IMPACTS OF NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL USE
BY DONALD V. WEIR

DONALD V. WEIR & ASSOCIATES
204, 10160-83RD AVE, N.W.
EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA
T6E 2C4
PH. (780) 439-5130
FAX: (780) 992-1473
EMAIL: donweir@telusplanet.net

SUMMARY

This is a Summary of a Much Larger Work Available from the Author that is a short course companion manual - 311pp.
The key types of impacts, that are discussed, in the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature, fall into two categories and five broad sections:
Environmental Impacts Impacts to People and Society

• Physical Impacts to Trails · Social Impacts
• Vegetative Impacts · Economic Impacts
• Ecological Impacts

NATURAL DEGRADATION OF TRAILS
Deterioration of the physical structure of trails results from both natural processes and the forces exerted by trail users. Some studies indicate that natural degradation erodes trails more than trail users. The opposite is also sometimes true: User-caused erosion can exceed natural processes where use is heavy or soils are particularly weak.

Empirical studies have looked at natural degradation processes throughout the globe. Leung and Marion (1996) in their literature review looked at these various studies and found that a trail surface's susceptibility to erosion depends on the soil texture, trail width, dead vegetation width, the amount of vegetation cover relative to bare area, the slope angle and climate.

To understand the effect of these natural processes we first have to look at the trail surface, its composition and its genesis. Trail surfaces are primarily soils, geologic deposits and rock.
Horton, (1997) strictly defines soils, deposits and rock in the following way:

• A soil as a material that is formed in place from material in place by chemical or physical processes of weathering or by the deposition and decomposition of organic material.
• A geologic deposit is an accumulation of sediment that has been transported and deposited at a particular location by the action of water, ice or wind.
• Rock is any material that is of a competent nature.

The properties that keep a material together (i.e. resist stress generated by gravity) are collectively known as shear strength. Shear strength is a critical factor in the resistance of a trail surface to human travel-generated forces. In order for a soil or deposit to erode or experience mass transport, the forces acting on the deposit must exceed the shear strength of the material. The forces that work against shear strength are known as shear stress. When the shear stress exerted exceeds the shear strength material, starts to move.

Factors that affect the shear strength of a deposit, soil and rock are smoothness and shape of the grains of the strata (how they interlock), moisture content, mineralogy and the degree of compression, compaction and cementation. These factors affect the properties of internal friction, effective normal stress, and cohesion, which altogether determine the shear strength of a material.
The main processes of natural degradation are erosion and mass transport. The primary processes of erosion are the actions of water, wind and ice on the soil. In the case of mass transport the main culprit is gravity and results in soil creep, landslides or mudflows.

For trails, the processes of most concern are those relating to water movement across the soil surface, particularly splash, wash, and gully erosion. In splash erosion the impact of raindrops mobilizes the surface of the trail. Each raindrop can dislodge a grain of sediment or soil that is three to four times the drop's mass. Ellison, 1947, found that the impact of raindrops on bare soil can mobilize 3,600 tons per hectare of sandy soil in a five-year period. Wash is the action of water flowing smoothly as a sheet across the surface of the trail and removing the dislodged particles.

According to Horton (1997) gully erosion is the process whereby water accumulates in narrow channels and, over short periods of time, removes soil from this narrow area to considerable depths, ranging from 1 - 2 feet (0.3 - 0.6 meters) to as much as 75 - 100 feet (23 - 31 meters). In this type of erosion, the water flow is turbulent and has the ability to remove large amounts of material with small volumes of water.

Steepness is a critical factor in any trail's erosion. Steep trails erode more quickly because when water accelerates its erosive power increases exponentially. In other words, if water speed increases five-fold, the erosive power increases not by five, but by 25.

HUMAN USE IMPACTS ON TRAILS
A clear distinction must be made, however, as the transmission of the compactive and shearing forces is very different for wheels than of feet and hooves. Soane et al. (1981), identified the types of forces exerted on soils surfaces by wheels. Of those that apply to mountain bicycling the most important are the downwards compaction force due to dynamic load on the wheel and the rotational shearing stress from the wheel torque acting around the wheel's axis. Due to the low wheel torque of mountain bicycle this force is negligible in comparison to motorized vehicles.

With the bicycle, the vertical force is a combination of the weight of the rider, the weight of the bicycle, and any downward force caused by the motion of the bike. This vertical force is applied to the trail surface through a small contact patch of tire rubber. This patch varies in size according to inflation pressure and total vertical force. When loaded, such a tire will conform to the trail surface until the loading force divided by the tire's contact area (with the trail surface) equals the inflation pressure of the pneumatic tire. The result is the pressure is equal to the tire's inflation pressure, 35 to 50 psi. In contrast, Cole (1987) found that the instantaneous contact pressure of a human foot can exceed 1200 psi.

This explanation assumes the ideal tire with a smooth surface. Real mountain bicycle tires are knobby and to the extent that the tire sits on knobs, the soil contact pressure increases. In harder soils, tires will sit more on the knobs; in softer soils, pressure will distribute more evenly over the entire surface of the tire. We are unaware of any studies that have actual soil contact pressures.
Further Cessford (1995) asserts that:

Mountain bikes will exert downward force through their tires, although the "mean ground contact pressure", which comprises the wheel load divided by the contact area (Soane et al. 1981, Smith and Dickson 1990) is likely to be less than that of heavier motorized vehicles, horses and heavily laden hikers. Weaver and Dale (1978) noted that motorcycles had least impact on downhill slopes, due to exerting lesser downward forces than hikers or horses. With the lower wheel loadings of mountain bikes, their impacts upon downhill slopes are likely to be much less than those from motorbikes.

The horizontal force is the power applied from pedals, through the drive train, into the rear wheel. Horizontal force is also exerted when the rider squeezes the brakes and transmits this force through both wheels. We estimate, based on an analysis of the effective drive train force, that the lateral force of a bicycle wheel is roughly ten percent of vertical force.

