Wolfpen Gap ATV Revisited

Determining OHV capacity
on a watershed scale based
on water quality indicators
Ouachita National Forest
Ouachita National Forest
• Est. in 1907
• 1.8 million
acres
• In Arkansas
and Oklahoma
• Shortleaf pine
and mixed
hardwoods
• Three
ecoregions
OHV Carrying Capacity
forest-wide and WPG
Wolf Pen Gap
WPG History
• Developed in the early 1990’s
• Series of old logging roads connected
with trails
• Use of the ATV complex grew rapidly
• 8,000 to 10,000 riders a year in 1998
• In 1998 a timber sale prompted the first
Wolfpen Gap Study
• GPS and Stream Surveys
User created trails 1998
Legal trails
User created trails
Subwatersheds
BoardCamp
Gap
Illegal Trail
• This trail is about 4’
x .5’ x 200’
• or 14.8 cubic yards
• or 20 tons of
sediment
• or 2 dump truck
loads
• or 151 acres of
clearcut
Old Woods Road/Trail
• This trail is about
18’ x 3’ x 100’
• or 200 cubic yards
• or 270 tons of
sediment
• or 27 dump truck
loads
• or 2,037 acres of
clearcut
Tools and Indicators
• Data – water quality
– Stream inventories (BASS)
– GPS of trails and roads
– WEPP data collection
• Data – recreation
– LEO checkpoints
– Use counts
• Data manipulation and/or Models
– WEPP:Road – sediment values
– Aquatic Cumulative Effects – watershed analysis
with risk to fisheries
Basin Area Stream Survey
(BASS) in 1998
• Physical, chemical and
biological survey based
on stream habitat
• In 1998 we compared
streams to similar sized
reaches and habitats
– embeddedness
– percent fines and sand
– pool volume
– maximum pool depth
1998 - 2001
• The Wolfpen Gap area was closed to ATV’s
except for authorized roads and trails.
• Obliteration of illegal trails and performed road
and trail maintenance.
• December 2000 WPG trails are closed due to
ice storm damage.
• The summer of 2001 WPG streams are
resurveyed.
– There was improvement in physical habitats.
– Potential problem with stream biota.
Gap Creek
Board Camp Creek
Brushy Creek
Streams
Subwatersheds
> than 4500 acres
Lower subwatersheds
Middle subwatersheds
Upper subwatersheds
Caney Creek
Upper Pool Embeddedness
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Brushy 01 Caney 01
Board 01
Gap 01
Board 98
Gap 98
Species Richness
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Brushy 01 Caney 01
Board 01
Gap 01
Board 98
Gap 98
2001 Recommendations
• Continue
o Aggressive rehabilitation of riparian areas and illegal
trails,
o Creating public awareness, and
o A continued law enforcement presence.
• Close or relocate identified roads and trails,
• Harden stream crossings and approaches
• Consider limiting the number of ATV users per
year,
• Consider a seasonal closure limiting ATV use
to the dry season (October 15th – April 15th).
WPG 2001 - 2005
• WPG was reopened in March 2002
– Built 2 new box culverts stream crossings
– Closed one crossing
– Constructed ~ 5 miles of road/closure - ~ 3
miles
but
• Use increased to 17,000 UPY (by 2008),
• No trail maintenance
• Little road maintenance
2005 and beyond
• 2005 – Travel Management Plan
– Motorized Public use of roads and trails
•
•
•
•
2006
2008
2009
2010
–
–
–
–
Re-inventory of streams using BASS
MIS report
Consultation with F&W service
MVUM EA signed
2006 BASS
• Physical features back slide
– Pool Volume
– Surface area
– Thalweg depth
• Mixed results – from stream unraveling
– Embeddedness
– % sands and fines
Volume
160
140
120
Cubic meters
100
80
60
40
20
0
1996
1996
1998
1998
2001
2001
2001
2001
2006
2006
2006
2006
Brushy Caney Board
Gap
Board Brushy Caney
Gap
Board Brushy Caney
Gap
Creek 50 Creek 60 Camp Creek 90 Camp Creek 50 Creek 60 Creek 90 Camp Creek 50 Creek 60 Creek 90
Creek 70
Creek 70
Creek 70
2008 Management Indicator
Species (MIS) report
For the Lower Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion
• Green sunfish and Central Stoneroller
populations are increasing
• Orangebelly Darter and Yellow Bullhead
populations are declining
the reason
• OHV use increases and failure
to maintain roads are the source?
MIS
100
Number of Fish per 100 meters
90
Central Stoneroller in LOM
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ref Mgn
All All
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
90 90
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
91 91
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
92 92
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
96 96
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
01 01
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
06 06
LOM LOM
MIS
100
Number of Fish per 100 meters
90
Central Stoneroller in LOM
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ref Mgn
All All
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
90 90
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
91 91
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
92 92
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
96 96
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
01 01
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
06 06
LOM LOM
MIS
100
Number of Fish per 100 meters
90
Central Stoneroller in LOM
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ref Mgn
All All
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
90 90
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
91 91
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
92 92
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
96 96
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
01 01
LOM LOM
Ref Mgn
06 06
LOM LOM
WEPP Road
• Allows you to model various road/trail
scenarios
• Can build a sediment budget related to road
design, location, use, surfacing, and
maintenance
• Allows you to be site specific with relation to
climate and soils.
• Demonstrated the usefulness of buffers,
erosion control devices (wingditches, cross
drains, waterbars, etc.)
