DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER 5 - MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

5.1 Introduction
Recreational uses are the primary benefits of the MLRT to trail users and adjacent communities
alike. Possible uses of the MLRT may affect adversely affect adjacent landowners, may limit
their opportunities to benefit from the trail and may impose risks and liabilities to the managing
entity. Complexity and diversity are two primary characteristics of managing a trail project of
the magnitude of the MLRT within the cultural and economic framework of rural northern
California. Local inhabitants of Lassen and Modoc county live a primarily rural lifestyle,
remote from urbanization and crowded population centers. Many rural residents of the planning
area do not “recreate” by non-consumptive outdoors activities, such as running, hiking, biking
or wildlife watching, but see these activities as economically attractive opportunities. Contrast
this with the average recreationists, who visits the Planning Area on vacations, weekends etc to
“get away” from the urban lifestyle. He or she is willing to spend money to experience a
remote, “unspoilt wilderness”, and nearly always is motivated by non-consumptive values.
This section details the constraints associated with the MLRT and proposes a strategy to
effectively reduce their impact on trail operation and management. Further within the chapter,
possible uses and forms of recreation will be evaluated on their intrinsic impacts on trail and
area resources and visitor safety, potential for unacceptable conflicts with other users, and
impacts on funding and management.

5.1.1 Multiple use

A "multiple-use trail" is defined broadly as any trail that is used by more than one user group, or
for more than one trail activity. Primarily, this relates to different modesl of transportation used
by trail users. Trail-user groups may include wheelchair users, hikers, equestrians, mountain
bicyclists, cross-country skiers, 4-wheelers, “dirt bikers”, all-terrain vehicle users, and
snowmobilers. Other, less frequently encountered user groups include farmers, ranchers, hunters
or loggers pursuing economic activities while using the trail. Government agencies, law
enforcement, emergency responders, and schools may use a portion of a trail for a certain
“official” purpose. Any trail used by more than one of these user groups is certainly a multiple-
use trail.
Multiple-use trails (often called "shared use," "mutual use," or "diversified" trails) are rather the
norm that the exception, and trail users must expect to encounter other users (or evidence of
use) on the MLRT. Although most trail encounters are probably pleasant, indifferent or
tolerable, some may be unpleasant and may seriously affect the user’s values or benefits

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 1 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

achieved from using the MLRT. It is human nature that singular unpleasant experiences are
often communicated widely and tend to polarize opinions and even influence management
decisions.
Conflict can and does occur among any and all of these trail users, due to different values,
expectations and the potential of affecting others. Conflicts can occur even among members of
the same user group. It is the responsibility and challenge for the MLRT managing entity to
understand the processes involved in recreational conflicts and to develop a management
strategy that largely avoids and minimizes adverse effects of one trail use onto the others.
Therefore, the multiple use strategy developed here is designed to address many if not most of
these conflicts and propose solutions.

5.1.2 BLM Mandate

The MLRT will be managed as a multiple use trail to attract and benefit the broadest possible
range of user interests. Multiple use is the mandated philosophy on BLM owned lands, as
specified in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The BLM has been the
strongest supporter of the MLRT, has contributed significant funding and assistance in the
railbanking and planning process and is the MLRT’s largest neighbor, sharing the majority of
the length of the corridor throughout the two-county planning region. Thus, the MLRT
management strategy must be compatible with current BLM multiple use management.

5.2 Constraints
Next to a vision and mission statement, constraints are the critical components that form an
effective and realistic management strategy. Constrains are those factors that limit the range of
possible options or represent potential areas of conflict. Although constraints identified here are
typical and common for trails projects such as the MLRT, additional novel issue and concerns
may arise in the future that may require the revision of this section and the management
recommendations that follow. There are commonly recognized constraints: 1) User safety, 2)
Resource protection, 3) quality of experience, and 4) adjacent lands. The challenge for the trail
managere is reduce or avoid conflict in these areas.

5.2.1 User Safety

The MLRT poses several risks to user safety, due to its remote location, its narrow width and the
harsh conditions of the desert environment. User safety concerns can be categorized into
several classes, depending on the types of users and the kind of risk or hazard involved (i.e,,
human vs environmental).

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 2 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.1.1 Vehicle collisions

Vehicle collisions on a rural trail, whether they involve full-sized vehicles, ATVs, or even
bicycles are almost invariable a result of irresponsible behavior and poor judgment. Excessive
speeds, loss of control of the vehicle or substance abuse are often involved, especially since the
MLRTs remoteness seems to attract behaviors that would otherwise be severely sanctioned on
public roadways where traffic and law enforcement may be more prevalent.

• Recommendation: Implement speed limits, prohibit alcoholic beverages and

implement intermittent enforcement patrols
However, not all areas of the corridor are equally prone to vehicle collision risks. Long straight
stretches where visibility is good and approaching vehicles can be seen from afar exist between
Viewland and Karlo, and Crest and Madeline. User safety in these areas is only slightly
compromised by the fact that the grade in these portions is partly elevated with limited passing
opportunities.

• Recommendation: between Crest and Ravendale, separate north and

southbound traffic in a “one -way” pattern.

• Recommendation: create “turnouts” at least every 3 miles on the elevated

portion of the grade between Viewland and Karlo.

• Recommendation: Create off-ramps south of Sage Hen and on the likely Loop
to facilitate vehicle passing
Unsafe surface conditions may also lead to vehicle accidents, or at least motorists becoming
stuck on the trail. Surface maintenance should concentrate on areas that are unsafe or are
difficult to maneuver (loose ballast).