When it comes to foot travel, Quinn et al. (1980) noted that damage from feet was caused first by the downward compaction forces from the heel early in the step, and then from rotational shearing forces from the toe at the end. The shearing action was found to be most important, particularly through soil deformation and "smearing" in wet conditions, and was found to be greatest on up-slope travel. These forces will also cause the impacts to vegetation through trampling.

Weaver and Dale (1978) and Weaver et al. (1979), that during down slope travel, found that downhill stepping (by foot and hoof) was more erosive than downhill motor biking. This was due to the greater downward forces exerted through the heels in down stepping. In an earlier work Bayfield (1973) observed that although 20 percent fewer steps were taken downhill than uphill, the erosive impacts of downhill stepping was still higher.

Repeated passes by bicycles (and most other users) on level ground tend to compress the soils of a trail tread. Vertical compression tends to push particles closer together, thereby increasing shear strength. An increase in the shear strength of the soil means it will have greater ability to resist erosive forces. Thus, trails may erode significantly when young, and then stabilize.
Nevertheless, these compactive forces may create an adverse impact when they occur on soils that cannot withstand compactive forces. Weak soils include hydrated clays that deform easily, loose sands that resist compaction, and organic soils found in wet areas, which over-compact and become susceptible to break down and disintegration, such as the soils of bogs and muskeg.
The effects of these compactive forces can be seen in further detail in Smith and Dickson, 1990, Soane, Blackwell, Dickson, and Painter, 1981 and Ritter, 1978.

Lateral force exerted during acceleration and braking has more significance for trail degradation because it breaks particles apart, lowering shear strength. When lateral forces overcome the shear strength of the soil, spinning out occurs during acceleration and skidding during braking, resulting in the mobilization of soil material.
During acceleration, the lateral forces and consequent erosion occur only through the rear tire. In braking, both tires will cause erosion.

EMPIRICAL TRAIL IMPACT STUDIES
Bjorkman, 1996, conducted tests of the impacts of mountain bicycles in areas of glacial and periglacial terrain in Wisconsin, USA. His findings indicated that wear resistance of trails was highest in areas were the soil was higher in silt content and decreased as the soil had a higher sand content. This is primarily due to a higher grain-to-grain cohesion in smaller grain-sized sediments. This study looked only at bicycles.

Since the advent of the mountain bicycle in the mid-1970s, only one study has been conducted to compare the impacts of bicycles and other travel modes on the physical structure of trails. This was the study conducted by Joseph Seney and published in 1990. Seney, 1990, and Seney and Wilson, 1990.

Seney measured the erosive effects of mountain bicycles, hikers, horses, and motorbikes. His results could not effectively distinguish the impacts of hikers and cyclists. Users in his study caused less erosion than natural processes. Seney observed significant erosion to trails when used by horses and by motorcycles, particularly when they traveled uphill or on a wet trail.
This one study used sound methods involving controls, minimizing variables, and careful measurements. But the study used only 100 passes by trail users and it occurred in only one locale, western Montana. More thorough study is needed before conclusive judgments can be made about the relative trail erosion impacts of different users.

ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Cessford, 1995a, in a literature review and analysis, concluded:
Research to date has indicated that the degree of impacts from mountain bikes, relative to those of walkers who have their own unique forms of impacts, appear to be similar. The general consensus drawn from studies comparing activity impacts was that [erosional] impact was greater on slopes than on level sites; on wet rather than dry surfaces; and that it tended to be greatest for hikers and horses moving down slope, and motorbikes moving upslope. Mountain bikes were not included in these comparisons, but like motorbikes they would tend to roll downhill except when over-braking, and lacking the power to the wheels, generate far fewer gouging impacts from wheel-spin on up hills.

The lower weight of mountain bikes would also suggest that their impacts are much less than those of motorbikes.
This does assume that the wheels continue to turn rather than skidding with hard braking. Such skidding can loosen track surfaces and move material. However, where skidding does not occur, impacts from the normal rolling effects of wheels appear to be less than those of footsteps.

Where a trail is constructed or laid on a hard surface such as rock, bicyclists have negligible physical impact because of the high shear strength of the material. An example of such a trail is the Slickrock Trail of Moab, Utah.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The ecological impacts of non-motorized recreation occur in three broad realms: impacts to terrestrial vegetation, aquatic impacts, and impacts to wildlife and ecosystems. Very little research has addressed the impacts of mountain bikes to any of these systems, and none has compared mountain bikes to other trail users. This paper attempts to make some educated guesses. These hypotheses need much more investigation.

VEGETATIVE IMPACTS
Trampling
The Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983) defines trampling as "to tread heavily so as to bruise, crush, or injure." In the study of environmental impacts trampling commonly refers to the process of destroying flora by the passage of feet, hooves and wheels.

In normal system trail use, trampling of vegetation is a minor factor. Trails facilitate travel in part because of their minimal vegetation and bare ground. Bicycles generally remain on trails, in contrast to hikers and equestrians.
When users walk or ride cross-country or on non-system paths, trampling usually occurs. The ability of flora to resist these forces is species dependent, according to Cessford (1995). With repeated travel, the compaction and shearing forces exerted by travelers will eventually overwhelm a linear corridor of plants and a new pathway will form. These user-created, unplanned trails may cause ecological problems.

Common belief holds that wheeled vehicles cause new trails to form more readily than the actions of feet and hooves, thus justifying the allowance of off-trail travel by hikers and equestrians. Yet, erosion studies cited above, particularly Weaver and Dale (1978), Weaver et al. (1979), Quinn et al (1980), Soane et al. (1981), and Cole, (1987), suggest that in many places, feet and hooves will trample more than bicycle tires. The instantaneous sheer forces exerted on a plant by a foot or a hoof will have much more of a tearing effect than the rolling over and crushing force of a bicycle wheel.

The primary issue regarding vegetative trampling by bicycles is the locomotive force, particularly when their wheels spin. In the case the motorized vehicles, the torque applied to the wheel can exceed the strength of the plant material, thereby ripping it. As noted above, bicycles have much lower torque and weight than motorized vehicles. Even if bicycles cause less trampling than other travel modes, the vertical pressure and lateral sheer of bicycles can harm sensitive plants.

