ATV CROSSINGS ATV TRAIL-STREAM CROSSINGS

Transcription

1 ATV TRAIL-STREAM CROSSINGS

2 The Issue Scope of Vehicle Use Estimated 11 million visits to National Forests involve off-highway vehicles (OHVs) All terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility terrain vehicles (UTVs) = OHVs < 62 inches wide Large OHVs ATVs are small OHVs

3 The Issue Problems with ATV Trail-Stream Crossings Rutting Bank erosion Streambed erosion Turbidity Aquatic organism loss Vegetation loss Safety problems Maintenance and repair costs

4 The Issue Problems With ATV Crossings - Black Hills NF

5 The Issue Problems With ATV Crossings - Fishlake NF

6 The Issue Problems With ATV Crossings - Alaska

7 Installation Cost Solutions ATV Trail-Stream Crossing Alternatives Bridges Culverts Improved ( hardened ) fords Unimproved fords Greater Long Term Enviro Impact

8 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Trail Bridges Simple primitive bridge Engineered wood bridge

9 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Trail Bridges Prefabricated metal cattle guard bridge

10 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Culverts Plastic arch culvert Simple pipe culvert

11 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Hardened Fords Concrete planks Geocell mat with gravel

12 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Articulated Concrete Blocks Concrete block ford Cables anchored to ground

13 Solutions Crossing Alternatives - Native Materials Wood corduroy and plastic mat Native rock ford

14 Alaska Experience Thousands of miles of improved ATV trails Many isolated villages in roadless areas rely on ATVs It is a political and social issue Wet and tundra environments in Alaska have sensitive ground and poor traction

15 Alaska Experience Detailed evaluation by NPS for ATV trails Description, Qualitative Environmental, Maintenance, and Cost Comparison of 17 Alaska Trail Hardening Methods Draft: Kevin G. Meyer, NPS-Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, Anchorage, Alaska updated 2/8/2007 Selected Trail Hardening Methods 1 through 8 pages 1-5 Methods 9 through 17 pages 5-8 PHOTO/GRAPHIC: No Image Available Ground Contact Boardwalk Ground Contact Puncheon Running Plank Corduroy Paver Blocks DESCRIPTION: Gadbury Bridge Elevated Boardwalk Elevated Puncheon General Trail Type Suitability foot trails predominately all trail types all trail types all trail types all trail types all trail types all except stock, bikes all trail types General Site Soil Type Suitability (see Subjective Eval Sheet) all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types including floating veg mat all soil types including floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types including floating veg mat all mineral soil types - not suitable for organic soils, floating mat Selected Trail Hardening Methods--9 through 17 DESCRIPTION: General Trail Type Suitability General Site Soil Type Suitability (see Subjective Eval Sheet) Porous Pavement (unfilled 1" or 2"cells) Porous Pavement (filled 2" cells) Porous Pavement Panels -GeoTrack Configuration Gravel Capping & Gravel over geotextile. GeoCell /Geo Web system w/ infill & cap Causeway Turnpike/Ditch and Elevate Slot Trench Inversion Wood Chips/Bark Chips/Chunk Wood motorized predominately all trail types motorized all trail types all trail types all trail types all trail types all trail types all trail types all soil types including floating veg mat with geotextile sublayer all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat all soil types, except floating veg mat underlying mineral or gravelly soils only underlying gravel or rocky mineral soils only all soil types including floating veg mat w/ geotex

16 Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Evaluation Project USDA Forest Service Technology & Development Program (T&D) Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) Durability testing Field demonstrations in California Field demonstrations in Utah

17 Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Evaluation Project Project goals materials must be: Relatively inexpensive Light Able to be transported by ATV or UTV Able to be installed with hand labor and small tools Price per Square Foot* Weight per Square Foot (lbs) Heavier Than Water? Material Description A 4-inch PVC Conduit $ yes B Freezer Spacers $ no C GeoTerra TM Mats $ no D Recycled Tire Mats $ yes E Parking Stops $ no *Price includes connectors and incidentals. Does not include shipping or tax, 2013 dollars)

18 Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Evaluation Project Pipe mat Freezer spacer mat

19 Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Evaluation Project Geoterra mat

20 Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Evaluation Project Plastic parking bumpers Recycled tire mat

