainage defects need correction!
Road maintenance items that are particularly important to implement in advance of any
large storm (keeping in mind that there may not be much time to react just prior to a
storm) are listed below, roughly in order of priority:
 Removing logs and debris from around the inlet area of culverts.
 Removing debris from the inlet area of ditch relief cross-drain culverts to prevent
plugging.
 Cleaning out any debris from trash racks upstream of culverts.
 Cleaning ditches to avoid blockage and ponding of water that can saturate the
road subgrade and/or fill material.
 Replacing missing riprap armor around the inlet/outlet of culverts.
 Reshaping surface drainage features like rolling dips, waterbars, etc.
 Removing unwanted berms that have formed along the outside edge of the road.
 Grading and shaping the roadway surface to maintain a distinct inslope, outslope,
or crown shape to move water rapidly off the road surface, keep the road bed dry,
and prevent the concentration of water.
 Removing ruts in the road surface that trap and concentrate water.
 Patching potholes and sealing cracks in an asphalt surface to prevent water
intrusion and accelerated damage to the road.
 Compacting the graded roadway surface to keep a hard driving surface and
prevent the loss of fines.

Figure 12—Ruts and erosion in the road surface because of lack of surface drainage and
maintenance. This road is particularly susceptible to damage from any storm in this
condition (Courtesy of Dan Salm).

43
A special note on ditch cleaning: During the 1970s and 1980s concerns over sediment
production from roads led to changes in road maintenance practices in many areas. Ditch
cleaning was identified as a procedure that exposes erodible soils in the ditch and
reinitiates cutslope erosion processes, generating chronic sources of road sediment. As a
result, less intrusive ditch cleaning became common. Over time, the result of less ditch
cleaning was vegetation encroachment and lower hydraulic efficiency within the ditch.
Brushing activities cut the stems in the ditch but left stubs that trapped debris. This
further reduced ditch efficiency and resulted in plugged ditches. Today a balance must be
met between maintaining hydraulic efficiency and keeping a rough or armored surface or
vegetative cover to reduce ditch erosion.
Ditches that are of greatest concern are those that are hydrologically connected to the
stream system. To maintain hydraulic efficiency of the ditches and also allow for ditch
stabilization and stabilization of the adjacent cutslopes, ditches need to be oversized so
that adequate capacity is maintained in the absence of regular cleaning. Any ditch
enlargement needs to be done such that cutslopes are not undercut, creating a new source
of erosion and instability. Some sites may not be appropriate for oversized ditches, and
will require another technique, such as outsloping and/or insloping without a ditch and
rolling the grade to manage water.
Additional road maintenance or improvement items that are useful for long term
prevention of damage are:
 Armoring ditches in areas of particularly erodible soils or steep grades.
 Adding more frequent ditch relief cross-drains or rolling dips.
 Converting an inslope section of road to an outslope.
 Installing diversion prevention dips at or downslope of stream crossing culverts
that have the potential to divert the stream down the road.
 Adding riprap armor or soil bioengineering protection around the inlet of
undersized culverts or bridges.
 Planting deep-rooted vegetation on over-steep cut and fillslopes or slopes with a
history of movement.
 Installing a “deep patch” slope stabilization repair on chronically settling fills.
Despite the need for maintenance, particularly on open roads, current funding shortages
suggest that most roads will not receive the maintenance they need. Closed roads will
receive little to no maintenance. Unneeded roads should be decommissioned. For most
roads that cannot be closed and will likely receive inadequate maintenance,
stormproofing with good drainage measures, as discussed in the following sections, will
be very important. Roads need to be put into a condition to be as self-maintaining as
possible.

5.2 Road Surface Drainage Improvements

A number of commonly used roadway surface drainage improvements that are useful to
prevent or minimize storm damage are summarized below. With traffic and time, ruts
will form down most roads, thus maintenance is periodically needed. In the absence of
maintenance, the best road drainage measures to prevent ruts are rolling grades; rolling
dips or water bars; or an inslope or outslope road. The following measures are used to
44
construct and improve roads to prevent the concentration of water, move water rapidly
off the road, or facilitate control of water:
 Close or relocate/reconstruct road segments with excessively steep road grades.
The steeper the road grade, the more difficult it is to achieve road surface
drainage. With steep grades, even roads with moderate cross slopes keep water on
the road surface for a long distance. Road grades less than 10 percent are easiest
for control of surface flow. Grades less than 6 percent are helpful on roads
receiving infrequent maintenance.
 Maintain positive surface drainage with an outslope, inslope, or crown roadway
section, as seen in figure 13. A cross-slope of 4 to 6 percent is typical. Six percent
may be ideal for drainage and require the least maintenance. Two percent may be
adequate for a hardened surface on flatter grades, particularly with log haul.
 Roll grades or undulate the road profile frequently to provide locations to disperse
water off the road (see figure 14).
 Use frequently spaced leadoff ditches to prevent the accumulation of excessive
water in the roadway ditches.
 Use roadway cross-drain structures such as rolling dips (or pipe cross-drain
culverts, open top culvert flumes, or deflectors) to both move water across and off
the road surface, and to move water from the inside ditch across and off the road
surface. Space the cross-drain structures frequently enough to remove all surface
water without excessive water accumulation. Since these features are intended to
cut-off and discharge accumulated ditch water they must be cut to the bottom of
the ditch, which may be relatively deep, and dam the ditch on the downgrade side.
 Protect cross-drain outlets with rock (riprap), brush, or logging slash to dissipate
energy and prevent erosion, or locate the outlet of cross-drains on stable, non-
erodible soils, rock, or in well vegetated areas. Also use downspouts to move
water down a fill slope to a stable outlet area. A stable outlet location is
important! The ideal spacing from tables needs to be adjusted to meet field
conditions. Closer cross-drain spacing may eliminate the need for outlet
armoring and minimize water concentration.
 Construct waterbars on infrequently used roads or closed roads to control surface
runoff and remove water from the road before it accumulates into an amount
sufficient to cause erosion. Waterbars are road surface features that do not
intercept the ditch and may redirect road surface flow into in-board ditches on
strongly in-sloped templates.
 Avoid entrenched roads that are difficult to drain. The road may effectively
become a canal. Ideally raise the road grade above the level of the adjacent terrain
with fill material to be able to drain the road surface (see Appendix A1b).
 Use catch water ditches (intercept ditches) across the natural ground above a
cutslope in areas with high intensity rainfall and overland flow. These ditches are
useful to capture overland sheet flow before it pours over the cutslope and erodes
or destabilizes the cut. However, be aware that catch water ditches that are not
properly maintained can become counterproductive pools of water above slopes,
increasing the probability of slope failure or gully erosion.
45
Note that many of the measures listed above may not be necessary if you can
adequately disperse the flow and/or reduce the concentration or amount of water. If
you are getting ditch erosion or need armor at the outlet of a pipe, ditch, or dip, it is
a sign of too much concentrated flow! First try to add additional cross-drainage or
more leadoff ditches to reduce the flow in the problem area!
For all road surface water drainage applications, it is extremely important to know the
soil and hillslope conditions where water is discharged from the road onto the slope.
Most mass slope failures below roads, as well as many gullies, result from excessive
concentration of surface water running off the roads and saturation of marginally stable
or unstable hillslopes. A great deal of useful information regarding road surface drainage,
road damage prevention, and water quality protection is available in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development publication
series called “The Water/Road Interaction Technology (WRIT) Series” (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000b). For additional technical information, see the
website: <http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/>.
Additional information on general road drainage can be found in “Roadway and Roadside
Drainage” (Orr, 1998).

46
Figure 13—Basic road surface drainage options of an inslope, outslope, or a crown
section. The photo shows a crown road with an inside ditch.

47
Figure 14—Examples of a rolling grade to minimize concentration of water on the road.

Adding Rolling Dips (Broad-Based Dips)

Rolling dips, or broad-based dips as they are occasionally called, are designed to divert
and remove water off the road surface and the roadway ditch while safely allowing for
the passage of relatively low-speed traffic. They do not involve culverts that can plug
during storm events. Figure 15 shows the concept of a rolling dip on a road while figure
16 shows the form of a couple of different rolling dips. Rolling dips are a cross between a
waterbar and a grade break. They have a reverse grade to direct water off the road rather
than on down the road. Like waterbars, they rely on a mound or high point at the
downhill side to reverse or change direction of the flow of water.
Rolling dips are an alternative to conventional ditch relief cross-drain culverts, but they
have the added advantage that they drain the roadway surface as well as the ditch. They
can eliminate problems with long, sustained grades and ditches. Rolling dips can also be
carved into existing roadbeds. Rolling dips usually cost less, require less maintenance,
and are less likely to plug and fail during a storm than culvert cross-drain pipes. The

48
outlet area is often armored with rock to prevent erosion or the formation of a gully, as
seen in figure 17.
Rolling dips are appropriate on low-volume, low to moderate speed roads (15-30 MPH
(25-50 KPH)). They are difficult to drive or are dangerous on high speed roads. Rolling
dips are typically not constructed on road grades over about 8 to 10 percent, particularly
for truck traffic. Rolling dips are occasionally constructed on considerably steeper road
grades but the excavation becomes significant with construction of a “canyon” in the road
to adequately turn the water off the roadway, making sight distance poor. Thus they are
not commonly used on steep road grades. Use and design depend greatly on the road
design vehicle.
Rolling dips should be constructed nearly perpendicular to the road, or ideally at a slight
skew (of 25 degrees maximum) to minimize damage to truck frames driving through
them yet effectively change the direction of water flow. For commercial log haul roads,
the rolling dips may be installed perpendicular to the road. For light traffic and
infrequently maintained roads or roads in storage, a 20 -25 degree skew is ideal. The
bottom of the dip should have a 2-5 percent outslope to ensure positive drainage. The
entire structure should be long enough, typically 50 to 200 feet (15 to 60 meters), to
comfortably pass vehicles and equipment. If the road has an aggregate surfacing, the
existing aggregate should be salvaged before a dip is formed and respread once the dip is
completed.
Additional armoring material may be needed in the bottom of the dip where it intercepts
the road subgrade to prevent rutting in soft soils, and at the dip outlet. Again however, if
erosion is occurring at the dip outlet, a better solution may be to add more dips, with a
closer spacing. Figure 18 shows the basic form of a rolling dip. It needs to be moderately
deep to function properly, particularly on the outlet side; have a distinct reverse slope out
of the dip to properly drain water off the road; and it should be constructed using a hand
level, rod and tape (or other simple survey instruments) to insure that the proper grades
are established. The mound and dip should be armored with gravel or rock, particularly in
soft soils, to maintain the shape of the rolling dip during traffic use. Maintenance of dips
with a grader is a learned skill, so operators need to understand the form and function of a
dip. Otherwise a dip can be damaged or destroyed during grader maintenance.
In terrain receiving snow combined with traffic, the dips may need to be constructed
relatively deep, accentuating the depth of the trough, so that water will exit the road even
when tire ruts are formed in the snow. Otherwise the ruts in the snow can act as canals
that channel the water on down the road, through the dip, rather than allowing the water
to be diverted off the road.
Since different vehicles have different clearance requirements, figure 19 shows
dimensions for rolling dips and “drivable waterbars” (discussed later) designed for
passage of a logging truck, a low boy, and a high clearance vehicle. Other examples of
rolling dips, drawings, and information on their use is found in the Appendix A
spreadsheet printout is also included to aid in the design of rolling dips (the spreadsheet is
available on the Region 6 Engineering Intranet site at:
<http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/unit/eng/>.

49
Figure 15—Sketch of a typical rolling dip on a logging road (Adapted from California
Division of Forestry Roads Handbook, 1968).

Figure 16—The form of rolling dip cross-drains on various roads.

Figure 17—An armored and grid rolled rolling dip on the Umatilla NF. Note the
armored dip outlet using small riprap.

50
Figure 18—A rolling dip layout and shape, where the dip is used to move surface water
off the road, drain any inside ditch, and prevent water concentration.

51
Figure 19—A typical drawing of dips and their dimensions, used for different design
vehicles.
52
The recommended range of spacing of rolling dips varies widely among professionals.
Spacing for maximum distance between rolling dips cross-drains construction on forest
roads must be site specific and should be adapted to local climate and existing soil and
slope conditions. As seen in figure 20, many studies have been conducted and
recommendations made for locating surface cross-drains, with a fairly wide range of
spacing values. Spacing distances presented in Table 3, adapted from Packer and
Christensen (1964), are relatively conservative values commonly used in a range of
erodible to non-erodible soils to minimize rilling in the road surface. Thus local
experience and judgment should be used in selecting appropriate spacing values,
based upon field performance, topographic location on the slope, soil type, road
surfacing material, rainfall, traffic, approach grade, and other local conditions. In
sensitive areas such as near riparian zones, spacing might be much closer than in
other upland areas. The specific spacing and discharge location should be field
adjusted to find locations that will not erode or form a gully. Ideal dip or cross-drain exit
locations are in brushy areas, rocky areas, or natural drainage features or ravines.

Figure 20—Range of recommended cross-drain spacing (from Copstead et al. 1998)

Note: Conversion 1 meter = 3.28 ft.

Cross-Drain Culverts (Ditch Relief Culverts)

Culvert cross-drains (relief culverts), are conduits buried beneath the road surface to
discharge ditch water from the toe of the cut to the outside edge of the road. They are
crucial on most inslope and crown roads to prevent excess concentration of water in the
ditch. They are the most common type of road drainage ditch relief, and are most
appropriate for high standard roads where a smooth road surface profile is desired. They
are also very common on low standard roads anywhere a ditch is constructed. However
cross-drain pipes are another expense and the relatively small culvert pipes used for
cross-drains are susceptible to plugging during storms. Rolling dips should be considered
as an alternative.

53
Construct relief culverts with circular or arch pipes, or rectangular concrete or wooden
boxes. An 18-inch (450 mm) minimum diameter round culvert is most often used for
ditch relief to help prevent failure from debris blockage. Smaller pipes plug very easily. If
the pipe has plugged, then install a larger pipe, such as a 24-inch (600 mm) culvert. Some
State Forest Practice rules require 18-inch (450 mm) as minimum size for ditch relief
culverts (Washington State Forest Practices Act). Also consider additional cross-drain
pipes, thus reducing the spacing between the pipes to reduce the volume of water.
Calculate pipe size and spacing by using the rational formula with the small road
watershed and local rainfall intensity-duration data. However; pipe size and spacing are
more commonly based on local experience or on a recommended spacing from tables.
Table 3 lists criteria for spacing of ditch relief cross-drains (and rolling dips) as a
function of road grade and soil erodibility (by Unified Soil Classification System).
Actual spacing can depend on field conditions and on ditch capacity to prevent overflow
or limiting the volume of water to prevent erosion or formation of gully at the outlet, or to
minimize hydrologic connectivity near a stream crossing. Also spacing criteria, which
was developed in the central U.S, may need to be adjusted for areas with higher rainfall
intensity. Downslope stability issues are extremely important when determining spacing
and outlet location of a ditch relief structure.

Table 3—Guidelines for maximum recommended distance between ditch relief cross-
drains and rolling dip cross drains, with spacing in feet, based on soil type (Adapted
from Packer and Christensen (1964), and Copstead, Johansen, and Moll (1998)

Maximum Recommended Distance Between Ditch Relief and Rolling

Dip CrossDrains (feet)
Low to Moderate to Very
Non-Erodible Soils Erodible Soils
Road
GM, GC SW, SP, ML
Grade GW, GP SC, SM
Silty & Sand, Well to
(Percent) Aggregate, Silty Sand,
Clay-Rich Poorly Graded,
Gravels Clayey Sand
Gravels Silt
2 400 300 170 95
4 340 275 150 85
6 300 230 130 75
8 250 200 110 65
10 200 160 90 55
12+ 150 130 75 50
Conversion: 3.28 feet = 1 meter
Note: Soil types are listed by ASTM Unified Soil Classification System.
Plastic clay rich soil (CH, CL, MH) types fall between the above range of
values for Low to Moderately Erodible Soils.
Note that rolling dips are very difficult to install on grades over 8 to 10
percent.

The above guidelines should be adjusted according to Packer and Christenson (1964):

54
 1. Reduce the spacing by 15 feet (5 m) if the road is located in the middle one-third of
a slope.
2. Reduce the spacing by 35 feet (11 m) if the road is located in the bottom one-third
of a slope.
3. Reduce the spacing by 10 feet (3 m) if the road is on an east or west exposure.
4. Reduce the spacing by 20 feet (6 m) if the road is on a south slope.
5. If the resulting spacing after items 1through 4 falls below 55 feet (17 m), use relief
culverts at 55 feet (17 m) spacing and apply aggregate surfacing and erosion
protection measures such as vegetative seeding to ditches, road surface, fills,
shoulders, and embankments.
Culvert cross-drain pipe installation details are seen in figure 21. Install culvert cross-
drain pipes with an ideal angle of 15 to 30 degrees skew to the centerline of the road,
using a minimum outslope of at least 2 to 3 percent. Both are important to move water
efficiently into the pipe and to prevent plugging. Additionally, the outslope should be at
least two percent steeper than the ditch grade it is draining to reduce deposition at the
inlet and prevent debris from plugging the culvert. Usually a berm or ditch-block
structure is needed in the ditch immediately beyond the cross drain to insure that water
turns and enters into the pipe. This ditch block should completely fill and span the ditch.
An excavated inlet basin is also commonly used. The pipe should exit at ground level to
prevent a waterfall and erosion. On very steep ground, the pipe outlet area may need
specific reinforcement such as live stakes and riprap. Again, if much outlet erosion is
occurring, additional cross-drains may be the best solution to reduce the quantity of
water. In some cases, place rock armor at the outlet for energy dissipation and erosion
control, as seen in figure 22.

Figure 21—A typical culvert cross-drain installation.

55
Figure 22—A cross-drain culvert with an armored outlet and lead off ditch on fairly flat
ground.

Waterbars
Waterbars are used to prevent concentrated water flow from accelerating down a sloping
road and to divert water off a road. Waterbars typically are used on roads that are closed
or limited-use roads and trails. It is an excellent method of closing or decommissioning
roads and trails where surface water running down the road may cause erosion of exposed
mineral soil. Spacing may be quite close, depending on road grade and soil type, such
that erosion does not occur between or within waterbars. Improperly installed or spaced
waterbars can allow water to end-run (pass the waterbar) or cause too much water
concentration, resulting in additional erosion. Waterbars are installed on grades up to 30
percent or more. On open roads, waterbars are designed as drivable.
Drivable Waterbars, as shown in figure 23, have the same function as normal waterbars
(to impede water flow down a road) but are constructed in a manner such that high-
clearance vehicles or 4-by-4 vehicles can reasonably drive over them. Drivable waterbars
are occasionally used on inactive roads, and 4-wheel drive roads that receive little use yet
occasionally need to pass vehicles. Spacing of waterbars is much closer than the spacing
of rolling dips or cross-drains, and is presented in Table 4. Drivable waterbar information
is also found in Appendix A1.
Non-Drivable Waterbars are waterbars or mounds that are so radically constructed that
they cannot reasonably be driven over by vehicles, including 4-wheel drive vehicles.
They are intended to both prevent use (by motorized vehicles) of the road and stop water
from accumulating or running down the road. They are typically built into roads in
storage, decommissioned roads, or skid trails that are closed. Spacing criteria is the same
as used for drivable waterbars.
56
Figure 23—Drivable waterbar construction (Adapted from Wisconsin’s Forestry Best
Management Practices for Water Quality.1995, Publication FR093, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources).

Table 4—Recommended Waterbar Spacing (feet)

Recommended Waterbar Spacing (feet)
Road/Trail Low to Erodible
Grade Non Erodible Soils
% Soils (1) (2)
0-5 250 130
6-10 200 100
11-15 150 65
16-20 115 50
21-30 100 40
30+ 50 30
Note:
(1) Low Erosion Soils=Coarse Rocky Soils, Gravel & Some
Clay
(2) High Erosion Soils=Fine, Friable Soils, Silt, Fine Sands,
Volcanic Ash

Conversion: 1 meter = 3.28 ft

Adapted from Packer and Christensen (1964)
& Copstead, Johansen, and Moll (1998)

57
Ditches and Ditch Treatments
Ditches are a key tool to collect, move and discharge water from the roadway. They
should be large enough to carry the anticipated accumulation of water, and possibly be
somewhat oversized to function during major storm events, even when the ditches have
not been cleaned out or maintained for a long time. They can also be a major source of
erosion if too much water is in the ditch or its velocity is too high. Water is removed from
the ditch with use of ditch relief cross drains, rolling dips, and leadoff ditches. If water
cannot be adequately dispersed or removed from the ditch, then the ditch can be armored,
commonly with rock or vegetation, or the velocity reduced with use of small check dam
structures, as discussed below. Check dams are problematic and need attention to
installation detail! If a ditch is armored or lined, it may have to be initially “oversized” to
accommodate the armor and still have the needed flow capacity, particularly if
maintenance is infrequent. With armoring or check dams, the ditch can be difficult to
maintain.

Leadoff Ditches
Leadoff ditches, or turnout ditches are another way to discharge water and prevent
accumulation of excess water in the roadway ditches (see figure 24). They are an
inexpensive alternative to culvert cross drains and should be used at every opportunity
where the terrain is suitable. They usually do not use pipes that might plug in a storm.
They are used in flat terrain where there is no cutbank at approaching drainage crossings,
and at fill areas across a swale or ravine. In very flat terrain a leadoff ditch may have to
be quite long to daylight out into the forest. They work best with an elevated roadway.
They are also used at switchbacks where the road quickly changes direction across the
slope to divide the water flow. As with rolling dips or culvert cross drains, they should be
discharged in nonerosive areas or protected outlets to prevent erosion. Alternatively, if
terrain or circumstances do not allow for the use of a leadoff ditch, it may be possible to
discharge the ditch water into a sediment catchment basin. To disconnect the road
drainage from the stream, discharge the water into the forest or a vegetated area before
the ditch reaches a stream channel, as seen in figure 25 and figure 26. Figure 26 also
shows a number of measures used to prevent sediment from entering streams at a road-
stream crossing.

58
Figure 24—Ditch layout and leadoff before a stream (Adapted from Wisconsin’s Forestry
Best Management Practices for Water Quality, 1995).

Figure 25—A leadoff ditch discharging into the forest before reaching a live stream at
the bottom of the grade (near the parked vehicles).

59
Figure 26—A sketch of a number of sediment protection measures used at a road-stream
crossing, including discharging leadoff ditches into a vegetated area before reaching the
stream.

Ditch Armoring
Water that runs in the ditch can erode and move large quantities of soil and debris.
Avoiding the need for a ditch is ideal, but when a ditch is necessary, frequent ditch relief
cross-drainage is ideal to prevent water accumulation and reduce or prevent ditch erosion.
However, this is not always possible where the ditch is deep or the road template is
strongly in-sloped. Alternatively, when cross-drains are not possible to construct, an
eroding ditch can be armored with graded rock to decrease the velocity of water, prevent
erosion and downcutting, and to allow the deposition of sediment (figure 27). Small rock
riprap is typically used as a lining material. A graded 3- to 6-inch (75 to 150 mm) rock
size is ideal. A geotextile is sometimes placed under the rock as a filter to separate the
rock from the soil and keep soil from eroding under the rock. For relatively slow
velocities, a ditch armored with grass may be adequate.
By decreasing the velocity, silt and debris are deposited in the ditch instead of additional
bed material being eroded away. Increasing the roughness of the ditch decreases the
velocity of water. Rock armor ditches are common but need periodic maintenance to
remove sediments. They are also labor intensive to construct and can be difficult to clean
and maintain.

60
Figure 27—A rock armored ditch to control the water flow and prevent down-cutting of
the ditch.
Check dams (also called ditch dikes) in ditches can be an alternative to solid lined
ditches. They can be made with many types of materials, including sand bags, loose
rocks, masonry or concrete, branches and straw or brush, logs, gabions, or live
vegetation. Of all these materials, loose rock is one of the most commonly used and most
effective designs, as seen in figure 28 and figure 29. Note however that ditch check
dam structures are not typically recommended for stormproofing roads that may be
closed or receive infrequent maintenance! If not properly constructed or
maintained, they can force flow around the structure and erode or undermine the
road shoulder and cutbank.
The purpose of check dams is to increase roughness and decrease the velocity of water
moving down the ditch with grade control. A series of check dams along a ditch reduces
the effective gradient of the ditch, transforming a relatively steep gradient to a stair-
stepped channel, and they trap sediment. Water successively flows on gentle slopes
between structures, and then cascades over the stabilized structure. A settling pond or
sediment catchment structure also might be added as a ditch approaches a stream crossing
if the water cannot be discharged into the forest.

61
Figure 28—A typical rock lined ditch and use of ditch check dams.
The California Division of Forestry Roads Handbook (1968) presents some criteria for
spacing of check structures in roadside ditches. Assuming that check structures are
typically about 12 inches (300 mm) high, spacing is every 12 to 100 feet (4-30 m) along
the ditch, depending on ditch slope and soil erosion potential, as seen in Table 5.

Table 5—Recommended Maximum Distance Between Ditch Check Dams (Adapted from
California Division of Forestry Roads Handbook (1968)

Recommended Maximum Distance Between

Ditch Check Dams, in feet (meters).
Road Grade Low to Erodible
% Non-Erodible Soils
Soils
0-4 100 (30) 50 (15)
4-7 50 (15) 25 (8)
7-10 25 (12) 12 (4)
10-12+ 12 (4) <12 (4)

These spacing values are approximate, and can be proportionally greater in a deep ditch
with 18-inch -high (450 mm) dike structures. Adjust spacing for local soil and rainfall
conditions, particularly based upon field performance of the structures, and maintenance
frequency.

Rock check structures need maintenance to retain their function and to remove excess
sediments, and they are also labor intensive to build, but they are very effective in
reducing flow velocity and trapping sediment. Depending on spacing and location, they
can be difficult to maintain. They are a dam-like structure, so they have design details

62
that are needed to make them function properly. Key design elements include the
following:
 A “V or U” shaped top to keep the flow in the middle of the ditch and prevent an
end run around the structure that can cut into the road. The bottom of the V-notch
must be below the elevation of the road surface.
 The spacing is critical to achieve a non-erodible effective gradient between
structures.
 The structures need to be firmly placed into the bottom of the ditch and into the
ditch bank and designed to prevent undercutting. Since water cascades over the
structures, there is the potential for erosion at the base of the structures which can
undermine the structures and render them useless.
 The structure should be lower than the elevation of the road shoulder to prevent
water from flowing onto the road (see figure 29, left photo).

Figure 29—Check structures of rock or bagged gravel installed in the ditch to reduce
flow velocity and trap sediment.

More detailed information on check dam design and installation is presented in the
section on Gully Stabilization in section 6.5-Erosion Control.
Vegetation lined ditches, typically using non-invasive grasses, offer a natural alternative
to other ditch armoring or check structures on gentle slopes or nearly flat ground. Grass
lined ditches are often suitable for ditch slopes up to 5 to 10 percent, depending on soil,
grass type, and climate. Vegetated ditches are inexpensive and present an aesthetic
natural look, as seen in figure 30. They need periodic maintenance to remove sediments
and this maintenance can be difficult. On flat slopes with a lack of maintenance, the
vegetation (as well as other debris) can block the flow and pond water, thus saturating the
adjacent road. Ideally grasses should be selected for good growth properties, hardiness,
dense ground cover, deep roots to stabilize the ditch, and some tolerance to periodic
inundation. If necessary, reseed the ditch if maintenance damages the grass.
On steeper slopes, grasses may be inadequate and more durable ditch protection is
needed, such as Turf Reinforcing Mats (TRM), rock riprap, a masonry liner, etc. Since
rock armoring or ditch structures partially block the ditch, a ditch may need to be initially
oversized during construction or reconstruction to accommodate the armoring and the
anticipated flow, plus some freeboard. If widening or deepening the ditch, do not
undercut the adjacent cutslope.

63
Figure 30—A ditch lined with vegetation (grasses). Note that as the ditch gradient
increases the grasses alone may not be enough to prevent higher velocities from eroding
the ditch.

Ditch or Pipe Outlet Armoring

The accelerated velocity of water leaving a roadway ditch or culvert pipe can cause
severe erosion or gullying if discharged directly onto erodible soils. Always try to align
and discharge culverts and cross-drain dip drainage structures at the natural ground level
away from a live stream, a stable, non-erodible soil area and in stable areas, such as an
existing natural (dry) swale or channel, rocky areas, or well-vegetated areas. When
necessary the pipe, dip, or drain outlet area can be stabilized, and the energy of the water
dissipated, by discharging the water onto a few cubic yards (1-2 cubic meters) of a graded
rock riprap, as shown in figure 31. Outlet erosion is also a sign that closer cross-drain
spacing is needed!

64
Figure 31—Photos (above) of pipe riprap outlet protection and flow into a sediment
catchment basin (right), and a drawing detail (below) of culvert outlet protection.

Other energy dissipation measures include stilling basins or settling ponds, reinforced
splash aprons, gabion baskets, or dense vegetation, slash and limbs, logs, boulders, or
bedrock. When using slash, press the material into good contact with the ground, or
mixed with varying sizes of debris to provide a ground surface protection layer.
A pipe should discharge beyond the toe of any fillslope. Extend the pipe 1.5 to 3 feet (0.5
to 1.0 meters) beyond the toe of the fillslope to prevent erosion of the fill material. In
high fills one might need a downdrain pipe or armored channel to safely convey the water
to the toe of the fill. To minimize the outlet erosion, a “T” fitting may be installed at the
bottom on a long steep downspout to divide the flow. Downdrain pipes are subject to
high shear stresses and may be unreliable in areas of heavy snow accumulation. Freezing
temperatures, particularly in shade areas or on north-facing slopes, can also cause small
pipes to plug with ice.