Trampling occurs primarily in campsites. This is of concern as it alters soil biota, destroys the humus components of soils and destroys the productivity in these areas.
Non-native species
Recreationists may introduce non-native species, which then disrupt the native ecological balances.
Recreationists can introduce parasitic and exotic species by:

• The importation of firewood (as happened with the Dutch Elm disease);
• Use of contaminated feed for pack stock; (Weed introduction is exemplified by the infestations in the Lake Louise area of Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.)
• Lack of cleanliness. (A muddy bicycle, hiking boots and clothing can have non-native species seed and spores present in the transported soil.)

AQUATIC IMPACTS
The impacts to aquatic ecosystems by trail-based recreation include:

• Siltation;
• Biologic loading; and
• Introduction of non-native and parasitic species.

Siltation
Siltation in streams and rivers is largely the result of bank erosion. The largest recreational culprits are the wakes of motorized watercraft that erode unconsolidated sediments.
There are examples where significant trail erosion has caused acute siltation impacts. In the mid-1990s, managers of the Tahuya State Forest in Washington state realized that an old system of trails, heavily used by motorcycles and bicycles, was introducing silt into spawning habitat for endangered anadromous fish. They isolated the problem to the stream crossings. Scientists from the state Department of Natural Resources, aided by local high school students, measured and analyzed the problem and experimented with erosion control measures. The results provide some of the best scientific data on trail erosion and excellent information on trail design and tread hardening. They found that, given sufficient commitment and resources, trails can be constructed in a manner that will not cause sedimentation at stream crossings. However, absent commitment and resources, serious water pollution problems can occur at crossings.
The siltation impacts of stream crossings occur with or without use by trail travelers, as much of the erosion is caused by the splash and gully erosional forces noted in Section II, Natural Degradation.

Biological Loading
Recreational impacts resulting in biologic loading are largely due to trail users practicing inappropriate excreta disposal. This excreta acts as fertilizer and will affect the flora and fauna in surface waters. The normal measurable effect is a reduction in the total dissolved oxygen and elevated nitrate and phosphate concentrations in the aquatic environment. These changes in the chemical composition of the water result in changes in the ecosystem species balance, and may manifest as algae blooms.
The amount of excreta produced by user groups is a function of user type and residence time of the user in the area. We can hypothesize that equestrians produce the most by mass; then hikers, who have a longer residence time; and finally the mountain bicyclists who have the shortest residence time and therefore are less likely to need to void.

Non-native species
The introductions of non-native and parasitic species to aquatic ecosystems by non-motorized trail use are usually the result of poor hygiene practices. Giardia sp. and Cryptosporidium parvum are classic examples of an introduction of both non-native and parasitic species. Until the 1970's theses organism were unknown in the Canadian Rockies. It was not until the increase in tourism from Asia and Europe that Giardia sp. was introduced from the Eurasian landmass to North America. Since then it has contaminated water supplies and infected all manner of mammalian species. This has serious cost to society and to the ecology of an area. Giardia sp. infestations have resulted in the need to construct expensive water treatment facilities and decreased the resistance to disease of wild mammalian populations because of the weakening of individuals due to the infection. In the mid 1990's an outbreak of Cryptosporidium related diseases -- attributed to farm run-off, not recreation -- contaminated the water supplies of Milwaukee resulted in the deaths of over 200 people.

WILDLIFE IMPACTS
None of the summer, muscle-powered recreational styles (horseback riding, hiking and mountain bicycling) have been studied rigorously with regard to how they impact wildlife. However, hypotheses may be crafted based upon other studies on the overall effect of humans on wildlife.
Recreational impacts (disturbance) to wildlife are dependent upon a number of different factors that include:
· Wildlife responses, particular to species, to disturbance;

• The sensitivity of different species to disturbance;
• Factors that determine sensitivity to disturbance;
• Environment - cover & escape terrain present in the animals habitat; and
• Type of recreational activity.

Wildlife Responses
Normal responses to disturbance are of two classes. The first is the passive response where the animal feigns death by freezing and hiding, resulting in a lowering of the animal's metabolic rate. This is well documented for most small mammalian species and white-tailed deer. The second response class is the active response, where fight and flight are typified. According to Heuer, 1997 and outlined in Gabrielsen and Smith, 1995, physiologically these two responses are exemplified by the following:
The active response is typified by increased blood flow, heart rate, metabolism, respiration rate, and brain and heart blood flow. The passive defence response decreases activity with the intent of avoiding detection; sound, movement, even breathing levels subsides as the body physiologically shuts down.

Sensitivity Factors
As outlined in Heuer, 1997, the following factors will determine how an animal will react to disturbance by human activity: These include:

• Species
• Time of Day
• Season
• Biological Rhythms
• Age of the Animal
• Previous Experience
• Groups Size
• Social Structure
• Cover & Escape Terrain

Disturbing Activity Characteristics
The characteristics of the human mode of travel in natural areas will also have influence upon how an animal will react to disturbance. Factors that are most important are the predictability and habituation to travel mode, habituation to the recreationist, noise generated by the recreationist (therefore detectability), direction of travel relative to the animal and finally the duration of the disturbance.

TABLE 1: HYPOTHETICAL VARIATION IN THE RELATIVE IMPACT OF NON-MOTORIZED TRAIL USER GROUPS ON WILDLIFE
(+ denotes least impact, +++ greatest impact)

Activity Predictability & Habituation Noise & Detectability Directionality Duration & Residence Time
Horseback + + ++ ++
Hiking +++ ++ +++ +++
Mountain Bicycling + +++ + +
LINEAR DEVELOPMENTS AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
Possibly the most significant recreational impacts to wildlife and ecosystems occur as a result of the existence and use of roads and trails. These effects can occur irrespective of the particular user groups on the routes. The existence impacts relate to fragmentation of habitat, the introduction of non-native species, and the advantages offered to some species that can use roads over other species that cannot.