• Recommendation: restructure soft or unsafe surface conditions, post warning

signs of hazards

• Recommendation: Alert drivers of adverse conditions and advise carrying

personal emergency rescue equipment (tow rope, come along, shovel etc).
There are currently no portions of the trail that are unsuited or impassable to motor vehicles.
However, especially low-clearance 2-wheel drive vehicles are not suited at all segments of the
trail. Especially from Madeline to Sagehen, where adverse weather conditions and loose ballast
can lead to vehicles getting stuck or loosing control, drivers should be aware of challenges to
vehicles without 4wd..

• Recommendation: Recommend 4-wheel drive for all full-size vehicles between

Madeline to Likley.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 3 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.1.2 Emergency responses

Responding to an emergency along the MLRT can take a long time., depending on the
location. The nearest fire stations and paramedic units are usually several miles away and
may have to traverse rough terrain to reach the site of a emergency. Access for emergency
vehicles is crucial to allow effective emergency response and rescue. Management of the
trail surface should be guided by maintaining evacuation routes and access by standard
emergency vehicles.

• Recommendation: maintain access throughout the full length of the MLRT to

emergency and law enforcement vehicles, regardless of whether the trail is open
to motor vehicles for the public.
When an accident or other emergency occurs, the rapid notification of emergency
responders is critical. Currently, wireless phone service along the MLRT is not equally
accessible at all points. Establishing additional towers to enhance cell-phone reception
would be cost prohibitive, but making users aware of this situation should be considered. A
trail map ythat shows the locations of approximate cell phone coverage may prove helpful
in making trail users aware of the remote nature of the MLRT.

• Recommendation: Install mile markers to facilitate easy referencing of

locations to emergency personnel.

• Recommendation: Provide users with warning signs and information about

communications in emergency situations.

5.2.1.3 Natural hazards

Trail users come from all “walks of life” and many may be unfamiliar with the risks and
hazards that are inherent in remote desert areas. Trail users should be made aware of natural
hazards, such as animals (mountain lions, rattle snakes, scorpions), the need to pack
sufficient water (and a warning against drinking from natural water sources), advice on
clothing and footwear, and signs of altitude sickness and dehydration.

• Recommendations; Make sufficient information available to trail users that

details the natural hazards of the area, and advises about the appropriate
behavior and equipment while on the trail.

5.2.1.4 Crime and vandalism

Crime along the MLRT is rarely a problem, however, recent events at Snowstorm Ranch
prrof that criminal activity occurs even in the most remote regions. Very little can be done
to prevent crime along the MLRT, because law enforcement will not be able to effectively

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 4 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

patrol the area to deter criminal activities. Dealing with a crime is the responsibility of the
appropriate agencies, but educating trail users about preventative measures and law
enforcement contacts is the responsibility of the managing entity.
Most crimes that can be expected to occur will be property related. Cars parked at trailheads
are an inviting target for thieves. Locking cars and making sure the parking area has good
visibility are perhaps the most effective deterrents of property crimes.

• Recommendation: In parking areas, post signs advising trail users to lock their
vehicles and not to leave valuables inside their vehicle.

• Recommendation: remove obstructing vegetation where necessary to ensure

that parking areas have high visibility.
Vandalism is likely to be directed primarily towards trail infrastructure (signs, bridges) and
natural features (rock graffiti). Areas close to centers of population may be more pone to these
violations, where local youth may be gathering at trailheads near their home town. Signage is
prone to be shot at by hunters and recreational target shooters. Flat surfaces of buildings,
informational kiosks, signage and natural rock surfaces may be “tagged” by graffiti which may
be very difficult to remove.

• Recommendation: Construct signage of “graffiti resistant” materials.

• Recommendation: Engage local youth in volunteer efforts to periodically clean

up trailheads and parking areas and remove grafitti.

5.2.2 Protecting Natural Resources

Resource impacts such as soil erosion, damaged vegetation, polluted water supplies, litter,
vandalism, and many other indications of the presence of others can lead to feelings of
crowding and conflict. These sentiments can occur even when there is no actual contact among
different trail users. A hiker's enjoyment might be reduced by seeing All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)
tracks near a wilderness boundary, or hearing the vehicle in a distance. Likewise, equestrian
users might be upset to see many cars with bike racks at the trailhead before beginning a trail
ride.
Minimizing environmental impacts is a high priority for the MLRT managing entity. Natural
resources include the trail surface and adjacent natural soils, wildlife, vegetation, water, and air
quality. Historic and cultural sites are also vulnerable to impacts caused by trail use. A
considerable amount of the MLRT trail manager’s time and resources will be spent on
attempting to minimize impacts on these resources. All trail use, regardless of travel mode,
impacts natural resources.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 5 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.2.1 Resource condition assessments and Monitoring

The MLRT implementing entity should consider annual resource condition assessments as a
part of the routine monitoring. These assessments can be made “from the window of a truck”,
simply by having a knowledgeable staff member (LLTT Lands manager) or volunteer drive the
entire length of the track and record resource issues and concerns. An annual report should be
produced, with photos and GPS locations of significant issues, and their resolution or abatement
should be incorporated into the workplan of the coming year. A resource condition assessment
is also a great way to monitor general vegetation trends via a few photo-points that are visited
every year and compared over time.

