Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; August 2007; v. 13; no. 3;
p. 241-253; DOI: 10.2113/gseegeosci.13.3.241
© 2007 Association of Engineering Geologists
Development of a Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines for OHV Recreation Management in California
TRINDA L. BEDROSSIAN1 and
STEPHEN D. REYNOLDS1
1 California Geological Survey, 801 K St., Suite 1324, Sacramento, CA 95814
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
In 2004, the California State Parks (CSP) agency contracted with the California Geological Survey (CGS) to update the 1991 Soil Conservation Guidelines/Standards for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Management. Per state legislation, the 1991 standards were updated to establish a generic and measurable standard at least sufficient to allow restoration of OHV areas and trails. Given the rapid increase in OHV use in California, the updated Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines for OHV Recreation Management also allowed for sustainability of trail systems and recreation opportunities. A key part of the update was interaction with stakeholders, agencies, and other interest groups through public workshops and a Consulting Agency Review Committee composed of representatives from the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation, and CSP. CGS also assessed proposed revisions in three representative OHV areas to ensure that the updated Standard and Guidelines provided sufficient flexibility to allow their application to all sites state-wide, ecosystems with multiple geology and soils types, and a variety of vehicle uses. While geology was not the only basis for the guideline revisions, it was a major factor. CGS staff also had the breadth of knowledge and experience in engineering geology, hydrogeology, road and trail construction, erosion control, and OHV riding necessary to coordinate and develop the multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder effort.
Key Words: OHV Management • Soil Conservation Guidelines • Erosion Control • Applied Geology
|
Introduction
|
|---|
The California State Parks (CSP) agency manages nine State Vehicular Recreation Areas (SVRAs; Figure 1) and provides a soil conservation standard and guidelines to local and federal agencies through a grant process for activities related to off-highway vehicles (OHV). The standards and guidelines apply to the development and management of approximately 100,000 miles (160,000 km) of public roads, trails, and open ride areas available for OHV use in California. These include narrow-width and single-track trails for all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles, as well as wider trails and connector routes for four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles.
View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Map showing general locations of 270 OHV areas in California. Nine of these areas (shown with star) are state-owned and/or state-managed SVRAs. The remaining OHV areas are predominantly owned and operated by BLM or USFS. The soil conservation standard and guidelines apply to all SVRAs and all federal and local projects that receive state-funded OHV grants. (Graphics by Lisa Ohara)
|
|
In 2004, legislation passed that required the CSP to update the 1991 Soil Conservation Guidelines/Standards for OHV Recreation Management (abbreviated 1991 Guidelines/Standards herein). Based on past experience with regulation and guidelines development and the necessary technical expertise, CSP contracted with the California Geological Survey (CGS) to update the 1991 Guidelines/Standards to allow for sustainability of OHV trail systems and recreation opportunities as well as to allow for restoration.
Background
California's OHV Program was created in 1971 when Governor Reagan signed the Chappie-Z'Berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 as part of a state-wide effort to manage a vigorously growing recreational sport. The new law established a blueprint for managed OHV recreation in appropriately designated areas and required maintenance and oversight to ensure long-term use consistent with environmental practices (California State Parks, 2002). The intent of the legislature was for California to provide a safe place to ride, while also providing stewardship of the land. Since its passage, more than 100 laws have been passed related to California's OHV Program, as have numerous federal actions that have affected management of the program. The California Legislature first mandated the development of a soil loss standard for OHV use in 1987. The 1991 Guidelines/Standards were developed as a result of this mandate (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1991).
The 1991 Guidelines/Standards required OHV areas and trails to be maintained in a condition that allowed for feasible rehabilitation by resource managers. The 1991 Guidelines/Standards also required the use of an erosion hazard rating system specifically designed for OHV assessment purposes, and an annual monitoring system whereby all portions of a given site were mapped and designated green, yellow, or red. All areas rated yellow were required to be repaired before the next annual monitoring, while red required action to be initiated for repair, closure, and rehabilitation within six months. The 1991 Guidelines/Standards also required agencies that operated OHV areas to develop site-specific plans that set their own performance standards, using various design and maintenance criteria. The project standards were to be reviewed and approved by qualified scientists prior to funding of any project.