Landscape
Jalkotzy et al. (1997) in their exhaustive literature review The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature prepared for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers state that a landscape is a kilometers wide section of land, that when discussing wildlife, is comprised of elements to form what is known as a mosaic. A mosaic .has incorporated into it three major elements:

• Patch - a reasonably homogenous non-linear area that differs from its surroundings which could be an oil and gas well site, forestry cut block or a marsh.
• Corridor - in general a reasonably similar linear areas that differ from their surroundings which can be termed as disturbance and remnant. Disturbance and development corridors are trails, roads, seismic lines, fence lines, power transmission lines, and hedgerows. Remnant corridors, long, narrow strips of original habitat in an otherwise disturbance-dominated landscape (e.g., roadside verges in an agricultural landscape or forest strips in a logged forest environment).
• Matrix - the background ecosystem, or land-use type which could be farms or natural forest or prairie.

Development Corridors
When discussing development corridors the effects on wildlife is complex and varied. These effects are the function of both the internal and external structure of the corridor itself. Jalkotzy et al. (1997) state that interior structure is characterized by three elements:

• Width Characteristics - The environmental gradient from one edge to the other.
• Internal Entities - such as roads and ditches.
•  Plant And Animal Community Structure

When looking at the external structural elements of a linear corridor and their effect on wildlife there are many factors that must be taken into account with regards to its surrounding matrix. Jalkotzy et al. (1997) felt the most important were:

• The corridor's relationship to its surroundings. This includes the corridor length, patchiness, distribution of attached nodes, adjoining patches or matrix.
• The curvilinearity and width of the corridor which refers to the variability in width, distribution of narrows.
• The connectivity and gaps in the corridor which describes the degree to which an ecosystem is connected or joined together and gap sizes, gap frequency, habitat suitability in and around gaps.

Corridors act in five different ways pertaining to wildlife. Jalkotzy et al. (1997) found that the functioned, dependent on the external and internal structure, as:

• Habitats - when they provide wildlife with some requisites for survival such as food or shelter (e.g., grazing habitat for ungulates).
• Conduits - when wildlife moves along it (e.g., a wolf traveling along a packed seismic line in winter).
• Filters or barriers - when wildlife movements across or along them are hindered or blocked (e.g., roads with high traffic volumes).
• Sources - if wildlife living in the corridor spreads out into the surrounding habitat (e.g., mice).
• Sinks - if wildlife is attracted to the corridor and die as a result (roads and wildlife-vehicle collisions).

Jalkotzy et al. (1997) also found that these corridors also had six major categories of effects on wildlife, again is dependent on the internal and external structure of the corridor. These categories are:

• Individual disruption - the corridor itself or activities associated with the corridor often disturb wildlife resulting in wildlife leaving the corridor area or altering patterns of use, responses that carry with them costs in terms of energy expenditure and possibly lost opportunities.
• Social disruption - refers to any changes to the social structure of a population as a result of the disturbance corridor. This disturbance may take several forms such as the displacement of wildlife from the corridor into adjacent habitats that are already occupied by other individuals of the same species, changes in group structure for gregarious species, or differential mortality of classes as a result of the disturbance corridor. Disturbance corridors may remove or provide additional habitat for wildlife.
• Habitat avoidance - corridors and activities associated with them may lead to wildlife avoiding habitats close to the corridors. Habitat in the vicinity of the corridor is effectively lost. Fragmentation of the landscape may occur if avoidance of disturbance corridors prevents wildlife from fully using land on either side of a corridor.
• Habitat disruption or enhancement - Disruptions include the construction of all types of road or entire road rights-of-way if they are fenced. Enhancements include features for wildlife if new habitat features are created were not present prior to the construction of the corridor.
• Direct and indirect mortality - Activities associated with disturbance corridors may result in mortalities. Examples of direct sources of mortality are wildlife-vehicle collisions or powerline strikes and electrocutions. Disturbance corridors may also be important contributors to indirect mortality. Indirect mortality is typically associated with human access. Human access generally leads to additional mortality due to hunting, trapping, poaching, and management actions.
• Populations effects - Predators such as wolves may benefit from the presence of the disturbance corridor in a similar way.
• Behavioural responses to disturbance may lead to population effects, typically a reduction in the population. Population effects don't necessarily follow even from significant behavioural responses. Conversely, it is possible that population effects may occur even though no behavioural response to a disturbance was detected. To confirm the presence of a population effect, the demographics of the population must be studied.

HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
Certain species of wildlife, or perhaps even certain individuals in a local population will use a remnant corridor but others may not. The degree of connectivity of a remnant corridor, will often dictate which species and individuals will use it. The degree of movement that this corridor allows is referred to as the corridor's permeability. According to Jalkotzy et al. (1997), when a disturbance corridor has low permeability, then habitats and wildlife populations on either side of the corridor may become functionally separated. These habitats and wildlife populations that are functionally separated are termed to be fragmented. This process is referred to as fragmentation. Succinctly, fragmented landscapes have poor connectivity.

External and internal attributes of disturbance corridors can be altered to reduce their filter or barrier effect Whenever possible, corridor width should be minimized. Curvilinearity should be increased where possible. In addition, Roads and trails should be developed and maintained to the minimum standard necessary for their stated purpose. Such low standards deter use, and promote lower bicycle speeds and reduce the likelihood of encounters.

SOCIAL IMPACTS
There are two main types of social impacts from outdoor recreation: user conflict and interference with the goals of non-recreationists. User conflict occurs primarily among recreationists.

Since the late 1980's much work has been conducted in the realm of social conflict between the various user groups on multiple-purpose trails. These groups include mountain bicyclists, hikers, trail runners and equestrians in the non-motorized class of trail users, and motorcyclists, ATV drivers, jeepers, and other motorized users. Conflict that is endemic between these groups is largely due to perceptions of goal interference.
The statements of Moore, 1996, summarize this:
Trail conflicts can occur among different user groups, among users within the same user group, and as a result of factors not related to trail user activities at all. Conflict has been found to related to activity style, focus of trip, expectations, attitudes toward and perceptions of the environment, level of tolerance for others, and different norms held by different users.