When ditch relief discharge cannot avoid unstable slopes, the spacing needs to be
adjusted so that no structure discharges an amount of water that will increase gully
formation or the risk of mass wasting. These problems are typically avoided by field
observation during maintenance activities or by local experience. In some cases,
hillslope stability analyses may need to be performed to determine the added risk.

5.3 Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements

Culvert and Channel Maintenance
Culvert maintenance and periodic cleaning of the pipe and channel near the inlet to the
pipe are critical to the proper function of a pipe. Lack of maintenance contributes to many
culvert failures. Ideally, pipes will receive maintenance before any major storm, though
that can really only be guaranteed by performing maintenance routinely and after the last
major storm. Common maintenance items include the following:
65
  Keeping the inlet clear of wood, sediment buildup, rocks and vegetation.
 Ensuring that headwalls are in good condition.
 Relining worn culvert barrels or replacing the pipe.
 Replacing damaged or missing splash aprons or riprap.
 Bending back damaged metal blocking the entrance.

Culvert Diversion Prevention and Overflow Protection

Diversion prevention is one of the most cost-effective and common SDRR treatments for
culverts at risk of overtopping and washing down the road. The physical consequences of
exceeding the capacity of a stream crossing structure usually depends on the degree of
exceedence, crossing fill volume, fill characteristics, soil characteristics, and the flow
path of the overflowing stream discharge. When the structure capacity is exceeded, or if
the culvert pipe plugs with debris, the stream backs up behind the fill. If the low point of
the crossing is the ditchline, the water will divert down the road rather than flow directly
over the road fill and back into the natural channel. At some point the water will leave the
road and erode fill and the hillside all the way to a channel, as shown in figure 32b and c.
If the low point is over the pipe, or an armored dip is constructed in the roadway near the
structure, water will flow across the road and return quickly to the channel (see figure 32a
and figure 33). Armoring of the dip or low point is important to prevent erosion,
downcutting, and additional damage to the road and fill. Figure 34 shows photos of a
stream diversion (left photo) and the subsequent damage to the road (right photo), where
the road was basically washed out for several hundred feet (100 yards). Diversion
potential exists on roads that have a continuous climbing grade across the stream crossing
or where the road slopes downward away from a stream crossing in at least one direction.

66
Figure 32—Existing undersized culvert fitted with an armored overflow dip to pass water
without stream diversion or washing out the fill (upper figure). Lower figures show a
stream diversion where a plugged culvert crossing sends water down the road rather
than staying in its natural channel, causing considerable off-site damage (Adapted from
M. Furniss et al. 1997).

67
Figure 33—A stream diversion dip built into a stream crossing, showing an ideal location
of the dip at the transition from the fill to the native ground (Adapted from Weaver and
Hagans, 1994).

Figure 34—A plugged pipe that “floated” out of the fill (left photo), resulting in a stream
diversion down the road and past a culvert cross-drain with metal drop inlet, (right
photo), causing extensive damage to the road and significant environmental impacts.
Crossings with diversion potential typically pose much greater overall risks than those
without diversion potential because the resulting road and hillslope erosion delivers large
68
volumes of sediment to the stream network and can totally destroy a section of the road,
requiring expensive repairs. Figure 35 shows a plugged culvert location, allowing water
to run down the road (left photo). On down the road the creek eventually left the road,
causing a major roadway and fill washout (right photo). In almost all cases, diversion
will create more damage than stream flows that breach the fill but remain in the channel.
Research in Redwood Creek, California showed an average 10 times increase in sediment
delivery due to gullying and debris slides triggered by stream diversion as compared to a
washout of the stream crossing fill (William Weaver, personal communication).

Plugged
48” CMP

Water washing
Down the road

Figure 35—Stream diversion caused by a plugged 48 inch CMP that forced water down
the road (left photo) and caused the roadway fill washout (right photo) when it exited the
road (Courtesy of Bob Gubernick).

Figure 37 shows another stream diversion site where a culvert pipe plugged and sent the
water down the ditchline, destroying the road. Here a cascading failure was created where
excessive water in the ditchline caused a series of cross-drains and culverts to plug and
fail on down the road, compounding the problem at each new crossing. Stream diversion
can occasionally be caused by accumulations of snow and ice in a channel or on the road
that directs overflow out of the channel (Fred Swanson, personal communication). Snow
removal operations need to consider this potential effect and configure removed snow
such that stream diversion will not occur (Furniss et al. 1997).
Also stream diversion can be caused where a channel has severe aggradation, particularly
on a fan deposit, where the channel periodically aggrades and shifts to a new location.
Figure 37 shows a stream diversion caused by stream aggradation at the location of a
road-stream crossing. The site was additionally aggravated by the blocking of the small
bridge with sediment and debris.

69
Figure 36— Stream diversion caused by plugging of a 48 Inch culvert (left photo) and
subsequent cascading failure and road damage on down the road (right photo) (Courtesy
of Robin Stoddard.

Figure 37—Stream diversion down a road caused by stream aggradation that filled the
channel and a plugged bridge (Courtesy of Bob Gubernick).

The solution to prevent stream diversion is typically the addition of a dip near the culvert
pipe, as seen in figure 32a and figure 33, and in figure 38 and figure 39. The rolling dip
can be placed directly over the pipe, but preferably should be placed just down-grade of
the drainage crossing at the transition point between the fill and the native ground to
prevent stream diversion in the event that the drainage crossing culvert plugs (see figure
33). This minimizes erosion delivered to the stream in the event of overtopping and is
easier to reconstruct.

On relatively high standard roads that have a risk of stream diversion yet travel speeds
make a diversion dip or rolling dip undesirable, a designed failure point can be built into
the road. This soft spot in the road that will wash out if flow goes over it is located where
a dip would otherwise be located. This relatively soft failure point in the road subgrade
70
can be constructed with fine gravel or sand rather than compacted soil (Bob Gubernick,
personal communication). With the dip or a designed failure point, water can be diverted
back into the natural drainage before flowing down the road and causing road and
additional resource damage. The cost of an overflow dip or designed failure point is
relatively small compared to the cost of replacing the entire fill, or repairing major
damage to the road, and therefore can be cheap insurance.

Low Point
In Dip

Figure 38—A concrete headwall (left) and an over flow dip placed just down the road (as
seen at the low point where man is standing down the road (right photo)) to prevent
future stream diversion. This is the culvert repair and diversion prevention dip installed
at the damage site seen in figure 39.

Damage area
down the road

New
Dip

Figure 39—Another storm damage diversion site with road damage down the road at the
curve (right) and the diversion prevention dip added up the road above the damaged area
(left) just below the culvert crossing (not seen in photo) to prevent future stream
diversion.
For technical information on diversion potential consult the “Water/Road Interaction
Technology (WRIT) Series” publication “Diversion Potential at Road-Stream Crossings”
(Furniss et al. 1997). The publication discusses the physical effects of diversion potential,
and provides design considerations for remediation of existing crossings that have
diversion potential. Link to the document: <http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/w-
r/97771814.pdf>.

71
5.4 Bridge Protection and Improvements
Many changes can occur at a bridge site and in the watershed upstream of the bridge over
time. Climate change and changes in the watershed can affect both the peak flows and the
amount of sediment transported through the stream or river system. More glacial melt
may be expected in some regions. Thus bridges should be carefully evaluated for
increases in storm damage risks that were not anticipated at the time of construction.
Understanding the processes at work in the watershed upstream and downstream of a
bridge site is very important for determining the most cost effective treatment.
Bridges are a large investment, and therefore a large liability if they fail! Good bridge
design and bridge scour protection measures should be built into the initial design, but
additionally channel maintenance and cleaning is often required to maintain the bridge
flow capacity and reduce the chance of blockage during a storm.

Channel Maintenance and Debris/Sediment Clearing

Channel debris and vegetation may cause scour problems or plugging for bridges.
Common countermeasures for an existing bridge with debris problems include:
 Monitoring debris buildup for prompt removal.
 Clearing upstream debris and vegetation.
 Installing debris catchers or deflectors (which therefore require maintenance).
 Removing sediment or areas of aggradation that decrease channel capacity.

Channel clearing and maintenance are important to maintain bridge flow capacity. The
key thing to understand about this type of treatment is that the ‘symptom’ is most
likely the result of natural stream and riparian processes, or altered processes due
to the presence of the structure itself or an encroaching roadway or land use
upstream. Most treatments are only temporary and will require occasional new clearing
of debris and vegetation. The best long term solution should consider the replacement of
the bridge with a longer, higher structure, or relocation of the structure to a less
susceptible site.
Undesirable vegetation, brush, trees, and debris should be removed from the channel near
the structure, particularly for the bankfull width of the channel. This work is often
controversial since channel disturbance should be minimized, yet the structure flow
capacity should be maximized and risk of blocking a bridge should be minimized. A
balance is needed to remove counterproductive vegetation yet leave vegetation needed
for channel stability and ecological benefits. Clearing and removal of channel material
can be damaging and difficult. Thus decisions regarding the extent of channel clearing
should be an interdisciplinary process. Figure 40 shows a channel encroached on by
vegetation while figure 41 shows a channel relatively clear of vegetation and debris.
Vegetation established in a stream channel bottom is not normal unless there has been a
change in the runoff pattern or volume. An attempt should be made to understand the
watershed condition, what has caused the change, and what ramifications the change has
on streamflow at the structure site.

72
Figure 40—Stream channel under a bridge that needs clearing and tree removal if flows
are being blocked, diverted, or there is risk of plugging the bridge.

Figure 41—A bridge opening and channel relatively free of vegetation and debris.
Aggradation in the channel can also reduce the cross-sectional area of a bridge and thus
reduce flow capacity, as seen in figure 42. This tends to occur on a river bend where a
point bar develops on the inside of the bend. Some channel deposits need to be
periodically removed to maintain bridge flow capacity. This material is typically sandy
gravel, so it may be useful as a fill material or surfacing material in some other area. Note
that some gravel and boulders should be left in the channel for fish spawning bed
material.

73
Figure 42—A bridge with significant channel aggradation on left from a growing point
bar on the inside of a river bend that now needs removal to maintain bridge flow
capacity. The point bar will rebuild with time, creating a continual maintenance problem
at this bridge site. Bends are often poor locations for bridge sites.
Figure 43 shows a damaged bridge that nearly failed due to minimum freeboard and its
location on an alluvial fan. During a major storm tall trees fell into the drainage and
formed a log jam at the bridge. This subsequently caused aggradation in the channel at
the bridge (seen in the photo), thus losing hydraulic capacity through the bridge, and this
forced a large amount of storm flow around the left abutment of the structure. This
damaged the bridge approach and washed out a section of road.

Figure 43—A bridge with minimum freeboard and located on an alluvial fan that nearly
failed due to a log jam and subsequent aggradation in the channel. This forced some flow
around the left abutment of the structure (Courtesy of Bob Gubernick).

74
The book “Steepland Forests: A historical perspective of protection forestry in New
Zealand” (McKelver, P. 1995) offers some useful insights into stream channel
aggradation problems, particularly when moving from a steep upland topography to a
flatter alluvial plain.

5.5 Erosion Prevention and Erosion Control

Erosion Prevention and Drainage Improvements
Erosion prevention on roads, the entire road prism, and on disturbed areas is fundamental
for the protection of water quality, particularly during major storms. The two main causes
of erosion are concentration of flowing water and lack of ground cover over the soil.
Vegetative ground cover and good water infiltration are the primary long-term defenses
against erosion.
Erosion control measures need to be implemented immediately following construction
and every time an area is disturbed. They particularly need to be implemented before the
first winter period following construction or ground disturbance, and before any major
storm event. In areas of construction ground cover is difficult to achieve, so sediment is
typically trapped around the site. The area of disturbance can also be limited and areas
can be progressively rehabilitated.
Water flow concentration should be prevented or eroding channels should be armored or
stabilized. Any sediment should be trapped before it enters natural drainage channels, but
priority should be given to treatments at the source of the erosion. Bare ground should be
covered with some form of matting or mulch to reduce initial erosion and promote
growth of grass seed or other types of appropriate vegetation (ideally native) for long-
term erosion control. Rapid growing annual grasses are often used to provide quick
ground cover, and then they will be replaced with native vegetation over time.
Surface erosion from road surfaces, shoulders, cuts, and fills, is significant, as discussed
in “Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information” (Gucinski et al. 2001).
Movement of sediment can occur during and after road construction, after road
maintenance, during logging or mining activities, as the road is being used, if a road is
closed but not stabilized, or from poor land management practices near the road. Roughly
half of the erosion from a logging operation, for instance, comes from the associated
roads and skid trails. Mass erosion rates from roads are typically one to several orders of
magnitude higher than from other land uses. Much of that erosion occurs during storm
events!!
Erosion control is a two-step process; step one is to prevent short-term erosion from bare
or exposed soil. Step two is control of long-term erosion through establishment of
vegetation. Sometimes in steep or severe conditions, a structural solution, such as a
retaining wall, ground armoring with rock, or a gully plug, is required. The ideal erosion
control solution promotes the germination and growth of plants, and encourages the
natural recruitment of the surrounding native plant community while it protects the soil
from short-term erosion. Conserving native topsoil and re-spreading it over an area helps
promote native plant growth. There are numerous treatments, combinations of treatments,
and emerging products that may be suitable for a site.

75
An Erosion Control Plan is a very useful tool for any project to help describe the local
conditions, problems at the site, evaluate possible solutions, and determine the cost of the
erosion and sediment control measures. This plan should be used for construction
projects, SDRR measures, and site repairs. An evaluation of the most effective physical,
vegetative, or biotechnical treatments can be made, or use of some combination of them.
Short-term and long-term measures can be planned, as well as an evaluation of needs
such as fertilizers, irrigation, protection measures, etc.
An “Erosion Control Treatment Selection Guide” by Todd Rivas (2006) describes
erosion control principles, erosion types and soil types. The guide also details erosion
control treatments and proper treatment selection for use by engineers, soil scientists, and
other resource specialists. Link to the document:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/hi_res/06771203hi.pdf >.
Another useful reference combining many erosion and sediment control practices in a
forest road setting, including drainage control, vegetation, use of mulches, biotechnical
measures, and various physical structures is presented in the publication: “Erosion and
Sediment Control Practices for Forest Roads and Stream Crossings”, by Clayton Gillies
with FP Innovations-FERIC Division in Canada (2007).

Where Erosion Occurs Along Roads

Most disturbed road areas, including the road surface, road fills, some road cuts,
shoulders, and drainage ditches are exposed to erosion at some time, Other associated
areas such as landings, skid roads, construction staging and storage areas, borrow pits and
quarries, and other working areas all can erode and produce sediment. Figure 44 shows
the common types of road erosion, including sheet and rill erosion on the cutbank (and
fillslopes), ditch and road surface erosion, and gully erosion when water becomes
concentrated. Figure 45 shows severe erosion in a road cut where a road passes through
very erodible soil.

Figure 44—Common types of erosion along a road.

76
Figure 45— Severe erosion in a road cutslope in erodible soil (Photo courtesy of Vincent
Barandino).

Most erosion control prevention practices fall into three basic types. They are Physical
Methods, Vegetative Methods, and Soil Bioengineering or Biotechnical Methods.
Common erosion control practices include:
 Installing drainage and sediment control structures.
 Dispersing water/surface runoff.
 Surface armoring and ground cover with netting, mulch, slash, rock, etc.
 Bed preparation, mulching and grass seeding.
 Establishing vegetation for ground cover.
 Using simple soil bioengineering methods.

Figure 46 through figure 50 show a variety of these erosion and sediment control
methods. A great many erosion control treatments exist, along with an entire profession
and industry to help achieve effective erosion control. Effective erosion control requires
assessment of the situation, attention to detail, inspection and quality control during
installation, and post-project maintenance!

Physical Methods for Erosion Control

Drainage control is one of the two key elements for erosion control (the other being
ground cover). Water concentration must be prevented by dispersing the flow, or water
must be controlled. Concentrated, fast flowing water has a large amount of energy and
therefore a great ability to scour, erode, and form gullies. Many physical erosion control
measures are used to help disperse or control the flow of water, such as armored ditches,
berms, check dams, or turf reinforcing mats, as listed below. Many other measures used

77
to disperse and control surface drainage, such as rolling dips, road shaping, and use of
ditch relief culverts and leadoffs are discussed in section 5.2- Road Surface Drainage
Improvements.
Physical methods also include the wide range of materials used to provide protective
ground cover, such as mats and netting, silt fences, turf reinforcing mats, slash and
mulches, bonded fiber matrix, rock and concrete, etc. Often these products are used in
conjunction with drainage and vegetation.
Physical methods include the following wide range of alternatives:
 Berms to control and direct water flow, or berm removal to disperse runoff.
 Walls, barriers, and sinks or sediment basins to trap sediment.
 Mulch and soft ground cover with straw, wood chips, slash, leaves, bark,
shredded paper, mats, bonded-fiber matrices, etc. to temporarily protect the
ground surface against erosion.
 Hard armor/ground cover with rocks, riprap; articulated concrete blocks, geocells,
gabions, etc. for permanent ground cover.
 Rocking on the roadway surface, particularly on steep road grades, erodible soils,
areas of concentrated water flow, and hydrologically connected roads at
approaches to stream crossings.
 Rolled erosion control products (RECP) (erosion control and revegetation blankets)
and mats to provide ground cover and promote vegetation. Mats and blankets
need to have good contact with the soil and be pinned down in accordance with
the manufacturers’ recommendations.
 Turf reinforcement mats (TRMs) to armor high flow channels.
 Silt or sediment fences to trap sediment, particularly around work sites.
 Stabilizers and tackifiers to modify the soil surface to make it more resistant to
erosion.
 Hydromulching and hydroseeding.
 Modified soil surfaces (terracing, roughening, etc.) to control runoff and aid
revegetation.
 Waterbars, rolling dips and other cross-drain structures to disperse and divert water from
the road surface and ditches.
 Check dams and rock armor used in ditches to reduce velocity and prevent downcutting
and erosion.
Each method has certain advantages or disadvantages, installation details and
requirements, and performance characteristics. Most should have good contact with the
soil and mats need to be closely pinned down; hard products need a compact soil surface
and often a filter layer under them; silt fences need support, the appropriate geosynthetic,
and some soil embedment, etc. Some treatments require more maintenance than others.
Treatment selection should consider whether maintenance will happen! The “Erosion
Control Treatment Selection Guide” (Todd Rivas, 2006) helps describe these methods
and select the most appropriate or cost-effective solution. Figure 46 and figure 47 show
some of these physical measures.

78
Figure 46—Common physical erosion control measures, including straw (left), netting,
wood chips and straw wattles (right), to provide ground cover until vegetation can grow.

Figure 47—Common physical erosion control measures

79
Vegetative Methods
Ground cover is the most critical site factor influencing erosion. Vegetation is the most
desirable type of long-term ground cover in forest and range settings and provides seven
major benefits. Vegetation:
 Reduces raindrop impact via top growth and leaf litter.
 Reduces runoff velocity via increased roughness from growing plants and leaf
litter.
 Provides structural integrity (reinforcement) of the soil via the root system;
 Filters chemical pollutants and sediments from runoff.
 Increases water infiltration into the soil.
 Increases percolation through the soil, the lateral movement of water in the soil.
 Increases evapotranspiration, the vertical movement of water to the air through
plant tissues.

Vegetative methods use grasses, brush, and trees to offer ground cover, root strength, and
soil protection with inexpensive and aesthetic natural vegetation. Live vegetative
hedgerows on contour help trap sediment on a slope. Figure 48 and figure 49 show some
of the considerations and types of vegetative erosion control. Actually each shows a
variety of vegetative treatments, such as grasses plus shrubs and trees, used in
conjunction with physical methods.

Figure 48—Common types of vegetative erosion control measures including grasses on a

closed road and deep-rooted shrubs and trees (as well as grass) on a cutslope.
Good soil preparation is key to the long term success of vegetative treatments. The
quality and fertility of the soil directly affects its productivity and ability to grow
vegetation. Compacted soils should be loosened with scarification or subsoiling, and the
addition of organic material. Sterile soils may need amendments to promote growth.
Other chemicals or minerals in soil may retard growth and need mitigation. The Erosion
Control Plan should consider the soil condition and often a chemical analysis of the soil
is desirable.
Vegetative treatments need to be designed and installed to provide protection
immediately, in the short term, and in the long term! Often physical methods are used to
initially protect seeds promote long-term revegetation. Thus a phased and/or mixed
application of vegetation is needed, typically with a variety of plants. Ideally vegetation
should be selected for good growth properties, hardiness, dense ground cover, and deep
roots for slope stabilization. Local native species having these properties are preferable

80
and should be considered first. When natives are not practical, select non-native plants
with non-invasive characteristics. Some shrubs such as willows (Salix family) have been
used extensively in the Western United States, particularly in wet sites, because of their
strong, deep roots, adaptability, and ability to resprout. Refer to local forest botanists
and native plant guides and policies before prescribing vegetative treatments.

Figure 49—Vegetative erosion control measures along a road (often mixed with some
physical measures).

Vegetation typically has the following characteristics:

 Plants need to be compatible with local climate.

81
  Vegetation needs water and sunlight.
 Local native species will likely do best.
 Vegetation is live, so needs tender loving care, following appropriate handling
and planting procedures, and keeping the materials moist during collection,
transport, storage, and installation.
 It is typically the best, cheapest, and most aesthetic long-term treatment.

There are a number of considerations for the most effective use of seeds, cuttings, or
potted transplants:
 Seed should be selected for quality, resistance, and good germination properties.
Rates of seed application and specific mix for the location and time of year should
be determined.
 The seedbed, planting site, or individual planting holes should be prepared,
loosened, amended, and improved as needed to promote growth. Add mulch and
organic material to a site as necessary to retain soil moisture and improve the soil
and microclimate.
 Handle plants with care and do not allow them to dry out during storage,
transportation and planting. Remember they are live materials.
 Prune all broken branches and reduce the size of woody shrubs by 1/3rd prior to
planting. Prune trees but do not prune the leader (center main growing trunk).
 However, after planting, some vegetation may need water or irrigation, protection
from animals, fertilizer, protection from disease, and occasional maintenance to
get good growth.

Native species should be used whenever possible for the best adaptation to the site and to
achieve the best growth. Non-native species annual grasses may initially be needed to
protect disturbed areas against surface erosion for the first few years. For difficult sites,
such as arid environments, test plots should be set up to determine what species and
methods achieve the best results. Consider setting up on-site nurseries to harden and
adapt plants to the local project area. In some cases completed projects can be utilized as
sources for live cut stock to be used on a new project. Try to select native vegetation that
does not require watering or fertilizers.

The Federal Highway Administration publication “Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated

Approach to Establishing Native Plants” (Steinferld et al. 2007) provides a thorough
discussion of benefits and issues dealing with native vegetation, including project
initiation, planning, implementation, and monitoring for roadside revegetation. Link to
the website: <http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/td/>.

Use of Deep-Rooted, Native Vegetation

The type and source of vegetation should be carefully chosen to best accomplish the
specific purpose in mind. Project planning (the Erosion Control Plan) should first assess
the problem and then determine the effective solution. Information such as location,
aspect, climate and microclimate, soil type, fertility, time of planting, and subsequent
land use are critical factors in making the final design determination. Refer to the local
82
forest botanist, soil scientist, or native plant specialists and policies before
prescribing vegetative treatments. Check with local agricultural extension offices, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and local or state road departments.
The advantage of vegetation with deep root systems is that they are both more resistant to
drought conditions and the deep roots provide slope stabilization as well as ground cover.
Many grasses provide excellent dense ground cover but have shallow roots that do little
to deter shallow mass failures on slopes when they become saturated.
Figure 50 shows two applications where vegetation with deep root systems helps provide
slope stability as well as ground cover.

Figure 50—Deep root systems from pine trees (left) and willows (right) that provide
stability to slopes and stream banks (Photos courtesy of Donald Gray (left) and Robbin
Sotir (right)).

Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical Erosion Control Methods

Soil bioengineering and biotechnical treatments can be applied to any number of
instances where erosion protection is needed. Depending on the site conditions and the
values at risk, the application of these techniques can be relatively inexpensive or
expensive. Soil bioengineering and biotechnical applications for streambank instability
are further discussed in section 6.2.
As noted in the previous discussion, Soil bioengineering is a technology that uses
integrated ecological principles to assess, design, construct, and maintain living
vegetative systems to repair damage caused by erosion and slope failures (Sotir, 2001).
Biotechnical treatments combine the use of vegetation with other physical structures,
such as vegetated gabions or vegetated reinforced soil slopes (Gray and Leiser, 1982).
Biotechnical stabilization is a specialized field and consultation with experts and other
guides is highly recommended.
Some more common soil bioengineering and biotechnical treatments include:
 Live stakes (willow and others) embedded in the face of the slope.
 Fascines/bundles/wattles-bundles of branches that are laid in a trench along
contour lines that sprout and grow.
 Brush layering- brush laid onto terraces in the slope, covered with moist soil and
compacted.
83
  Vegetated reinforced soil slopes (that is, geosynthetic reinforced soil slopes with brush
placed on each lift with the reinforcement).
 Vegetated gabions and walls- Retaining structures inter-planted with live vegetation
cuttings.
 Live cribwalls- Wooden cribwalls using material that will sprout or constructed with
vegetation layers.

Figure 51 shows some biotechnical stabilization measures with live cribwalls and
retaining structures. Figure 52 shows some examples of soil bioengineering and
biotechnical measures used to stabilize large cuts and fills and/or adjacent slopes.

Figure 51—Biotechnical slope stabilization and erosion control methods, using a live
crib wall (left) and gabions with live stakes (right) (Courtesy of John McCullah).

The NRCS publication EFH 18, “Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and
Erosion Reduction” (NRCS, 1992) is a useful reference describing many of the common
bioengineering techniques. It is available at:
<ftp://ftp-nhq.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/pub/outgoing/jbernard/CED-Directives/efh/EFH-
Ch18.pdf>.

Also “Soil Bioengineering – An Alternative for Roadside Management: A Practical

Guide” (Lewis, 2000) provides field personnel with the basic merits of soil
bioengineering concepts and gives examples of several techniques especially effective in
stabilizing and revegetating upland roadsides. Link to the document:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/00771801.pdf>.

84
Figure 52—Examples of some common soil bioengineering and biotechnical erosion
control measures.
85
Gullies and Gully Prevention
Gullies are one of the most severe forms of surface soil erosion. Gullies are a specific
form of severe erosion typically caused by concentrated water flow on erodible soils.
Concentrated water flow may begin as minor sheet flow (micro-rills), produce rills, and
eventually result in major gully formation. Gullies can have major impacts on an area by
taking land out of production and by lowering the groundwater table, as well as being a
major source of sediment. They can be caused by concentrated water flowing off roads or
they can impact roads by creating another drainage crossings or need for more frequent
maintenance. If a gully can be prevented by diverting or dividing a concentrated flow of
water, a great deal of damage can typically be prevented. With gullies, An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Gullies are particularly problematic and common in dry, arid climates and areas with
deep, fine soil deposits. Rainfall in minimal, so vegetative cover is often sparse. When it
rains, storms are often brief, high-intensity thundershowers that overwhelm the soil
infiltration capacity. Thus gullies form and enlarge with each high-intensity event.
Once formed, gullies typically grow with time and will continue down-cutting until
resistant material is reached or the contributing flow is reduced or eliminated. They also
expand laterally as they deepen. Gullies often form at the outlet of culverts or cross-
drains due to excessive and concentrated flows and relatively fast water velocities, as
shown in figure 53. Occasionally gullies formed below cross-drains have translated into
debris slides that have caused extensive off-site damage. Also gullies can form upslope of
culvert pipes, especially in meadows, if the pipe is set below the meadow elevation. This
causes a drop in the meadow or channel elevation and subsequent headward migration of
the gully through the meadow.
Gully prevention is very important, but gully stabilization measures and structures are
infrequently used for storm damage risk reduction. However, stabilization measures are
very useful to correct ongoing gully erosion problems and prevent their growth and
headward migration, so commonly used structures are discussed in section 6.5, under
Gully Stabilization.

Figure 53—Gully formation below a road where excessive water was discharged from a
ditch relief cross-drain culvert.

86
Gully Risk and Prevention
The ideal way to deal with gullies is to prevent them in the first place. Investigate the
source of the water and remove the water source that is causing the gully if possible!
Gully formation at the outlet of cross-drain structures or road drainage points is a
common problem and subject of considerable research. Gully formation, or gully
initiation along a road is a function of the contributing area, or road length, and the
ground slope over which the water runs (or hillslope gradient). These relate to the volume
of water accumulated and the energy that water has to cause erosion. Resistance to gully
formation is also a function of soil and vegetation characteristics where the water exits
onto the slope, so drain exit location is important. Thus the spacing of road drainage
features is particularly important to prevent the formation of gullies.
On many steep slopes, there is potential for gully initiation after a couple hundred feet
(fifty meters) if the pipe exits on an unprotected, compact hillslope. An outlet discharging
on forest litter will take a longer distance to initiate a gully, and with an energy dissipator
below the outlet, the initiation distance may be one to two thousand feet (several hundred
meters) long. Also gully initiation is likely on shorter segments of road that have an
inslope versus an outslope because of the more concentrated flow at the outlets. Figure
54 presents curves for the critical road length and ground slope factors observed to be
critical for gully initiation, either with an outlet energy dissipater, or with discharge into
forest litter or compacted soil. These curves represent a 50 percent probability of gully
initiation if conditions are exceeded. To prevent gully formation below cross-drain
culverts, controlling the road length draining to the culvert effectively controls the
contributing area and the amount and velocity of water; therefore preventing gully
initiation. This should be the basis for many culvert spacing recommendations.