Since implementation of the 1991 Guidelines/Standards, OHV use in California has more than quadrupled. At the same time OHV registrations have increased, and the acreage available for recreational OHV use has been reduced significantly. Close to 50 percent of the California desert (Figure 2) alone has been closed to OHV use due to implementation of recent desert-related legislation (California State Parks, 2002). This has resulted in the need for CSP to more closely examine and assess the management and maintenance of decreasingly available recreational lands with regard to potential impacts of increased usage on the environment. Changes in equipment (Figure 3), combined with increased usage, have also resulted in the need for modified trail design and more frequent maintenance in some areas. Hundreds of miles of roads now used for OHV trails were originally constructed in the early twentieth century for other purposes, such as mining, timber harvesting, and general access. These legacy trails, which were not always constructed to current environmental standards, often exhibit challenges related to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, watercourse crossing design, and general public safety.
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. The recent closure of many OHV trails in California's desert lands has resulted in increased usage in areas that have remained open, especially those in close proximity to large metropolitan areas. OHV areas such as Heber Dunes SVRA, Ocotillo Wells SVRA, and Imperial Sand Dunes east of San Diego may experience anywhere between 15,000 to 200,000 OHV users a day during peak-season weekends. (Photo by Kelley Ristau)
|
|
View larger version (127K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Since implementation of California's 1991 Guidelines/Standard, new OHV equipment, like the high-powered dune buggies pictured here, have become popular with many recreational OHV riders. (Photo by Kelley Ristau)
|
|
Because more than 90 percent of OHV recreation opportunities occur on federally managed lands; Figure 1), the future of OHV recreation and sustainable land use in California will require continued cooperation among state, federal, and local government agencies in the application of the various laws and regulations related to OHV use and environmental protection.
Application of The Standards and Guidelines
California's complex geologic and topographic landscape provides a variety of soil types and associated engineering properties where erosion control is often difficult. The updated standards/guidelines are sufficiently flexible to allow for application to all sites state-wide, ecosystems with multiple soils types, and a variety of vehicle uses. Because the updated guidelines serve as resource management and infrastructure maintenance guidance for OHV use both on designated and multiple-use roads and trails and in open ride areas on public lands, it is the land managers' responsibility to determine the recreational activity causing any specific resource damage and initiate the appropriate action.
The soil conservation standard and guidelines apply specifically to: (1) the development and management of California's SVRAs, and (2) all acquisition, development, and trail and road maintenance projects on federal and local government lands that receive funding from the California OHV Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program. Table 1 summarizes various sections of the Public Resources Code that mandate their use in SVRAs and in state-funded OHV grant areas. Table 1 also provides examples of other local, state, and federal laws and regulations that are applicable to the assessment and management of OHV areas in California and that must also be recognized and addressed.
|
The Standard and Guidelines Update Process
|
|---|
A key part of the 1991 Guidelines/Standards update was interaction with stakeholders, agencies, and other interest groups through public workshops and a Consulting Agency Review Committee (CARC), which consisted of representatives from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), California Department of Conservation (DOC), and CSP. CGS was also asked by CSP to assess proposed guideline revisions in three OHV areas, i.e., one SVRA, one BLM grantee area, and one USFS grantee area.
Public Workshops
Three public workshops were held in Sacramento and Ontario (California) during the fall of 2004. Public notices were sent to the various OHV agencies and members of the OHV Stakeholders Group, placed in local newspapers within a 30 mile (48 km) radius of each workshop, and posted on the California Off-Road Vehicle Association website.