The conflicts outlined in the above statements are at the core of social impacts of trail use. As mountain bicycling is seen as the new kid on the block it often becomes the target of those who see the activity infringing upon their own view of appropriate behaviour in the backcountry or city park.

RECREATION TRENDS
With increases in human population, shifts in activity levels and an increase in the utilization of recreational resources, competition for recreational facilities and spaces is increasing.

In Edmonton Frost, 1995, stated that trail use has risen from an estimated 2.1 million in 1991 to an estimated 2.8 million in 1995 with individual use becoming more significant. Between 1991 and 1995 user group percentages have changed, with mountain bicycling and roller blading showing the greatest increase The percentage change in activities such as mountain bicycling demonstrates a cultural shift in the use of trails to more active use.

As this cultural shift in activity level and style becomes more pronounced further competition for trail resources will become focused between user groups and within groups.

SOURCES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT AND COMPETITION
Conflict among recreationists occurs when a person experiences a special type of dissatisfaction related to a perceived action or inaction by another person. In the case of conflict on trails, this conflict is defined as "goal interference attributed to another's behaviour" (Jacob and Schreyer 1980, 369; Jacob 1977). Competition is usually the result of vying for a scarce resource. Moore, 1996, distinguishes conflict and competition:

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 behaviour, 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 whom 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.

Conflict is not an objective state but depends on individual interpretations of past, present, and future contacts with others and is therefore a subjective judgment. Jacob and Schreyer, 1980, theorized that four factors cause 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;
• Resource specificity - the significance attached to using a specific recreation resource for a given recreation experience;
• Mode of experience - the varying expectations of how the natural environment will be perceived;
• Tolerance for lifestyle diversity - the tendency to accept or reject lifestyles different from one's own

Competition most often occurs when the carrying capacity of a trail is exceeded, according to Jacobi, 1997. Carrying capacity is a complex idea and it depends on physical, biological, and personal factors. Personal factors are especially relevant when recreationists perceive crowding by a newcomer group, which often becomes the target of hostility.

RESULTS OF CONFLICT
Conflict will change the behaviour of individuals. Kuss et al., 1990 observed three strategies individuals and groups have used to cope with conflict. Each strategy forced a change upon the experience of the individual or group:

• Users re-evaluate the normative definition of what is acceptable (i.e., they adapt and accept the conditions they find);
• Users change their behaviour (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).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of an activity are those that affect the material and social wealth of a society. When a community expends resources to manage the economic growth and impacts these expenditures fall into two broad categories:

• Wealth sustaining expenditures; and
• Wealth creating expenditures

These expenditures are used to maintain quality of life and to facilitate economic development, respectively.
In the case of trails expenditures these costs can fall into both categories. The costs of trail maintenance sustain the wealth of a community by maintaining recreational opportunities thereby strengthening the social fabric of the community.

Trail construction and development can be wealth sustaining and wealth generating. First by creating a healthier quality of life and second providing tourism opportunities that can create economic spin-off effects for the local economy.

Two examples of places where mountain bicycling on trails have generated considerable wealth are Moab, Utah and the Rossland-Trail-Castlegar-Nelson area of British Columbia. These areas each have experienced more than 50,000 mountain bike-related visitor days. This translates to $5,000,000.00 annual benefits to each area based on the model created by Fix and Loomis (1996).

RESEARCH, MONITORING AND HABITAT DELINEATION REQUIREMENTS
The current state of practice dictates that any study, defining management strategies and monitoring of impacts in natural areas follows a clearly defined systematic process. These steps are:
1. Preassessment Data Base Review.
2. Review of Management Objectives.
3. Selection of Key Impact Indicators.
4. Selection of Standards for Key Impact Indicators.
5. Comparison of Standards and Existing Conditions.
6. Identify Probable Causes of Impacts.
7. Identify Management Strategies.
8. Implementation and Continued Environmental Monitoring.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OPTIONS
Management strategies fall into two categories. The first are those that deal with indirectly influencing the behaviour of the visitor. The second category is that of direct strategies and involves direct involvement by the land management officials in discouraging use.

INDIRECT STRATEGIES
As the term implies indirect strategies attempt to influence the behaviour of the visitors to an area in order to meet the management objectives. These include but are not limited to:
· Physical Alterations
o Improve or neglect an area.
o Improve or neglect campsites.
· Information Dispersal
o Advertise area's attributes.
o Identify surrounding opportunities
o Provide minimal impact education.
· Economic constraints
o Charge constant fees.
o Charge differential fees.
DIRECT STRATEGIES
Direct management strategies include direct approaches that regulate or restrict visitor activities in order to minimize impacts. Some direct management strategies include:
· Enforcement
o Increase Surveillance.
o Impose Fines.
· Zoning
o Separate visitors by experience level - User Preference Profiles.
o Separate incompatible uses.
· Rationing of use intensity
o Limit use via access points.
o Limit use via campsite.
o Rotate use.
o Require reservations.
· Restricting activities
o Restrict type of use.
o Limit size of group.
o Limit length of stay.

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
As a result of judgments by the various appellate courts in Canada, the United States and the House of Lords in the United Kingdom:
"Each practitioner of a profession or those persons professing to be expert must show a duty of care to their client and other principals (which includes the practitioner's client and the public) and maintain a standard of care in their relevant area of expertise."
Failure to comply has resulted in many costly judgments against professed experts. To prevent further recurrences of legal disputes professions regulated by legislation (engineers, geologists, physicians, architects, et cetera), practitioners must pursue continuing education to remain current and to be continue to be licensed to practice.