• Recommendation: conduct annual resource condition assessments of the entire

trail as part of routine monitoring.
A limited inventory of natural resources prior to maintenance and or new construction should
also be considered to be able to document “before and after” conditions. Photo points can also
provide a beneficial monitoring method

• Recommendation: establish photo points before and after new construction

and in critical resource areas to track change of conditions.

5.2.2.2 Livestock and horses

Cattle are currently grazing most parcels of the MLRT, either as part of BLM grazing allotments
or in areas where the MLRT intersects private pastures. Cattle grazing is an effective way to
reduce fuel loads for fire prevention and thus may save the implementing entity costly
vegetation management (mowing of right of ways). Although, the presence of cattle in the
vicinity of a trail can have negative impacts on trail users, most would probably welcome
encountering cowboys on horseback, driving cattle along the MLRT. Several local ranchers rely
on the MLRT when rotating cattle among pastures.
Grazing issues and cattle management must be approached with sensitivity and a good dose of
realism. Fencing is expensive to construct and maintain, and it is visually unappealing and
often not wildlife- friendly. The Managing entity will need to collaborate with BLM and local
landowners to ensure that the presence of cattle is used to the fullest benefit to the vegetation,
land managers, trail users and local livestock operators.

• Recommendation: maintain cattle grazing in all currently grazed pastures and

offer easy and neighborly access to the MLRT to local ranchers.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 6 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Horses and pack stock brought on the MLRT by trail users are also a potential source of
environmental degradation. In some areas, the rough ballast may entice riders to ride parallel to
the grade on native surfaces, thereby creating potential erosion. Maintaining a “horse-friendly”
surface condition is the best insurance against riders leaving the grade and creating alternative
paths.

• Recommendation: maintain surface conditions in a horse-friendly state,

encourage equestrian users to give feedback and to participate in trail
management activities.
Grazing and feeding of horses brought onto the MLRT can create another source of resource
damage. Native grazing opportunities do not exist for equestrians, so riders should be made
aware of the need to bring horse feed with them. The feeding of hay should be discourages, as
it may introduce more weeds along the trail. If horses become a major group of trail users at the
MLRT, weed problems are sure to increase.

• Recommendation: require weed free grass hay or pelleted horse feed at

trailheads and corrals, prohibit grazing of horses on native vegetation

5.2.2.3 Off-road vehicle use

Off-roaf vehicle use is one of the most damaging and visible types of resource conflicts
associated wityh trails. Especially since ATV riding became a popular type of recreation, two-
tracks have sprung up all over the desert. The tracks from just one wheeled vehicle can persist
for many years and cause vegetation damage, erosion and entice other rider to follow.

• Recommendation: Prohibit all off-road use of the MLRT corridor and

associated non-essential parcels

5.2.2.4 Wetlands and streams

In a semiarid landscape, all life is naturally drawn to sites where water is available. Wetlands
are the region’s most ecologically valuable habitats and thus must be protected. Especially sites
like Karlo and Snowstorm canyon are susceptible to degradation by inappropriate access.

• Recommendation: Close all wetlands sites to access by the public. Provide

interpretive signs explaining the values and functions of wetlands and erect
physical barriers that reduce ease of access

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 7 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.2.5 Fire

Fire is one of the most devastating factors in the ecology of sagebrush ecosystems. Native fire
return intervals for most of the native sagebrush communities in the MLRT planning area are
well beyond 100 years. Invasion by annual grasses (Cheat grass) and overgrazing have resulted
in locally altered condidtins that mae native vegetation highly prone to fire. Preventing widfires
is a high priority in the management of MLRT trail users. Approriate signage, informing users
of fire risks, and prohibition of all types of open fires outside of campgrounds should be
considered.

• Recommendation: prohibit smoking and all open flames/fires at all times

outside designated camp grounds.

5.2.2.6 Natural features

Vandalism of plants, rocks, trees and other natural features is a common problem in remote
areas. As visitation rates increase at the MLRT, there will be some damage to vegetation and
rocks. Especially vulnerable are the Cottonwood trees at Karlo, and wildflowers that may grow
within easy reach of the trail.
Recommendation: Prohibit all damaging, removing or collecting of plants, animals and
rocks within the MLRT corridor

5.2.2.7 Public restrooms

Providing public restrooms at trailheads and staging areas may be an important safeguard to
keep these areas clean and sanitary. If “Porta-Potty” type restrooms are used, they must be
regularly inspected, maintained and secured against vandalism (tipping).

• Recommendation: Where necessary, provide public restrooms and keep these

in clean an functioning conditions.

5.2.2.8 Trash

Trash accumulations around trailheads and along the trail are not only estetically unpleasing but
also pose a significant risk to wildlife. Trash collection containers must be placed ar regular
interval and at popular stoopping points and trailsheads. Regular trash maintenance must be
ensured.