21 Durability Testing at RMRS Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Freezer spacer mat after 300 passes with ATV

22 Durability Testing at RMRS Improved Fords for ATV Crossings Geoterra mat, pipe mat, and freezer spacer mat after 200 passes with tracked trail dozer

23 Pipe Mat California Demonstration, OHV Site String cable through pipe mat Tension ground anchors Install ground anchors

24 Pipe Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Newly installed After 6 months heavy OHV use

25 Freezer Spacer Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Newly installed Connected with cables anchored to ground

26 Freezer Spacer Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Freezer spacer mat in use After 10 months heavy OHV use

27 GeoTerra Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Newly installed Uncovered and recovered for reuse after buried by sediment

28 Parking Bumpers Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Recently installed, in use by ATV After 3 months OHV use

29 Recycled Tire Mat California Demonstration - OHV Site Newly installed Uncovered and recovered for reuse after buried by sediment

30 Utah Demonstration - ATV Trails Pipe Mat and Freezer Spacers Mat Installation After 15 months ATV use

31 Utah Demonstration - ATV Trails GeoTerra Mat Materials and tools delivered to site by ATV trailer over 5 mile rough trail. Installation

32 Utah Demonstration - ATV Trails GeoTerra Mat Drive ground anchors with electric jackhammer Join panels with metal clips

33 Utah Demonstration - ATV Trails GeoTerra Mat Before mat 1 year after mat installed

34 Performance Monitoring Evaluation Criteria Visual observation - erosion rills, vegetation regrowth. Streamflow effects aquatic organism passage (u/s vs d/s water velocity). Water quality affects aquatic organism health (u/s vs d/s water turbidity). Topography measure of amount of erosion (Shape of ground before vs after installation).

35 Performance Monitoring Visual Observation Degree of Ground and Vegetation Disturbance Site Before Installation After Installation SGOHV Pipe Mat Moderate Moderate SGOHV Freezer Mat Moderate Moderate SGOHV GeoTerra Mat Moderate Low SGOHV Recycled Tire Mat/ Parking Stops Mat Moderate Fishlake NF Pipe Mat Low Low Fishlake NF GeoTerra Mat Severe Low Moderate

36 Performance Monitoring Water Velocity Measured Water Velocities (feet per second) Fishlake NF GeoTerra Mat Fishlake NF Pipe Mat SGCOHV Control Site SGCOHV Recycled Tire Mat SGCOHV GeoTerra Mat SGCOHV Freezer Mat Downstream after installation -- Upstream after installation 0.60 Prior to Installation --

37 Performance Monitoring Water Quality - Turbidity Upstream monitoring point D T = Difference in turbidity between upstream and downstream Downstream monitoring point

38 Performance Monitoring Water Quality - Turbidity 200% Turbidity (u/s to d/s difference*) 150% 100% 50% 0% % -100% Mat improves upstream to downstream turbidity difference during traffic. Before Mat During Install Avg Regular Use with Mat Avg Regular Use w/o Mat (Control Sites) Avg with Mat but No Use Extreme Use * Positive value means d/s turbidity > u/s turbidity.

39 Relative Elevation (feet) Relative Elevation (feet) Performance Monitoring Topography - Ground Erosion SGCOHV, Crossing #3 (Geoterra), Station Length (feet) 5/13/2013 3/31/2014 Fishlake NF, Reese Trail (Geoterra), Station /18/2014 8/5/ /6/ Length (feet)

40 Conclusions What Lightweight Fords are NOT: They are not a panacea for all ATV trail-stream crossings. They are not very effective for heavy traffic/large vehicles. They are not better or cheaper than native materials (e.g. stone, wood, etc.) when available

41 Conclusions What Lightweight Fords Can Be: Relatively inexpensive. Light in weight. Transported by ATV or UTV. Installed with hand labor and small tools. Provide interim solution until long term fix is done. Do not seem to significantly effect water flow. Seem to provide some reduction in turbidity. Reduce ground and veg disturbance in soft areas. Most effective high in the watershed; less effective lower in watershed with large flows. Of the 5 materials, engineered mats such as GeoTerra are most effective. (Not an endorsement!).

42 For more information: Mark Russell, USDA-FS, ,