During the workshops, participants convened several round-table discussions on the 1991 Guidelines/Standards. An effort was made to ensure that various interest groups were represented at each discussion. These included representatives from: BLM; Blue Ribbon Coalition, Western Division; California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs, Inc.; CGS; California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Commission; California Off-Road Vehicle Association; CSP; California Trail Users Coalition; El Dorado Equestrian Trails Foundation; Legislative Action Office/Motorcycle Sports Committee; Moser-Cunningham Real Estate, Inc.; National OHV Conservation Council; Off-Road Business Association; private consultants; private landowners; Sierra Club; Stewards of the Sequoia; Trails Unlimited; and the USFS. During the round-table discussions, team members were asked specifically, based on their experience, to: (1) identify which 1991 Guidelines/Standards worked well; (2) identify which 1991 Guidelines/Standards did not work well; and (3) make suggestions for improvements. At the end of the discussions, participants at each table were asked to prioritize their issues and present their comments to the whole group. Individuals were also encouraged to provide independent written comments, especially if they wished to highlight an issue or if they did not fully agree with their particular round-table findings. The findings of the 2004 workshops are documented in detail in Bedrossian and Bedal (2005). The key findings of the 2004 workshops included:
- The concept of using green, yellow, and red for designating the condition of trails is useful. However, participants in all three workshops agreed that the definitions (i.e., trigger categories and time frames for implementing remedial work) needed to be changed and that non-soil-related topics should be deleted. Other definitions were also outdated and needed to be revised to reflect current legislation, regulations, and concepts.
- The 1991 Guidelines/Standards are not user-friendly. They are too subjective and are labor-intensive. They should be reorganized and revised to be more objective and applicable state-wide. While the standards should be technical in nature to provide better soil protection and ecological relevance, consideration needs to be given to field staff and training in order to recognize and address problem areas appropriately (i.e., when to call in technical specialists). A best management practices approach should be considered to include cost-effectiveness.
- The Guidelines/Standards should be consistent and/or tiered with other agency OHV standards. Other pertinent laws and/or guidelines should be incorporated by reference. New laws and requirements since 1991 may also need to be considered.
- The scope of various projects needs to be clarified. The guidelines/standards should provide a clear, consistent, non-biased approach to determining when mitigation, closure, or restoration is required. The guidelines/standards should be applicable on a regional as well as site-specific basis to address variables such as soil type, vegetation, climate, and hydrological conditions, and they should support overall management practices. The overall goal should be to retain flexibility to manage/maintain riding areas for recreational use, not just closure. Application of the guidelines/standards should be differentiated by land-use type, i.e., trails, roads, vegetation management, fuel breaks, snowmobiles, open areas, etc. They should also address all soil types and appurtenant conditions that affect erosion. This may require consideration of watershed-wide effects and the history of past use and timing of project work regardless of land ownership.
- The guidelines/standards should apply to work done on both trails and open areas. In order to provide better soil protection, issues pertinent to these areas should be addressed according to the setting and ecological relevance. Consideration should also be given to dune ecosystems (Figure 4) and asbestos-rich soils.
- New monitoring protocols are needed. Because monitoring is important to project success and overall health of the trails, a checklist should be developed so field technicians can screen conditions and problems that need to be referred to a specialist. Annual monitoring requirements, such as those currently used by the USFS, are essential. Databases should be maintained for photos and criteria set for retaining consistency on how they are taken. Clear criteria for monitoring should be based on local/seasonal conditions. Technical specialists should assist local field staff in evaluating appropriate mitigation for difficult sites.
View larger version (95K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. These mesquite sand dunes at Ocotillo Wells SVRA offer enhanced all-terrain vehicle riding opportunities while protecting the 70–100 year old shrubs. The use of designated trails is required in the unfenced mesquite area to the right of the photo, while a portion of the dunes to the left of the photo is fenced to allow restoration. Springs seep from the ground year-round, providing an oasis for wildlife, including birds, lizards, and coyotes. Archeological investigations have indicated that several Native American groups and early settlers used the now-protected site for shade, water, and trading practices. (Photo by Kelley Ristau)
|
|
These and other findings from the three public workshops were taken into consideration in the development of the three pilot surveys (see below), and the revision of the 1991 Guidelines/Standards.