Figure 54—Gully initiation risk as a function of road length, hillslope gradient, and
outlet area conditions (Adapted from Drew Coe, 2006).

87
Figure 55 shows somewhat similar results for gully initiation as a function of contributing
road length and hillslope, for three different types of soil with a low, medium and high
erodibility. The low soil erodibility data was collected in volcanic soils in central Oregon,
the medium erodibility data from granitic soils in the Idaho batholith, and the high
erodibility data from young basalt and glacial deposits on the Olympic Peninsula,
Washington. The critical Erosion Sensitivity Index is the parameter used to establish the
three curves in figure 55 and define the limit between a condition of high incidence of
gullies and low incidence (no formation) of gullies (Cissel et al. unknown).

Figure 55—Gully initiation data from the contributing road length as a function of
hillslope for various soil erodibility categories (Adapted from Cissel et al. unknown).
Experiences in the Pacific Northwest, California, and Australia have shown a fair amount
of variability in the data for gully initiation. Thus values shown in figure 54 and figure
55 may be conservative but are recommended for use, particularly if the drainage outlet is
in a critical or sensitive area, such as above a steep slope or near a stream channel.
Updated research and ongoing monitoring data can be found at the following GRAIP
website: <http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/case_studies.shtml>.

5.6 Fill Slope Stabilization Measures

A wide variety of slope stabilization measures are available to land managers, engineers,
and resource specialists. Measures such as use of vegetation and drainage can be simple

88
and relatively inexpensive, while use of measures like retaining structures can be very
effective but quite expensive. One slope modification technique, removing loose, high-
risk fill material, is a commonly used storm damage risk reduction measure and is
discussed below. The many other less commonly used but effective SDRR techniques,
such as walls, reinforced fills, slope modification, soil nails, deep patch reinforcement,
etc. are discussed in section 6.6-General Slope Stabilization Measures.

A useful summary of many of the slope stabilization techniques available that are both
cost-effective and sustainable is presented in the NCHRP publication “Cost effective and
Sustainable Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Practices” (Fay et al. 2012). Online
at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_430.pdf

Sidecast Fill Pullback for Slope Stabilization

Sidecast fill material, or loose material placed on top of native soil on a slope, can absorb
water and fail on the plane at the base of the sidecast material. Old logs or stumps used to
support the fill will decay with time, leading to fillslope failures. These old sliver fills are
very common failures on older sidecast road fills on steep slopes where the fill material
was not compacted. Newer roads do not use as much sidecast construction, and excess
material is ideally end-hauled to another flatter area or to a disposal site. However, there
may still be fillslopes that exhibit instability and warrant treatment because of an
excessively steep slope, rotting logs in the fill, or local groundwater conditions, as seen in
figure 56. Also the toe of a fill slopes can be undercut by a stream if the road is located
too close to the stream.

Figure 56—Road fill failure in a sliver fill that was partially supported by old logs. The
failure triggered a downslope debris slide (Courtesy of Bill Shelmerdine).
In many cases, if road surface water is being properly managed and drained, sidecast fills
may not pose a stability problem. If there is subsurface water that moves below the
89
roadway and saturates fill material, the risk of fill failure will remain high. Also sidecast
fill material in concave swales and drainages may fail under saturating rainfall
conditions, independent of roadway drainage. The terrain tends to concentrate
groundwater into this landform.
On steep natural slopes (typically steeper than 50-60 percent) a road fill failure can
trigger a debris slide downslope of the road fill. These debris slides can then travel for
great distances, greatly increase the volume of material involved in the slide, and do a
great deal of damage on the hillslope itself and particularly if there is infrastructure or
watershed values (such as a stream or wetland) at the bottom of the slope. Debris flow
hazards have presented problems worldwide and have been common on forest roads in
the Northwest (see figure 57 and figure 58). Many of the fill failures that cause such an
event are both identifiable and preventable. Small scarps and curved cracks in the road
surface, particularly in the outside half of the road, are indicators of fill settlement or
incipient failure. The potential flow path can be mapped and the risks assessed.

Figure 57—Debris slides, often triggered during a storm event from failing fills, that
started at the upper road and ultimately impacted the lower road (Courtesy of Jim
Doyle).

90
Figure 58—Debris slides that subsequent formed gullies below the roads on the Olympic
NF in Washington (left photo) and on the Blue Ridge Parkway, Pisgah NF, North
Carolina (right photo). (Photos courtesy of Bill Shelmerdine and Tom Collins).

Treatments may include periodic maintenance of the site to seal the cracks against water
intrusion; ditch the road or use measures to direct water away from the fillslope; repair
the site using a deep patch (or other appropriate measure for the site); or remove the
failing fill material. Detection and mitigation measures are discussed in the paper “Debris
flows caused by failure of fillslopes: Early detection, warning, and loss prevention”, by
Thomas Collins (2007).
Sidecast fill pull back or removal of high risk fill material is one positive method to
reduce the risk of failure. However, just pulling back sidecast fill (and end hauling it to a
stable disposal site) has the drawback of narrowing the roadway. In some cases a
roadway ditch can be eliminated to gain road width. If the road standard is changing from
a maintenance level 3 to maintenance level 2 or Level 2 to Level 1, narrowing the road
may not be a problem.
For higher standard roads, and heavily used roads, road width may need to be retained. In
those cases additional cutting into the hillside and/or changing the road grade or
alignment may be required. On severe or very steep slopes, especially with subsurface
water, retaining structures with drains may be needed to provide long-term stability.
Figure 59 shows the process of pulling back loose fill material to stabilize a road
shoulder. Either the road surface will be narrowed or a cutslope excavation will be
needed to compensate for the loss of road width.

91
Figure 59—A fill failure repaired by pulling back or removing loose, sidecast shoulder
and fill material and shifting into the hillside, or possibly narrowing the road.

92
6. Less Common or Higher Cost SDRR Treatments

6.1 Less Used Road Surface Drainage Treatments

Converting Inslope Roads to Outslope
Conversion of roads from an inslope template, typically with an inside ditch, to an
outslope road has many long-term advantages, particularly if a road will receive minimal
maintenance. It is a treatment that is often discussed to reduce the risk of storm damage.
However, it is also an expensive treatment and one that involves a considerable amount
of labor and earthwork. Thus the reality is that it is a treatment that is not commonly
used, despite its desirability.
Advantages of an outslope road are that the roadway template is as narrow as possible
(not requiring a ditch), there is a relatively small cut and fill, slumping in the cut slope is
less of a problem, construction is least expensive, less maintenance without a ditch and
cross-drain system, and the dispersed flow avoids water concentration and quickly gets
the water off the road. Since ruts and berms concentrate water on any road surface, an
outslope road functions best when built in conjunction with rolling dips. Thus an outslope
road can be the most desirable roadway template to use if it suits the local conditions. On
most roads in fact some combination of inslope and outslope exists to accommodate the
terrain, drainage needs, and traffic safety. To function properly, ensure that
maintenance on an outslope road does not build up a berm along the outside edge of
the road.
Conditions that are not conducive to outsloping include where interception of water from
the cutslope occurs, or where a slippery, icy, or erodible road surface and fillslope is a
concern. Clay rich soils, some silts, and volcanic ash soils, or polished limestone rock all
can be quite slippery when wet. Intercepted water in the cutbank may cause erosion or
instability downslope. Drivers can feel unsafe and fear that they will slide off the
mountain, particularly on outsloped curves and in steep terrain. In steep terrain and on
steep grades where the road surface may be slippery or have snow and ice, it is safer to
use an inslope road template. Better to slide into the ditch than off the hillside. In some
cases an inside ditch may be used along with an outslope road template where there are
seeps or springs in the cutbank.
Advantages of an inslope road are that water is better controlled, moving it into a ditch,
and then the ditch can discharge onto a stable non-erodible location. Also it can be safer
to prevent a vehicle from sliding off the road. The disadvantages of an inslope road with
a ditch are the need for additional road width, more excavation with a higher cut and
more fill material, concentrated flow in the ditch, and the need for ditch relief cross-
drains or leadoff ditches. Cross-drain culverts commonly plug during large storms,
leading to significant damage to the road.
Figure 60 shows the form and relative dimensions of an inslope versus an outslope road.
Conversion of an inslope road to outslope requires removing some of the fill and road
shoulder material, and typically filling the ditch, as seen in the lower figure. New
material may need to be imported to fill and raise the roadbed at the inside ditchline. This
is desirable from a drainage standpoint, but requires a considerable amount of work on
the road. Some drainage slope conversion work has been as expensive as the initial road

93
construction. Figure 61 shows an outslope road, accentuated on an outside bend in the
road.
Road cross-slope with an inslope or outslope road should be accentuated, or constructed
to its maximum recommended slope for a road that will be closed or that will be
maintained infrequently. The road cross-slope is typically 2 to 6 percent, and a 5 to 6
percent range is recommended where maintenance may be infrequent. Under slippery
conditions and log haul traffic, a 2-3 percent maximum outslope may be desirable.
Traffic and time tend to wear down, or smooth out a cross-slope and flatten the road.

Figure 60—Examples of an inslope versus outslope road template and the work involved
in converting an inslope road to an outslope configuration.

The importance of regular and proper maintenance cannot be stressed enough for the
proper function of road surface drainage features, especially on native material and gravel
roads. Traffic will eventually, and quickly with heavy traffic, create ruts or surface
depressions on the road surface. These ruts or berms of gravel compromise the inslope
and outslope of the surface and may concentrate water for long distances down (grade)
94
the road. Eventually the concentrated water breaks through and often causes additional
erosion problems where it leaves the roadway. Frequent use of rolling grade dips can
mitigate some of the problems with rutting and infrequent maintenance. Over the full
length of a road, insloping and outsloping combined with rolling grade dips may be the
best drainage solution. More and more roads are being built this way or retrofitted with
these drainage features.

Figure 61—An outslope road template on a curve in the road. This photo also shows the
tendency of a center and outside berm to form on gravel roads. The presence of these
berms disrupts the dispersion of water and can cause significant water concentration if
not eliminated by routine maintenance or dispersed with use of rolling dips.

Surface Water Diversion Structures

A variety of different types of structures have been used to positively remove water off
the road surface. Each can work in particular circumstances, and most are maintenance
intensive because of their limited capacity for water and to accommodate sediment. Also
use of these other structures typically does make routine maintenance of the road more
difficult. As discussed previously, by far the most effective surface drainage measure
for low-volume roads appears to be rolling dips.
However, some successful use has been made of the following measures, particularly if
the road has a smooth profile and a rolling dip is not wanted nor appropriate. Other
alternatives include:
 Open Top Culverts.
 Rubber Deflectors.
 W-Beam Guardrail Channels.
 Small Concrete Canals.

95
Use of a variety of techniques and materials used to divert water off the road surface is
documented in the San Dimas TDC publication titled “Introduction to Surface Cross-
Drains” (Copstead et al. 1998) and “Cross Drain Update”, (Ralph Gonzales, 1998). They
are available respectively at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdf/w-r/98771806.pdf>.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/php/library_card.php?p_num=9877%201804P>.

Open Top Culverts-Open top culverts are the most common water diversion structure
encountered after rolling dips. They may be made from wood, logs, metal, small culverts,
or concrete. The open top is wide enough to have surface water drop into the culvert and
run off the road, yet narrow enough to allow vehicle tires to roll over it. Figure 62 shows
a drawing of common wooden open top culverts. Opening width is commonly 3 to 4
inches (75 to 100 mm). Alternatively, some relatively wide open top culverts have metal
grates at the road surface to allow tires to drive over them smoothly, as seen in figure 63.
They are typically placed at a skew, ranging from 0 to 30 degrees perpendicular to the
road direction to divert water off the road surface, and are placed on road segments with a
slight to moderate road grade (2-12 percent).
The greatest disadvantage of open top culverts is that they are often found full of
sediment and therefore not working, particularly on native soil or gravel surfaced roads,
as seen in figure 64 (left). They do function well on hard surfaced roads and under
circumstances where they can receive frequent cleaning.

96
Figure 62—Drawing of a typical open-top wooden box culverts using either lumber or
small logs.

Figure 63—A relatively wide open top culvert with a metal grate.

97
The greatest disadvantage of open top culverts is that they are often found full of
sediment and therefore not working, particularly on native soil or gravel surfaced roads,
as seen in figure 64 (left). They do function well on hard surfaced roads and under
circumstances where they can receive frequent cleaning.

Figure 64—Left, A narrow wooden open-top culvert that is plugged with sediment, and
right, a wooden open-top culvert that has been recently cleaned on a gravel road.

Rubber Deflectors- Deflectors, typically made of rubber strips or old conveyor belt
materials, are buried in the roadway surface and stick up 2- to 4-inches (50 to 100 mm)
above the road surface to deflect flowing water off the surface, as seen in figure 65. Tires
from traffic bend down the deflector when driven over. They are typically installed at a
skew to the road. They have been used effectively on relatively steep road grades (> 12
percent) where rolling dips are inappropriate, and have been use both on unsurfaced roads
and on paved roads. The main disadvantage of the deflectors is that they have a relatively
short life span on roads with much traffic.

Figure 65—Rubber deflectors used on a rocky native soil road (left) and a paved road
surface (right).

W-Beam Guardrail and Small Concrete Channels- Small channels, or canals, can be
placed into the road surface to capture and deflect or direct water off the road surface. W-
Beam materials are typically used guard rails. Other channels can be made of concrete or
98
masonry, as seen in figure 66. Each is typically set into the road surface at road grade and
on a skew to deliver the water off the road.

The challenge with open channel deflectors is that they have a very limited capacity to
move much water. A large channel with moderate capacity becomes difficult to drive
over. Like open-top culverts, these channels can fill with sediment and add challenges to
maintenance.

Figure 66—Small concrete channels placed across a native surfaced road for surface
drainage (Courtesy of Simon Done, TRL).

Culvert Cross-Drain Inlet Protection and Drop Inlets

Culvert inlet control structures, or drop inlets are occasionally placed in the inside
ditchline at the location of a culvert cross-drain. Drop inlets are commonly constructed
with concrete or masonry boxes or from round metal or concrete pipe. They need to be
consistent with the size of the ditch and pass the accumulated flow in the ditch. They are
an alternative to a typical excavated culvert inlet basin (catch basin) and are typically
used where the ditch carries large amounts of sediment or is eroding and downcutting.
Figure 67 shows a variety of drop inlet types. Sometimes a window is cut in the riser pipe
and set at the desired ditch bottom elevation, as shown in figure 67 and figure 68. Thus
flow has to go over this edge at this elevation, preventing further ditch downcutting.

99
Figure 67—A variety of culvert cross-drain drop inlet structure types used on forest
roads.
Culvert inlet structures should be large enough to prevent debris accumulation and should
be easy to clean and maintain. Inlet structures are useful to change the direction of water
flowing in the ditch into a cross-drain pipe, particularly on steep grades. Also inlet
structures are particularly useful to stabilize the ditch elevation at the level of the inlet
window before entering the culvert. They can also be useful when the cut bank is steep,
unstable, or has a high rate of ravel to buttress and help stabilize the cutslope, thus
preventing sediment from entering the culvert inlet. Additionally concrete and masonry
box structures often have a bottom set below the cross-drain pipe elevation so that this
area or reservoir serves as a trap for sediment (sand trap). Then the trapped sediment can
be periodically cleaned out, particularly if a basket arrangement is included to facilitate
sediment removal.

Figure 68—Drop inlet design and installation details for concrete box or corrugated
metal riser pipe with built-in sand traps.
100
6.2 Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements
Natural drainage crossing structures, including culverts, fords or low-water crossings
and bridges require hydrologic and hydraulic design to determine the proper type and
size of structure. Also hillslope processes and landform features are important to identify
and understand since many structures have failed during storm events from landslides and
debris slides that initiate outside the stream channel and overwhelm the structure with
sediment and debris. Also fluvial geomorphology processes are important to appreciate
the dynamic nature of stream and river systems, and their ability to shift location with
time. It is important to recognize the characteristics of the watershed and thus the type of
material that may be moving through the river system. Evaluate structures considering
their setting, changes to the watershed over time, and the types of material expected in
the channel.
Culverts most often fail due to plugging with debris and sediment, and occasionally
fail because of lack of capacity. Bridges often fail because of scour under foundations or
of the abutments. Low-water crossings have failed due to scour, channel erosion, or end
runs around the structure. Impacts from failures include degraded water quality, bank
erosion, channel scour, and impacts to aquatic organisms. Traffic delays and costly
repairs are often associated with these failures. Failures are costly in many ways.
The likelihood of a culvert failure can be minimized in several ways. A culvert should be
properly sized consistent with the width of the natural stream channel (ideally with a
culvert width matching at least the channel bankfull cross-section width), aligned with
the upstream channel, and have an efficient inlet to have the least chance of being
plugged with debris. Debris comes in two types: organic and inorganic. It is important to
know the dominant type for the site. Some sites are subject to high levels of both organic
and inorganic debris.
Organic woody debris is the most common type in forested environments, resulting from
tree breakage, blow down, and logging. Even small limbs and branches can lodge across
a culvert inlet and trap other organic and inorganic material, reducing culvert capacity or
completely blocking the culvert entrance.
Streams with highly mobile beds or steep channels subject to debris flows may deliver
huge volumes of gravel, cobbles, and even very large boulders to a stream crossing,
burying the culvert inlet. The best solution for these sites may be a structure that will also
pass the debris over the road rather than through the culvert. Most culverts that are
properly designed will work fine. However, debris flows and torrents can plug even very
large pipes, so in these circumstances some overflow protection is recommended or a
vented ford may be a better design. The structure must include provisions to prevent
stream capture or stream diversion.
Culvert failure risk might be best managed with appropriate flow and debris capacity for
the culvert size, proper installation and alignment, lowering the height of the fill over the
pipe, providing a spillway for overtopping, the addition of trash racks, or additional flood
capacity through other structures in the floodway. Figure 69 summarizes a number of
problematic installation details for a culvert and solutions to minimize the likelihood of
plugging. Plugging commonly occurs because of the following factors (see figure 69):

101
  Figure 69a-A high Headwater to Pipe Diameter (Hw/D) ratio that promotes
accumulation of debris above the culvert inlet.
 Figure 69b-An atypically wide culvert inlet excavation that promotes debris
accumulation.
 Figure 69c-A flattening in culvert gradient that promotes accumulation of
sediment.
 Figure 69d-A sharp change in alignment that allows floating debris to lodge
across the pipe inlet.
 Figure 69e-Large rocks lodging against the inlet lip of a culvert. A flared end-
section can help minimize this problem.

Figure 69—Common plugging hazard problems found with culverts (Furniss et al. 1998).

102
Also flow velocity typically accelerates in a culvert pipe, so the pipe outlet area is
commonly subject to scour and may need armoring or other scour protection. Armoring
such as riprap is common, cutoff walls may be used, or a stable energy dissipation pool
can be designed at the pipe outlet.
Two useful publications that provide insight into culvert failures during storms and
provide information to reduce the likelihood of culvert failures are “Response of Road-
Stream Crossings to Large Flood Events in Washington, Oregon, and Northern
California” (Furniss et al. 1998), and “Water/Road Interaction: Examples of Three Flood
Assessment Sites in Western Oregon” (Copstead and Johansen, 1998). They are
available, respectively, at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/php/library_card.php?p_num=9877%201807P>.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/php/library_card.php?p_num=9877%201805P>.

A third excellent California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection document that
discusses a number of treatments to help design and prevent pipe failures during major
storms is “Designing Watercourse Crossings for Passage of 100-Year Flood Flows,
Wood, and Sediment” (Cafferata et al. 2004). It is available at:
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/resourcemanagement/PDF/100yr32links.pdf>

One large pipe is almost always better than multiple small pipes. Not only is a larger pipe
more hydraulically efficient, a single relatively large pipe is much less susceptible to
plugging compared to multiple smaller pipes. The fill area between multiple pipes acts as
a trash rack to catch debris and plug the pipes. However, multiple pipes are often used to
minimize the height of the structure (for vertical alignment considerations), and in
emergency situations, because small pipes are often readily available. Multiple pipes
should also be avoided if Aquatic Organism Passage is an issue because they more easily
create a barrier for passage.
Pipes are often designed with a Headwater to Pipe Diameter (Hw/D) Ratio or 1.0 to 1.5,
allowing for some buildup of water in front of the pipe to maximize pipe capacity.
However in a mountain environment such a practice contributes to plugging potential
with debris that can accumulate at the mouth of the culvert. To minimize plugging
potential, a Hw/D ratio of around 0.8 is often used. In watersheds with considerable
woody debris that must pass through culverts, Hw/D ratios in the range of 0.5 to 0.67 are
recommended (Furniss et al. 1998).
Pipe capacity can be improved somewhat with addition of a concrete headwall, smooth
liners, or insuring that the inlet is not damaged. If a pipe might plug and there is diversion
potential, an armored dip should be constructed over or near (just down gradient from)
the culvert to accommodate overtopping without washing out the structure or diverting
water down the road, thus preventing additional damage (see the discussion on Diversion
Potential in section 5.3).
If a stream channel contains considerable debris and there is a history of or potential for
culvert plugging, a trash rack can be added in the channel or onto the culvert to trap
debris before it plugs the pipe. However trash racks are one more item that requires
periodic cleaning and maintenance. See a complete discussion of trash racks below.

103
To function properly with less risk of failure, culverts need to be properly installed and
aligned with the drainage. If the inlet is not aligned with the channel, a directional change
of flow must occur. This may result in deposition on one side and erosion from an eddy
on the other side. Debris is less likely to be directed into the structure, leading to
plugging. Misaligned pipes will erode the hillslope on the downstream end, and possibly
destabilize the slope. Culverts can create a deep plunge pool at the outlet after the channel
has adjusted to the different alignment. Poorly installed pipes should be considered for
removal and reinstallation.
Accelerated flows out of culverts often cause embankment and stream channel scour. To
prevent this type of damage, armoring with riprap, gabions, biotechnical measures, or
other solutions is often added around pipes as a preventative measure or for outlet
stabilization. Other energy dissipation measures may also be used. Also some culverts
may need beaver protection to prevent beaver dams from plugging the structure.
Where flow fluctuates dramatically or where a channel is subject to debris slides and
torrents, culverts may have a history of plugging. In these instances, a lifetime cost
analysis may indicate that fords or vented low-water crossings are a better alternative
than culverts. This conversion requires a moderate amount of work, but low-water
crossings have a number of advantages over culverts in certain settings, and are less
likely to fail during major storms.
For all natural stream crossings, the need for fish and other aquatic organism passage
must be determined. If passage is needed, there are tools to assess the structural
requirements necessary to retrofit or replace the existing structure. In most cases,
replacing the existing structure, if it is a barrier, is more desirable. For techniques for
determining the barrier effect of a structure and designing aquatic organism-friendly
stream crossing structures, see the USFS Stream Simulation publication (Clarkin et al.
2008) and section 6.2-Aquatic Organism Passage Considerations.

Increasing Culvert Capacity

Regardless of the culvert type used, the high flow capacity of the culvert must be
checked. This is to ensure the survival of the culvert and road fill during extreme storm
flow events. Most new culverts have been designed to pass at least a 50 to 100 year storm
event (Q50-Q100). However, many older pipes were designed to pass only 20 to 25 year
events, or less. Also, design flows may increase due to changes in the watershed, a recent
fire, global climate change with increased snowmelt, etc. Road fill stability, road
overtopping, allowable headwater depth, the likelihood of debris plugging the culvert,
backwater effects, or a combination of these factors may determine the culvert high flow
capacity. In some instances, culvert capacity is dictated by Forest Plans or other Federal,
state or local regulations or documents. The Record of Decision for Amendments to
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range
of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD) (USDA Forest Service, USDI BLM, 1994) amended
many Forest Plans with a standard of culverts passing the 100-year storm flow plus
debris.
Whether a pipe or structure is being designed for a 25, 50, or 100 year storm event (Q25,
Q50, Q100), that design flow must be determined in some way. Fortunately numerous
methods exist today to determine stream flows, and in particular peak design storm flows,

104
using methods such as USGS regression equations, various agency or USGS hydrology
programs (Ries, K.G. III, 2006), local stream gaging data, or the Rational Method for
small watersheds.
USGS information for their “National Streamflow Statistics Program: A Computer
Program for Estimating Streamflow Statistics at Ungaged Sites”, is available in their
publication U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Report TM Book 4,
Chapter A6.
The program is available at: <http://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nss/index.html>.

A summary of many of the useful hydrologic methods can be found in “Highway

Hydrology”, FHWA HDS-2 (McKuen et al. 2002), the “Highway Drainage Guidelines”
(AASHTO, 2007), or the CDF publication “Designing Watercourse Crossings for
Passage of 100-year Flood Flows, Wood, and Sediment” (Cafferata et al. 2004).

For culverts in small watersheds and for ditch relief cross-drain culverts, rainfall
intensity is a critical parameter, and so the use of the Rational Method may be most
appropriate. The Rational Method relies on rainfall intensity data (as well as the
watershed area and runoff characteristics of the terrain). It can be a very useful method to
estimate current watershed discharge when the characteristics of the watershed have
changed since the original design of a culvert, such as after a fire or for some
development in the watershed. These watershed changes affect the value of the Runoff
Coefficient. Rainfall intensity can be quite localized, but information on rainfall
intensities is generally available in all areas of the United States. One of the best sources
of Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) data nationwide is from NOAA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/

A couple of different methods should be compared since each method has advantages and
limitations such as period of record, consideration of climate change, changes in
watershed characteristics, etc. Note that most hydrologic methods do not consider debris
loading in a channel, so considerable judgment and local experience is needed to properly
assess plugging potential from vegetation and sediment (fine sediment, boulders and
rocky debris).
The design flow is determined and the existing pipe capacity checked, using methods
such as the FHWA pipe capacity nomographs found in “Hydraulic Design of Highway
Culverts”, HDS-5 (Normann, 2005). If pipe capacity is found to be inadequate, then the
degree of risk of a failure must be assessed. The most obvious way to reduce the risk is to
increase culvert capacity such as by increasing the size of the pipe, or adding additional
pipes in some circumstances. Where additional pipes are added, the primary pipe should
be maintained at bed level for proper function (and aquatic organism passage), while
additional pipes can be set higher at a floodplain level to accommodate flood flows.
However, since adding pipes is expensive and typically requires excavation, alternatives
exist that slightly increase the capacity of existing pipes. Culvert capacity can be
increased somewhat by:
 Improving the pipe inlet efficiency, such as with a concrete headwalls, beveled
inlets, or metal end-sections rather than a projecting pipe.
105
  Reducing the pipe friction by installing a smooth liner such as epoxy or a plastic
liner (that may be detrimental to aquatic organism passage).
 Removing any obstacles or damaged portion of the pipe inlet.
 Increasing the headwater elevation at the pipe entrance (Note that this does
increase capacity but is not recommended because it also promotes pipe plugging
with debris).

Headwalls and metal end sections (figure 70) added to pipes have the SDRR benefits of
slightly increasing the capacity and improving resistance to plugging or overtopping
failure. Figure 70 (left) shows a culvert with a concrete headwall that was overtopped but
did not fail.

Figure 70—Culverts with a concrete headwall (left) and a metal end section (right) that
offer improved resistant to plugging and damage from overtopping.

Increasing the headwater depth (the possible water height above the culvert before
overtopping the road) at the upstream entrance to the pipe can increase pipe capacity.
This could require raising a road fill. However, it should be understood that this
treatment increases the potential damage should the culvert crossing fail (due to a
higher fill) and also increases the likelihood of the pipe plugging from debris that
can accumulate around the pipe inlet. Some increased capacity might be gained by the
addition of a riser pipe, or “snorkel” (with trash rack), as seen in figure 71. The snorkel
can substantially increase culvert flow in a long pipe, but its primary purpose is to allow
some flow if the culvert inlet has a history of becoming plugged.
Another treatment for organic debris at culvert crossings where the fill depth is sufficient
is to add additional (usually smaller) culverts higher in the fill, adjacent to the existing
pipe, or at other locations across a broad floodplain, as seen in figure 72 (right photo).
These should only be used where the site and the additional culverts are accessible during
storm events. The smaller or additional culverts are at a greater risk of plugging than the
larger main culvert and may need to be cleaned during a storm event. The additional
culverts serve as an emergency overflow and may prevent a complete crossing failure by
adding more capacity and buying time during a flood.

106
Figure 71—Culvert with a riser pipe and trash rack to prevent plugging in a channel that
carries a lot of debris. Note that the roadway is barely seen in the background above the
riser pipe elevation.