REFERENCES
1. Ambrose, S.E., 1996. Undaunted Courage: Merriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the opening of the American West. p 294. Touchstone/Simon & Shuster, New York, New York. 521 pp.
2. Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of winter recreationists on wildlife in a portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 111 pp.
3. Benninger-Traux, M., Vankat, J.L., Schaefer, R.L., 1992. Trail corridors as habitats and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecology 6:269-278.
4. Blumenthal, T. 1996. "Thinking about Separate Trails." In Managing Mountain Bikes: A Guide for Activists and Land Managers. Gary Sprung, editor, 1996. International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado.
5. Bowles, A. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds., R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 109-156. Washington: Island Press.
6. Boyle, S.A. and Samson, F.B., 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.
7. Burkhardt, T., 1996. Landholder Liability. International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado.
8. Cessford, G.R. 1995. Off-road Mountain Biking: A profile of riders and their recreation setting and experience preferences. Science & Research Series No.93, Department of Conservation, Wellington.
9. Cessford, G.R., 1995. Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes: A Review and Discussion, Science and Research Series No. 92. Department of Conservation, P O Box 10-420, Wellington, New Zealand.
10. Cole, D., and Landres P.B., 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.) Wildlife and recreationists--coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Chapter 11, pp. 183-202.
11. Dorrance, M.J., Savage, P.J., Huff, D.E. 1975. Effects of snowmobile on white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(3):563-569.
12. Edwards, I.J., 1977 The ecological impact of pedestrian traffic on alpine vegetation in Kosciusko National Park. Australian Forestry 40. No.2: 108-120.
13. Ellison, W.D., 1947. Soil erosion studies, part IV. Agricultural Engineering, 28:349-353.
14. Fix, P., Loomis, P., 1997. The Economic Benefits of Mountain Biking at one of its Meccas: An Application of the Travel Cost Method to Mountain Biking. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 342-352
15. Foin, T.C., E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz, and B. Holton, Jr. 1977. Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National Park, California, and their implications for park management policy. J. Environ. Manage. 5:1-22.
16. Frost, D. 1995. River Valley Parks & Trail Survey. Unpublished, Edmonton River Valley Parks, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
17. Frost, D. 1997. Personal Communication. Edmonton Community Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
18. Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds., R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 95-108. Washington: Island Press.
19. Gimblett H.R., Richards, M., and Itami, R.M., 1998. A Complex Systems Approach to Simulating Human Behaviour Using Synthetic Landscapes. Complexity International Vol. 6. 1998.
20. GIMBLETT, R., BALL, G., LOPES, V., ZEIGLER, B., SANDERS, W., AND MAREFAT, M., 1995. MASSIVELY PARALLEL SIMULATIONS OF COMPLEX, LARGE SCALE, HIGH RESOLUTION ECOSYSTEM MODELS, COMPLEXITY INTERNATIONAL (1995) 2.
21. Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R., and Vaske, J.J., 1990 Visitor Impact Management: Volume One - A Review of Research National Parks and Conservation Association. Washington D.C.
22. Heuer, K., 1997. Wildlife Disturbance from Backcountry Trail Use: A Literature Review. Prepared for Backcountry Division, Banff Warden Service, Banff National Park, Banff, Alberta.
23. Horton, G. (Comp.), 1997. Water Words Dictionary. Nevada Division of Water Planning, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, NV, USA.
24. Jacob, G.R. and Schreyer, R. 1980. Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12(4): 368-380.
25. Jacob, G.R., 1977 Conflict in outdoor recreation: The search for understanding Utah Tourism and Recreation Review, 6(4): 1-5.
26. Jacobi, C., 1997. Personal Communication. Acadia National Park, Maine.
27. Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross, and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Prep. For Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., Calgary. 115pp.
28. Jennings, D., 1995. Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, Washington
29. Kerkovius, A., 1997. Personal Communication. Calgary, Alberta.
30. Kerkovius, A., 1997. Public Input into Banff Park Management: The Outdoor Recreation Community at the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table. Unpublished, available from author, Calgary, Alberta.
31. Knight, R.L., Miller, S.G., 1996 Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs City of Boulder Open Space Department
32. Kuss, F.R., Graefe, A.R, Vaske, J.J., 1990 Visitor Impact Management: Volume Two - Planning Framework National Parks and Conservation Association Washington DC.
33. Liddle, M.J., 1975. A theoretical relationship between the primary productivity of vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling. Biological Conservation 8:251-255.
34. Marston, D. L., 1985. Law for Professional Engineers, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
35. McLellan BN, Martin DJ. 1991. Managing forest access roads to meet wildlife and fisheries objectives. p. E59-E62. In: Proceedings Wildlife 91 Wildlife & Forestry: Towards a Working Partnership.
36. Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., Miller, C.K., 1997. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird Communities. In press. Ecological Applications.
37. MOORE, ROGER L. 1994. CONFLICTS ON MULTIPLE-USE TRAILS: SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE AND STATE OF THE PRACTICE. REPORT NO.FHWA-PD-94-031, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; 67 P.
38. Nielson, N., 2000. "Insurance," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
39. Noake, D.W., 1967. Camping as a factor in the ecological impact of tourism and recreation. Pages 224-229 in Towards a new relationship of man and nature in temperate lands. Part 1: Ecological impact of recreation and tourism upon temperate environments. Intl. Union Conserv. Nat. Publ. New. Ser. 7. Morges, Switzerland
40. Parks Canada, 1997. Environmental Screening Report: Opening of Ross Lake Trail to Mountain Bike Use. Lake Louise, Banff National Park, Alberta.
41. Paul, E.A. and F.E. Clark. 1989. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
42. Ramey, J., ed., 2000 . Environmental Assessment for Linear Wildlife Openings, Pisgah National Forest, Pisgah Ranger District, Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania And Haywood Counties. North Carolina. USDA Forest Service.
43. Richards, M.T. and Gimblett, H.R., 1995. Recreation assessment of forestlands in ecosystem management: A conceptual model. Technical report, U.S. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
44. Richards, M.T., and Daniel, T.C., 1991. Measurement of recreation and aesthetic resources in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. In A. Tecle and W. Covington, editors, Multiresource Management of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: The Status of Knowledge, chapter 7. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.
45. Ritter, D.F., 1978. Process Geomorphology. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.
46. Sawyer, M., 1997. How recreational activities affect wildlife: a review of Knight and Cole's effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands (1991). Master Network 16:3, 15.
47. Schindler, D., 1997. Personal Communication. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
48. Seney, J 1990. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles and off-road bicycles on mountain trails. Unpublished research report on master's thesis, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Montana State University, Bozeman MT 59717.
49. Seney, J.P., Wilson, J.P., 1992. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles and off-road bicycles on mountain trails. Montana State University, Department of Plants and Soils. 32 pp.
50. Smith, D.L.O. and Dickson, J.W. 1990. Contributions of Vehicle Weight and Ground Pressure to Soil Compaction. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 46: 13-29.
51. Soane, B.D., Blackwell, P.S., Dickson, J.W. and Painter, D.J. 1981. Compaction by Agricultural Vehicles: A Review of Compaction under Tyres and other Running Gear. Soil and Tillage Research 1: 373-400.
52. Sprung, G., 1998. Should we pay to play? International Mountain Bicycling Association, Crested Butte, Colorado.
53. Ufferts, S., 1997. A Mountain Bike Liability Primer. International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado.
54. Wakefield, J., 1998. Personal Communication. Cycling British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
55. Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea, C.A. Oakley, and R.W. Weeks, 1973. Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest recreation, and traffic. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 38:327-337.
56. Wolff, P., 2000. Personal Communication. Tahuya State Forest, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
57. Zabinski, C.A. and J.E. Gannon. 1997. Effects of Recreational Impacts on Soil Microbial Communities. Environmental Management 21(2):233-238.
Back to Top