Consulting Agency Review Committee
As mandated, CSP/CGS sought input to the 1991 Guidelines/Standards update by establishing a CARC composed of representatives from BLM, USFS, NRCS, USGS, DOC, and CSP. The purpose of the committee was to provide technical and policy guidance and review work performed by CGS during the 1991 Guidelines/Standards update process. The primary functions were to:
- meet quarterly with CGS for updates on progress with guidelines and standards;
- help to identify policy issues or problems associated with the 1991 Guidelines/Standards;
- identify directions for possible new approaches and assist in refinement of approaches in selected areas of expertise;
- participate in selected site visits to resolve technical issues;
- review monitoring protocols;
- review CGS draft work products in light of agency policy issues;
- help to identify potential large-scale planning issues associated with the updated standard/guidelines; i.e., proposed new areas to consider; and
- identify potential funding issues.
The CARC met a total of four times during the development of the updated standard/guidelines and several times during the review of various drafts. Early in the process, the CARC expressed concern about the rapid increase in OHV use and the need for clear management directives. On federal lands, the key issues were economics and staffing, desert (open) areas versus trails, and how state laws would be implemented. The CARC recommended that the BLM Dove Springs OHV Area be used as one of the pilot survey sites, along with USFS Foresthill OHV Area and Hollister Hills SVRA (Figure 5). The CARC agreed with public workshop comments regarding implementation of a tiered approach to best management practices and federal guidelines, and to applicable laws, perhaps by using "by reference" options. There was a strong feeling that the updated standard/guidelines should clearly identify and explain where they are to be applied and also address California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act implications.
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Map of California showing locations of the three OHV pilot study areas and other OHV areas where site visits were made during development of the updated standard/guidelines. Hollister Hills SVRA is underlain primarily by Tertiary-age fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale in fault contact with older granite and schist typical of the Coast Ranges. The Foresthill OHV area is composed of a variety of Sierra Nevada rock formations, including Tertiary volcanics, metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, serpentinite, and other ultramafic rocks. The Dove Springs OHV Area is underlain predominantly by erodible Quaternary alluvial fan deposits, tuffs, and volcanic mudflows in a semi-arid desert environment. Other sites visited by CGS included a diverse set of ecosystems with multiple soil and vegetation types representative of the state's complex topographic, geologic, and climatic framework. (Graphics by Mel Patel)
|
|
The CARC also reviewed a detailed outline that CGS provided for proposed guideline reorganization and made suggestions for additions and deletions to the format. The CARC agreed that the updated standard/guidelines should apply to work conducted on open areas and that monitoring requirements should be extended to existing trails and watercourse crossings. Other CARC comments addressed the need to identify off-site effects and points of compliance; to include a toolbox of methods for determining erosion potential; and to clarify the qualifications needed by individuals signing various planning documents related to mitigation/restoration work. In addition, the CARC felt a facilities-based approach to the updated standard/guidelines should be considered and that restoring hydrologic function to retain sustained use should be a focus.
The CARC also visited the Foresthill pilot survey area to observe the site-specific areas used by CGS for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of several existing and proposed guidelines. Based on discussions at this meeting, the CARC agreed that the updated standard/guidelines should address legacy issues (i.e., inherited conditions from past land uses) and that technical experts may be needed to assist local staff with developing appropriate mitigation measures for difficult sites.
Pilot Studies
As part of the update of the 1991 Guidelines/Standards, CGS conducted assessments at the Hollister Hills SVRA, the USFS Foresthill OHV Area, and the BLM Dove Springs OHV Area (Figure 5). The consensus of the CARC was that these three areas were representative of the majority of environmental conditions found in California's OHV areas and that data collected from the studies could be used to test the feasibility of implementing the updated standard/guidelines. Site visits to other OHV areas throughout the state provided additional insight into the development of criteria for OHV areas with special design requirements (Figure 4).