Figure 72—Increasing culvert capacity with use of multiple pipes or stacking pipes on
top of the original pipe. Stacking pipes is typically only an emergency solution.(Left
photo courtesy of Vincent Barnardino).
Old and damaged pipes can be repaired or their life extended by grouting the damaged
areas. This involves placing a local concrete or epoxy lining in worn out sections of the
pipe, such as the bottom, that receives the most constant flow and abrasion from
sediment. Also, installing a new slip lining of plastic or rubber inside an old pipe, as seen
in figure 73, can preserve the life of the culvert, prevent a failure, and possibly increase
the capacity of the pipe by using a liner with a relatively low Mannings (n) roughness

107
coefficient. Note, however, that the use of smooth liners may create additional problems
for fish or other aquatic organism passage. Many new lining and installation options are
available today within what is called “trenchless technology” for culvert rehabilitation or
replacement. For additional technical information about the Trenchless Technology,
consult “Summary of Trenchless Technology for Use with USDA Forest Service
Culverts” (Rob Piehl, 2005). Techniques for replacing or rehabilitating corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) culverts 18 inches (450 mm) or greater in diameter are emphasized because
they are commonly used for culverts. Link to the document:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771201.pdf>.

Figure 73—Culvert rehabilitation with a cement grout or a new rubber slip liner (Right
photo courtesy of Clackamas County, Oregon).

Damaged culvert inlets should be repaired, replaced, or have an end section added to the
pipe to maintain its hydraulic capacity as well as to minimize plugging potential (see
figure 74). A relatively small reduction in inlet area causes a significant decrease in pipe
capacity, as seen in figure 75.

Figure 74—Damaged culvert inlets that need repair, as well as cleaning. Damaged
culvert inlets can greatly reduce the culvert flow capacity.

108
Figure 75—Culvert capacity versus reduction in inlet area (Flanagan and Furniss,
1997).
A great deal of useful information regarding culverts, design, installation, problems and
solutions, etc. is found in the Federal Highway Administration publication HDS No. 5
“Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts” (Normann et al. 2001) (Revised May, 2005) .
This is a comprehensive culvert design publication available from FHWA at the
following website:
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/culverthyd/index.cfm>.

Use of Trash Racks

In forest environments culverts fail far more often due to plugging with organic debris,
sediment, and rock than due to lack of flow capacity. Trash racks can be effective in
channels with significant amounts of organic debris to prevent pipe plugging. The trash
racks should be placed upstream of a pipe or, is some cases, placed immediately at the
inlet of the culvert, as seen in figure 76. Large debris racks are also occasionally placed in
channels upstream of bridges. If a trash rack is placed upstream of a pipe or bridge, make
sure there is access to the location for periodic cleaning of the trash rack.
Use of trash racks should be limited to stream crossings where culverts are undersized
and/or prone to plugging. They are one more item that requires maintenance. Better
solutions are typically the installation of a larger pipe, or use of an overflow pipe or dip in
case of plugging. However, many types of trash racks have been used effectively to
minimize the chance of culvert plugging.
Consideration for the addition of a trash rack to a crossing should include careful
evaluation of the site and the conditions under which debris accumulation will occur.
109
They can potentially cause more bank scour as water tries to flow around the structure,
and they can cause channel diversion. Trash racks may also create a barrier to fish
passage. Trash racks that are not maintained may become a severe liability. Certainly
before any storm event trash racks need to be clean. Figure 77 shows large trash racks
placed in large channels to trap heavy sediment.

Figure 76—Options for a couple types of trash racks used with culverts.

Figure 77—Use of trash racks to prevent plugging of a culvert or bridge from upstream
large boulders and debris. (Right photo courtesy of Vincent Barandino.)
A wide variety of materials and configurations of trash racks has been used, as seen in
figure 77 through figure 79. The spacing of the bars on a trash rack should be about the
same as the diameter of the culvert, or can depend on the size of material moving in the
channel. A riser pipe with trash rack is commonly placed on small pipes where there is a
lot of debris or sediment in the drainage, such as after a wildfire. The slanted trash rack
over the culvert inlet is more self-maintaining since organic debris will slide up the rack,
keeping the entrance to the culvert free. However, the inlet capacity of the culvert is
diminished due to the change in entrance hydraulics. The altered inlet hydraulics should
be considered in sizing the pipe. Figure 79 shows a trash rack both before and after a
storm event. It shows the need for maintenance and cleaning of the structure after any
storm (and before the storm hits).
Another form of trash rack that has reportedly been quite effective for small to moderate
streams is a single post trash rack placed about one culvert diameter or the pipe inlet
(Figure 78, bottom). This post acts turn floating debris so that it will go through the pipe.
110
If the debris is wider than the channel, then the post stops the debris and backs it up
against the post and streambank before it reaches the pipe entrance. Also flared inlet
sections on pipes and their wingwalls serve to turn debris and funnel it through the pipe.
Note that in order of desirability to prevent culvert failure, a vented ford may be
best (discussed in Fords versus Culverts below), followed by an oversized pipe, and
then an overflow dip. A trash rack may be the least desirable way to prevent long
term pipe plugging, but it is also a relatively simple and inexpensive solution on
many existing pipes. Thus each site needs to be evaluated to determine the most
cost-effective and best solution to protect a pipe.

Figure 78—Examples of trash racks added to culvert pipes to prevent plugging. Note that
the riser with trash rack in the left photo is downstream of a fire area where
considerable sediment is anticipated that often plugs small pipes. In the right photo
debris can float over the culvert inlet at high flows. In the bottom photo the single post is
used to help orient debris to go through the pipe rather than plugging across the inlet.

111
Figure 79—A trash rack upstream of a culvert, both before a storm (left, looking
downstream) and full of debris after a major storm event (right, looking upstream). Note
that trash racks must be cleaned and maintained!

Culvert Reinstallation and Realignment

Culverts may need to be replaced, reinstalled or realigned because of poor alignment,
causing scour on an adjacent streambank, poor performance such as piping under the old
culvert, plugging, or because a culvert is old and deteriorating. Examples of a
problematic undermined culvert and an old, deteriorating culvert that has a high risk of
failure during major storms are shown in figure 80.

Figure 80—Problematic culverts due to piping under the structure (left) or deterioration
from a worn out bottom (right). These culverts are at risk of failure, particularly during a
major storm event.
Some regions are inappropriate for the use of relatively small culvert pipes because of
their tendency to plug with sediment and debris. This is particularly true in desert to
semi-arid regions where channels are typically dry but are subject to infrequent but
periodic flash floods or debris torrents. This is a condition observed in many areas of the
Southwest, drier areas of the Rocky Mountains, and in parts of Southern California. It can
also be a problem in any steep, rocky mountainous terrain. Channels that transport large
amounts of coarse sediments frequently plug culvert pipes, particularly if they are small.
In these areas either relatively large box culverts or small bridges should be used.
112
Alternatively, simple unvented fords may be most appropriate that can pass a large
amount of debris right over the top of the structure. Figure 81 shows examples of two
culvert pipe installations that have plugged from coarse channel debris. Figure 82 shows
the same problem with relatively large culvert pipe vents used in a vented low-water
crossing.

Figure 81—Culverts that have plugged due to their location in sediment and debris laden
channels in a semi-arid region.

Figure 82—Culverts in a vented low-water crossings that have totally or partially

plugged with coarse channel debris.
Other important culvert reinstallation and alignment considerations and factors are shown
in figure 83 and figure 84. These important installation details for culverts include:
 Minimizing channel modifications.
 Avoiding constriction of the bankfull flow channel width.
 Maintaining the natural channel grade and alignment.
 Using quality, well compacted bedding and backfill material.
 Using inlet, outlet, and streambank protection measures.

113
Culverts should be aligned as close to the specific reach of the channel where it is being
placed as possible. Location on channel bends should be avoided, but if necessary, the
culvert needs to fit into the bend as much as possible, keeping in mind plugging and
scour possibilities at the inlet and bank scour at the outlet. The pipe should be set right at
the elevation of the natural stream channel bottom, as seen in figure 83. Consider the
average channel thalweg elevation through that reach of the stream. A culvert set too low
can fill with sediment, lose capacity, and possibly cause headward (upstream) channel
erosion. A culvert set too high can create a waterfall at the outlet, causing downstream
channel scour and a possible fish and aquatic organism passage barrier. Culverts installed
as described here may also constitute a fish barrier simply by increasing the water
velocity through the pipe. Culverts specifically designed for fish passage may include
over-sizing the pipe and burying the bottom in stream substrate to simulate natural
channel characteristics. See Aquatic Organism Passage Considerations (next section) for
additional culvert installation considerations.

Figure 83—Installation of a culvert right at the natural channel elevation.

Bedding and backfill material for culverts is commonly specified as select granular
material or select mineral soil. Most soils are satisfactory if they are free of excess
moisture, muck, lumps of frozen soil or highly plastic clay, roots, or rock larger than
three inches (75 mm). Bedding material beneath the pipe should not have rocks larger
than 1½ inches (38 mm). Clay soil can be used if it is carefully compacted at a uniform,
near-optimum moisture content. Ideal backfill material is a moist, well-graded
granular or sandy gravel soil with up to 10 percent fines and free of rocks. The
material should be well compacted, to at least the density of the adjacent ground, and
preferably to at least 90-95 percent of the AASHTO T-99 maximum density, and placed
in 6- to 8-inch (150-200 mm) thick layers (lifts), brought up uniformly on both sides of
the pipe in lifts, as seen in figure 84. A dense, uniform backfill is important to structurally
support the lateral pressure from the pipe. Compaction is particularly important in the
haunch area of the pipe and for aluminum and plastic pipe that easily deform.

114
Installation details should follow the manufacturers’ information and recommendations,
and manufacturers’ literature is available for all types of pipes, including plastic pipe,
concrete pipe, and metal pipe. Concrete and metal pipe (usually CMP) has been the most
traditionally used products. They have performed well if they were properly designed and
installed. Today plastic pipe is frequently used, particularly because of its cost, ease of
installation, and they are better suited to corrosive environments. However, plastic pipe
can burn, particularly in a forest environment, so its use should consider the potential for
fire, and concrete or masonry headwalls may be added to reduce this risk. For use of
corrugated metal pipe (CMP), the “Handbook of Steel Drainage and Highway
Construction Products” (CSPI, 2007) is an excellent reference. It is available at:
<http://www.cspi.ca/node/158>.

Figure 84—Ideal bedding and backfill compaction around a culvert pipe (Adapted from
Montana Department of State Lands, 1992).

Uniform fine sand and silt soils can be problematic when used for culvert bedding or
backfill material. These fine, non-cohesive soils are very susceptible to scour and piping
from moving water. Thus their use is discouraged. If used, they should be very well
compacted against the pipe. Ideally anti-seepage collars, made of metal, concrete,
geotextile, or a zone of compacted clay, should be placed around the culvert pipe to force
any water channel to flow in a longer path through the soil and thus prevent a piping
failure. Concrete headwalls also deter piping.

Aquatic Organism Passage Considerations

Most structures built or replaced today need to insure adequate aquatic organism passage.
A goal is often to replace or retrofit a culvert to improve aquatic organism passage, as
seen in figure 85 and figure 86. Implementation of SDRR measures only need to avoid
work that would degrade fish passage, and hopefully work would improve fish and other
aquatic organism passage.

115
Properly designed stream simulation projects for aquatic organism passage should
function well during major storms, particularly where the structure width is equal to or
greater than the channel bankfull width. Several stream simulation culvert projects were
evaluated on the Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont in September, 2011, after the
recent storm impacts from Hurricane Irene, with flows exceeding the Q100 design flood.
Each structure survived well with minimal problems, and performed flawlessly,
maintaining aquatic organism passage at each site. Only some movement of the bed
material was observed (Gubernick, 2011). Many other conventional culverts and bridges
in the region were damaged or destroyed.

For a comprehensive discussion on Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), consult the USDA
Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing
Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” (Clarkin et al. 2008). The
document is available at:
<http://fsweb.sdtdc.wo.fs.fed.us/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/index.shtml>.

The Federal Highway Administration has also produced a comprehensive summary of

fish passage options in their publication titled “Culvert Design for Aquatic Organism
Passage”. Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) 26 (Kilgore et al. 2010).
Available at: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/11008/index.cfm>.

Figure 85—An improved or stream simulation culvert installation compared to many

traditional culvert installations.

116
Figure 86—A stream simulation design through a culvert.

Pipe Inlet/Outlet Protection

The likelihood of a culvert failure can be minimized in several ways. A culvert should be
properly sized consistent with the design flow and width of the natural stream channel,
aligned with the upstream channel, and has an efficient inlet to have the least chance of
being plugged with debris. Risk might also be managed with appropriate flood and debris
capacity and culvert height, a critical dip and spillway to prevent stream diversion and for
minimizing overtopping damage, and/or increased flood capacity through additional
structures in a floodway. Flow velocity typically accelerates in an undersized or narrow
culvert pipe, so the pipe outlet area is commonly subject to scour and may need armoring
or scour protection (see figure 87).

Figure 87—Common scour problems with a culvert due to confining the flow at the inlet
and accelerated flows, producing scour at the pipe inlet and outlet. A properly sized
crossing structure would span the full natural bankfull stream channel.

Many old pipes are undersized and installed in fills that partially block or constrict the
natural stream channel. For culvert pipe and fill protection, armoring of the fill with

117
materials such as riprap or use of concrete headwalls is common (figure 88). For 2:1 or
flatter fillslopes, riprap armoring may only extend slightly above the top of the culvert.
For steeper fillslopes, the entire fillslope may be armored. Extent of armoring also
depends on the design capacity of the pipe and expected headwater elevation. Some
biotechnical measures may be used in place of rock riprap. An advantage of a concrete or
masonry headwall is that it can reduce the needed length of culvert pipe exiting the fill.
Thus the cost of concrete and labor to build the headwall can be weighed against the cost
of additional pipe.

Figure 88—Armoring and protection of a culvert pipe fill using riprap or concrete
headwalls and wingwalls.
Downstream cutoff walls, roughened energy dissipation slabs, splash aprons, or stable
energy dissipation pools (plunge pools) can be designed at the pipe outlet to reduce
erosion and scour, as seen in figure 89. These measures reduce the likelihood of scour
and undermining of a pipe at its outlet, but such measures can also create problems for
fish passage and so should be carefully evaluated.

118
The size of a splash apron or riprap basin depends on the diameter of the culvert and the
flow exit velocity and volume. For small drainage culverts and culvert cross-drains, a
several cubic yards (cubic meters) of rock are often placed at the pipe outlet. Some
recommended outlet protection details are shown in Appendix A2. For major culverts the
apron length is typically 4 to 8 times the pipe diameter. Riprap size and thickness are
functions of pipe size and discharge. Specific design equations are found in HEC14 and
other FHWA references. A lot of useful information specific to the design of such
structures to protect against outlet scour is found in the FHWA publication “Hydraulic
Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels”, HEC 14 (Thompson and
Kilgore 2006). It is available at:
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/hec14SI.pdf>

Figure 89—Outlet protection options to prevent scour at the outlet of pipes.

119
Fords versus Culverts
Low-water crossings, or fords, can offer a desirable alternative to culverts and bridges for
stream crossing repairs or replacement on low-volume roads where road use, stream flow
conditions, and topographic setting are appropriate. Like other hydraulic structures for
stream crossings, their construction or repair requires specific site considerations and
geomorphic, soil, hydrologic, hydraulic, and biotic analyses. Conversion or selection of a
ford is particularly useful if a culvert pipe has had a history of plugging from channel
debris. Fords, particularly vented fords, can be constructed to pass large flows and large
amounts of debris, and provide suitable aquatic organism passage (see figure 90). In this
example, a large waterway open area is provided and the natural substrate material is
maintained through the structure.

Figure 90—A large vented ford with predominantly natural stream channel bottom
material, ideal for fish passage.
Ideally, locate low-water crossings at a relatively narrow, shallow stream location and
should be in an area of bedrock or coarse soil for good foundation conditions. An
armored ford can be narrow or broad, but should not be used in deeply incised drainages
that require a high fill or excessively steep road approaches. These settings require the
use of either a culvert or an armored fill. An improved ford with a hardened driving
surface is a desirable structure on some very low traffic roads to minimize turbidity and
potential pollution problems. However, some State agencies discourage fords because of
negative impacts to the stream and fish when driving through the water and for traffic
safety concerns. Design a ford to not create a low-flow depth barrier to fish passage. This
can happen if a ford is wider than the natural channel. Ensure that neither scour nor
perching develops along the downstream edge of the ford which may turn into a fish
passage barrier.
Low-water crossings may have a simple rock reinforced (armored) driving surface, as
shown in figure 91, or an improved, hardened surface such as gabions or a concrete slab
(see figure 90) may be used. Vented fords combine the use of culvert pipes, box culverts,
120
or open bottoms (see figure 90) to pass low flows and a reinforced driving surface over
the culverts to support traffic and keep traffic out of the water most of the time. The
reinforced driving surface over the pipes also resists erosion during overtopping at high
water flows. The entire wetted perimeter of the structure should be protected to a level
above the anticipated design high water elevation. Because basic designs require tailoring
to individual site requirements and locally available materials, many variations of each of
the basic types of low-water crossing structures have been developed over time.

Figure 91—A simple rock armored ford in an ephemeral channel. Coarse rock is placed
across the channel bottom and a fine aggregate is placed on the road surface for driver
comfort.
Key factors to consider for the location, design, or repair of a ford include:
 Low and high water levels.
 Foundation conditions.
 Scour potential.
 Allowable traffic delays.
 Approach grades of the road.
 Channel cross-section shape and confinement.
 Protection of the downstream edge of the structure against local scour.
 Stream channel and bank stability.
 Material transported in the stream, particularly from debris slides or torrents.
 Locally available construction materials.
 Ability to dewater the site or work during the dry season.
 Hydraulics for fish passage.

For fish or aquatic species passage, maintain a natural or rough stream channel bottom
through the ford, and not be accelerate water velocities, similar to requirements through a
culvert. Ideal structures are vented fords with box culverts and a natural stream bottom or
simple on-grade fords with a reinforced, rough driving surface. Some fords can be

121
designed as low-water bridge structures. They too must be designed to be periodically
overtopped and have an erosion resistant deck and approaches. This structure is ideal for
fish passage.
Vented fords have a driving surface elevated some distance above the streambed with
culverts (vents) that enable low flows to pass beneath the roadbed (see figure 93). The
vents can be one or more pipes, box culverts, or open-bottom arches. In streams carrying
large amounts of debris, the driving surface over the vent may be removable, such as
cattle guard, permitting debris to be cleared after a large flow event. Figure 92 shows a
large pipe that had plugged several times in large storm events. Eventually the pipe was
replaced with a concrete vented ford designed with a metal cattle guard top that can be
removed for cleaning. Note that a fish barrier exists at the downstream edge of the
concrete ford, and the entire downstream wetted perimeter of the structure needs to be
armored.

Figure 92—A large 10 foot diameter culvert that had plugged several times with debris
(top photos) and that was eventually replaced with a vented low-water crossing (bottom
photo).

122
Vented fords fall into two categories—low vent-area ratio (VAR) and high VAR—each
of which affects stream channels differently. Vented fords with culverts that are small
relative to the bankfull channel area have a low VAR. A great number of these low VAR
fords have been built by the Forest Service and other agencies. A vent opening that
approximates or exceeds the size of the bankfull channel has a high VAR, as seen in
figure 93. Low VAR structures plug with debris easily; act as a dam and cause deposition
of sediment upstream of the structure; and may accelerate flows downstream, creating a
barrier to fish passage through the pipes, as well as channel scour. A high VAR structure
is much better for aquatic organism passage and to maintain the natural function of the
stream.

Figure 93—Examples of fords with a low and a high Vent-Area Ratio (VAR).

Figure 94 summarizes many of the key design issues necessary to make a ford or low-
water crossing function properly and avoid damage. Many existing fords found
throughout the United States and used by the Forest Service have been damaged at some
time during a flood and have required repairs or have been replaced. To avoid damage to
the structures as well as to the environmental damage, consider the following key design
issues:
 Provide an armored surface through the high-water wetted perimeter of the entire
structure, plus some freeboard.
 Keep the driving surface as low and as close to the natural stream channel
elevation as possible.
 Provide scour protection below the downstream edge of the structure.
 Maintain a natural stream channel bottom through vented fords.
 Stabilize and properly drain the road surface on both approaches to the crossing
using aggregate, concrete, or paving.
123
  Use appropriate vertical and horizontal alignment through the crossing to
accommodate the anticipated traffic safety and use.
 Use delineators, signs, and depth markers as needed to make the crossing safe.

Figure 94—Key design components for an unvented, improved low-water ford.

For additional technical information about the Fords and Low-Water Crossings, consult
“Low-Water Crossings: Geomorphic, Biological and Engineering Design
Considerations” (Clarkin el al.2006). The publication reviews both the advantages and
disadvantages of different low-water crossing structures in various stream environments
and illustrates situations in which low-water crossings may be the optimal choice of
crossing structure. Link to the website:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/index.shtml >.

Local Structure, Streambank, and Channel Stabilization Measures

If local or average velocities exceed the permissible velocities of the materials for
movement (shear stresses), erosion and scour will result. These problems often occur
where a structure has confined or redirected the flow of the channel, where flows have
124
increased in the channel, or where natural protection such as vegetation has been
removed from the channel or around a structure. Therefore, either take measures to
reduce the velocities, redirect the flow, dissipate the energy of the flow, provide stability
below the likely depth of scour, or armor the areas with materials that can resist the
flow’s forces.
A variety of streambank stabilization treatments are available to minimize the
susceptibility of structures or streambanks to disturbance-caused erosion processes. They
may be engineered grade stabilization structures or vegetation-oriented remedies ranging
from conventional plantings to a combination of biological and engineering elements,
such as soil bioengineering. Measures include the use of rock riprap, gabions, concrete
slabs, cable concrete, vegetation, and various biotechnical treatments. Use is also made of
lighter treatments such as Turf Reinforcing Mats (TRM) in some circumstances,
particularly in small channel banks to help promote the growth of vegetation.
Historically, many organizations involved in water resource management have given
preference to engineered structures, and they remain viable options. However, in a
growing effort to restore sustainability and ensure ecological diversity, preference should
be given to those methods that restore the ecological functions and values of stream
systems as well as protect the structure. The value of vegetation in civil engineering and
the role woody vegetation plays in the stabilization of streambanks has gained
considerable recognition in recent years.
Once a stream crossing structure is placed in a channel, the dynamics of the site may be
changed or the structure itself may need protection. The structure may need armoring, the
stream channel may need protection, stream banks may need stabilization, or it may be
desirable to control the flow in the channel with some river training measures to protect
the structure and /or the banks. River engineering is an evolving field and measures
should not be undertaken without proper consultation with qualified engineers and
geomorphologists. Additional localized and systemic problems can be created
through improper design and implementation of river engineering techniques.
Different types of structures have different scour risks that commonly need protection.
Some structures accelerate flows through pipes or vents, some confine channel flow,
some accelerate flow across the driving surface, and some create water drop off the
downstream edge. Many structures create more than one of these effects. Depending on
the velocity of flow and erosion potential, scour protection and/or bank stabilization may
be needed. The following options are available:
 Vegetation, erosion control mats, or small riprap for low velocities.
 Soft armor systems such as biotechnical treatments, vegetated turf reinforcing
mats, rootwads, logs, and boulders for moderate velocities.
 Hard armor systems, such as articulated concrete blocks, gabions, large riprap,
grouted riprap, or concrete for high channel velocities or high shear stress areas
where flows are turbulent or impinging upon the streambank.
Figure 95 provides general guidelines for selecting channel and bank stabilization
measures as a function of mean channel velocity and the duration of flow (i.e., how long
the area is subject to inundation). Note that often a transition zone is needed between a
hard armor zone and the native streambed material. Also ideally this work is tied into a
stable channel feature such as bedrock or large boulders. “Environmentally Sensitive
Channel and Bank Protection Measures” (McCullah and Gray, 2005) presents an
125
excellent summary of the many river training, channel modification, and bank
stabilization/armoring options available today in this National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 544. Link to the document:
<http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_544.pdf>.

Figure 95—Allowable velocities and flow duration for various erosion and bank
protection measures (Adapted from Fischenich, ERDC, 2001.With information from
Theisen, 1992; and McCullah and Gray, NCHRP 544, 2005).

Local Scour Protection

Scour protection is needed in many areas for protection of stream crossing structures
(culverts, bridges, and fords). Scour is one of the principal causes of failure or damage to
structures during major storms. Thus scour protection around structures is a key
mitigation to reduce the risk from storm damage. Many scour protection measures are
similar to streambank stabilization measures. Figure 96 shows some of the areas where
local scour affects stream channels and structures the most, including the following:
 Vertical stream banks, particularly on the outside bend of a channel where flow
velocities are the fastest.
 Areas where there is a sharp bend in the channel, leading to scour on the outside
edge of that bend.
 Over waterfalls and around mid-channel structures where flow is accelerated and
may be turbulent.

126
  Where flow is constricted, thereby accelerating stream channel velocity, such as
through narrow bridges, box culverts, or in culvert pipes.

Some of the common scour protection measures used, such as riprap, logs, and soil
bioengineering treatments are discussed in the following sections. Additional scour
information is presented in section 6.3- Bridge Protection and Improvements.

Figure 96—Common scour problem areas found along stream channels and around
structures.

127
Use of Rock Riprap
Rock riprap is one of the most commonly used, and misused, erosion and scour
protection measures because of its resistance to high stream velocities when properly
installed, availability, relatively low cost, durability, adaptability to many sites,
revegetation opportunities, and some self-healing aspects of loose rock. Because riprap is
a loose rock structure, to some degree it can move, deform, and conform to scour areas
and still offer erosion or scour protection. It can effectively armor an entire channel cross
section (above water and under water), armor streambanks to the expected high water
level, and armor a plunge pool or stilling basin. Riprap can be placed at the outlet of
pipes, along the downstream edge of a structure, in a scour hole, or around and along
channel protrusions, such as bridge piers.

The two most common reasons for riprap failure are improper sizing and poor
installation. Riprap sizing criteria have been developed by many agencies. The most
rigorous criteria are based upon shear stresses or tractive forces exerted by flowing water
and sediment moving along the rock surface. The FHWA publication HEC-11, “Design
of Riprap Revetments” (Brown and Clyde, 1989), provides a comprehensive design
process for riprap sizing, using permissible tractive forces and velocity, along with design
examples. HEC 23 “Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures” (Lagasse et
al. 2009) also discusses riprap design. Both publications are available under “All
Publications” at <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/>.
Criteria based upon permissible velocity are often used because velocity information may
be available from Manning’s Equation, direct measurements, or other sources. Install
rock large enough that it will not be displaced by the forces of flowing water. Figure 97
shows a relatively simple riprap sizing criteria based upon average channel velocity that
can be determined using Manning’s Formula. Depending on the slope of the bank, the
riprap diameter (median size) is chosen based up the average stream flow velocity
(Vave). Smaller rock may be used on areas of straight, parallel flow to the bank (Vp),
while larger riprap is needed in curves where the flow is impinging (Vi) upon the rock.
The impinging velocity (Vi) is estimated at 4/3, or 133 percent of the average channel
velocity (Vave). Also note that the riprap should be well-graded and that half of the
stones should be at least as large as the median size.
Common modes of riprap failure, in addition to undersized rock, are failures at the end of
a section of rock armoring or undermining of the rock by scour at the toe of a slope. The
armored reach of the stream or structure should ideally begin and end at a strong, or hard
point in the channel, such as a bedrock outcrop, at large boulders, or a heavily vegetated
bank area. Also on steep streambanks the slope can fail under the riprap, particularly if
the toe area scours and is not well buttressed. Riprap can also fail by sliding if it is placed
upon a smooth bedrock surface. If riprap is placed upon in-place smooth boulders or
bedrock, the riprap may have to be pinned down with rebar anchored into the rock.

128
Figure 97—Sizing criteria for riprap based upon average channel velocity (Note that 1
foot/second=0.305 meters/second and 1 pound = 0.454 kilograms).

129
The maximum rock size used in remote areas is often dictated by the available size of
rock. If large rock is not available, then grout a smaller rock with concrete or use gabions.
Otherwise, risk of failure becomes higher, the investment is wasted, and the structure
may become a liability. Relatively large riprap is needed around a bend in a stream where
the streambanks are subject to the force of impinging flows. Smaller riprap can be used in
areas of parallel flow along the streambank (see Note in Figure 97).
Figure 98 shows a stream channel with light riprap armoring but little channel and toe
protection. Additionally the riprap has encroached upon the channel, reducing its
capacity. Thus this site is likely to fail in a future storm. Large riprap should be placed in
the bottom of the channel and buried in the toe of the fill to at least the depth of expected
scour along the channel, as shown in figure 99. Large footer rocks should be buried
below the level of scour and other rocks then built upon these footer rocks. Scour depth
will depend on the flow, velocity, and materials, as discussed previously and in section
6.3, but is frequently at least several feet (a couple meters) deep.
Also the channel is relatively smooth, with little roughness to help slow the velocity of
flow and dissipate the channel energy. An armored, hard, smooth section of stream can
accelerate the flow and move or create a problem downstream where the stream enters a
less resistant channel material. Energy dissipation structures, such as rock vanes, weirs,
large boulders, log jams, etc., should be used in conjunction with riprap wherever
possible. Energy must be dissipated or else it just moves away from the hardened area
(Personal Communication, Bob Gubernick). This is discussed further in section 6.4-
Road-Stream Encroachment.