• Recommendation: Place trash barrels at all trailheads and popular rest spots,
secure and cover against wildlife, empty regularly.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 8 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.2.3 Providing High-Quality User Experiences

Researchers believe that people who participate in outdoor recreation activities do so because
they hope to gain certain rewards or outcomes, such as solitude, challenge, being with friends or
family, testing skills, experiencing nature, seeing wildlife, or simply getting exercise. Recreation
behavior generally goal-directed and serves to satisfy desires for particular experiences. The
quality of these experiences is often measured in terms of users' overall satisfaction

5.2.3.1 Measuring Quality of experience

Surveys

Threats to Quality Experiences

Noise
Crowding at campsites
Conflict-The verb "share" is generally defined as "to distribute parts of something among
others; to retain one part of something and give the rest or part of the rest to another or others; to
take or use a part of something with someone or something; to do or experience something with
others; to join with others in doing or experiencing something." On the other hand, the verb
"conflict" is defined as "to be at variance, clash, to struggle, or contend" (New Webster's
Dictionary 1992). Conflict can cause serious impacts to recreation experiences, to the point of
causing some users to end their use and be displaced by other pre-emptive users (Schreyer
1979).
According to recreation researchers, conflict is a special type of dissatisfaction. It is generally
defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (Jacob and Schreyer 1980, 369;
Jacob 1977). For example, when a trail user fails to achieve the experiences desired from the
trip and determines that it is due to someone else's behavior, conflict results and satisfaction
suffers. As defined by Jacob and Schreyer (1980), conflict is not the same thing as competition
for scarce resources. If people attribute not getting a parking place at a trailhead to their own
lack of planning, there is no conflict. If they blame the lack of parking places on horseback
riders who they feel have parked their trucks and trailers inconsiderately (whether or not this is
truly the case), conflict will likely result. In both cases, users did not achieve their goals, and
dissatisfaction resulted, but only one was due to conflict as defined here.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 9 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

As with crowding, conflict is not an objective state but depends on individual interpretations of
past, present, and future contacts with others. Jacob and Schreyer (1980, 370) theorize that there
are four classes of factors that produce conflict in outdoor recreation:
• Activity Style-The various personal meanings attached to an activity. Intensity of
participation, status, range of experience, and definitions of quality (e.g., experts and
novices may not mix well).
• Resource Specificity-The significance attached to using a specific recreation resource
for a given recreation experience (e.g., someone running her favorite trail near where she
grew up along Lake Tahoe will not appreciate seeing a tourist demonstrate a lack of
respect for her "special place" by littering).
• Mode of Experience-The varying expectations of how the natural environment will be
perceived (e.g., bird watchers who are "focused" on the natural environment will not
mix well with a group of ATV riders seeking speed and thrills who are "unfocused" on
the environment).
• Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity-The tendency to accept or reject lifestyles different
from one's own (e.g., some trail users "just don't like" people who do not share their
values, priorities, trail activities, etc.).
These four factors have been redefined by Watson, Niccolucci, and Williams (in press) as
"specialization level," "definition of place," "focus of trip/expectations," and "lifestyle
tolerance." Their research suggests that these factors may be better at predicting predispositions
toward conflict than predicting actual goal interference.
Notice that none of the above factors thought to produce (or predispose some to) conflict are
necessarily related to the particular activity a trail user might be engaged in at the time. Also
note that no actual contact need occur for conflict to be felt.
Taking an approach similar to that of Jacob and Schreyer (1980), Owens (1985) attempts to
differentiate more clearly between "conflict" and "crowding" from a goal-oriented social and
psychological perspective. He defines "recreational conflict" as "a negative experience
occurring when competition for shared resources prevents expected benefits of participation
from accruing to an individual or group." He defines "social and psychological conflict" as
"competition for shared resources amongst individuals or groups whose leisure behavior is
mutually exclusive or has contrary objectives and as existing whenever two or more individuals
or groups perceive the (recreational) utility of particular (countryside) resources in terms of
opposing values or goals." In other words, social interrelationships and differences among users
are more the root problem than the physical influences they might have on one another. Owens
develops this concept by introducing two propositions:
1. "Conflict is a process of social interaction which is operationalized with the general
motivational goal of eliminating environmental instability and restoring perceived

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 10 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

equilibrium" (p. 251). According to Owens, all behavior settings have normative "rules."
When competing groups view a setting and its purpose in different ways and/or there is
inappropriate behavior, these rules begin to break down. In such cases people will
employ various coping mechanisms (behavioral, cognitive, or affective) to try to
eliminate the source of stress and try to return things to a more desirable state. Conflict
occurs when these coping strategies are inadequate, unsuccessful, or unavailable in an
acceptable period of time and alternatives seem to be unavailable (i.e., if a person's
coping strategies don't work, his feelings of crowding can become feelings of conflict).
2. "Conflict is a cumulative process of social interaction which once established becomes
an enduring psychological state guiding the behavior of individuals and/or groups" (p.
252). Owens proposed that this is how conflict can be distinguished from crowding.
Crowding is an immediate reaction to present conditions and thus transient. Conflict is
more persistent and enduring, lasting beyond a particular outing. Owens sees conflict
itself as an experience which can be viewed as a continuum from "simmering discontent
and frustration" to confrontation. It may or may not alter actual behavior. If overt
confrontation appears, much of the damage of conflict may have already occurred.
Kuss et al. (1990) noted three types of coping strategies, all of which change the character of the
experience for the user forced to cope:
• Users re-evaluate the normative definition of what is acceptable (i.e., they adapt and
accept the conditions they find).
• Users change their behavior (e.g., use less frequently, use at off-peak times, etc.).
• Users are displaced altogether (i.e., conditions are unacceptable to them, so they stop the
activity or stop visiting that area).
In studies of recreationists on trails, rivers, and lakes, several themes and patterns have been
found to relate to conflict. These themes tend to support the four theoretical propositions
proposed by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) that were discussed above. These themes are:
• Level of Technology-Participants in activities that use different levels of technology
often experience conflict with one another. Examples include cross-country skiers and
snowmobilers, hikers and motorcyclists, canoe paddlers and motor boaters, and
nonmotorized raft users and motorized raft users (Lucas 1964; Knopp and Tyger 1973;
Devall and Harry 1981; Adelman, Heberlein, and Bonnicksen 1982; Noe, Hull, and
Wellman 1982; Noe, Wellman, and Buhyoff 1982; Bury, Holland, and McEwen 1983;
Gramann and Burge 1981).
• Conflict as Asymmetrical-Many times, feelings of conflict are one-way. For example,
crosscountry skiers dislike encountering snowmobilers, but snowmobilers are not as
unhappy about encountering cross-country skiers. This type of one-way conflict has
been found between many different activities (Stankey 1973; Schreyer and Nielsen