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Off Road Use of Bicycles

I. POLICY

1. Use in officially designated wilderness:
The Sierra Club reaffirms its support for the Wilderness Act's prohibition of "mechanized modes of transport," including non-motorized vehicles, from entry into designated wilderness.

2. Use of vehicles on other public lands:

a. Trails and areas on public lands should be closed to all vehicles unless
i. determined to be appropriate for their use through completion of an analysis, review, and implementation process, and
ii. officially posted with signs as being open.
b. The process must include
i. application of objective criteria to assess whether or not environmental quality can be effectively maintained, and whether the safety and enjoyment of all users can be protected;
ii. a public review and comment procedure involving all interested parties; and
iii. promulgation of effective implementing regulations where impacts are sufficiently low that vehicle use is appropriate.
c. Trails and areas designated for vehicular use must be monitored periodically to detect environmental damage or user interference inconsistent with the above criteria. Where this occurs, the trail or area must be closed to vehicles unless effective corrective regulations are enforced.
Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 7-8, 1994

II. BACKGROUND

The Sierra Club is concerned about the effects of use of bicycles off-road. Concerns have been raised about effects such as soil erosion, impacts on plants and animals, displacement of other trail users, and impacts on other users' safety and enjoyment. These concerns argue for special regulation, with effective enforcement, of off-road bicycling.


III. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The following Guidelines were developed by the Sierra Club Wild Planet Strategy Team with the help of a Mountain Bicycling Task Force to help interpret and implement the policy on off-road use of bicycles:

A. Purpose

The Sierra Club recognizes that bicyclists can be legitimate users of many non-Wilderness backcountry trails and supports responsible off-road bicycling. In an effort to find common ground and work for positive and shared environmental and recreational goals, the Sierra Club and International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) agreed to a set of principles (Park City Agreement, Appendix A). The Sierra Club affirms its commitment to those principles.
All backcountry users, including bicyclists, have an effect on the environment (e.g., soil erosion and effects on plants and animals). These Guidelines should be used to identify places and situations where bicycles are clearly not appropriate, to recognize opportunities where bicycle use can be encouraged, to minimize impacts where bicycles are allowed, to foster cooperation between trail user groups, and to maximize the quality of the recreational experience for all users.

B. Site Specific Analysis

Public lands include a range of landscapes from urban to backcountry, from alpine to coastal, from desert to wetlands, with vastly different amounts and mixes of recreational use. One solution might not work equally well in all places. Therefore, implementation of this policy will be on a site-specific basis.
No general rule can be drawn concerning appropriateness or inappropriateness of use of bicycles on specific trails or areas until the conditions stipulated in the policy have been met: the appropriate land management agency must complete a competent analysis that considers public input.
Single track trails can present difficult management, safety, and environmental protection situations, but may be acceptable for bicycling as determined on a local, case-by-case basis. See Appendix D for suggestions on reducing impacts of bicycles.

C. Wilderness Opportunities

By law, bicycles are excluded from federal Wilderness areas. Potential for losing opportunities for Wilderness designation should be taken into account when planning bicycle access. Conversely, the potential for losing bicycle opportunities (and replacing such opportunities) should be taken into account when planning Wilderness designation. Sierra Club members are therefore encouraged to work with local off-road bicycle groups when preparing Wilderness proposals.

D. Cooperation and Education

The Sierra Club encourages its members to join in the spirit of the Park City Agreement (Appendix A) and to work with local off-road bicycle groups on projects of mutual interest.
Trail user etiquette and rider education programs may enhance cooperation and reduce friction between different trail user groups, and may help reduce damage to the environment. The Sierra Club encourages all trail users to cooperate in efforts to heighten awareness of, and participation in, these trail user education programs. These and other programs listed in Appendix E may help reduce the need for closing trails to bicycles.

E. Analysis, Review, and Implementation Process

A land management agency must take into consideration the following when assessing bicycle use:
1. Trails open to bicycles must successfully pass an agency review for suitability. Criteria to include in such a review are listed in Appendix C.
2. Trails open to bicycles should fit compatibly into the overall trail system, providing (to the extent possible) a satisfying and safe bicycling experience that will minimize the desire of bicycle riders to enter closed areas. See Appendix D for additional guidance.
3. Trails open to bicycles should be designed to need minimal enforcement, e.g. relying on natural barriers and terrain features such as ridgelines to prevent bicycle riders from straying into closed areas. While signs can be important for regulating bicycle traffic, trails needing excessive and unsightly signage are not appropriate.
4. Implementing regulations should be enforceable, clearly posted in appropriate locations such as trailheads, and emphasized through agency patrols and outreach programs. The regulations should be simple, consistent, and generally understood and widely accepted by all users. See, for example, the Rules of the Trail in Appendix E.
5. Trails open to bicycles should have a monitoring plan developed and implemented. For examples of key elements, see Appendix F.
Adopted by the Wild Planet Strategy Team, January 31, 1998


Appendix A - Park City Agreement
Sierra Club and International Mountain Bicycling Association agree:

1. To work for Wilderness, park, and open-space protection;
2. That mountain bicycling is a legitimate form of recreation and transportation on trails, including single track, when and where it is practiced in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner;
3. That not all non-Wilderness trails should be opened to bicycle use;
4. To create joint projects to educate all non-motorized trail users;
5. To encourage communication between local mountain bicycle groups and Sierra Club entities.
(Agreement reached at Park City, Utah, April 1994.)