Figure 98—A stream with light riprap armoring on the roadway fill, but the channel
bottom is not armored, nor is the toe of the riprap slope keyed into the channel below the
depth of potential scour. This site is likely to fail in a future storm! Also the channel is
constricted. (Photo courtesy of Bob Gubernick).

130
Several other design and installation details are important when using riprap, as seen in
figure 99:
 Use well-graded riprap to provide a dense armoring layer. The riprap layer should
be at least as thick as the maximum rock size, and preferably 1.5 times the
maximum.
 Use hard, durable, and angular rock.
 Place riprap upon a filter layer of either gravel or geotextile. The filter allows
water to drain from the soil while preventing soil particle movement behind or
beneath the riprap. In critical applications, a multiple filter layer may be desirable.
A sand cushion over a geotextile can be desirable to prevent damage to the
geotextile.
 Key in riprap around the layer’s perimeter, particularly along the toe of an
armored slope and at the upstream and downstream ends of the rock layer such
that scour will not undermine the whole structure, nor make an end run behind the
structure. Extend the protection through a curve or beyond the area where fast or
turbulent flow is expected. Excavate the toe key to the depth of expected scour, or
to at least several feet deep).
 Place riprap with an excavator or by hand to help achieve interlocking of the
individual pieces. Dumped riprap will result in an uneven layer thickness and an
unstable structure overall.
 Add extra volume of rock or an extra length of gabions at the toe of the protected
area to help prevent scour and undermining of the structure.

131
Figure 99—Typical riprap installation details for streambank protection. The upper
drawing shows the use of riprap while the lower drawing shows a detail using gabions,
with both showing measures for toe scour protection.

Other Solutions for Streambank Instability

The solutions for streambank instability often involve a combination of physical and soil
bioengineering techniques. Streambank stabilization measures are often needed at road-
stream crossings where a road fill may encroach on the stream, a culvert fill is placed
across the stream, or where a flow constriction accelerates the natural stream channel
velocity, leading to local scour.
The two basic categories of protection measures for structures and streambanks are:
 Those that armor the soil and increase the local resistance to erosion.
 Those that reduce the force of water against the structure or streambank through
flow redirection or energy dissipation.

Examples of ways to increase local resistance to erosion include:

 Conventional vegetation.
 Soil bioengineering measures such as live stakes, joint planting, brush mattresses,
live fascines.
 Conventional engineering measures such as rock riprap, gabions, concrete
structural biotechnical measures, erosion control blankets, turf reinforcement
mats, root wads and boulder revetments, articulated concrete blocks, etc.

Examples of ways to reduce the force of water include many river training structures such
as spur dikes, groins, jetties, barbs, weirs, drop structures, in channel logs (large woody
debris) and boulders, increasing channel sinuosity, vegetated floodways, etc. More
information on some of these treatments is included in section 6.4-Road-Stream
Encroachment.

132
A combination of methods is often used. Soft treatments, such as use of wood and
vegetation, are typically most desirable, both to emulate natural energy dissipation
features, and to help create the best fish habitat. Figure 100 shows a style of streambank
stabilization using logs, rootwads, and boulders, and figure 101 shows photos of both use
of logs and rootwads, and brush layering being used for streambank stabilization where
channel flow velocities are low. Log, rootwad, and boulder revetments have the
advantage of creating channel roughness along with streambank protection, and they also
creates fish habitat.
Some considerations for selection of the type of stabilization method to use include:
 Selecting self-sustaining, permanent solutions that, in the case of soil
bioengineering measures, have the ability to grow stronger with age and require
minimum future maintenance.
 Protecting or restoring the natural functions and values of the stream as much as
possible.
 Using materials that will add channel roughness and help dissipate the stream
energy.
 Using native, natural living plants and locally available inert materials;
 Protecting or improving water quality by reducing water temperatures and
sedimentation problems.
 Selecting measures that are strong or durable enough to resist the erosive forces of
the stream during a major storm event.

One of the key references on this topic is the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 16, titled “Streambank and Shoreline
Protection” (NRCS, 1996). This classic reference describes and emphasizes use of
vegetation, soil bioengineering, and biotechnical methods, as well as traditional structural
streambank stabilization methods.
Link to document:
<http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17553.wba>.
Another useful reference for streambank stabilization is the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife publication “Integrated Streambank Protection
Guidelines” (Cramer et al. 2003). It is available at:
<http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00046/wdfw00046.pdf>.

133
Figure 100 —Log, rootwad, and boulder streambank stabilization measures.

134
Figure 101—Rootwads, logs, and boulders (left) and brush layering (right) used for
streambank stabilization.

Soil Bioengineering Solutions for Streambank Instability

Soil bioengineering is a technology that uses sound engineering practices in conjunction
with integrated ecological principles. It takes advantage of the benefits of vegetation
systems, arranged in specific ways, to prevent or repair damage caused by erosion and
stream scour. The role of soil bioengineering for streambank stability is instrumental in
road rehabilitation and stabilization for use along the road, adjacent to an eroding stream
bank or at structures such as a bridge. Adapted types of woody vegetation (shrubs and
trees) are initially installed in specified configurations that offer immediate soil
protection and reinforcement.
Additionally, soil bioengineering systems create resistance to sliding or shear
displacement in streambanks as they develop roots or fibrous inclusions. Environmental
benefits derived from woody vegetation include diverse and productive riparian habitats,
shade, organic additions to the stream, cover for fish, temperature reduction, and
improvements in aesthetic value and water quality.
Under certain conditions, soil bioengineering installations work well in conjunction with
structures to provide more permanent protection and function, enhance aesthetics, and
create a more environmentally acceptable product. This combination is commonly called
biotechnical stabilization. Soil bioengineering systems normally use plant parts in the
form of live cut branches and/or rooted plants. For protective measures for streambanks,
live stakes, live fascines, joint planting through rock (vegetated riprap), vegetated
geogrids and gabions, live cribwalls, branch packing, and live brush mattresses are all
used in various configurations as appropriate for a specific location. Figure 102 shows a
joint planting system with live stakes tamped through riprap (after several years of
growth (left photo)).

135
Figure 102— Biotechnical streambank stabilization using rock riprap and live willow
stakes (right photo courtesy of Robbin Sotir).

Useful information on streambank stabilization is found in the publication titled “A Soil

Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization” (Eubanks and
Meadows, 2002).
Link to this document: <http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide/>.

Beaver Plugging Prevention

Beaver often build dams or structures that block the inlet to culverts. They may plug
culverts to create ponds upstream of the pipes. Thus the pipes may not function or they
may have reduced capacities, increasing the chances of culvert failure during a major
storm events. Keeping beaver dams cleaned out from culverts also increases the cost of
culvert maintenance. Removal of the beaver structures is a common, and sometimes
chronic, treatment.
Removal of the beaver and their structures from an area is often not desirable or cost-
effective. It is also difficult to keep beaver from colonizing a suitable site, and efforts
have often been unsuccessful. Removing food sources is difficult, trapping and relocation
is expensive, and no environmentally safe chemicals or toxins are available for specific
use against beaver. Additionally, beaver may be an important part of the local natural
environment and be native to the area. Thus removal of the beaver may be undesirable,
but the culverts need to be kept functioning.
A recommended practice is to keep an inventory of sites where beaver problems are
found. Thus these sites can be a high priority for cleaning in advance of storms, and also
for storm patrol inspections. Figure 103 shows a typical beaver structure decreasing the
capacity of a large culvert.

136
Figure 103— A Beaver dam partially plugging a large culvert, Routt National Forest.
(Courtesy of Steve Coupal).
Beaver are ambitious animals! They seem to be able to plug culverts faster than they can
be cleaned, and they are able to repair a dam or lodge by the next day. Thus to alleviate
this problem, a variety of measures have been developed to thwart the efforts of beaver to
plug up culverts and to discourage beaver dam construction at culverts. These include
exclusion fences, secondary flow bypasses, water control devices, perforated pipes
through culverts, or ways to regulate the water and pool level in a pond behind the
culvert. Coarse screens and meshes can be placed on the inlet of pipes to keep beaver out,
but they make a good location for beaver activity at the pipe inlet (fortunately outside the
pipe), they restrict the flow of water, and can easily plug with debris. Water control
devices may also create a problem for fish passage, so the implications of various
treatments should be carefully evaluated.
Figure 104 and figure 105 show retrofits that have been added to large culverts to prevent
them from being totally plugged by beavers. Figure 104 shows drop inlet pipes connected
to the culverts (a pond is behind the pipes in a meadow) with additional larger rings to
allow water flow into the pipes even if the top is covered with debris. Figure 105 shows
small perforated pipes running through the large culvert pipe to ensure some water flow
(and to frustrate the beaver). Figure 106 shows a screened in cage in front of the culvert
inlet, known as a beaver deceiver, to prevent plugging.

137
Figure 104 —Large riser pipes connected to culverts with entrance rings to allow water
flow into the pipe, yet thwart beaver activity, California..

Figure 105— Perforated pipes flowing through or next to larger main pipes to maintain
some low flow through the pipe even with beaver dam activity.

138
Figure 106—“Beaver deceiver” protection by screening off the entrance to the culvert in
Wyoming. (Courtesy of Steve Coupal)).

The Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler (figure 107) is a relatively low cost, low maintenance
device used to pass water through a beaver dam or plug (Wood et al. 1994). It can control
the level of water in a pond behind a beaver dam, or ensure that some flow will be going
through a plugged pipe or past a beaver dam. It has been used successfully in both
southern and northern regions since 1987.
A Forest Service publication discussing many of the methods used to mitigate beaver
problems is “How to Keep Beavers from Plugging Culverts”, by Dale Nolte et al.
Missoula TDC (0577-2830-MTDC), 2005.

139
Figure 107—A Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler used to control water level and/or provide
bypass flow to plugged culverts and beaver dams. (Note: Units in metric were not
available on this drawing).

140
6.3. Bridge Protection and Improvements
Bridges are a major investment for rural infrastructure, and need to be protected to
prevent failures. Good bridge design and bridge scour protection measures should be
built into the initial design. However, changes over time can affect the hydrology of the
watershed and thus increase storm flows, putting existing bridges at risk. Watershed
characteristics may change due to new land uses, logging, or forest fires. Global climate
change may be contributing to more intense storms, longer duration storms, or more
glacial meltwater runoff. Thus old bridges may have marginal hydraulic capacity for
storm runoff. Some bridge protection may be needed over time and added in the form of
erosion and scour protection to prevent undermining of foundation piers or abutments.
Since bridges are very costly, scour prevention measures can be a high priority item. This
might involve the following work:
 Foundation repairs and grouting.
 Riprap placement around piers or abutments.
 Channel lining with riprap or gabions.
 Redirecting flows with barbs or rock jetties, etc.
Work should involve an interdisciplinary process including fisheries, hydrologists,
geomorphologists, earth scientists, and engineering personnel.
For some structures with a known inadequate flow capacity, the superstructure can be
raised to increase freeboard. In some circumstances, an overflow dip can be built into
approach fills, particularly fills that block a historic flood plain, to provide a controlled
failure point that can be easily repaired rather than losing the bridge structure.
Channel maintenance, as discussed earlier, can also increase the bridge flow capacity and
reduce the chance of plugging or blockage during a storm.
A FHWA publication titled “Stream Instability, Bridge Scour, and Countermeasures: A
Field Guide for Bridge Inspectors” (FHWA/NHI, 2009) has many useful insights into
bridge instability problems, what to look for, and appropriate countermeasures.

Increasing Freeboard
Lack of capacity and freeboard can lead to bridge failure. Lack of freeboard may present
just a lack of capacity for the design flow, or it may cause a bridge failure by catching
floating debris that can push the superstructure off its abutments, as seen in figure 108.
Stream channels in areas of aggradation, on alluvial fans, and ones carrying significant
amounts of large woody debris, all have the potential of plugging a bridge. In these areas,
bridges should be evaluated for their freeboard and consideration given for raising the
structure if possible. Alternatively some channel clearing may be warranted (after
consideration of other adverse environmental impacts of channel clearing).

141
Figure 108—A failed bridge due to lack of freeboard and accumulation of debris behind
the bridge deck.

Solutions to lack of freeboard are not simple. Either the structure can be replaced with a
longer span to increase the waterway open area of the structure, or the superstructure
(girders and deck) can be raised. The success of these measures depends on the shape of
the topography around the bridge. Raising the bridge deck in flat terrain may accomplish
nothing if the flood waters just spread out across a flood plain. Here a longer structure
would be more useful. Figure 109 shows a Bailey Bridge superstructure with marginal
freeboard and debris stuck in the superstructure after a flood. The problem was solved by
adding height to the abutments and piers (right photo), thus raising the deck a couple feet,
and placing a new concrete superstructure across the span.

Figure 109—A bridge with marginal freeboard (left) where the abutments and piers were
raised (right) to add freeboard and flow capacity, Plumas County, California.

142
Major Bridge Scour Protection
Bridge foundation scour is one of the most common causes of bridge damage or failure
during storm events. The most common forms of scour at bridge sites are contraction
scour, general channel scour, and local scour around piers and abutments, as shown on
figure 110. Some additional discussion of scour is presented in section 6.2 under Local
Scour Protection.
Determining the depth of scour and amount of potential bedload movement are critical
factors that need to be evaluated at bridgesites, particularly if the site has had historic
scour problems or appears undersized. In coarse, rocky channels with boulders scour
depth may be minimal or only a couple feet (a meter); in gravel channels with cobbles
scour may be as deep as several feet (a few meters); and in fine sandy river channels
scour has been observed to over fifty feet (15 meters+). Determining scour depth
requires study and careful evaluation of the channel and bed material characteristics. The
references listed below provide useful information for determining scour depth. Also
programs such as the Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS programs for analysis of river
systems have methodologies for determining scour depth. It is available at:
<http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/>.

Key areas needing scour protection include:

 Along the downstream edge of an in-channel grade control structure, where
accelerated velocities or water dropping off a structure produces a waterfall with a
lot of erosive energy.
 Around or beneath mid-channel piers, posts, piles, or box walls that create
turbulence or accelerated flows (see figure 111).
 Along the edges and beneath abutments and footings, where locally accelerated
flows and scour occur.
 Along or around the approaches to structures (outflanking) or wingwalls, where
high water level may exceed the elevation of armoring or a shifting channel
scours behind the approach armoring.

143
Figure 110—Types of scour and common scour problem areas around a bridge (Adapted
and reproduced with the express written authority of the Transportation Association of
Canada, from Neill, 1973).

Figure 111—Common scour seen around a mid-channel pier or abutment. Thus mid-
channel piers and abutments are problematic, undesirable, and should be avoided if
possible.
Common mitigation measures used for protecting bridges against scour include the
following:

144
  Moving a structure to a location where the local materials are not scour
susceptible, such as areas of coarse rock and bedrock.
 Widening a structure to avoid constricting the flow channel, thus avoiding flow
acceleration.
 Armoring the entire channel with scour resistant materials (grouted gabions,
riprap, concrete, etc.).
 Protecting the channel, streambanks, and abutments against local scour, using
vegetation, rootwads and logs, riprap, sack concrete, articulated concrete blocks,
vegetated turf reinforcing mats, gabions, etc., as seen in figure 112.
 Redirecting stream channel flow with barbs, spur dikes, weirs, cross vanes, etc.
 Installing deep foundations, placed below the anticipated scour level, such as
relatively deep spread footings, or drilled or driven piles.
 Adding shallow scour cutoff walls, gabion or concrete splash aprons, plunge
pools, or a riprap layer along the downstream edge of an in-channel structure.
 Installing deep cutoff walls or deep sheet piles installed to a depth below the
depth of scour, or to scour-resistant material, such as bedrock.

For additional technical information about Scour, consult FHWA HEC-18 “Evaluating
Scour At Bridges” (Richardson and Davis, 2001). The manual is part of a set of
Hydraulic Engineering Circulars (HECs) issued by FHWA to provide guidance for bridge
scour and stream stability analyses. A companion document is HEC-23 titled “Bridge
Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures” (Lagasse et al. 2009b). Links to the
manuals:
HEC 18 is at: <http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/010590.pdf>
and HEC 23 at:
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number=23&id=
142>.

Figure 112—Bridges with rock riprap (left) and gabion (right) scour protection around
the abutments since the bridges are located on bends in the stream (river bends are
problematic locations).
Also technical information about bridge scour evaluation can be found in “Bridge Scour
Evaluation: Screening, Analysis, & Countermeasures” (Kattell and Eriksson, 1998). Link
to the document at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/98771207.pdf>.

145
Stream channels are also very dynamic and tend to meander or shift laterally,
longitudinally, and vertically over time, particularly in low gradient environments. They
can change flow direction during flood events and may reoccupy some historic floodplain
deposit. Figure 113 shows a bridge site where stream meander or change in flow
direction eroded a bridge abutment and approach fill. The repair involved extending the
concrete wingwall and providing upstream bank protection with riprap. Evaluate the
location of bridge abutments for long-term channel stability and possible stream channel
adjustments. Figure 114 shows a damaged bridge approach due to channel widening from
a debris torrent in the watershed. Figure 115 shows a bridge damaged due to channel
constriction and scour on the outside of a river bend.

Figure 113—Abutment scour caused by channel meander (left photo) and the repair
(right), extending bank protection upstream from the bridge. Note that the bridge also
constricts the original stream channel, Plumas National Forest.

Figure 114—Channel widening and scour around a bridge abutment, removing part of
the approach fill, caused by a debris torrent and shifting river channel. A temporary

146
Bailey Bridge is being used to cross the gap, Mt. Hood Nationa.Forest (Courtesy of Mark
Leverton).

Figure 115— Bridge failure during Hurricane Irene due to a bridge span too short for
the channel width, with the abutments constricting the channel and accelerating the
stream flow, plus the bridge is located on a river bend, all causing abutment scour,
White Mountain National Forest. (Courtesy of Bob Gubernick).

6.4 Road-Stream Encroachment

Historically, roads were located following the path of least resistance; in essence where
construction required the least amount of excavation. This resulted in most of the initial
roads into a watershed located on river terraces adjacent to the river and or in channel
floodplains. These areas, now commonly referred to as channel migration zones (CMZs),
are where rivers shift in response to storm flows, sediment, and obstructions to shape and
reshape their floodplain. Areas where there are significant changes in stream gradient, or
alluvial fan areas, are particularly problematic since over time the stream channel may fill
with sediment and shift its channel. Also road work such as raised embankments or
levees may in fact block off a stream’s access to its historic flood plain or an overflow
channel, thus concentrating more flow in the channel that can lead to erosion and scour
problems, or create a problem elsewhere downstream.

The constant shifting by rivers frequently undermines or removes road sections which are
both extremely costly to repair and disruptive to travel (see figure 116). At times, the
road may capture the entire river, resulting in a complete relocation of the channel to the
road alignment. A road located in or near the channel migration zone is an encroachment
on the river and its natural function. Figure 116 shows road damage and a nearly total

147
road washout caused by constriction of the natural stream channel by the roadway and
fill. Note that the road is located in a relatively steep, narrow canyon.

Figure 116—Examples of roads located in floodplains (left) and on the edge of a channel
migration zone (right) where flood damage may be frequent and costly. Road access may
be lost for long periods of time, Pacific Northwest. (Courtesy of Roger Nichols).

Figure 117—Road-stream encroachment where a road is located too near the stream in a
narrow river canyon, confining the streamflow during a major storm event, Green
Mountain National Forest. (Courtesy of Bob Gubernick).
The usual management response following road damage is to move the road or restrain
the river with rock armor placed on the road fill to protect the road from the erosive
power of the river. The road bed elevation may be raised above expected flood levels and
the fill armored to maintain the alignment. The river reacts to this displacement by
shifting the erosion downstream, or by totally removing an obstruction such as an
undersized bridge or culvert crossing.
Some common treatments for stream encroachment at stream crossings are covered in
section 5.3-Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements. The treatments
included in this section can be used where roads parallel streams and at stream crossings
and should be considered when appropriate.
148
In more recent road construction practices, road locations along streams, within
floodplains, and within or adjacent to channel migration zones are viewed as high risk
sites that should be avoided. High risk roads should be closed or relocated! Roads
should be moved away from the channel or upslope on a hillside, outside any
potential channel migration zone. As storm damage occurs to roads located in these
sites, the list of possible repair solutions should start with relocation as the first option.
While relocation may be costly, and in many instances administratively and physically
difficult, relocating roads away from streams, floodplains, and CMZs will eliminate
future costly channel encroachment repairs and loss of road function for extended
periods. In addition, channel functions will be better managed if road features do not
interfere with natural stream processes.
If road relocation is eliminated from possible solutions, a detailed review of stream
processes at the site and geomorphic processes in the watershed should be used to
determine the hydraulic forces and channel dynamics that need to be included in
treatment selection and design.
The most common stream encroachment site is when a road encounters the outside
boundary of a channel meander. Treatments may be selected to treat the site where the
road and meander are in contact; however, it is important to understand that meanders
migrate (laterally and in a downstream direction) and that the outside of a meander bend
is where considerable stream energy is expended. Also aggradation of the streambed or
channel widening due to loss of riparian vegetation can contribute to channel migration.
A relatively smooth, but resistant, treatment (including riprap) will only pass the stream
energy to the next downstream unprotected bank, and likely exacerbate the problem. The
following techniques attempt to work with stream energy and alter stream dynamics
around the site. These techniques have been used successfully in the Pacific Northwest as
well as in Northern California. It is a holistic approach, but keep in mind that the
techniques are still experimental and the practices are evolving. They appear best suited
for wide, degrading river systems that move a lot of bedload. It is also applicable to
moderate gradient mountain streams with low to moderately sinuousity and where whole
tree jams are common (personal communication, Terry Benoit, Hydrologist).

Floating Log Weirs

Many stream bank protection treatments involve a rigid, massive structure designed to
deflect flow away from the treatment site, such as riprap armored banks, gabions, rock or
log deflectors. Those structures are designed to withstand the maximum expected drag
forces and scour at the site and are built to a height equal to the highest design flow, plus
some freeboard. Often these types of structures increase the scour at the structure due to
how the structure interacts with the flow. A structure with a rigid uniform surface,
including a riprap streambank, reduces channel roughness and increases water velocities.
The result is an increase in local and downstream scour which can contribute to the
failure of the structure itself.
Natural wood jams form on key features or logs and capture floating debris on the falling
limb of the hydrograph. During a runoff event the collected buoyant debris expands as it
floats up in the water column. As the flow recedes the debris settles and compacts. This
process is repeated many times on varying sized storm events resulting in the debris jam
increasing in size until the channel shifts or the river reacts by cutting a new channel.
149
Secondary processes that accompany this dynamic jam flexing are continual renewal by
debris collecting, and disruption of the water column which results in localized eddy
formation. The backwaters and eddies trigger sediment deposition. Constructed structures
that utilize these traits of natural wood jams can be utilized to slow the water velocities
along the eroding bank and slowly increase the bed elevation through sediment
deposition downstream. The eventual result is a channel shift away from the eroding
bank.
Ballasted logs structures are a flexible design which attempts to mimic the natural flexing
of a wood debris jam with similar local scour and deposition characteristics. The
technique has been successfully employed at a number of sites and minimizes the impact
on fisheries resources. Monitoring has shown improvement in aquatic habitat over the
project life.

Ballasted long line log weirs

For the long-line cabled log weirs, logs are placed perpendicular to the stream bank and
cabled to boulders (see figure 118 and figure 119) that help maintain the log positions.
The cables are slack so that the logs float up as the flow increases and interact with the
upper velocity vectors in the water column. This does not increase the bed scour around
the structure, but rather interrupts flow velocities and creates lower velocity eddies within
the structure and near-bank area. At the same time, the floating logs have the potential to
capture other logs floating downstream on the surface of the flow. The result is the
deposition of sediment within the structure and a shift in the stream thalweg away from
the bank being protected (see figure 120).

Figure 118—Floating log weirs just after installation. These weirs are designed to move
the river thalweg away from the near bank, Warnick Bluff, Nooksack River, Washington
(Courtesy of Roger Nichols).

150
The logs are held in place by two large boulders cabled to the ends of the log. These
boulders must be sized to withstand the shear, buoyant, and drag forces expected at the
site. Since the logs are on long cables, the shear force experienced by the boulders is
reduced since the logs float up and do not exert a buoyant force directly on the boulders.
The buoyant force is exerted at an angle instead of directly upward.

151
Figure 119—Floating log weir design and anchor details

A complete discussion of this treatment can be found in the paper “Use of Long-Line
Cabled Logs for Stream Bank Rehabilitation”, Nichols and Sprague, 2003.

Figure 120—Warnick Bluff floating log weirs at high flow. Note the turbulent flow zone
located outside the weir installation and slack water within the structure (Courtesy of
Roger Nichols).

152
Four-Log Ballasted Long Line Jams
Another long line technique has been used to protect roads from damage. In this case, log
jams are constructed within the river reach where the road-stream encroachment has
become a problem. The log jams are designed and positioned to encourage the river to
migrate or split flow energy around lateral or mid-channel bars.
By combining three ballasted base logs and a rear top log (figure 121), an interactive log
jam is formed which amplifies debris capturing characteristics and additional local
sedimentation and scour. By placing this type of structure in series of three, top middle
and bottom of lateral or medial gravel bars, it is possible to split flows and reduce river
power significantly. This splitting of flows greatly reduces effective stream power and
encourages localized deposition.

Figure 121—Design details for four log ballasted long-line structure.

153
Figure 122—State Route 542, Whatcom County, Washington. Example of ballasted
floating logs placed in front of an eroding streambank along the road. The upper photo is
at high flow in 2004. The lower photo is the same location at low flow in 2011. Note the
streambank erosion around the riprap that occurred in 2004 before the log weirs were
installed. (Courtesy of Roger Nichols).

Figure 122 shows the application of the ballasted floating log weirs being used to slow
the water velocity along the bank and protect the streambank along a highway. Riprap in
this location had previously been inadequate and had allowed streambank erosion. These
ballasted floating logs can be useful for streambank protection, as well as to encourage
streambank revegetation.

Another option involves use of whole trees cabled to the upper bank. The long-term
objective is to move the center of flow away from the eroding bank while live vegetation
takes over. Boulder vanes can also help redirect the flow away from the eroding bank,
followed by sloping the eroding bank (usually to a 1:1 slope) and vegetating the area.
Live vegetation is the key to long-term success!

154
Other Channel Redirection and Bank Protection Measures (Spurs,
Veins, Drop Structures, Log Jams, Etc.)
Floating log weirs have been discussed in the previous section and some bank armor and
protection measures, including hard techniques such as riprap or concrete, and soft
treatments such as woody debris, boulders and logs, and biotechnical solutions were
discussed in section 6.2-Stream Crossing Structure Protection and Improvements. In
addition to these measures, A wide variety of other treatments have been developed to
help protect structures and are used as river training structures to confine, direct, or focus
the flow of water, as well as provide some armoring and energy dissipation. These
include use of spurs, barbs, dikes, J-hooks, drop structures, guide banks, vanes, etc. These
are useful when flow needs to be deflected or directed away from the streambank, a
structure, or the road. Again moving the road or structure may be the best long-term
solution.

Flow redirection techniques include the use of spurs, dikes, jetties, vanes, groins, barbs,
engineered log jams and large woody debris, boulder drop structures, and porous weirs.
They are most commonly constructed with rock or boulders, and frequently used in
conjunction with vegetation, but they may also be constructed using gabions, wood posts,
fencing, concrete, or other materials. Rock cross veins, boulder drop structures, and
stone weirs are used to focus the flow of water, prevent channel erosion and headcutting,
as well as provide pool habitat. Examples are shown in figure 123.

Figure 123—Flow redirection or training measures used to protect streambanks and

structures, such as spur dikes or rock vanes (left photo), and rock drop structures or
weirs (right photo). (Photos courtesy of John McCullah).

A useful textbook that addresses many considerations in river dynamics, channel

morphology, assessment of stream condition, and effects of structures on the channel
(and vice versa) is “Applied River Morphology” by David Rosgen (1996). It can be
ordered from: <http://www.amazon.com>

Four other basic references (previously mentioned) that contain a great deal of discussion
on a wide variety of streambank stabilization, channel control, and flow direction
measures are:
 “Environmentally Sensitive Channel and Bank Protection Measures” (McCullah
and Gray. 2005).
155
  HEC 23 “Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures” (Lagasse et al.
2009).
 “Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Chapter” 16 (NRCS, 1996).
 “Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines” (Cramer et al. 2003).

6.5 Erosion Control

Erosion control on roads and disturbed areas is fundamental for the protection of water
quality, particularly during major storms. The two main causes of erosion are
concentration of flowing water and lack of ground cover over the soil. Many erosion
control treatments are low cost, effective and commonly applied. Vegetative ground
cover is the primary long-term defense against erosion. A number of basic erosion control
and protection measures were discussed in section 5.5-Erosion Prevention and Erosion
Control.
Some erosion situations and treatments are more complicated and costly to implement,
but have great long-term benefits in environmental protection. Some soil bioengineering
and biotechnical slope stabilization measures can offer excellent and aesthetic slope
treatments, but most are labor intensive to install. Gullies, as mentioned previously, are a
particularly severe form of erosion, and efforts should be made to prevent the formation
of gullies, particularly those caused by concentrated runoff from roads. Prevention
criteria are discussed in section 5.5. However, once a gully has formed, various gully
stabilization measures exist that can be used to stabilize the area or prevent it from
getting larger. Gully stabilization treatments are discussed below.