In preparation for the site-specific assessments, CGS collected geologic, pedologic, meteorological, hydrologic, botanical, and infrastructure data for each of the three OHV areas. These data were incorporated into a Geographical Information System used to evaluate spatial relationships for selecting locations for site-specific assessment. In addition, CGS conducted reconnaissance-level site visits of each of the three OHV areas to further evaluate potential locations for site-specific assessments. Selection criteria were developed from readily available data sets that captured properties of the physical setting and trail usage identified as being important by the CARC. These included geology, soils, slope, exposure, vegetation, hydrology, trail type, and level of usage. More specifically:
- An inventory and maps of soils and geology at a scale of 1:24,000 for the three OHV areas were compiled as an interactive ArcView project with accompanying databases.
- Existing and planned conditions were identified and described using existing data sources to:
- develop 1:24,000 scale base maps to present geologic and soils data by location and classification; hydrologic, landslide and erosion data; flora and fauna; and roads and trails;
- prepare an inventory of existing and planned recreation uses for which the standard/guidelines would be applied; and
- prepare a narrative to include information on any special climate, vegetation, habitat or other condition that may impact the soil guidelines/standards/protocols.
- Patterns in levels of road, trail, and open riding use were evaluated by: using existing data on soils management; reviewing grant applications or audits; reviewing existing statutes, regulations, permit requirements, Memoranda of Understanding and other relevant agreements or planning processes regarding OHV recreation activities; and consulting potential partners who could provide operational support, including jurisdictions subject to the standard/guidelines.
- Particular aspects of OHV operations were surveyed and reported on as they related to soil conservation, including climate (both within each site and at larger scales such as desert/forest); location and timing/period/patterns of use; and types of activities impacting soils, including maintenance.
- Research methods, additional data needs, and monitoring/management recommendations were identified.
The field portion of the site-specific surveys had two main components, the overall assessment of each of the three OHV areas examined and more detailed evaluations. In the overall assessment, CGS worked with local staff to compile and document "lessons learned" regarding what had and had not worked with respect to erosion control and trail maintenance in each of the three areas. These case histories were used in developing examples for the best movement practices best management practices portion of the updated standard/guidelines.
The more detailed evaluations involved surveying and mapping specific trail segments and adjacent ground. Survey monuments were established and the trail tread, and other site features subject to erosion, were surveyed. The initial survey at each site was used for comparison with subsequent surveys at the same location. In addition, the evaluations considered site-specific hydrology of the trails and their location with regard to the hydrologic network of the trail system and the OHV recreation area.
While site conditions varied at each of the three locations, CGS was able to draw several generalized conclusions from the site evaluations. These included:
- Erosion is greater in watersheds where trails are hydrologically connected. This occurs where trails are constructed such that they capture runoff and divert it from one watershed to another watershed (Figure 6). Flow in the receiving watershed is increased, often beyond the capacity of the drainage network, resulting in downcutting, bank erosion, mass wasting, and sedimentation in the downstream portions of the watersheds. In addition, the hydrologically connected trail or trail system becomes part of the drainage network, increasing drainage density, runoff intensity, and overall erosion. In some cases, the need for features such as sediment basins can be eliminated with minimal correction of the road and trail alignments and the redirection of water back into its native watershed.
- Active headcuts at watercourse crossings appear to be related to trail gradient or class. For example, watercourse crossings tend to be very flat where low-gradient trails are maintained on steeper gradient slopes. This process results in a localized flattening of the stream gradient to which the stream responds by trying to re-establish its original grade and, ultimately, creating a headcut near the crossing (Figure 7).
- The vast majority of volunteer trails are of a higher degree of difficulty than constructed trails within the trail system (Figure 8). These exhibit a wide range of conditions with respect to erosion and sediment delivery. However, the findings suggest the need for more planned trails of higher difficulty within some areas to curtail off-trail usage and its associated erosion.