R 23 insloped with rocked ditch
R 22 insloped with rocked ditch
L19 outsloped unrutted
R 23 insloped with bare ditch
R 22 insloped with bare ditch
L19 outsloped unrutted
Output
Road
Seg
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20
Design
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
insloped bare
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
outsloped unrutted
insloped bare
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
insloped bare
insloped bare
insloped bare
insloped bare
insloped bare
outsloped unrutted
outsloped unrutted
Road Road Road
grad len Widht
%
(ft)
(ft)
2
4
5
5
4
4
5
8
7
7
7
9
9
9
8
9
1
5
5
5
165
38
143
110
71
143
126
143
165
93
27
44
66
66
99
44
33
105
99
154
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
11
15
13
13
12
12
11
13
15
14
15
14
13
Fill
grad
%
0.3
70
0.3
0.3
5
0.3
0.3
55
0.3
60
70
0.3
0.3
0.3
65
70
55
55
70
55
Fill
len
(ft)
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
10
5
3
6
2
Buff
grad
%
0.3
0.3
0.3
15
16
10
12
17
10
22
20
0.3
25
22
20
0.3
40
20
10
20
Buff
len
(ft)
1
1
1
60
35
160
150
100
85
15
10
1
40
120
60
1
12
60
90
150
Precip
(in)
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
56.96
Sed
Road
(lb/yr)
1574.41
524.67
2429.69
1835.09
767.56
1617.64
2253.82
4474.84
3134.4
2640.83
524.57
710.03
1158.11
1182.37
3212.21
1975.59
920.48
2611.29
1815.7
2024.36
Sed
Profile
(lb/yr)
1267.32
386.37
1868.82
636.08
194.75
147.39
334.32
1275.85
357.82
1978.4
355.85
484.03
416.54
274.04
1303.12
1613.38
752.59
1215.75
235.34
457.05
Sediment yields in
tons/mile/year– Ouachita Mtn. Ecoregion
Use
Native
surface
road
Gravel
road
ATV trail
Fireline
High
20.8
15.8
23.0
22.6
Moderate
5.5
4.2
6.1
6.0
Low
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
Determining Recreation Use
• A map – high, medium, and low
• LEO and Ranger input
• LEO traffic check points
–
–
–
–
Long term data
Distributed across the forest
Year round data source
Does not capture types of vehicles
• Trail counts – timed counts documenting
direction and type of vehicle
Use levels forest wide
OHV use levels
OHV use levels
Very High
Very
High High .12,000 UPY
Moderate
High
8,000 – 12,000 UPY
Low
Moderate 2,000 – 8,000 UPY
Low < 2,000 UPY
Example of use counts
summer
holiday
summer
weekend
summer hunting
may - sept weekday season
winter/
spring
weekend
winter
weekday
LEO checkpoint data
Vehicles per day
199
percent of summer holiday
number of days
9
95
89
47
23
0
38%
36%
19%
9%
0%
38
85
61
171
Example of use counts
summer
holiday
summer
weekend
summer hunting
may - sept weekday season
winter/
spring
weekend
winter
weekday
LEO checkpoint data
Vehicles per day
199
percent of summer holiday
number of days
9
Actual Count
date
7/4/2008
16 atvs for a 30 minute count
208 ATVs for a summer holiday
95
89
47
23
0
38%
36%
19%
9%
0%
38
85
61
171
Example of use counts
summer
holiday
summer
weekend
summer hunting
may - sept weekday season
winter/
spring
weekend
winter
weekday
LEO checkpoint data
Vehicles per day
199
percent of summer holiday
number of days
9
95
89
47
23
0
38%
36%
19%
9%
0%
38
85
61
171
3,014
6,345
2,427
Actual Count
date
7/4/2008
16 atvs for a 30 minute count
1,872
208 ATVs for a summer holiday
ATV UPY
16,975
3,316
0
Determining OHV Carrying
Capacity for WPG
• Use in 1998 lead to damage <8,000 UPY
• Line did not want a quota system
• From LEO checkpoints and trail counts
seasonal limits could be calculated
– Summer holidays including weekends= 1,872 UPY
– Summer non-holiday weekends = 3,014 UPY
– Combined = 4,886 UPY
• Consultation with F&WS required trail
counts as well seasonal restrictions
2010 Final MVUM EA
• 190 subwatersheds (6th level, 12 digit, 10,000-45,000 ac)
• 21 subwatersheds were identified as a
priorities (OHV, TandE, Mining, Maintenance issues)
• Subwatersheds that are currently exceeding
sustainable carrying capacity – Three – all in the very
high use areas
• WPG
– Limited season - May 15-Sept 15 weekends only and
holidays – 5,000 users per year
– Precipitation and Maintenance requirements
What worked
• Data – water quality
– Stream inventories
(BASS) – worked on
watershed and ecoregion
scale
– WEPP data collection –
provided site specific info
• Models
– WEPP:Road – allows
comparisons of use
– Aquatic Cumulative
Effects – allows for risk
and use comparisons
• Data – recreation
– LEO checkpoints –
surprise data source
– Use counts – limited to
very high and high use
areas i.e. targeted
• Models/spreadsheets
– Seasonal uses –
recreation seasons
– Vehicle counts –
addresses a larger
question of types and
direction
What did not work
• Public buy in
• The existing WPG trail system is based
on a poor trail design
• Need to reinvest in new trails –
obliterate old trails
• Lack of desire to manage use
Yeah but………..