Gully Stabilization
Stabilization of gullies typically begins with removing or reducing the source of
water flowing through the gully. Also the following information applies to gully
formation caused by road drainage features or poor land use practices. Typically
gully stabilization structures are not desirable on natural stream channels and
should only be used in natural drainages to correct some severe problems, and then
only after careful study, examining a range of alternative solutions. For gullying of
ditches or gully formation below the road, the typically best solution is prevention by
adding more frequent drainage features (ditch-relief culverts) to reduce the concentrated
water volume (as discussed in section 5.5).
If a gully already exists, stabilization measures can be undertaken, but the first step is to
remove as much of the source of water as possible. With time and the source of water
removed, a gully may tend to stabilize itself, particularly if the area can be revegetated.
However, as a common practice, the gully can be stabilized with vegetation or refilled
with dikes, or small dams, built at intervals along the gully. Reshaping and stabilization
of the over-steepened gully sides may also be needed, as well as some treatment on the
headcut area. Gully stabilization can require a lot of work and expense!
Typical gully stabilization check dam structures are constructed of a wide variety of
materials including rock, gabions, logs, wood stakes with wire or brush, rock and brush,
bamboo, vegetative barriers, etc. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Loose rock
structures are somewhat forgiving and can deform a bit and still function. The rock
should be well graded, but it will still be porous so it detains water temporarily and then
attenuates the runoff water. Gabions are commonly used but can be problematic and so
156
need extra care in installation. They are subject to settlement, piping through the rock,
and flow diversion around or under the structure. A geosynthetic filter material should be
placed behind and under the structure to minimize piping. Examples of log and loose
rock structures are shown in figure 124. Biotechnical methods offer a combination of
physical structure and vegetative measures for physical protection, as well as additional
long-term root support and aesthetics. A headcut structure is also typically needed to
stabilize the upslope, or top-most portion of the gully and prevent additional headward
movement.

Figure 124—Gully stabilization structures made of logs (left) and of loose rock (right).

Design details that are important for successful gully stabilization structures are shown on
figure 125. They include:
 Having a weir, notched, or U shaped spillway that is constructed for the design
peak flow capacity to keep the water flow concentrated in the middle of the
channel.
 Keying the structure into the adjacent banks tightly and far enough to prevent
erosion around the ends of the structures.
 Burying the structures deep enough in the channel to prevent flow under the
structure.
 Spilling the water over the structure onto a splash apron, protective layer of rock,
or into a pool of water to prevent scour and undermining of the structure.
 Spacing the structures close enough so that the flow over the structure spills into
backwater caused by the next structure downstream (figure 126).
 If rock check dams are used, using well-graded rock is important so that the
structure is relatively impermeable. Use of vegetation with the rock will add
integrity to the structure.

157
 Figure 125—Check dams used to control or stabilize a gully. Note the details for keying
the structure into the gully, having a U shaped weir, and protecting the toe area against
scour and with other downslope structures.

The recommended spacing for structures depends on the slope of the terrain or gully
channel, and the height of each structure, as presented in figure 126a. This physical
158
relationship between structure height and spacing in a sloped channel is so that water and
material stored behind the lower structure is level with the toe of the upper structure. This
allows water from the upper structure to spill into the pool above the lower structure, thus
minimizing toe scour at the upper structure (see figure 125 and figure 126b). Figure 126c
shows the arrangement of a series of rock check dam structures in a channel (as well as
installation details).
Another consideration is height of the structures. Occasionally one large dam is built in
an area to fill and stabilize an entire gully system. Also large structures are typically built
as debris retention dams where massive quantities of sediment and debris are moving in a
canyon, such as some steep Southwest arroyos. However, generally a series of small,
well-built structures is more desirable than one or a few large structure, particularly if
grade control is the objective to keep a gully from eroding deeper and to reduce the
effective gradient of the channel. Smaller structures are more versatile, easier to build
using local materials, and have less fall at the outlet that can cause erosion. Also there is
less risk of a catastrophic failure of just one structure. Structures are typically less than 5
feet (1.6 meters) high.
In gully prevention an ounce of erosion control measures certainly results in a pound
reduction of sediment and erosion caused damage. Take action to prevent the formation
of gullies, remove or divide the source of water, and stabilize existing gullies before they
grow larger. Once large, gully stabilization measures can be very expensive.

159
Figure 126—Ideal gully control check dam spacing criteria and installation details for
loose rock check dams. Note that water from the upper structure should spill into the pool
above the lower structure (Adapted from Gray and Leiser, 1982).
Note: 1 meter = 3.28 feet

Other Gully Control Considerations

In addition to removing the source of water, and building gully control structures (check
dams), several other concepts are important and may be useful for controlling gullies.
Healing principles for gullies include (Zeedyk et al. 2006):
 Dispersing upland flow to prevent water concentration and increase infiltration
and percolation.
 Reducing channel slope to reduce runoff velocity.
 Widening the channel bottom to lessen erosion forces.
 Increasing channel roughness.
 Retaining soil moisture to improve conditions for plant growth.

Gully repair or stabilization projects should begin with an assessment of the scope of the
problem, the severity of the conditions, and whether water control and revegetation
treatments will be adequate or if structures are needed. Global climate change, more
wildfires, and more intense rainstorms all contribute to more potential for severe gully
problems. Also the objective should be clarifies concerning grade control or sediment
retention check dams, or both.

Methods to minimize gully problems include reforestation in the watershed above a gully
and planting vegetation to reduce the amount of runoff, as well as use of other erosion
control measures. Treatments may include the use of large gully plugs that provide both
grade control and storage for sediment. A pond and plug design may be adopted to fill in
160
parts of the gully and establish a new waterway. A variety of check dam designs and
materials have been used, as discussed above. The gully area may be reshaped and
designed as a waterway if the water cannot be diverted. Alternatively, the entire gully
area may be reshaped to eliminate the gully, but the area needs to include diversion
ditches or waterways to accommodate any flows.

Headcut areas at the top of the gully need to be specifically treated to prevent the gully
from migrating further headward. Typically the area must be reshaped and smoothed, and
backfilled with rock to form a rock-filled basin that will resist erosion. There is typically
a drop, or change in elevation from the natural ground level to the bottom of the gully.
The armoring must accommodate this drop yet remain stable. Other designs have ise logs
or materials that form steps and break up or divide the fall of the water.

Useful references on gully control and stabilization are:

“Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control” (Gray, D.; Leiser, A. 1982) and in
“Gullies and Their Control” (USDA, NRCS 2007). The NRCS document is available at:
<http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/nrrbs/TECHNICALSUPPLEMENTS/TS14P.pdf>.

“Gully Development and Control: The Status of our Knowledge” (Heede, B. 1976) is a
classic document and basic primer on gully formation, gully stabilization techniques, and
types of control structures.

“An Introduction to Erosion Control” (Zeedyk et al. 2006) offers an overall perspective
and useful suggestions for erosion and gully control, particularly for semi-arid conditions.
Available at: <http://www.comanchecreek.org/images/links/115-
Erosion%2520Control%2520Field%2520Guide.pdf>.

Roadway Surfacing Materials

Roadway surfacing materials such as gravel, crushed aggregate, or even a rocky soil can
be very useful to reduce road surface erosion. Also an aggregate surfacing can make the
road more resistant to washing and damage during major storm events. Roads that have
had a dense surfacing material have withstood severe storm events much better than
either unsurfaced roads or roads with a loose, poorly graded material (Copstead and
Johansen, 1998). Over time roadway surfacing is displaced or worn out and is ineffective
at protecting the road surface from erosion and traffic damage. Thus road surface material
replacement often becomes an important SDRR treatment. Fortunately many main
collector roads in the Forest Service are currently surfaced with aggregate, particularly in
the Pacific Northwest. However, many roads need surface replacement and many lower
standard roads would benefit from armoring with a surfacing aggregate.
Key characteristics of the aggregate to be most resistant to flowing water are to have a
dense gradation, be well compacted, have angular rock particles, and have adequate
plasticity to resist ravel, particularly in arid to semi-arid regions of the West. In high
rainfall areas such as the East, plasticity may not be desirable since it can be a source of
sediment. Thus a dense gradation with adequate fines and good compaction are all the
more important.

161
A dense graded 1- to 2-inch (25 to 50 mm) maximum size aggregate is ideal. Coarser
aggregate may seem better than a small aggregate to resist erosion, but the coarser
aggregate also tends to ravel more during normal road use, likely leaving the road surface
loose if a storm hits. Figure 127 shows a dense, well-graded aggregate on a forest road,
with minimal ravel.
Information on use and properties of roadway materials, both for structural support and
erosion control, is found in “Stabilization and Rehabilitation Measures for Low-Volume
Forest Roads” (Keller et al. 2011). This large document is available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/php/library_card.php?p_num=1177%201801P>.
Also see the FHWA/LTAP publication “Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual”
(Skorseth, K. and Selim, A. 2000). It is available at:
<http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/gravelroads_index.cfm> or
<http://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/videos/gravelroadmaintenance/documents/ma
nual.pdf>.

Figure 127—A dense, compact, well-graded roadway aggregate that is making the road
surface more resistant to erosion and washing.

6.6 General Slope Stabilization Measures

Achieving Stable Cut and Fill Slopes
Cut and fill slopes are routinely constructed in new construction or road reconstruction
and repair projects. Over-steep cut and fill slopes are a hazard during storm events and
162
risk failure. Failed slopes typically need to be repaired or removed. They usually do not
involve analysis, but rather are constructed at slope angles thought to be stable based on
local experience and general guidelines. Guidelines are meant to produce stable slopes in
most soils most of the time. If a specific problematic, unstable, or wet area is
encountered, either the road can be realigned around this area or the slope can be
flattened, drained, or a retaining structure or buttress may be considered. Designs are
typically site specific and may require input from geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists. Figure 128 shows the typical range of stable cut and fill slopes. Slopes steeper
than those presented in the figure have a high risk of failure during a major storm event.
Table 6 also presents common stable slope ratios for cuts and fills in a variety of soil and
rock types. Existing slopes steeper than these values again have a risk of failure during
storms.

Figure 128—Typical conditions and treatments for stable cut and fill slopes. Figure is
adopted from “Stream Corridor Restoration”, by the Federal Interagency Stream
Restoration Working Group.

Simple rock buttresses, gabions, or geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) or mechanically

stabilized earth (MSE) walls may be added to improve site stability. Drainage
improvements might include ditches, cutoff trenches, or horizontal drains. The use of
deep-rooted vegetation is always desirable on marginally stable slopes, and it is fairly
inexpensive. Live stakes, brush layers, and various soil bioengineering or biotechnical
treatments with vegetation are common to improve slopes and the stability of structures.

163
Table 6- Common Stable Slope Ratios for Varying Soil/Rock Conditions
Soil/Rock Condition Slope Ratio (Horizontal:Vertical)
C Most rock ¼:1 to ½:1
U Very well cemented soils ¼:1 to ½:1
T Most in-place soils ¾:1 to 1:1
S Very fractured rock 1:1 to 1 ½:1
Loose coarse granular soils 1 ½:1
Heavy clay soils, volcanic ash 2:1 to 3:1
Soft clay rich zones or wet seepage areas 2:1 to 3:1

F
I Fills of most soils 1 ½:1 to 2:1
L Fills of hard, angular rock 1 1/3:1
L Low cuts and fills (<7-10 ft) (<2-3 m.) 2:1 or flatter (for
revegetation)

Note: All slope references are shown as Horizontal:Vertical (H:V). However,

current Federal Highway Administration-FP03 Specifications use a designation
of Vertical:Horizontal (V:H).

Two excellent general references on slope stability assessment, slide recognition,

investigation, risk analysis, and a wide variety of slope stabilization treatments are the
following:
 Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 247, “Landslides-Investigation
and Mitigation” (Turner and Schuster, Editors, 1996).
 The three-volume publication “Slope Stability Reference Guide for National
Forests in the United States” (Prellwitz, R. Editor, 1994).
Link to the Forest Service documents:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_em7170_13/wo_em7170_13_vol1.pdf>.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_em7170_13/wo_em7170_13_vol2.pdf>.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/wo_em7170_13/wo_em7170_13_vol3.pdf>.

The NCHRP publication “Cost-Effective and Sustainable Road Slope Stabilization and
Erosion Control” (Fay et al. 2012) addresses a wide variety of relatively low-cost
solutions for slope stabilization, including vegetative, biotechnical, and structural
solutions.

Cutslopes
For most cutslopes, typical slope angles are prescribed based upon the general soil or
rock type found in that area and field observations. For most rocky, silty to sandy soils in
the Western United States, cutslopes of 1:1 or ¾:1 ((Horizontal (H): Vertical (V)) are
used. In rock cuts and rocky or cemented soils, near vertical cutslopes can be used, and a
¼:1 slope is commonly used, as shown in Figure 127. In clay rich, fine grain soils or
zones of saturation, flatter slopes such as 2:1 or 3:1 may be required for stability.

164
Most commonly in gentle terrain with slopes less steep than 50 percent, a balanced cut
and fill design is used where material excavated from the cutslope is placed into the
adjacent roadway fill embankment. On slopes in the 50 to 65 percent range, the suitability
and stability of balancing the cut and fill material should be carefully evaluated,
depending greatly on local soil conditions. On steeper slopes, a steep full bench cutslope
is typically used, with no fillslope. Note that stable cutslope angles are very particular
to local soil, weather, and groundwater conditions. Local experience is invaluable!
Values presented herein should be adapted for your local conditions and based upon
local observations.

Figure 129—Commonly used stable cutslope angles.

Fillslopes
A slope of 1½:1 to 2:1 is most commonly recommended for fillslopes constructed
with the majority of common soils. Rock fills can be stable on slopes as steep as 1 1/3:1
or even 1:1 with angular rock and careful placement. To achieve good vegetative

165
stabilization on a constructed fillslope, the slope should be 2:1 or flatter, especially for
low fills.
Figure 130 shows the construction of typical fills under a variety of conditions and
natural ground slopes. Routine fills or through fills placed upon relatively flat ground,
with a slope less than 30 percent, are commonly built with a 1 1/2:1 slope. If the ground
is relatively flat and a fillslope will easily catch and not be excessively long, a 2:1 or
flatter fillslope is also commonly used to help promote the growth of vegetation. On
ground slopes steeper than 30 to 40 percent, the base of the fill should be placed upon a
terraced surface to key the fill into the slope and prevent a failure along the plane of
contact between the fill and natural ground. The foundation is critical to the stability of
the fill. On slopes over 50-65 percent, a full bench road should be constructed and no
fill constructed. Alternatively, a reinforced soil fill may be designed and constructed,
using layers of geosynthetic reinforcement. Excavated cutslope material should be end
hauled to a designated stable disposal area or fillslope area on flatter ground.

Thin sliver fills are a common problem on old roads where construction was done by
sidecasting the fill material on steep slopes. The material may only be 2 to 4 feet (0.6 to
1.2 meters) wide at the road surface elevation. These slopes commonly have failures or
problems with settlement, particularly during major storms. Repair of these sites by
pulling back the fill material was described in section 5.6 under Sidecast Fill Pullback for
Slope Stabilization. Also, using relatively flat fillslopes or avoiding fillslopes and using
full bench construction might be considered at the approach to stream channel crossings,
particularly if the stream channel or sideslopes are deeply incised or steep. This will
minimize sidecast material getting into the stream channel.

166
Figure 130— Common fillslope design requirements and slope angles.

Increasing Stability with Structures

Retaining structures are used in many applications with roads. Their primary use is to
resolve a space constraint in steep ground, where a wall is needed to support the roadway
in a tight location and avoid a large cut or fill. They are also used to rebuild the roadway
where fills fail to avoid cutting into a hillside in a slide area, to support a roadway across
a steep, narrow saddle, to buttress a marginally stable slope, and to provide vertical, low-
profile abutments for bridges. The USDA Forest Service “Retaining Wall Design
Guide”, updated by John Mohney in 1994, offers a comprehensive coverage of basic
retaining walls, their use, selection, design details for a variety of wall types, and sample
calculations. It is available on the Association of Environmental and Engineering
Geologists, Geoscience Library website under section 5, Transportation Geology, Low
Volume Roads Collection, Slope Stability Issues (To access this site, one must initially
register with GeoSci Library at <http://www.geoscilibrary.org>).
Retaining walls are relatively expensive structures so are not routinely used for SDRR
work. They should not be used without looking at other options, such as road relocation,
cutting into the hillside to place the road prism on a full bench, using a reinforced or rock
fill, etc. However, when needed, walls offer a positive solution to support the roadway.
Their use can avoid creating additional slope stability problems, avoid long fillslopes

167
which may be erodible or unstable, and keep the toe of fills out of drainages (all of which
can have adverse environmental impacts). Walls constructed into cutslopes need to be
designed and constructed to allow ditch cleaning without undermining the wall or
damaging its facing.
Walls need to be designed and constructed considering the existing or potential failure
plane of any slide and the depth of failure. The size and height of the wall is ideally
determined based upon slope stability analysis to ensure that the structure will have
enough mass to resist the driving forces of the slide or slope. A wall needs to be deep
(tall) enough to have its base placed upon firm, in-place material (ideally bedrock) below
the depth of slide movement or a slide plane. Walls should be built with a subsurface
drain behind the structure. In some cases a lightweight structure, constructed with
sawdust, shredded tires, or geofoam, can be designed to minimize the driving forces if the
wall is placed on a slide or has a marginal foundation material.
Several basic types of retaining structures exist, with a variety of wall options within each
type. The fundamental types are:
 Gravity retaining structures where the mass of the structure resists sliding and
overturning, such as gabions, cantilever concrete, concrete blocks, or cribwalls.
 Earth reinforced systems where the backfill material is actually reinforced with
reinforcing layers of material such as welded wire, geogrids, or geotextiles, to
form a composite unit which becomes the wall.
 Special types such as cantilever H-piles or tieback walls which are used in special
applications, such as high walls on very steep slopes or bedrock areas to avoid
excavation.
 Simple rock buttresses are also used in many small slump repairs.

Figure 131 shows two of the common simple retaining structures, a rock buttress (upper)
and a gabion retaining wall (lower).
Alternatively, less expensive soil bioengineering or biotechnical measures such as live
crib structures, vegetated rock walls or vegetated gabions which rely both on the
engineered structure and the anchoring effects of roots from vegetation may be
appropriate for small slopes. A geotechnical or geological engineer should be consulted
when selecting and designing retaining structures.

168
Figure 131—Commonly used retaining structures, such as a rock buttress (upper) and a
gabion wall (lower).
Gravity Structures. The most common gravity structures are those made of reinforced
concrete, cellular bins, gabions, masonry, dry rock walls, or large rocks. The size of the
structure depends on the height of the wall needed to fit the site and provide the desired
roadway width and elevation, loading conditions on the wall, and allowable foundation
conditions. Common heights for gravity structures are a few feet (a meter) to 25 feet (8
meters). Above this height gravity structures become relatively difficult and expensive to
build. For simple gravity structures, the base width is typically about 0.6 to 0.7 times the
height to achieve a stable design for simple loading conditions. With traffic loading, the
base: height ratio ranges from 0.6 to 0.8. For a hillslope immediately above the wall, the
base: height ratio ranges from 0.7 to 1.0. A wider base may be needed for unusual
conditions such as a soft foundation, high lateral loads, or seismic loads. Any structure
should be set onto firm, in-place materials.

169
Gabions are also used in stream channels to buttress the toe of a fillslope and prevent
scour of the fill, or for stream bank protection, particularly on the outside bend of a
stream near a structure. They work effectively as an alternative to loose rock riprap or
other bank stabilization measures. However, with time the wire baskets will corrode or
wear through from abrasion. After 20 to 30 years, many gabion structures in a stream
environment begin to fail. Their life can be maximized by use of galvanized or plastic
coated wire. Gabions are also susceptible to piping of soil under or behind the basket, so
should be installed on a filter blanket such as a geotextile.
Earth Reinforced Systems. Today use of earth reinforced systems, reinforced soils,
geosynthetic confined soils, or Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls, as they are
commonly called, offer an economical and effective alternative to traditional gravity type
structures for most wall heights and applications. Actually, use of reinforcement fibers to
strengthen soil has been a concept used since biblical times. For walls over 25 feet (8 m)
high, MSE walls offer significant cost advantages over gravity structures. In the case of
rural or forest low-volume roads, where the access may be very difficult and when the
budget is limited, the use of prefabricated or light-weight materials, combined with local
or on-site soils, as used in MSE technology, is generally recommended.
Soil reinforced gabion designs have also been developed where typical gabion baskets
form the face and gabion wire mats are used to reinforce the backfill. Reinforcing spacing
is typically 3 feet (1 m) (the height of a basket). The length of reinforcement is a
function of the wall height and loading conditions, similar to other MSE designs.
Advantages of this design are the comfort people have using traditional gabion baskets,
combined with reinforced soil technology. Fewer baskets go into any moderately high
wall compared to a conventional gravity structure and use of a reinforced soil backfill
reduces cost. Figure 132 depicts the construction process of a reinforced soil wall with a
gabion face.

Figure 132—A soil reinforced gabion design (Terramesh, courtesy of Maccaferri

Gabions Inc). Note that this design could easily be improved by incorporating layers of
vegetation between the baskets.

170
Various reinforced soil or mechanically stabilized earth retaining structures use strength
properties of wire or geosynthetics and soil reinforcement concepts. MSE structures
include welded wire walls, geotextile reinforced walls, modular block walls, lightweight
wood or sawdust walls reinforced with geosynthetics, etc. MSE walls use a variety of
facing materials, including tires, wood beams, straw bales, modular concrete blocks,
gabions, concrete panels, geotextile or turf reinforcing mats, and other facings. Soil
reinforcement commonly is achieved using geotextile and geogrid reinforcing layers,
though welded wire, chain link fencing, metal bars, and metal strips have been used.
MSE structures are most commonly constructed today because of their flexibility,
minimal foundation pressure, ease of construction, and relatively low cost. Figure 133
shows two earth reinforced (MSE) types of retaining structures commonly used on forest
roads. Note that the geotextile reinforcing and facing shown on the right photo will
degrade with time, often a few years, when exposed to the sun. Thus at a minimum some
ultraviolet protection should be added, such as an application of asphalt emulsion, and
ideally a durable permanent facing such as shotcrete or concrete can be added.

Figure 133—A welded wire MSE wall (left) and a geotextile wall (right), both used
because of their relatively low cost and ease of construction.

Figure 134 shows a typical drawing for a relatively simple MSE wall using geotextile for
reinforcement and a geotextile wrapped face. Note that the face does need to be protected
in some way against damage from ultraviolet light (the sun) and possibly vandalism. Note
again that layers of vegetation could easily be introduced between the layers of
geosynthetic reinforcement to improve both the long-term stability and the aesthetics of
the structure.
Comprehensive information on MSE wall design and construction is found in the FHWA
publication titled “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes”, Volume 1 and 2 (Berg et al. 2009).

171
Figure 134—Typical drawing for a simple geotextile faced retaining wall.
172
Drainage Improvements
Localized wet areas, clay-rich or deeply weathered soil pockets, and shear or fault zones
require relatively flat cutslopes to reduce the risk of failure. Seeps, springs, or wet areas,
often recognized by water-loving vegetation, almost always require special consideration
and drainage. In any excavation, the water table should be below the exposed surface
(where practical) to prevent instability. If an excavation opens a wet area, or a fill is
placed on a wet area, extra measures must be taken to drain the slope, flatten the slope
more than normal, or buttress the toe of the slope. A stable wet slope angle may be
roughly half the angle of the same stable dry slope. Slopes can be drained using surface
ditches, cutoff trenches, collection galleries, horizontal drains, etc. as discussed below.
Drainage measures, including cut-off trenches or underdrains (see figure 135), toe drains,
drainage blankets or filter blankets (see figure 136), or horizontal drains are used to both
remove the water and lower pore-water pressures within the slope. Any reduction in the
water table or pore pressures in the slope will improve slope stability. Underdrains, as
seen in figure 135, are commonly placed along roads in wet cutslope and seepage areas.
They are typically either constructed with a filter aggregate wrapped in a geotextile, or
with use of a geocomposite drain consisting of a core material and geotextile wrapped
around the core to serve as a filter.
Drainage measures are typically less expensive compared to the cost of walls, buttresses,
slide removal, etc., and can greatly improve the slope’s factor of safety. However,
drainage measures are often difficult to predict in terms of effectiveness and reliability.
Piezometers (water level monitoring or observation wells) may need to be installed to
measure the groundwater level and effectiveness of drainage measures.

Figure 135—Typical road underdrain or trench drain, enveloped in a geotextile, used to

remove subsurface water.
173
Figure 136—A filter blanket drain used under a fill to provide subsurface drainage for
the fill placed upon a wet or spring area.
Install deep internal drains such as horizontal drains, as seen being drilled in figure 137,
to intercept groundwater before it reaches the face of the slope. A road cut may intercept
groundwater that creates high pore pressures within the cutslope. This increases the risk
of a cutslope failure. Horizontal drains change the direction of the groundwater flow,
remove water, and reduce the water pressure before water reaches the face of the slope.

Figure 137—Horizontal drains being drilled to drain groundwater and stabilize a large
landslide.

174
Use of Deep-Rooted Vegetation or Soil Bioengineering/Biotechnology
Vegetative slope stabilization is achieved using soil bioengineering methods or
biotechnical methods, particularly for shallow failures. Vegetation use is strongly
encouraged since it is typically inexpensive, though labor intensive and it improves slope
stability. Advantages of soil bioengineering are low initial cost; a visually pleasing result
using natural, biological systems; and minimum long-term maintenance.

Vegetative stabilization works well on most projects, as mentioned in section 5.5-Erosion

Prevention and Erosion Control. Vegetation as a slope treatment and the benefits of root
strength are shown in figure 138. Vegetative and soil bioengineering measures are
appropriate for surface erosion control and shallow slope failures, such as debris slides
and small cutslope failures. Do not use vegetative stabilization by itself for stabilizing
large and deep-seated slides. Use deep-rooted shrub and tree species rather than shallow-
rooted grasses for most slope stabilization applications. Conservation of topsoil is
encouraged for later placement on slopes to aid in the process of slope revegetation. Also,
vegetation and slash placed at the toe of any slope or fill will help control erosion and
trap sediment coming off that slope. Figure 139 shows photos of cutslopes stabilized with
vegetation.

Figure 138—Use of deep-rooted vegetation to stabilize slopes, and the benefits of root
strength to help stabilize a slope.

175
Figure 139—A variety of vegetation used to stabilize cutslopes. Selection of vegetation
type depends a great deal on the local climate and environment, but deep-rooted species
are critical to achieve slope stabilization (Right photo courtesy of the Pennsylvania State
University Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies).

Live stakes, both shown in a drawing and a photo in figure 140 for slope stabilization.
Brush layering (figure 141) is also a very effective vegetative soil bioengineering
technique for slope stabilization. Figure 142 shows an entire hillslope being stabilized
using brush layering. Ground cover with grasses, ideally mixed with deep-rooted shrubs
and trees, also is effective for erosion control and preventing surface instability.

Figure 140—Use of live stakes for slope stabilization (Left sketch courtesy of Robbin B.
Sotir & Associates, Inc.).

176
Figure 141—Brush layering used for slope stabilization and erosion control on large or
small slopes. Brush layers are labor intensive but very effective, particularly for shallow
slope stability and erosion control (Adapted from NRCS Engineering Field Handbook
(EFH), Chapter 18, 1992).

Figure 142—Before (left) and after one season (right) photos of brush layering used to
stabilize an entire hillside after storm damage in Pakistan. (Photos courtesy of Asif Faiz,
World Bank.)

177
As discussed in section 5.5-Erosion Prevention and Erosion Control, a combination of
vegetation and conventional structures used for slope stabilization is called biotechnical
stabilization. Some of the more common types of biotechnical slope stabilization
measures include live cribwalls, vegetated rock walls and gabions, and vegetated
reinforced soil slopes. These treatments depend on the strength and design of the
traditional structure combined with the supplemental benefits of root strength and the
long-term durability and aesthetics of vegetation. Figure 143 shows photos of two
vegetated live cribwall designs, as well as sketches of a vegetated rock wall and
vegetated reinforced soil slope. In vegetated reinforced soil structures, the roots of the
woody vegetation have a very real and important stabilizing role as they knit the system
together. Root penetration through the geosynthetic is anticipated to provide a composite
root/geosynthetic structure with a net gain in reinforcement strength.

Figure 143—Biotechnical treatments using vegetation to strengthen timber cribwalls

(upper photos), a rock retaining wall, and a geosynthetic reinforced fillslope. (Right
photo courtesy of Neha Vyas, India) (Lower sketches courtesy of Robbin B. Sotir &
Associates, Inc.).