- Major sources of sedimentation in some areas are from the roads that cross the OHV areas but are not directly related to OHV use (Figure 9). For example, roads within OHV areas may be used to access campsites, mine sites, aqueduct and power lines, and/or be used for fire control. While erosion and sedimentation along these roads varies with local variations in soil conditions, the prevailing road design (often constructed prior to, and without consideration of, OHV use) and maintenance routines are often key factors in accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
- Erosion and sedimentation impacts are also high in the vicinity of staging areas and campsites, both planned and volunteer (Figure 9). This is due to more intensive OHV, hauler, and other recreational vehicle use around these sites. One approach to reducing such impacts would be to limit camping opportunities to areas that can be managed.
- The underlying geology plays a significant role in the generation of sediment, especially in different climatic regimes. In addition to affecting erosion rates, different rock types and their associated structure affect the strength, dilatency, and water-holding capacity of resultant soils, which thereby affect overall hydrological conditions, vegetation patterns, and compaction. In some areas where resistant bedrock has been exposed, there may be less erosion if OHVs are allowed to operate on steep, entrenched trails rather than trying to maintain these slopes with rolling dips. In highly erodible materials, even small volumes of overland water flow can cause significant erosion (Figure 9). In these areas, it is important that maintenance activities disperse, rather than concentrate, runoff on both the roads and trails.
View larger version (144K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. OHV trails along the ridge top have diverted water from its natural watershed on the far side of the ridge onto trails leading into the hill climb in the foreground of the photo, thereby accelerating erosion on the hill climb slope. Proper installation and redirection of drainage along ridge top trails will hydrologically disconnect the two watersheds and reduce erosion and sedimentation in this area. (Photo courtesy of CSP)
|
|
View larger version (175K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. Active headcuts and culvert blockage often occur at watercourse crossings where low-gradient roads and trails are maintained on steeper-gradient slopes. Insufficient and misplaced drainage along the all-terrain vehicle trail, combined with insufficient culvert-sizing and maintenance, has resulted in both partial blockage of the culvert and continued erosion of soils near the culvert outlet. (Photo by Stephen Reynolds)
|
|
View larger version (149K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8. Areas with a large number of "volunteer" trails may indicate the need for planned trails of higher difficulty in order to control erosion and sediment delivery, as well as satisfy the rider community with higher skill levels. Determining the general recreational profile of the people who use an OHV facility on a regular basis (i.e., through user surveys) can help in the planning of soil projects that will reduce the development of unauthorized trail systems. (Photo by Stephen Reynolds)
|
|
View larger version (121K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 9. Erosion and sediment impacts are high along multiple-use roads (i.e., those used for access to activities other than OHV riding; left and center), in the vicinity of staging areas and campsites (right background), and in highly erodible soils regardless of slope steepness and overland water flow (foreground). Such impacts can be reduced by surfacing multiple-use roads and parking/staging areas with crushed rock, limiting campsites to managed areas, and designing drainage to avoid concentrated water flow. (Photo by Stephen Reynolds)
|
|
These, and other, conclusions were supported from reconnaissance-level observations and discussions with local staff in other SVRAs and OHV areas visited by CGS throughout the duration of the pilot study.
|
Revision of The Standard and Guidelines
|
|---|
Based on input from the public workshops, comments from the CARC early in the process, and information gathered during the pilot studies, CGS used a facilities-based approach in revising the guidelines. In the planning and designing of any sized project, the updated standard/guidelines require managers to take into consideration regional soil, geology, vegetation, climate, hydrogeologic conditions, and legacy issues inherited from past land uses, as well as site-specific criteria. In addition, potential off-site effects of any given project must be identified and mitigated. Designed to be consistent with other agency standards and guidelines, both for trails and open areas, the updated standard/guidelines offer a tiered approach to assessment, maintenance, monitoring, project design, and construction that allows the application of best management practices. While the green, yellow, and red system for evaluating trail condition has been retained, the criteria for repair and restoration have been modified to allow for reasonable and achievable timelines based on site-specific conditions. In addition to revised definitions applicable to OHV use, new monitoring protocols and criteria for computing erosion hazard potential, evaluating trail condition, and implementing and evaluating trail maintenance are also included.