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 11 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

1978; Devall and Harry 1981; Jackson and Wong 1982; Adelman, Heberlein and
Bonnicksen 1982). In general, trail users enjoy meeting their own kind, but dislike uses
that are faster and more mechanized than their own (McCay and Moeller 1976;
Goldbloom 1992).
• Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of the Environment-Users in conflict have been
found to have different attitudes toward the environment (Knopp and Tyger 1973;
Saremba and Gill 1991) and may perceive the environment differently. Perceptions may
be influenced by when the user first visited the area, with long-time and frequent visitors
being most sensitive to contacts with others (Nielsen, Shelby and Haas 1977; Schreyer,
Lime and Williams 1984). People who view the environment as an integral part of the
experience are more susceptible to conflict than those who see the environment as just a
setting for their activity. (Low Impact Mountain Bicyclists of Missoula (LIMB), for
example, encourages riders "to use mountain bikes to enjoy the environment, rather than
use the environment to enjoy mountain bikes" (Sprung 1990, 29). Some experiences are
dependent upon very specific environments. Likewise, people can become attached to
particular settings (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989; Moore and Graefe 1994). Some
mountain bikers feel hikers are too possessive toward trails (Hollenhorst, Schuett and
Olson 1993).
• Others as Different-Users experiencing conflict perceive others to be different from
themselves in terms of background, lifestyle, feelings about wilderness, activities, etc.
(Adelman, Heberlein and Bonnicksen 1982). However, trail-user groups are sometimes
more similar than they believe (Watson, Williams and Daigle 1991). Method of travel
and group size are the most visible cues users can evaluate to determine their similarity
to other groups (Kuss et al. 1990). One negative contact can lead some sensitive users to
conclude that "all of them are rude."
• Violation of Norms-Individuals and groups with different standards of behavior (social
and individual norms that define what behavior is appropriate) often conflict with one
another (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Vaske, Fedler and Graefe 1986). Norms of behavior
are established through social interaction and refined through an ongoing process. These
norms influence how people behave and how they expect others to behave. For example,
many fishermen resent canoeists who shout and yell (Driver and Bassett 1975). They
apparently hold a norm that boisterous behavior is inappropriate in those situations. The
strength of the norm violated (as well as the importance of the goal interfered with) will
influence the magnitude of the conflict. Norms appear to be more useful than goals for
predicting conflict (e.g., a hiker and a motorcyclist may share the same goals of
experiencing nature and escaping from the city but may cause conflict for one another).
• Level of Tolerance-Level of tolerance for others is related to level of conflict (Jacob and
Schreyer 1980; Ivy, Steward and Lue 1992). Levels of tolerance vary widely among
individuals depending upon personal norms and situational factors such as group size,
where the contact occurs, when the user first visited the area, motivations, and frequency

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 12 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

of use (Vaske et al. 1986; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). Levels of tolerance are lowest in
"wilderness" areas. Assumed images of activities and stereotyping influence tolerance as
well (White and Schreyer 1981; Williams 1993). This is consistent with the belief
among members of LIMB that Missoula's "live and let live" attitude contributed to their
success in minimizing user conflicts on area trails.
• Environmental Dominance-Users who differ in terms of the importance they give to
"conquering" the environment are likely to conflict. This is related to the importance of
autonomy, control, challenge, and risk-taking goals (Bury, Holland and McEwen 1983).
Another theme related to trail conflict often expressed by trail managers and trail users is the
resentment toward newcomers that is often expressed by traditional trail users. This is similar to
the "last settler syndrome" (Nielsen, Shelby and Haas 1977) where visitors want a particular
place to remain the way is was when they first arrived. The first or traditional users want to be
the last ones allowed access. Mountain bikers commonly complain that hikers want to unfairly
exclude them from backcountry areas just because bicycle use is new and untraditional. This
"last settler syndrome" is particularly acute in areas where one user group has built and/or
maintained trails which are later invaded by other types of uses. Managers and new users must
be sensitive to the understandable ownership the traditional users feel toward trails they have
built and care for. A similar sense of ownership and tradition makes it more difficult to close
trails to a particular use once that use is established. The animosity felt by some long-time
mountain bikers toward managers of the Mt. Tamalpias area (Marin County, north of San
Francisco) is likely magnified by the fact that in the early days of mountain biking, all trails
there were open to mountain biking. Single-track trails were subsequently closed to mountain
bike use.
In addition to the general causes of conflict summarized above, it is instructive to look at
specific factors that lead to feelings of conflict on trails. Sources of conflict can be either willful
or innocent. Some users are irresponsible and unfriendly. They behave in ways they know will
annoy others or damage resources. Many, however, are simply not aware of how they should
behave on trails. Examples of common sources of conflict among trail users reported by trail
managers and users include noise, speed, smell of exhaust, surprise, lack of courtesy, trail
damage (e.g., erosion, tracks, skid marks, etc.), snow track damage, different (and sometimes
unrealistic) expectations, uncontrolled dogs, horse manure, fouled water sources, littering,
animal tracks in snow, wild behavior, and lack of respect for others. Flink and Searns (1993)
believe conflict results from an increase in demand for trail resources, increased use of existing
limited trails, poor management, underdesigned facilities, lack of user etiquette, and disregard
for the varying abilities of trail users (p. 194).
A study of readers of Backpacker magazine found that over two-thirds felt the use of mountain
bikes on trails was objectionable (Viehman 1990). Startling other trail users, running others off
the trail, being faster and more mechanized, damaging the resources, causing erosion,
frightening wildlife, and "just being there" were the biggest concerns (Kulla 1991; Chavez,
Winter and Baas 1993). Keller (1990) notes that brightly colored clothes, a high-tech look, and