178
Strengthening of Existing Structures

Soil Nails
Launched soil nails are a rapid, economical alternative to recurring maintenance or other
reconstruction solutions, particularly for road shoulder failures. Often several small fill
failures can be fixed in one day without any excavation. The launcher can be moved
easily between trees and shrubs with little or no vegetation removal and little need for
environmental or visual mitigation. The launcher, which is mounted on a tracked
excavator, uses suddenly released high-pressure air to project steel nails up to 1.5 inches
(37 mm) in diameter and up to 20 feet (7 m) in length into the soil to depths ranging from
5 to 20 feet (1.5 to 7 m). Fiberglass bars are now available that can be launched into
corrosive soils. Hollow bars with drilled holes can also be launched that serve both as
tensile inclusions and horizontal or vertical drains. Threaded bars can be used as well for
tie downs and micro-piles. The number, depth, and spacing of the nails depend on the
slide geometry and loading conditions. Site investigation and analysis are needed to
develop a soil nail design.
The launcher, because it is mounted on a tracked excavator, can reach very remote
locations to install nails and drains. One of its most useful applications is to stabilize
roadway shoulder fill failures and shallow slides rapidly and without needing excavation
for a wall that can result in long traffic delays. Figure 144 shows a sketch of a roadway
shoulder failure stabilized with launched soil nails. Soil nails can also be used to stabilize
a toe zone for the foundation of a retaining wall or can be launched through some failing
walls.

For additional technical information about the launched soil nails, consult U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1994 a, b).
Link to the volume 1 document: <http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/em7170_12a.pdf>.
Link to the volume 2 document: <http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/em7170_12b.pdf>.

Currently launched soil nails is a proprietary method used by Soil Nail Launcher, Inc.
Link to their Web site at: <http://soilnaillauncher.com/dnn/>.

Figure 144—A roadway shoulder failure stabilized with launched soil nails (Courtesy of
Bob Barrett).

179
Deep Patch Shoulder Strengthening
Uncompacted sliver fills often progressively settle, are a maintenance problem, and are at
risk of failure, as discussed in the previous section. Certain maintenance approaches often
are considered inexpensive methods of dealing with settlement because road maintenance
crews can do the work as part of their normal routine. Such methods usually consist of
grading over the areas of settlement and cracks (aggregate-surfaced roadway) or filling
cracks and adding asphalt (paved roadway) to level the road surface. While these
approaches temporarily restore the road’s driving surface, the cause of the cracking and
continual settlement in the road remains untreated. Grading does not stop the settlement
either, but begins a long-term commitment to continual roadway repair. Deep patch, as a
maintenance technique, reduces or stops the continual settlement. Deep patches have
slowed, but not stopped slope surface movement on sections of roads crossing areas of
large-scale slope movement. Road settlement and road maintenance costs have been
reduced using deep patch repair.
The deep patch design is a shallow road-fillslope repair where the upper 3 to 6 feet (1-2
meters) of the subsiding section of roadway is excavated, the fill material is replaced with
compacted select backfill, and several layers of geogrid or other reinforcing material are
installed as shown in figure 145. Geogrid has been the most commonly used type of
reinforcement. However, multiple layers of closely spaced geotextile (every 6 to 8 inches
(150 to 200 mm)) might offer additional cost savings to this technique for road shoulder
fill stabilization. Figure 146 shows a typical cross-section of a deep patch design.

Figure 145—Oversteep settling fillslope before deep patch repair (left) and a
geosynthetic reinforcing material (a Geogrid) being placed in a Deep Patch shoulder
repair (right).

180
Figure 146—Cross section of typical deep patch road embankment repair.
The cost of repairing a road embankment failure with the deep patch method depends on
backfill material (type and source), type and number of reinforcement layers, and
drainage (if needed). However, when compared to other methods such as road
realignment or reconstruction, or retaining structures, the deep patch generally is the least
expensive option.
For additional technical information about Deep Patch, consult the “Deep Patch Road
Embankment Repair Application Guide” (Wilson Musser and Denning, 2005). The Deep
Patch application guide describes the background, performance, design, and construction
details of the deep patch technique. Link to the document:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771204.pdf>.

Changing Road Grade, Alignment, and Width

The first question to be asked in cases of roads adjacent to streams is: “Can the road be
relocated?” If the answer is no, or only at too great a cost, then on-site measures may be
employed. Road realignment or narrowing a section of the road may be ways to deal both
with slope instability and erosion at the toe of a slope, especially if that slope toe ends at
a stream. Shifting and widening into the cutbank gains space in a narrow canyon or steep
area, often caused by a stream channel eroding and over-steepening the roadway fill. This
situation is demonstrated in figure 147 where a roadway fill toe was originally in the
stream. After reconstruction, the road level is raised and the template shifted into the
cutbank, away from the creek. Also the toe of the fill is armored with riprap along the
creek. Additional discussion of this topic is found in section 6.4, Road-Stream
Encroachment.
Raising or lowering the road grade may be effective for stabilizing unstable fill or
cutslopes. Where a shallow fill failure surface is present at the shoulder of the road
section, lowering the road grade below the failure zone can eliminate the problem (figure
148 top). Also if the cutslope is steeper than the fillslope (typically it is), lowering the
grade will gain some road width. If a low cutslope is chronically unstable, the road bed
may be raised using compacted backfill such that the added backfill buttresses the
cutslope and reduces the failure potential (figure 148 bottom). If the cutslope is weeping
subsurface water or surface water is present, drainage must be provided, such as a trench
drain (underdrain) behind the new compacted backfill, or a surface ditch drain (or both).
181
Figure 147—Road centerline is shifted away from the river after reconstruction, with a
flatter, stable fillslope and riprap armor along the river (Courtesy of Mike Balen).
Narrowing the road can add stability to the roadway prism either by removing part of the
fill, particularly the uppermost material (as discussed in section 5.6 under Sidecast Fill
Pullback for Slope Stabilization), or by placing material at the toe of the cut, thus
buttressing the cut. In either case, the slopes can gain some improvement in stability, but
part of the roadway is removed or filled, narrowing the road. In some cases an inside
ditch can be eliminated by outsloping the road and some road width can be gained back.
Depending on the road use, closure status, or maintenance level, this can be an
acceptable, relatively expensive storm damage risk reduction treatment and a viable
alternative to improve marginally stable slopes and reduce the road surface area subject
to erosion.

182
Figure 148—Raising or lowering road grade to improve slope stability (Adapted from
Landslide Remedial Measures, by D. Royster, Tennessee DOT, 1962).

6.7 Cold Regions Storm Issues

Whether attributed to latitude or altitude, more than half the road network maintained by
the Forest Service lies within what is categorized as a “seasonal frost area.” Problems
caused by this severe environment present a set of unique challenges for road managers.
While preventive and mitigating measures from noncold regions all still apply, it also is
recommended that they be supplemented by additional mitigation measures designed to
deal with cold regions storm issues. A full treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of
this document. However some of the key issues are mentioned below, along with some
references on the issues.

Since problems in cold regions span the spectrum from solely temperature-induced to
solely winter-storm induced, problems/damages of both types occur. Problems, such as
ice weighing down and breaking trees and limbs are almost exclusively winter-storm
induced. On the other end of the spectrum, problems with the pavement structure itself,
such as frost heaving or thaw weakening, are caused almost exclusively by cold

183
temperatures (although damage does not occur from cold temperatures alone; freezing
temperatures must be accompanied by the presence of water, which can originate from
storms/rain, ground water, or meltwater, and frost-susceptible soils). Although this
temperature-induced category falls outside the scope of this publication, frost heave and
thaw weakening are major problems for roads. Most cold-regions' problems are some
combination of storm impacts and cold temperature. Problems, such as ice-blocked
culverts, are caused primarily by cold temperatures, but they can be exacerbated by
winter storms. Another category of problems that are indirect results of winter storms
include roads that are treated with salt in response to snowstorms; however, salt, itself, is
the cause of other problems, such as tenting of pavements and browning of roadside trees.
Problems with low-volume roads occurring in cold climates are often caused by changes
in temperature from thawed to freezing, or freezing to thawed conditions. Storm events
with heavy precipitation just add to the problems.

Thawed-to-Frozen Condition
Freezing temperatures can lead to the freezing of water flowing overland, or
underground. Bigger problems occur if the drop in temperature is followed by rain while
the ground is still frozen. Freezing can cause a buildup of ice on streams, which
subsequently breaks up and flows downstream. The ice floes plug culverts and jam up at
bridges. Large floes also may scour the streambed. If a particular site, such as a culvert is
prone to repeated jams, ramped trash racks can be installed upstream to protect the
culvert. In-stream bridge piers should be constructed with ramped cutwaters which are
protected with steel leading edges. When a floe encounters the cutwater, it is lifted up.
Being weak in tension, the lifted, bending ice floe breaks and passes in halves either side
of the pier.

The freezing of flowing ground water may lead to icings—thick sheets of ice developing
over the road surface. Construction details may be responsible for the problem. For
example, ground water, flowing laterally, encounters the relatively impermeable
consolidated soils under a road embankment. With enough pressure, the ground water is
driven upwards and over the road surface. The cold temperatures freeze the water at the
surface, and a thick slab of ice grows across the road, with the accretion of more and
more water, freezing in place, just as it does on an icicle. Solutions include finding a
better location for the road, away from the site of the ground water flow, and directing the
ground water flow away from the road, as discussed below.

Permafrost (Frozen-to-Thawed Condition)

A sharp rise in temperature can lead to rapid thawing of frozen soil or permafrost,
causing a loss of bearing capacity and large settlements. Thawing permafrost can release
water, which starts a progressive degradation with the released water melting more
permafrost, releasing more water, which melts more permafrost, which releases more
water ... and around and around the cycle it goes, cutting deeply into the permafrost and
moving surprising amounts of soil.

184
One solution is to be careful of drainage, preventing water from contacting frozen soil or
permafrost. Another is to insulate the soil or permafrost, so it does not melt in the first
place. Convection cells can be placed in the frozen soil or permafrost to prevent it from
melting. Rigid foam insulation can be placed on the frozen soil or permafrost, and
covered to protect the foam. In other cases, thermopiles or thermo-siphons can be
installed, keeping the soil or permafrost frozen.

Frozen, Plugged Culverts, and Ditches

Culverts that are plugged with frozen ice can be a significant problem for road managers
(figure 149). Several techniques have been used to address this problem. Some are after-
the-fact (after the ice blockage has already occurred), and others are more preventive, but
may require action or a site visit to be effective.

Figure 149—Iced culvert at milepost 2.5 on Mt. Washington Auto Road, NH.
(*Permission to be obtained from Mt Washington Auto Road, Ryan)

Mitigating measures include:

1. A steam point can be pushed through the culvert after the blockage has occurred.
This works well, but uses an expensive steam boiler mounted on a truck. It also
requires special training.
2. A second method is to use steam pipes permanently mounted in the culvert. There
is some variation and debate on whether the steam pipe should be on the top or
bottom of the culvert. Outlets typically are drilled at intervals along the pipe.
3. Electrical thaw wires can be used, but must meet electrical code. (Note, a person
was known to have been killed when a system failed and the water was essentially
electrified.) The system is efficient, but can only be used where there is power.

185
 4. Solar-powered thawing systems have been used with limited success. These
circulate hot water through a pipe. The power to run the pumps uses solar panels.
The water is also heated by the sun. These systems require a bit of maintenance
and are subject to vandalism.
5. Ice can be dislodged with jets of water, then the ice and debris vacuumed with a
vacuum truck.
6. A smooth flow into the inlet is perhaps the most natural way to eliminate the
likelihood of freezing, as ideally the flow will continue and never freeze solid.
But this is generally outside the road manager’s control.
7. Electric heat tapes may be preinstalled.

Ice blocked ditches also can cause significant problems, as seen in figure 150. Water
flowing over the road typically is most problematic in the spring. Water in ditches and
culverts typically freezes due to cold winter temperatures. In the spring, ice in the culvers
melts more slowly than snow on the ground surface. Meltwater running down ditches
cannot pass through frozen culverts, and overflows the road. Preventive and mitigation
methods are similar to those of frozen culverts.

Figure 150—Culvert clogged with ice causing water to flow across the road.
(*permission to be obtained from ROADEX)
River Ice Jams
The Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) maintains a
comprehensive Web site and database of reported ice jams. Also, it provides a wealth of
publications and presentations on case studies and preventive measures (figure 151).

186
Figure 151—Photos of ramifications of ice jams from presentation on CRREL Web site.

Consultation with the Web site and publications is recommended for details. Some
mitigations include the following suggestions:

1. Winter flow control can reduce ice jam flooding. (But it should also be noted,
winter reservoir operation influences the natural ice regime on rivers, and affects
downstream ice cover, which may, in turn, affect fish survival.
2. Dark materials can be distributed on river ice, since they absorb heat faster, to
accelerate melting. Leaves were shown to perform in a similar manner to the
traditionally used dusting materials, such as fly ash and coal slag. However,
unlike the latter, leaves are not believed to adversely affect aquatic organisms
when applied in small quantities.
3. Tuthill (1995) reviews ice control structures to control ice. The purpose of ice
control structures are either for sheet ice retention; breakup ice control; or ice
diversion.
4. Haehnel (1998) discusses several additional nonstructural methods to reduce ice
jams and subsequent damage. These include a variety of mechanical, thermal,
chemical, and physical methods.

Other Cold Regions Problems

Other cold region storm and temperature impacts on roads include:
 Culvert differential heaving and washout.
 Longitudinal cracking in pavements.
 Localized puddling and ice buildup on roads.
 Snow drifts across roads.
 Impacts to roadside vegetation.
 Road distress from frost heaving or thaw weakening, and associated road cracking
and damage.
187
A Tech Tip is currently being developed (Kestler, In Publication) to address many of the
basic considerations and solutions to prevent or minimize damage to roads from storms in
cold regions.

6.8 Road Storage and Closure

The post-World War II era brought a high demand for wood products for home
construction and rebuilding war damaged areas. The baby boom and increased prosperity
fueled an expanding economy with an appetite for wood and places to recreate. Road
systems on private and public lands expanded rapidly to access forest and keep pace with
demand. The environmental movement of the 1970s started to clash with the expansion
of industrial forestry into undeveloped forests. By the 1980s, the pace of construction
slowed as more public lands were set aside and environmental impacts from development
and habitat alteration were identified. The result is a large transportation system on public
lands that is no longer used as intensively, nor are there maintenance funds available to
take care of all the miles. Federal road maintenance budgets were never large because
maintenance was performed by the activity using the road, mostly timber management.
Without the timber management funds and with diminishing federal road maintenance
funding, a large percentage of the legacy road system does not receive adequate
maintenance. Environmental and access problems result from a lack of maintenance.
Storm damage risks increase.
A critical need now exists to bring road maintenance costs in line with budgets. One of
the benefits to SDRR treatments is that general maintenance and storm damage repair
costs will go down. But the reduced costs will not be sufficient to close the gap between
maintenance need and budget levels. So, as mentioned repeatedly in this guide, when a
road needs repair, the first question that should be asked - “Is this road needed?”
National Forests have been directed to define a minimum road system (36 CFR 212.5(b)
through a science-based process to identify the necessary transportation system and those
roads no longer needed. With this mandate, managers are looking hard at road closure
and decommissioning.
In the introduction to this guide, it was stated the road decommissioning is outside the
scope of the document, but it may be the best management decision for a road. Road
decommissioning applies to roads that are no longer needed and results in the removal of
the road from the maintained transportation system. In the context of SDRR, a
decommissioned road should not pose an environmental risk from storm damage.
Decommissioning treatments remove all elements of the road that are at risk of failure
because there will be no future use or maintenance of the road. Selection of appropriate
decommissioning treatments is similar to that of SDRR, but is not discussed in detail in
this document. Decommissioned roads are permanently blocked to traffic, drainage
structures are removed, and a series of earth and rock berms or waterbars may be added
that will revegetate and obscure the existence of the road. Structural barriers may also be
used. In some sensitive areas full road obliteration may be undertaken, where the entire
roadway template is removed and the terrain is returned to its natural shape.
Road closure is discussed here because closed roads are expected to be used again in the
future. Risks from storm damage and impacts to resources need to be considered and
managed just as on open roads. Closed roads, or road maintenance level 1 roads (by

188
Forest Service manual definition), are closed to vehicular traffic, or stored until access
needs are again required.
Road closure may be for one or more purposes and be for varying periods of time. A road
may be closed if it will not be used for some period of time, or if the road is causing
unacceptably high maintenance costs or environmental damage. Closure may be annual
for a short period of time or may last a few decades. A clear understanding of the purpose
and expected duration of closure is key to determining the appropriate SDRR treatment.
Short term road closures, less than a year, may be used to prevent traffic use that may
damage surface drainage structures, to prevent use during wet periods or the rainy season,
to protect them from erosion, or when use must be prevented for safety concerns. In most
cases, short term closure does not change the selection of SDRR treatments because the
road is used at least part of the year. The same evaluation and decision-making process
for open roads should be used in these instances. Treatments should be those that are
effective at preventing erosion and other failure hazards that may occur during the time of
closure. Road closure is typically by a barricade or berm.
Long term road closure is being considered as a way to reduce road maintenance costs.
Although the long term cost savings are less than for road decommissioning, substantial
savings and reduced damage often results from proper road storage. However, the
implementation costs for storage may be significant, especially for roads with high storm
damage risk, and involves a more complex evaluation to select appropriate SDRR
treatments. Road closure often involves input from the public and other affected road
users, and may be controversial. The main reality of long term closures is that road
maintenance will be limited or lacking during the period of closure. Thus confidence is
needed in any SDRR treatments that are used.
Figure 152 shows the range of options commonly considered in road closure and
decommissioning. The figure includes road decommissioning as a closure treatment. In
the context of this guide, decommissioning is in a separate category specific to roads that
will not be used again. Closure applies to roads that will be used in the future. Road
obliteration is the most extensive decommissioning treatment where all road features are
removed. In other, less extensive decommissioning treatments only high risk features are
removed. Figure 153 shows photos of various road closure treatments.
Closed roads should be blocked with barricade or berm to keep traffic off the road.

189
Figure 152—Road closure options, including temporary or seasonal closure, storage,
decommissioning (permanent closure), and obliteration. In the context of this guide,
decommissioning is in a separate category specific to roads that will not be used again.
Closure and storage apply to roads that will be used in the future. Road obliteration is
the most extensive decommissioning treatment where all road features are permanently
removed.
190
Figure 153—Examples of road closure treatments including a decommissioned road
(upper left), an obliterated road and recontoured area (upper right), and closure of a
stream crossing road. (Lower photo courtesy of Dan Salm).

A number of factors need to be considered when selecting treatments for long term
storage:
 Term of closure (i.e. 5-, 10-, 30-years).
 On and offsite risk factors.
 Road age.

The term of storage and the current age of the road act in combination to suggest the
susceptibility of the road to storm damage during closure. The longer the road is stored
the more deterioration of road features will occur. Deterioration includes: loss of ditch
capacity (infilling by cutslope ravel, erosion, slope failure, or vegetation growth); settling
or cracking of fill material; loss of culvert capacity (partial or complete plugging by

191
sediment and/or debris); and degradation of surface drainage shape and features. If road
drainage structures, such as culverts are already nearing their useful life, they are at high
risk of failure during a long storage period. It is prudent to remove those features since
they will need to be replaced when the road is reopened and they represent a real risk of
failure and environmental impact during the time of storage.
Roads stored for long periods of time may require extensive reconstruction to reopen,
especially in wet climates with lush vegetation. Organic litter fall will cover road
surfacing and retain moisture that will seep into the subgrade, requiring substantial
removal and resurfacing. Figure 154 shows examples of a couple roads that have been
placed into storage, using either water bars or berms and logs to close the road.

192
Figure 154—Examples of roads that have been placed into storage. The upper photo
shows a road that has been closed using a water bar (Courtesy of Ken McCall/Karen
Bennett). In the lower photo the road has been closed with a log and berm, plus some
vegetation (Courtesy of Greg Napper).

Although the probability of a given sized storm is the same for a given year, the
probability of a road suffering storm damage by a large storm is greater the longer the
road is in storage. Roads that are to be stored for long periods should receive treatments
that build in a factor of safety to allow for the degradation of drainage features. Periodic
inspections should be schedule to assure all features are functioning, but with the reality
of shrinking budgets and a shrinking workforce, this may not happen. Thus a factor of
safety can be achieved through sizing ditches and other features larger than would be
done for an open road receiving regular maintenance, or using redundant or backup
features like waterbars and dips in case of individual failures. The more factors that
contribute to higher risk, the more extensive treatment will be required to assure the
stored road does not contribute to environmental degradation during storage.
Roads with a number of high risk factors and older roads that will be stored for many
years will need treatments that will appear similar to those of road decommissioning.
Drainage structures (culverts) will be removed, ideally the ditch removed and the road
bed outslope, high risk fills pulled up and the material stored in stable locations, and
frequent waterbars added for back-up drainage or to replace removed ditch relief culverts.
Roads that will be stored for just a few years may only need to be water-barred. Unstable
fills should be considered for removal. High risk stream crossing structures may be
removed and replaced when use is resumed with temporary (portable) bridges that do not
require the replacement of large volumes of fill.
There are just as many considerations, if not more, for closed road as open roads as they
relate to SDRR. Do not skimp on the analysis for a closed road since it may be more
important than for an open road. The analysis must look more long term to factor in the

193
uncertainty of how long the road will stay in storage and not receive maintenance. Should
all culverts be pulled or just stream crossings? That may depend on the age of the culverts
as much as the risk factors. If a portable bridge will be used in the future, how should the
crossing be left upon closure? If some structures are left that may need maintenance, can
they be accessed?
Economics will enter into the decision on SDRR treatments for stored roads as well. The
initial direct costs of storage may be high, but if the road will be stored for a long time,
annual maintenance costs will be saved. Over a number of years, the savings may be
substantial. Roads stored long term will need considerable work to reopen, including
replacement of culverts that have rusted, reconstruction of settled or sagging fills,
reconstruction of the subgrade, reshaping the surface, and likely addition of new
surfacing materials.

7. Summary and Conclusions

Closure or damage to forest and rural roads can present a major hardship to rural
populations and economies, particularly during a time of disaster. Considerable
experience has been gained in the assessment of storm damage to low volume roads,
subsequent repairs, and implementing measures to reduce the risk of the road system to
future events and environmental impacts caused by road failures during storms. These
measures are an instrumental part of “Storm Damage Risk Reduction”.
Storm damage risk reduction assessment for both assessing vulnerability and determining
needed preventative measures or repairs should involve a process of working with local
land managers, engineers, specialists, and local road agencies to identify their highest
priority sites. Work should include an objective inventory of the transportation system, an
evaluation of on-the-ground conditions and risks, an understanding of landscape and
channel geomorphic processes, and identification of storm damage risk reduction options.
Needed work can be specified on work lists and with site-specific designs. Appendix A3
is an example of a road condition form that can be useful to identify, assess, and
document needed storm damage risk reduction work.
Many planning, location, design, and maintenance measures exist that can greatly reduce
the risk and vulnerability of low-volume roads to major storm events. Most measures
involve avoiding problematic areas, having adequate designs, or controlling drainage in a
positive manner. A key factor is the value of practical, cost-effective, and preferably
simple measures to reduce the risk of storm damage. These measures include minimum
road widths, frequent and well disbursed road surface drainage, use of rolling dips and
fords, use of relatively flat cutslopes that will not fail, bridge and culvert scour protection,
having adequately sized culverts with diversion protection, and well vegetated areas for
both slope stabilization and erosion control.
Proper selection and implementation of storm damage risk reduction treatments will
reduce annual maintenance costs and catastrophic storm repairs. SDRR treatments can be
approached on a systematic basis, following an assessment of risk and treating the highest
risk sites first. Watersheds where SDRR treatments are complete are expected to show
improvement in watershed condition.

194
8. Acknowledgements
The original version of this document was developed under the guidance of Brian Staab,
Regional Hydrologist and Tom Erkert, Transportation Group Leader, in the Pacific
Northwest Region (R6) for use in the Pacific Northwest and West. It has since been
expanded to deal with many of the storm damage issues encountered nationwide. The
authors are grateful for the original support from Regions 5 and 6.

Sincere thanks to the many individuals who have been involved with storm damage
repairs, helped forests recover from the damage and prevent future damage, offered
suggestions on the development of this guide, sent information, or helped in the review of
this document. Dr. William Weaver, principal hydrologist, Pacific Watershed Associates
and Karen Bennett, regional soil scientist (R6), provided very detailed reviews with
comments on the entire document. Roger Nichols contributed much of the section on
Floating Log Weirs, while Dr. Robert Douglas and Maureen Kestler contributed the
information on Cold Regions Storm Issues. Additional special recognition to Paul Karr,
retired Forest Service engineer, who drew most of the graphics (figures) in this
document. Substantial review comments were received from:

Dr. Robert Douglas Geotechnical Engineer Golder Associates, Toronto

Bill Shelmerdine Geotechnical Engineer Olympic National Forest
Robert Metzger Engineering Olympic National Forest
Steve Coupal Operations & Mtc. Engineer Rocky Mountain Region (retired)
Ron Copstead Civil Engineer PNW, IRM, Seattle
Pete Bolander Geotechnical Engineer Willamette National Forest
Roger Nichols Engineering (retired) Mt Baker- Snoqualmie N. F.
Traci Sylte Soils and Water Mgr. Lolo National Forest
Tom Erkert Transportation Group Ldr. Regional Office, Portland
Tom Black Research Hydrologist Rocky Mountain Res. Station.

Robert Gubernick Watershed Geologist Eastern Region (R9).

Maureen Kestler Civil Engineer, San Dimas TDC.

Additionally, many thanks to all the following individuals for their various comments and
other contributions to this document:
Paul Anderson Transportation Planner Washington Office Engineering
Vincent Barandino Civil Engineer San Dimas TDC
Brian Staab Regional Hydrologist Regional Office, Portland, OR
John Booth Asst. Regional Engr. Pacific Southwest Region, CA
Robin Stoddard Forest Hydrologist Olympic National Forest
Bruce Sims Regional Hydrologist Regional Office, Missoula, MT

195
Lonnie Ruchert Forest Road Manager Umatilla National Forest
Caty Clifton Forest Hydrologist, Umatilla National Forest
Virginia Gilmore Transportation Manager Colville, National Forest
James Barry Jones Engineering Region 8, North Carolina.
Ben Lindley Asst. Forest Engineer, Malheur National Forest
Sandra WilsonMusser Regional Geotech. Engr. Regional Office, Portland, OR
Fred Bower Transportation Planner Regional Office, Missoula, MT
William Goodman Regional Hydrologist Intermountain Region, Ogden
Matthew Murphy Transportation Engr. Regional Office, Milwaukee
Terry Benoit Hydrologist Plumas County CRM, CA.
Charlie Luce Research Hydrologist Rocky Mtn Research Station, Boise
Drew Coe Hydrologist California CVRWQCB
Justin Humble Operations Engineer Regional Office, Ogden
Mark Truebe Geotechnical Engr. Willamette National Forest
Mark Leverton Geotechnical Engr. Willamette National Forest
Steve Romero Geotechnical Engineer Regional Office, California
Juan De La Fuente Zone Geologist Klamath National Forest
Rene Renteria Materials Engineer Regional Office, Portland
Don Elder Geologist ACT2 Enterprise Team
Michael Furniss Hydrologist PSW, Redwood Sciences Lab

196
9. References
AASHTO. 2007. Highway drainage guidelines, Fourth Edition. HDG-4. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Available
online at: <https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=102>.
AASHTO. 2007. Standard specifications for highway bridges, and load and resistance
fact or design, bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Apodaca, M.; Tippie, M.; Verde, A.M.; Barandino, Jr. V. 2012. Guidelines for road
maintenance levels. 1177 1811—SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 50 p.
Berg, R; Christopher, B; Samtani, N. 2009. Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls
and reinforced soil slopes, Volume 1 and 2. FHWA-NHI-10-024 and 025. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 378 p.
Black, T. A., Cissel, R.M. and Luce, C. 2009. The geomorphic road analysis and
inventory package (GRAIP) data collection method. In: USDA Forest Service (Editor).
Boise, ID (Fort Collins, CO): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory.
Brown, S.A; Clyde, E. 1989. Design of riprap riprap revetment, Hydraulic Engineering
Circular (HEC) No. 11, FHWA-IP-89-016, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.169 p.
Cafferata, P., Spittler, T., Wopat, M., Bundros, G., Flanagan, S. 2004. Designing
watercourse crossings for passage of 100-year flood flows, wood, and sediment.
California Forestry Report 1, Sacramento, CA, Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention, The Resource Agency. 34 p.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1968. Roads handbook. Division
of Forestry Handbook No. 2310, State of California Division of Forestry. 185 p.
California Department of Transportation. 2003. Construction Site Best Management
Practices Manual. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. State of California.
Carey, K.L.; Huck, R.W.; Gaskin, D.A.1975. Prevention and control of culvert icing,
summary report on studies, FY 1966-70. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Casola, J.H., J.E. Kay, A.K. Snover, R.A. Norheim, L.C. Whitely Binder and the Climate
Impacts Group. 2005. Climate impacts on Washington’s hydropower, water supply,
forest, fish, and agriculture. A report prepared by King County (Washington) for the
Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center of Science in the
Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.
Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C., Nelson, N., Staab, B. (unknown). Erosion sensitivity index
for gullies, hillslope, and road segment length for storm damage risk reduction
treatments, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Boise, ID and Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 5 p.

Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C., Nelson, N., Staab, B. (2011). Legacy roads and trails
monitoring project: Storm damage risk reduction in the Skokomish River Watershed
197
Olympic National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 33 p. Available
online at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/downloads/case_studies/LegacyRoadsTrailsMonitoring_O
lympicNationalForest2011.pdf>
Clarkin, K.; Keller, G.; Warhol, T.; and Hixson, S. 2006. Low-water crossings:
geomorphic, biological and engineering design considerations. 0625-1801—SDTDC,
San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and
Development Center.
Clarkin, Kim et al. 2008. Stream simulation: an ecological approach to providing passage
for aquatic organisms at road-stream crossings. 0877-1801—SDTDC, San Dimas, CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Center,
646 p.
Coe, Drew B. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra
Nevada, California. Master of Science Thesis, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State
University, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship. 117 p.
Collins, Thomas. 2007. Debris flows caused by failure of fillslopes: Early detection,
warning, and loss prevention, DOI 10.1007/s10346-007-0107-y, Landslides 5 (2008),
Springer-Verlag. pp 107-120.
Copstead, R.; Johansen, K.; Moll, J. 1998. Introduction to surface cross-drains. 9877
1806—SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
San Dimas Technology & Development Center. 21 p.
Copstead, R.; Johansen, K. 1998. Examples from three flood assessment sites in Western
Oregon. 9877-1805—SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 15 p.
Corrugated Steel Pipe Institute. 2007. Handbook of steel drainage and highway
construction products, Second Canadian Edition. CSPI, Canada, and American Steel and
Iron Institute, Washington, DC.
Cramer, M.; Bates, K. Editors 2003. Integrated streambank protection guidelines.
Published by Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State DOT, Washington Department of
Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 625 p.
Doyle, J.E.: Ketches on, G.L. 2004. Lessons learned from management response to flood
damaged roads in the Western Washington Cascades. In: Advancing the Fundamental
Sciences, A conference for Forest Service Physical Scientists. Ed: San Diego, CA. Oct.
2004. p.
De La Fuente, J; Elder, D. 1998. The flood of 1997, Klamath National Forest. Phase I
final report, Yreka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath
National Forest. 172 p.
Doré, G.; Zubeck, H.K. 2009. Cold regions pavement engineering. ISBN 978-0-07-
160088-0. TE251.D67 2009. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers Press—
McGraw Hill. 416 p.

198
Eubanks, E.; Meadows, D. 2002. A soil bioengineering guide for streambank and
lakeshore stabilization, FS-683, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Technology and Development Center. 187 p.

Fay, L.; Akin, M.; Shi, X. 2012. Cost-effective and sustainable road slope stabilization
and erosion control. NCHRP Synthesis 430 (NCHRP Project 20-5, Topic 42-09),
Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Western Transportation Institute. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board. 70 p. Online at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_430.pdf.
Fischenich, C. 2001. Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials. ERDC TN-
EMRRP-SR-29, Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
10 p.
Flanagan, S.; Furniss, M. 1997. Field indicators of inlet controlled road stream crossing
capacity. 9777-1807-SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 5 p.
Furniss, M; Love, M.; Flanagan, S. 1997. Diversion potential at road-stream crossings.
9777-1814-SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 12 p.
Furniss, M.; Ledwith, T.; Love, M.; McFadin, B.; Flanagan, S. 1998. Response of road-
stream crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.
9877-1806—SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 14 p.
Gillies, Clayton 2007. Erosion and sediment control practices for forest roads and stream
crossings- a practical operations guide, Advantage Vol. 9 No. 9, Vancouver, BC: Forest
Engineering Research Institute of Canada, Western Region, 87 p.
Gray, D.; Sotir, R. 1996. Biotechnical and soil bioengineering slope stabilization: a
practical guide for erosion control, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 378 p.
Gray, D.; Leiser, A. 1982. Biotechnical slope protection and erosion control, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 271 p.
Gonzales, Ralph. 1998. Cross drain update. 9877-1804—SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. San Dimas Technology and Development
Center, 14p.
Gubernick, R. 2012a. White Mountain National Forest flood damage assessment: river,
slope, and infrastructure damage assessment and recommendations. Internal Report [not
numbered], 31p.
Gubernick, R. 2012b. Flood damage assessment, Green Mountain National Forest: Flood
Damage along Vermont Highway 100 on the Green Mountain National Forest. Internal
Report [not numbered], 39p.

Gucinski, H., Furniss, M., Zeimer, R., and Brooks, M. (Editors). 2001. Forest roads: a
synthesis of scientific information, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509, Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 103 p.

199
Haehnel, R.B. 1998. Nonstructural ice control. CRREL Special Report 98-14. Hanover,
NH: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Heede, B. 1976. Gully development and control: The status of our knowledge. Research
Paper RM-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p.

ICS (Incident Command System) eTool, 2007. Emergency response-the incident

command system, Washington DC: US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Available online at:
<http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ics/index.html>

Karl, T.; Melillo, J.; Peterson, T. (editors). 2009. Global climate change impacts in the
United States. Cambridge University Press. Available online at:
<http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/executive-summary.pdf>.
Kattell, J.; Eriksson, M. 1998. Bridge scour evaluation: screening, analysis, and
countermeasures. 9877 1207— SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 35 p.

Keller, G; Sherar, J. 2003. Low-volume roads engineering: best management practices

field guide. [Unnumbered] Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Office of International Programs and U.S. Agency for International
Development. 158 p. Available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/global/topic/welcome.htm#12>.

Keller, G.; WilsonMusser, S.; Bolander, P.; Barandino, V. 2011. Stabilization and
rehabilitation measures for low-volume forest roads. 1177 1801—SDTDC. San Dimas,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and
Development Center. 333 p. Available at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/php/library_card.php?p_num=1177%201801P>

Kestler, M.A. 2003. Techniques for extending the life of low-volume roads in seasonal
frost areas. Volume 1819, Volume 1819B. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.

Kestler, M.A. 2005 [Unpublished]. Survey on culvert icing and blockage. San Dimas,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and
Development Center.

Kilgore, R.; Bergendahl, B.; Hotchkiss, R. 2010. Culvert design for aquatic organism
passage. Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) 26, FHWA-HIF-11-008-HEC-26,
Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Central Federal Lands Division. 234 p.
Lagasse, P; Clopper, P; Pagan, G; Zevenbergen, L; Arneson, L; Schall, J; Girand, L.
2009. Bridge scour and stream instability countermeasures, Third ed. Volume 1 and 2,
FHWA-NHI-09-111. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

200
Highway Administration, Office of Bridge Technology, and National Highway Institute.
256 p.
Leopold, Luna, B., Wolman, M. Gordon, and Miller, John P. 1995. Fluvial processes in
geomorphology., Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 522 pp.
Lewis, L. 2000. Soil bioengineering – an alternative for roadside management (a practical
guide). 0077 1801 – SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 43 p.
Luce, C.; Black, T. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment
production. In proceedings of the seventh federal interagency sedimentation conference,
March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada, pp. V67-V74.Mass, Cliff. 2008. The Weather of the
Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Pp. 149-150.
McCuen, R; Johnson, P; Regan, R. 2002. Highway hydrology, hydraulic design series
No. 2, Second Ed. FHWA-NHI-02-001. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute. 424 p.
McCullah, J; Gray, D. 2005. Environmentally sensitive channel and bank protection
measures, NCHRP Report 544, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 50 p. plus CD.
McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, Jr., J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter,
C.A., comps. 2005. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous
United States [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 80 p.
McKelver, P. 1995. Steepland Forests: A historical perspective of protection forestry in
New Zealand. Canterbury University Press, New Zealand. 295 p.
Mohney, J. 1994. Retaining wall design guide. EM-7170-14 (and FHWA-FLP-94-006).
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff and
Federal Highway Administration. 535 p.
Muller, S.W. 2008. (French, H.M., and Nelson, F.E., eds) Frozen in time: permafrost and
engineering problems. ISBN 978-0-7844-0989-3 TA713.F788 2008. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers. 280 p.
Napper, C. 2006. Burn area emergency response treatments catalog (BAERCAT). 0625-
1801-SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San
Dimas Technology and Development Center, 254p.
Napper, C. 2008. Soil and water road-condition index- field guide. 0877-1806—SDTDC,
San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology
and Development Center. 93 p.
Nichols, Roger; S. Sprague. 2003. Use of long-line cabled logs for stream bank
rehabilitation. In D.R. Montgomery, S. Bolton, D.B. Booth and L. Wall (eds.) Restoration
of Puget Sound Rivers. Chapter 16. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. pp.
422-442.
Neill, C. R., Editor. 1973. Guide to bridge hydraulics, by the Project Committee on
Bridge Hydraulics of RTAC, Toronto, ON and Buffalo, NY: Roads and Transportation
Association of Canada, University of Toronto Press. 191 p.

201
Nolte, D; Arner, D; Paulsen, J; Jones, J; Trent, A. 2005. How to keep beavers from
plugging culverts. 0577-2830-MTDC, Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 30 p.
Normann, J; Houghtalen, R; Johnston, W. 2001. Hydraulic design of highway culverts,
2nd ed., FHWA-NHI-01-020, (HDS) No. 5. Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Institute. 376 p.
Orr, D; 2003 Update. Roadway and roadside drainage. CLRP #98-5. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Local Roads Program. New York LTAP Center. 88 p.
Packer, Paul E. and George F. Christensen. 1964. Guides for controlling sediment from
secondary logging roads. [unnumbered] Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Northern
Region. 42 p.
PIARC World Roads Association. 1999. Natural disaster reduction for roads. Final Report
72.02B, Prepared by PIARC Working Group 2G, Paris, FR. 275 p.
Piehl, R. 2005. Summary of trenchless technology for use with USDA Forest Service
culverts. 0577 1201 – SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center.18 p.
Prellwitz, R. T.; Steward, J., coords. 1994. 1994. Slope stability reference guide for
national forests in the United States, Volume 1-3, EM-7170-13, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff . 3 Volumes. 1091 p.
Richardson, E.V.; Davis S.R. 2001. Evaluating scour at bridges, Fourth ed. HEC No. 18.
FHWA_NHI-01-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Office of Bridge Technology and National Highway Institute,
378 p.
Ries, K.G., III. 2006. The national streamflow statistics program: a computer program for
estimating streamflow statistics for ungaged sites: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques
and Methods Report TM Book 4, Chapter A6, 45 p. Available online at:
<http://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nss/index.html>.
Rivas, T. 2006. Erosion control treatment selection guide. 0677 1203—SDTDC. San
Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and
Development Center. 66 p.
Rosgen, D. 1996- Applied River Morphology, Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology.
Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Royster, D. L. 1982. Landslide remedial measures. Publication Authorization Number
1011. Gatlinburg, TN; Tennessee Department of Transportation, Geotechnical
Engineering and Laboratory Operations Office, 84 p.
Shah, Bashir Hussan. 2008. Field manual on slope stabilization, UNDP (United Nations
Development Program), Environmental Recovery Program for the Earthquake Affected
Areas. Islamabad, Pakistan, September, 64 p.
<http://preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=13232>.

202
Skorseth, K.; Selim, A. 2000. Gravel roads maintenance and design manual. US
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and South Dakota Local
Transportation Assistance Program (LTAP). (Reprint April, 2005, LTAP-02-002).
Online at: <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/gravelroads_index.cfm>.
Sotir, Robbin. B. 2001. Integration of soil bioengineering techniques for watershed
management. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration
Conference, Hayes, D.F. ed. August 27-31, 2011, Reno, Nevada. [pages unknown]
Steinferld, D.; Riley, S.; Wilkinson, K.; Landis, T.; and Riley, L. 2007. Roadside
revegetation: an integrated approach to establishing native plants. FHWA-WFL/TD-07-
005, Vancouver, WA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division and Umatilla National Forest,
424 p. <http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/td/publications/>
Swanson, Frederick J. 1980. Geomorphology and ecosystems. In forests: fresh
perspectives from ecosystem analysis. Proceedings, 40th Annual Biology Colloqium
1979. Richard W. Waring, ed. OSU.
Theisen, M. S. 1992. The expanding role of geosynthetics in erosion and sediment
control. Hassell, W. G.; Nordstrom, S. K.; Keammerer, W. R.; Todd, J. Editors.
Proceedings: High Altitude Revegetation Workshop No. 10. 4-6 March 1992. Fort
Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute.
Thompson, P.; Kilgore, R. 2006. Hydraulic design of energy dissipators for culverts and
channels, Third ed. HEC No. 14. FHWA-NHI-06-068. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Bridge
Technology and National Highway Institute, 287 p.
Turner, K.; Schuster, R. Editors. 1996. Landslides-investigation and mitigation, Special
Report No. 247. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Academy
Press, 673 p.
Tuthill, A.M. 1995. Structural ice control: review of existing methods. CRREL Special
Report 95-18. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2010. Forest Service Manual 2550,
Watershed and Air Management, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER)
Handbook, FSM 2520, 2010-1 Interim Directive, [Effective date 08/25/2010],
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 20
p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Flooding in west cascade mountain
river basins: a perspective on the November 1990 flooding in Western Washington.
Unpublished report. Everett, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Application guide for launched
soil nails. Volume 1. EM 7170-12A and FHWA-FPL-93-003. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff. 63 p.

203
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Project report for launched soil
nails -1992 demonstration project. Volume 2. EM 7170-12B and FHWA-FPL-93-004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engr. Staff. 70 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Transportation System

Maintenance Handbook. Forest Service Handbook. Washington, DC. FSH 7709.58, Ch.
10, Sec. 12.3, p 5-6.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management
Practices for water quality management on National Forest System lands, Volume 1-
National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. Washington, DC. April.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010a. Geomorphic roads analysis and
inventory package (GRAIP). Developed in cooperation with Rock Mountain Research
Station, Utah State University and the US EPA. Fort Collins, CO.
<.http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/index.shtml>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. Final environmental impact
statement -dosewallips road washout project. Olympia, WA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Olympic National Forest, Hood
Canal Ranger District, p.248.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Handbook
7709.59.60, Road Maintenance, [Effective date 02/05/2009], Washington, DC. 18 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. Soil
bioengineering for upland slope protection and erosion reduction, Engineering Field
Handbook, Part 650, Chapter 18. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 143 p.
U.S. Department. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996.
Streambank and shoreline protection, Engineering Field Handbook, Part 650, Chapter 16.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Gullies
and Their Control. Technical Supplement 14P (210-VI-NEH). 20 p.
<http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/nrrbs/TECHNICALSUPPLEMENTS/TS14P.pdf>.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2009. Stream
Instability, Bridge Scour, and Countermeasures: A Field Guide for Bridge Inspectors,
FHWA-NHI-08-106. National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 47 p.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Emergency
Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO): Disaster Assistance Manual. FHWA-FLH-
11-001. Washington, D.C: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. 105 p.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. Manual on uniform traffic control devices,
ISBN 978-1-56051-473-2, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, 816 p.

204
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group 1998. Stream corridor restoration, Available from Department of Commerce,
NTIS, Springfield, VA.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Vinson, Ted. 2007.
Road engineering and construction practices for cold regions. FHWA-WFL/TD-07-001
CD. Vancouver, WA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Western Federal Lands.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate change indicator in the United
States. EPA 430-R-10-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
76p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html.
Utterback, P.; Moore, T.L.; Kestler, M.A.; Affleck, R. 1995. The effects of winter haul on
low volume forest development roads. 9577 1207—SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development
Center.
Weaver, W.; Hagans, D. 1994) Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for planning,
designing, constructing, maintaining, and closing wildland roads. Ukiah, CA: Mendocino
County Resource Conservation District, in cooperation with USDA, Soil Conservation
Service and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . 191 p.
Weaver, W.; Hagans, D.; Weppner, E. 2006. Upland erosion inventory and sediment
control guidance. Part X of California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual,
Third Edition, California Department of Fish and Game, The Resource Agency, State of
California. 207 p.
Wilson Musser, S.; Denning, C. 2005. Deep patch road embankment repair application
guide. 0577 1204 - SDTDC, San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 21 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Wisconsin’s forestry best
management practices for water quality-field manual for loggers, landowners and land
managers. Publication No. FR093. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. March. 76 p.
Wood, G.W.; Woodward, L.A.;Yarrow, G. 1994. The clemson beaver pond leveler.
Aquiculture Fisheries Wildlife Leaflet 1, Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson
University. Clemson, SC. 4 p.

Zeedyk, B.; Jansens, J. 2006. An introduction to erosion control. Second Edition. A Joint
publication of Earth Works Institute, The Quivira Coalition, and Zeedyk Ecological
Consulting. New Mexico Environmental Department, Watershed Protection Section,
Santa Fe, NM. 26 p.
Available at: http://www.comanchecreek.org/images/links/115-
Erosion%2520Control%2520Field%2520Guide.pdf
.

205
Appendix

A1a. Construction Drawings and Notes

Drain Dip Typical- Flat and Steep Grades-Umatilla NF

206
 Dip Dimensio ns Ozzie, 19 9 1

Designer: For the Critical Vehicle Date:

Variables: Vehicle Type * See bottom of page for method of measurement for construction control
Bottom Draggers: (i.e.: Lowboy) Variables
Dist. above ground, ground to trailer bottom = 1 ft or Meters
Wheel Base(drive axles to trailer axle) = 35 ft or Meters
Desired Adjacent Chords for control = 15 ft or Meters

Calculation: (Gives rounding required for TOP of dip) Calcs or

* Max grade change without rounding = 11.4% 6.52 Degrees
* Min. radius for rounding = 153.4 Ft. or M Radius
* Max. % change per chord length for rounding
when total % change is >Max grade change = 9.8% Use 1-2% less

Variables: Vehicle Type

Stinger type (i.e.: Log truck or fifth-wheel) Variables
Dist. stinger to logs or tailgate = 0.51 ft or Meters
Lngth stinger, hitch to mid. drive axles = 3.8 ft or Meters
Length total wheelbase (steer to trlr whls) = 33.5 ft or Meters
Desired Adjacent Chords for control = 15 ft or Meters

Calculation: (Gives rounding required for TOP of dip) Calcs. or

* Max grade change without rounding = 13.4% 7.64 Degrees
* Min. radius for rounding = 125.2 Ft. or M Radius
* Max. % change per chord length for rounding
when total % change is >Max grade change = 12.0% Use 1-2% less

Variables: Vehicle Type

Tail Dragger (i.e.: Pass. Car) Variables
Dist. bumper to ground = 0.5 ft or Meters
Lngth bumper to axle, horz. = 4 ft or Meters
Length total whlbase (steer to drive axle) = 10 ft or Meters
Desired Adjacent Chords for control = 5 ft or Meters

Calculation: (Gives rounding required for BOTTOM of dip) Calcs. or

* Max grade change without rounding = 12.5% 7.13 Degrees
* Min. radius for rounding = 40.1 Ft. or M Radius
* Max. % change per chord length for rounding
when total % change is >Max grade change = 12.5% Use 1-2% less

Variables: Vehicle Type

Trailer Tail Dragger (i.e.: 10 horse trailer) Variables
Dist. rear bumper to ground, vert. = 1.1 ft or Meters
Lngth bumper to pivot axle, horz(on trailer). = 10.2 ft or Meters
Length total whlbase (steer to trailer axle) = 36 ft or Meters
Desired Adjacent Chords for control = 15 ft or Meters

Calculation: (Gives rounding required for BOTTOM of dip) Calcs. or

* Max grade change without rounding = 8.8% 5.02 Degrees
* Min. radius for rounding = 204.9 Ft. or M Radius
* Max. % change per chord length for rounding
when total % change is >Max grade change = 7.3% Use 2% less

* Find what appears to be the sharpest point of the dip. From that point measure the desired
adjacent chord distance each way from that point. Measure the slope, with sign from down
grade to center, then center to upgrade point. The algebraic difference in those grades is
the amount of rounding for comparing to calculated shape.

C:\GEO-INTERIM GEOTECHNICAL PROJECTS-INFO\DIP Inf ormation\[DIP Spreadsheet- Ozzie C.xls]dips

Calculating Taper Distance

Variables:
Variables Variables "A" = Orig Grade above back of rounding
Distance Low to High dimension = 4 ft or Meters "B" =Back of rounding
Avg. grade prior to dip (in %) = 10 % "C" = End of Taper
Max. % change per chord length for rounding = 14 %
Desired Adjacent Chords for control = 5 ft or Meters
Desired grade for taper runnout = 15 %

Calculations
Calculation: (Gives recommended tapers back to grade) Calcs.
* Grade high to low point = -3.8% (Assumes 0.15m Elev diff.)
* Elev. at back of rounding = 0.24 Elev B
* Elev. at A on orig. grade, back of rounding point 0.70 Elev A
Vert. Distance back rounding to orig. grade (A to B) 0.46 A to B
Horz distance Back of round to end of taper (AtoC&BtoC) 9.25 A to C&B to C
Re com m e nde d Tape r Dis tance , Low point to grade = 9.3 Ft or Meters 30.34 Ft equivalent

Recommend not using Taper Distances less than:

4x4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Meters
Log Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Meters
Lowboy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Meters
20-25 MPH. . . . . . . . . . . 10 Meters
25-35 MPH. . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Meters

Feet Meters
15 4.6
Recommended Min. Dist., High to Low points:
* 4x4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Meters
Fire Engine. .. . . . . . . . . . . 2 Meters
Log Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Meters
Lowboy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Meters
15-20 MPH. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Meters
20-25 MPH. . . . . . . . . . . 6 Meters
25-35 MPH. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Meters

* Note: Usually the minimum distances should accommodate a 4x4 Fire Engine.

C:\GEO-INTERIM GEOTECHNICAL PROJECTS-INFO\DIP Inf ormation\[DIP Spreadsheet- Ozzie C.xls]dips

Dip Calculation Spread Sheet –developed by Ozzie Cummins. Available in Regional

Office Engineering, R6, Portland.

207
208
209
210
211
212
Appendix A1b. Flat, Wet Area Road Options

213
Appendix A2. Small Culvert Outlet Protection

214
 A3. Road Storm Damage Risk Reduction Assessment -
Field Evaluation/Road Condition Form
Adapted from Karen Bennett 2009

Road Name _____________________________ Date:_________________________

Surveyor(s) Names _____________________________________________________

Road Segment Information

Mile Post: From _____ To____ GPS: From________________ To______________
Total Segment Length: _______________
Road Width:______________ Road Gradient:_______________
Topographic position: Ridgetop __ Midslope __ Valley Bottom __ Vertical __
Traffic Use Intensity: Low __ Moderate __ High __
Reason for Segment Break: _______________________________________________

Road Surface Condition Assessment

Road Surface Material: Paved __ Gravel __ Native Soil __

Road Prism Cross Section: Insloped __ with ditch __ without ditch __

Crowned __ with ditch __ without ditch __
Outsloped __ with ditch __ without ditch __
Flat ____ Entrenched ___

Surface Condition: Good __ Corrugated __ Potholes __ Ruts __ Gully ___Rough __

Condition Severity: (H,M,L) _________ _________ ______ _______ _______
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Slope Stability
Cutbank Height __________ Cutbank angle _________ Stable Yes____ No____
Fillslope Length __________ Fillslope Angle _______ Stable Yes____ No____
Evidence of landslides? (movement?) Yes____ No____ Erosion Y/N
Seeps and springs in cutbank? Yes____ No____
Retaining Structures Functioning_____ Needing Repairs_________
Add problem description?: ________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Road Surface Drainage

Drainage type: Cross-Drain Culvert _______ Rolling Dip _______ Water Bar______
Number of cross drains ____________ _____________ ______________
Average Spacing ____________ _____________ ______________
Length to drain more important that spacing (needs to consider divides, etc.)
Need road grade paired w/ assessment of spacing and # to adequately assess.
Plugged Cross drain with location ____________________________________________
Erosion at cross drain outlet with location ______________________________________
Ditch Condition: scoured: Y/N Scour length: Depth: (max & ave?)

RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
215
Sediment Transport Assessment
Ditch delivers sediment to stream: Yes __ No __ Ditch length_____ Ditch width ___
Road delivers sediment to stream: Yes___ No___
Distance from road to bankfull channel _________________
Other sources of sediment ________________________
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Stream / Wetland Crossing Assessment

Number of Stream / Wetland Crossings___
Is flow or drainage being backed up? Yes____ No____
Stream Crossing type: Open channel __ Ford___ Vented Ford___ Culvert__ Bridge___
Dimensions: _____________ ________ __________ ________ ______
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Culvert Assessment
Shape/Size: Circular _________ Eliptical ________ Recrangular ________
Squash _________ Arch __________
Single or Multiple Pipes: _______________ Number ______________
Are all pipes functioning?: Yes____ No____ Explain: _______________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Stream Gradient: ____________ Bankfull Width _________ or active channel width
Culvert Grade: ________ Culvert Length ___________
Inlet Blocked: Yes____ No____ Depth of sediment _______________
Outlet Eroded: _________ Height of drop__________ Length of erosion __________
Piping along culvert: Yes____ No____ ; through bottom of pipe (holes) Y/N
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Consider adding: Evidence of recent flood or disturbance: Y/N (would provide context
or validate width rating if condition = good after experiencing recent flood)
Description: (or damage/ effects of disturbance)

Bridge/Ford Assessment
Type__________ Span_______________
Structure Concerns: Yes____ No____
Channel Constriction________________ Debris_____________________
Scour Problems___________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Photo Point # Description

216
 A4. Glossary

Road Decommissioning- A permanent road closure treatment (including obliteration)

applied to roads that are no longer needed or are undesirable. This removes the road from
the maintained transportation system. Treatments range from simply blocking the road
and allowing it to brush in, to removing all drainage structures and unstable sidecast fills.
Decommissioning removes those elements of a road that reroute or impede hillslope
drainage and present slope stability hazards. Decommissioning removes the road from the
road system.

Road Obliteration- Permanent road closure with full physical site restoration that
attempts to re-contour slopes with the intent of completely removing the footprint of the
road from the landscape. Natural drainage patterns are re-established as much as possible.
The term is more frequently used by Washington Department of Natural Resources for
private and state road treatment.

Storage- This treatment involves closing and stabilizing those roads that are not currently
needed for access, but have been identified as having a future access purpose. The road
may be closed for a year or many years, such as until the next forest management cycle,
but it will be used again in the future. Treatment can involve wide ranges of options on a
case by case basis. These roads, built using sidecast excavation methods and undersized
drainage structures require removal of drainage structures and sidecast fill material but
leaves the road prism intact. The road becomes maintenance level 1.

Open Roads- Roads that are to remain open for necessary access, either all year or for a
portion of the year (i.e., seasonal wildlife restriction, snow, etc.). Depending on the
technique of the original construction of the road and other factors such as number of
streams crossed , need for fish passage and steepness of side slope involved, results in
varying amounts of drainage correction work required. Correcting these drainage
deficiencies is sometime referred to as an upgrade. Open roads are maintenance at
maintenance level 2 to 5.

F.S. Non-system Routes- These are road segments that are not system roads. These
roads were frequently built under timber sales and never became part of the Forest
Service maintained road transportation system due to their short term need.

Road Maintenance Levels- one of five levels assigned based on the maintenance
required to provide the desired type of access:

Level 1 - These are roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses.
The period of storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed
to prevent damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for future resource
management needs. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and
runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level.

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction

standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they
are open for traffic.

217
 Level 2 - Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car
traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning signs and
traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, such as
W-18-1 “No Traffic Signs” may be posted at intersections. Motorists should have no
expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. Traffic is
normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative,
permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this
level.

Level 3 - Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a
standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.
The “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) is applicable. Warning
signs and traffic control devices are provided to alert motorists of situations that may
violate expectations.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and
turnouts. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either "encourage" or
"accept.” "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed for certain classes of
vehicles or users.

Level 4 - Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and
convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate
surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or
dust abated. “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” is applicable. The most
appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit"
strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

Level 5 - Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and
convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some
may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. “Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices” is applicable. The appropriate traffic management strategy
is ‘encourage.’

Diversion Potential- The possibility that streamflow will leave its established channel
and flow down a road or roadway ditch that slopes away from a road-stream crossing.
Stream diversion occurs when a culvert pipe capacity is exceeded or a culvert plugs with
debris, causing the stream to overtop the culvert and follow the road rather than stay in its
own stream channel.

Drivable Waterbars- Low berms or barriers, typically of soil, that are constructed across
roads or skid trails with the purpose of blocking the flow of water or directing it off the
road surface. Drivable waterbars are constructed such that they can be driven over with
high-clearance vehicles.

Hydrologically Connected (Hydraulic Connectivity)- Hydraulic connectivity, or items

that are hydraulically connected, refers to a circumstance, such as a roadway ditch or
other drainage structure, that is directly connected to a watercourse, such that water, and
218
any associated sediment it is carrying, are delivered directly to that watercourse or a
natural channel network

River Engineering- A coined term, similar to “Natural River Rehabilitation”, or

“Geomorphologic Restoration” referring to work in channels to restore the natural or
proper function of a stream. Work is commonly associated with repairs around structures
such as bridges, or bank protection where a roadway encroaches upon a natural channel.
Traditional work may have involved use of hard structures such as riprap and concrete,
while current practice places emphasis on use of natural products such as logs and
vegetation, as well as a better understanding of channel morphology and dynamics.

Rolling Dip (Drivable Dip, Broad-Based Dip) - A roadway surface drainage structure,
with a constructed break in the road grade, specifically designed to drain water from an
inside ditch as well as the roadway surface off the road. The dip, mound, and ditch outlet
area are often reinforced or armored. Vehicle travel speed is typically somewhat reduced,
and dips are used on low-volume, relatively low speed roads.
.
Storm Proofing- Measures taken to reduce the risk or amount of damage to roads from
major storms. Storm Damage Risk Reduction pertains to similar storm proofing
measures, but considers the fact that risk or probability of damage can be reduced, as well
as actual amount of damage, but that low-volume roads can never afford to be built to
prevent all damage.

219