CGS submitted the updated Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines for OHV Recreation Management (California Geological Survey, 2007b) to CSP in January 2006. Based on CSP and CARC comments, various components of the standard were modified to clarify the new standard requirement that facilities be managed for sustainable long-term prescribed use without generating soil loss that exceeds restorability, and without causing erosion or sedimentation that significantly affects resource values beyond the facility boundaries. Minimum requirements applicable to the standard were also added. Methods for achieving the minimum requirements were elaborated in specific sections of the guidelines related to assessment, maintenance, monitoring, project design, and construction.
|
Next Steps
|
|---|
Once the updated standard/guidelines are adopted by CSP, they will be posted on the CGS website at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/thp/ohv.htm. CGS geologists will then conduct training sessions on how to effectively implement the Standard Guidelines on the ground. CGS is also in the process of preparing a Geology and Soils Index to OHV Areas in California (California Geological Survey, 2007a) and an OHV Soil Conservation Training Manual (California Geological Survey, 2007c), which will be made available to field staff and managers who need more information on implementation of the updated standard/guidelines and best management practices for OHV management.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
Based on CGS input and experience, as well as the expertise of the various CARC members, consensus was successfully reached on CGS proposed changes to the 1991 Guidelines/Standards. While geology was not the only basis considered for the updated standard/guidelines, it was a major factor in determining the hydrogeological conditions and erosion potential of the soils underlying a given OHV area, and the best locations for planning road and trail alignments, construction and maintenance activities, and the placement of water diversion and erosion control features and structures. Because the broad knowledge base of the science of geology prepares geologists and state surveys to bring together multi-disciplinary stakeholder groups, which each have their own views of application of science to the problem, it is possible that state geological surveys elsewhere can play an important role in the development and implementation of other multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder regulations and guidelines. In addition to assisting CSP with the development of the updated standard/guidelines, CGS is under contract with CSP to evaluate geologic and erosion control issues associated with the management of roads and trails within individual SVRAs and to review the effectiveness of various projects submitted under OHV grant proposals. CGS staff also are assisting CSP with the evaluation of the suitability of OHV land acquisition proposals in terms of potential geologic, oil and gas, and mining and mineral hazards; sedimentation and erosion control issues that may affect water quality; and hydrogeologic conditions that could preclude long-term OHV use consistent with sound environmental practices.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
Funding for this work was provided by the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of CSP under direction of Daphne Greene. Project work was conducted in concert with CGS geologists John Schlosser, William Short, and William Harris, and with office assistance from Amanda Bedal, David Dixon, Lim Larose, Mel Patel, and Lisa Ohara. Special thanks are extended to CARC members John Key (BLM); Jeff Applegate (USFS); Jerry Reioux (NRCS); David Miller (USGS); John Munn (representing DOC); Rick LeFlore, (CSP); and technical advisors Jim Keeler and Jim Weigand (BLM); Kathy Mick (USFS) and Roger Poff (USFS consultant); and Phil Jenkins, Lowell Landowski, and Bruce Lund (CSP). The authors also wish to thank Kelley Ristau for providing desert photos and Chris Alger, Christopher Sexton, and a third anonymous peer reviewer for suggestions that helped improve the original manuscript.
|
REFERENCES CITED
|
|---|
Bedrossian, T.L., and Bedal, A., 2005, Summary of Findings, 1991 OHV Soil Conservation Guidelines/Standards Workshops, October 4, October 26 and November 6, 2004: . 36 California Geological Survey unpublished report for California State Parks, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, January 18, 2005, (http://www.conserv.ca.gov/CGS/thp/ohv.htm).
California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1991, Soil Conservation Guidelines/Standards for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Management, . 78 California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division,.
California Geological Survey, 2007a, Geology and Soils Index for OHV Areas in California: unpublished report for California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.
California Geological Survey, 2007b, Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Management: unpublished report for California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.
California Geological Survey, 2007c, Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Management Training Manual: unpublished report for California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division.
California State Parks, 2002, Taking the High Road: The Future of California's Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Program, The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Sacramento, California. 98.
Copyright © 2009 by Association of Engineering Geologists
TOP
ABSTRACT
Introduction