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 13 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

the perception of a technological invasion can all be sources of conflict felt by others toward
mountain bikers.
Just as some physical damage to trails is not caused by trail users, some conflicts on trails are
not due to other trail users at all. Aircraft noise from sightseeing planes and helicopters, for
example, is a major irritant to trail users in Hawaii. Noise and smells from nearby roads or
developments can have as much or more impact on trail experiences than conflicts with other
users.
So, following this collection of items that can cause conflict on trails, the relevant question is,
how big a problem is trail conflict? Certainly, conflict is a major problem on some multi-use
trails (Flink and Searns 1993). As mentioned earlier, however, past research has consistently
found that outdoor recreationists are well satisfied with their recreation experiences (Kuss et al.
1990, 191). This has been found in a variety of settings, including trails. Because the conflict
studies noted above were designed to examine recreational conflict, many of them focused on
areas where visible conflicts were occurring. These studies do not give a clear picture of the
scope of conflict that might be occurring on trails in general. Conflicts are certainly a serious
threat to satisfaction, but serious conflicts may not be the norm.
Several studies of multiple-use rail-trails have included questions related to user conflicts. In a
survey of rail-trail managers conducted by the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy in 1991, over half
of the 83 managers responding reported no conflicts or "few if any" conflicts on their trails. The
most common type of conflicts reported were between hikers and bikers, followed by conflicts
between equestrians and bikers. Conflicts involving in-line skaters, cross-country skiers, and
dogs were also reported. A study of three rail-trails in Iowa, Florida, and California found that
users reported little problem with conflict on average. More than 2,000 users were asked to rate
"conflicts with other activities" and "reckless behavior of trail users" on a 7-point scale where
"1" represented "not a problem" and "7" represented "a major problem." The mean response was
less than 2 on each trail for "conflicts with other activities" and ranged from 1.5 to 2.8 for
"reckless behavior of trail users" (Moore, Graefe, Gitelson and Porter 1992, 111-26). The same
study included an open-ended question that asked "What things did you like least about the
trail?" The top three responses were recorded for each user. Of a total of 2,128 comments, 316
(14.8 percent) related to the behavior of other users. The most common of these (239) were
about bicyclists being inconsiderate, riding two-abreast, passing with no warning, going too
fast, and other unspecified concerns about bikers. An additional 72 (3.4 percent) identified
crowding as the thing liked least. Similar results were found in a study of trail users on 19
multi-purpose pedestrian and bike trails in Illinois (Gobster 1990, 32). "Use problems"
(crowding, conflict, and reckless users) received mean ratings of less than 2 on a 5-point scale
where "1" represented "not a problem" and "5" represented a "major problem."
A recent National Park Service study of backcountry recreation management provided
information related to conflicts on backcountry trails in 93 national parks (Marion, Roggenbuck
and Manning 1993). Nine percent of the parks reported that conflicts between horses and hikers
were a problem in many or most backcountry areas. Three percent of the parks reported that

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 14 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

conflicts between hikers and mountain bikers were a problem in many or most areas. Day users
(apparently due to their large numbers), overnight users, horse users, and mountain bikers were
all felt to cause visitor conflicts. Day users, overnight users, OHV/ATV users, horse users, and
mountain bikers were also reported to create problems through inconsiderate behavior.
Conflicts among trail users are a serious problem in some areas. On Mt. Tamalpias in Marin
County, California, for example, "renegade" mountain bikers have allegedly built illegal trails
and engaged in vandalism and sabotage to attempt to gain access to single-track trails closed to
them. However, there are also areas where users are successfully (and apparently happily)
sharing trails. Unfortunately, the existing research does not offer much insight into how
widespread a problem recreational conflict is on trails. Many of the managers we talked to felt
conflict was a problem. Several also volunteered that they expected conflicts to increase unless
they could do something about the problem soon.

Opposition:
benefits are, some trail
projects do encounter opposition when they are
proposed. Verbal confrontations between opponents
and proponents, legal battles, burned trestles, and
blocked trails may make for startling newspaper
headlines but incidents such as these are not
representative of rail-trail projects nationwide. As
with countless other public works projects, citizens
and landowners may well be dubious when a new
rail-trails project is proposed. Landowners adjacent
to proposed trails typically have concerns related to
noise, privacy, littering, property damage, trespassing,
liability, and property rights. Unfortunately, a
few unusually troubled trail projects have captured
the media’s attention and created an unjustified
image of all rail-trail projects as difficult or fraught
with controversy. This report examines 125 trails
that opened between January 1, 1994 and August
31, 1996 in an effort to accurately depict the level of
opposition that trail projects routinely encounter.
The study finds that 85% of trails opened with
either no opposition or with landowner and citizen
concerns addressed through outreach to the
community. In addition, this study takes a closer
look at rail-trail opponents, why some rail-trail
projects fail, and some of the many rail-trail success
stories.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 15 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.3 Management Options

This section describes in detail the different categories of trail use and facilities to be
considered for the MLRT, and their appropriate and prohibited uses.

5.3.1 Trail Use Categories

5.3.1.1 Closed to public access- No use

This section will describe in detail the issues and constraints of complete closure of a
trail segment to public use.

5.3.1.2 Minimal impact recreation

Appropriate trail uses in this category include:
• Foot travel, including cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, etc during winter
• Horseback riding and pack stock (includes all equines, other pack animals, and sled
dogs)
• Bicycling (recreational and mountain biking)
• Motorized wheelchairs and similar devices allowing reasonable access for the mobility
impaired
• animal-drawn wagons, carts or sleds
• driving or herding livestock

Inappropriate trail uses in the “minimal impact” category include

• any motorized vehicle traffic with the exception of emergency vehicles, government
agency vehicles, maintenance equipment and motor vehicles operated by authorized
livestock operators during routine livestock management activities.

5.3.1.3 Low impact – high access

Appropriate trail uses in this category include:
• Foot travel, including cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, etc during winter
• Horseback riding and pack stock (includes all equines, other pack animals, and sled
dogs)
• Bicycling (recreational and mountain biking)
• Motorized wheelchairs and similar devices allowing reasonable access for the mobility
impaired
• ATVs and snowmobiles, motorcycles and motorscooters
• animal-drawn wagons, carts or sleds

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 16 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

• driving or herding livestock

Inappropriate trail uses in the “minimal impact” category include

• passenger cars, light trucks and heavy motorized vehicle traffic with the exception of
emergency vehicles, government agency vehicles, maintenance equipment and motor
vehicles operated by authorized livestock operators during routine livestock
management activities.

5.3.1.4 Maximum access- unrestricted

Appropriate trail uses in this category include:
• Foot travel, including cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, etc during winter
• Horseback riding and pack stock (includes all equines, other pack animals, and sled
dogs)
• Bicycling (recreational and mountain biking)
• Motorized wheelchairs and similar devices allowing reasonable access for the mobility
impaired
• animal-drawn wagons, carts or sleds
• Motorized wheeled recreational vehicles, such as ATVs, four-wheel drive vehicles,
motocycles and motorscooters.
• Snowmobiles
• Vehicles towing trailers, such as horsetrailers, boat trailers, snowmobile and ATV
trailers with no more than 2 axles

Inappropriate trail uses in this category include:

• Motorized vehicles with more than 3 Axles, with the exception of emergency vehicles,
maintenance equipment and motor vehicles and or trailer combinations operated by
authorized livestock operators during routine livestock management activities.
• Tracked vehicles (except snowmobiles)
• Any vehicle-trailer combination exceeding 4 axles.
• Commercial trucks, semis or buses
• Heavy equipment unless operated for trail management

5.3.2 Picnic, Camping, and overnight use

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 17 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.3.2.1 Picnic – no overnight

5.3.2.2 Overnight -Primitive & Low impact

5.3.2.3 Overnight - Improved

5.3.3 Other restrictions:

5.3.4 Trail Maintenance

5.3.4.1 Trail Inspections and Preventative Maintenance

Trail inspections will be completed at least once a year. Trail inspection forms will be completed
and kept on record by LLTT and reviewed yearly by the trails committee. Preventative
maintenance schedules will be based on the work schedule determined by the committee and –
if applicable – a contractor for the trail.

5.3.4.2 Trail Surface

The current trail surface is unsatisfactory insofar as much of the grade still has the riginal ballast
and is too rough for many uses (especially biking and equestrian uses). Thus, changes to
accommodate all trail users must be made in the future The recommended trail surface should
be either the existing cinder base, crushed ballast or a mixture of the two. Surface upgrading
will occur as part of capital improvement projects and as funding and equipment become
available.
The Trail will be graded as needed, preferably after spring break-up while there is still moisture
in the trail base to prepare the trail surface for summer use. The present width of the trail bed (3
m) will be maintained and brush encroaching onto the grade will be cut for the safety of all
identified recreational users and maintenance. Fallen trees, rocks and other similar obstacles
blocking the trail will be removed. Overhead hanging trees will be taken down for safety
reasons. Brush will not be allowed to be piled along the trail. All branches will be chipped onto

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 18 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

the side of the trail. Trail wash outs will be fixed as soon as possible to ensure the integrity of
the trail and the safety of trail users.

5.3.4.3 Bridges

There are numerous railroad bridges along the MLRT. Since these structures were designed to
sustain loads in excess of 100,000 lbs, they will remain adequate for sustaining foot and
personal vehicle traffic for a long time. However, there is considerable concern over the
maintenance of bridges and the possibility of costly liability issues in case of a bridge failure,
especially where the trail is open to motorized vehicles. Federal law 49 CFR Parts 213 and 237
(Bridge Safety Standards; Final Rule) “requires track owners to implement bridge management
programs, which include annual inspections of railroad bridges, and to audit the programs. This
final rule also requires track owners to know the safe load capacity of bridges and to conduct
special inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such inspections.”

However, since rail to trail structures are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), such inspections are no longer mandated. A 2005 study of over 100
rails-to-trails projects (Rails to Trails Conservancy 2005), each containing at least 1 bridge,
revealed that “one-third of bridges are inspected on a recurring basis, with the average interval
being four years. The most common inspection interval is “as needed,” although it is difficult to
discern how this need is identified without an inspection Approximately a quarter of trails report
illegal activities unique to bridges and tunnels, including climbing and jumping from bridges,
along with more standard graffiti and vandalism. Two-thirds of these structures are painted or
sealed. About one-third of these are done only at installation, and two-thirds are done on a
recurring or as-needed basis” (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 2005).

A base line assessment was completed in 2010 and minor repairs, mostly consisting of re-
installing and repairing railings, will be completed to bring the bridges up to technical standard
as first priority for capital construction on the trail.
To ensure effective monitoring of bridge safety, MLRT bridge maintenance will includ a
layman’s inspection to be conducted by LLTT volunteers every 2 years to ensure that decay and
deterioration is detected before it becomes a safety hazard. If serious structural deficiencies are
detected at any time during these inspections, or are reported by trail users or other entities, a
structural bridge inspection will be completed by a certified engineer. Any work recommended

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 19 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

from the inspection will be written into the preventative maintenance work schedule and capital
replacement plans. If the safety of the respective bridge is questionable, the bridge will be
closed to all public. If the trail segment in which the bridge is located, is open to motorized
vehicles, the management entity will determine if vehicular traffic can be safely re-routed
around the structure. If that is not possible, the entire trail segment will be closed until the
structure has been inspected and cleared for public traffic.

5.3.4.4 Ditches and Culverts

Ditches and culverts will be monitored and cleared of debris on an as-needed basis. Culverts
and ditches need immediate attention when flooding and wash outs occur. At least annually in
the spring, after the runoff flows have receded, the management Entity will visually inspect all
culverts and ditches for functionality and will implement repairs or cleaning as needed. Ditches
will be cleared of trees and other vegetation that may block drainage.
Winter Snowmobile Use
Permission for grooming will be given to the on an annual basis with a Memorandum of
Understanding signed with the Township of Seguin and the committee. Grooming will conform
to the standards of trail width. OFSC shall provide proof of insurance which names and
indemnifies the Township of Seguin and the trail maintenance contractor yearly before use will
be granted. All garbage along the Rose Point Recreational Trail will be removed by PSSD after
the snowmobile season.

5.3.4.5 Barriers

The Management Entity may place gates on the trail to restrict vehicle access at certain
segments of the trail. Gates will be constructed of solid materials (wood, metal, concrete) to
deter vandalism and unauthorized access. Gates will be inspected as needed and repaired or
replaced when they are unsafe, ineffective or highly unsightly. Each gate will be locked with a
padlock for which keys are issued to authorized government agencies, Management Entity staff
and livestock operators who lease grazing in the area. The Management Entitiy may consider
opening gates during hunting season to reduce the risk of vandalism to gates.

5.3.4.6 Garbage Removal and Trail Clean-up

“No Trace Use” of the trail will be promoted and trail users will be required to carry out what is
carried in. User groups will be required to take responsibility of their own garbage removal.

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 20 / 21
DRAFT MODOC LINE RAIL TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Clean up days, sponsored by trail users and other community groups, will be encouraged to
educate the public about the purpose of the trail and keep the trail clean. Adopt a trail program
may be considered in the future to build further community support and keep the trail clean.

5.3.4.7 Site –Specific Values

The committee and its partners will ensure there is no impact to the natural or historical values
on or near the trail. Remnant historical features will be left for their historical interpretive value,
unless they pose an unsafe condition.

5.3.4.8 Existing Non Conforming Trail Uses

Those users whose activity creates major impact on the trail (high impact trail activity) may be
required to purchase trail permits and/or contribute time and/or materials for trail maintenance.
Signage
All signage will be approved by the committee. Signs should be compatible with the Seguin
Recreational Trail signage but also incorporate the existing OFSC signage program. All signs
will be posted to inform and educate users what activities are allowed (posted as a multi-use
trail), encouraged or prohibited. All trail signs (OFSC and Rose Point Trail signage) will be
placed on posts, not trees or other structures along the trail. When appropriate, the place or time
an activity is being conducted will also be posted. Trail work signs will be placed on the trail in
both directions to warn trail users of machinery or maintenance vehicles on the trail.
Local and natural history interpretive signs should be placed along the trail where points of
interest are located to enhance the trail experience and education of users.
Wetland Interpretive signage will be placed along the trail in partnership with Ducks Unlimited
Canada to explain the importance of wetlands in the ecosystem.

References:
Rails to Trails Conservancy 2005. Rail-Trail maintenance and operation. Ensuring the future of
your Trail – a survey of 100 Rail-Trails. Unpubl. Report, Northeast Regional Office. Available
online at:
http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/maintenance_operations_report.
pdf.
Federal Railroad Administration, 2010. Bridge Safety Standards. 49 CFR Parts 213 and 23,
Docket No. FRA 2009–0014, Notice No. 2Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 135. P. 41282

TIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

OCTOBER 30, 2010 PAGE 21 / 21