Appendix B - Definitions

1. Bicycle -
A two-wheeled human-powered vehicle. For all vehicles powered by electric or internal combustion motors, the Sierra Club policy "Off-Road Use of Motor Vehicles" applies.
2. Single-track trail -
A single-track trail is one where users must generally travel in single file.
3. Public Land -
Public land is land managed by federal, state, or local government, and is open to the general public for recreation pursuits.
4. Significant -
Any degradation of the environment, user safety, or enjoyment may be considered significant, depending on the permanence, scale, intensity, and context of the impact. Determination of the meaning of significant will rest, to a great degree, upon local entities and the regulatory agencies to which they appeal for such a determination. See, for example, the definition in the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.27).

Appendix C - Criteria

When a land management agency reviews suitability of a trail for bicycle use, bicycle use should not be allowed where it would cause the following measurable effects. This list is not all-inclusive.

1. Significant soil erosion or significant damage to streams or fish habitat.
2. Rutting, impairment of trail drainage, breakdown of trail shoulders, and other forms of damage not correctable using U.S. Forest Service trail maintenance standards and techniques.
3. Significant disturbance of plants or animals or their habitat.
4. Damage to archaeological, scientific, historical, or other significant resources, including rare natural features of interest for scientific study.
5. Danger to the safety of bicyclists or other users because of bicycle speed, steep grades, steep terrain, sharp curves, slippery or unstable trail surfaces, or limited visibility. See Appendix D for design features that can improve safety.
6. Significant displacement or annoyance of other non-motorized users.

Appendix D - Some Methods to Reduce Bicycle Impacts (not in priority order)

1. Walk bicycles in certain areas.
2. One-way-only trail sections.
3. Speed limits (though these may be difficult to enforce).
4. Restrict use by time of day, day of week, week of month, month of year.
5. Restrict use by season (e.g. to protect soils or sensitive habitats).
6. Separate different types of uses at trailheads and congested areas.
7. Party size limits.
8. Area permits/licenses, reservations, and trip permits, though these should be instituted only in special situations as a last resort.
9. Trail alignment to minimize soil erosion, avoid wetlands, sensitive plant or animal habitat, and sensitive archaeological or cultural features.
10. Trail alignment to maximize compatibility with adjacent land use and connecting trail use.
11. Natural and artificial design features that restrict bicycle speed, such as barriers and speed bumps, which are not an undue impediment to other non-motorized users.
12. Design features that enhance sight distance, e.g. locating the trail away from tall brush.
13. Design features that minimize trail erosion: proper grades, turn radii, tread hardening, and drainage control.
14. Wide or pull-out sections to facilitate safe passing.
15. Design features for user enjoyment: loop trails, scenic destinations, picnic/camp sites.
16. Barriers to prevent leaving trail. Block and obliterate (rehabilitate) unauthorized trails.

Appendix E - Trail User Etiquette and Education

1. In order to minimize conflicts with other trail users, bicyclists should know and use the established Rules of the Trail: - Ride on open trails only. - Leave no trace. - Control your bicycle. - Always yield trail. - Never scare animals. - Plan ahead.
2. Bicyclists should know and follow applicable laws and regulations.
3. Bicyclists yield trail to foot travelers, both animal and human. Yielding trail means: slow down, be prepared to stop; establish communication; dismount when appropriate; and pass safely.
4. Opportunities to educate users include: audiovisual presentations; public service announcements prepared for television, radio and print outlets; community presentations; production of printed materials such as brochures and posters; information kiosk or trailhead signing; trail information hotlines or Internet sites; bicycle patrols; widely distributing maps and guidebooks; and advertising by equipment manufacturers and suppliers that promotes responsible bicycling. Joint activities can provide rider education, trail planning, volunteer trail maintenance, or just plain fun interaction.
5. Cross-country bicycle travel off trails is not appropriate.

Appendix F - Monitoring and Enforcement
If a trail is determined to be suitable for bicycles, the land management agency should develop and implement a monitoring plan:

1. Identify the impacts being monitored, including impacts to water quality, soils, wildlife, flora, and other users (accidents, injuries, enjoyment of the trail).
2. Establish quantitative and qualitative measurement scales for impacts.
3. Establish impact thresholds which, if reached, trigger correction or closure of the trail to bicycles.
4. Establish a schedule for monitoring activities.
5. Establish a written reporting system.
6. Train personnel to follow the monitoring program.
7. Reliable trained persons from user groups may be used to supplement monitoring by staff.
8. Specify baseline inventories to allow for monitoring of trends.
9. Secure the resources to carry out the monitoring plan.
10. The best enforcement of regulations will come from regular patrolling combined with effective education and an active monitoring program.

Appendix G - Resource List/Bibliography
The following publications may prove helpful to local Sierra Club groups and chapters. They are only suggested readings, and this is an incomplete list.
Roger Moore, Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails; Synthesis of the Literature and the State of the Practice. Federal Highway Administration, Report #FHWA-PD-031, August 1994.
U.S. Forest Service Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18.
Mountain Bikes on Public Lands, Bicycle Federation of America.
Andy Kulla, Recreational Specialist, A New Perspectives Approach in National Forest Management and its Application to Mountain Bike Management. USDA Forest Service Region One, Lolo National Forest Supervisor's Office.
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District trail use policies - 1990 Trail Use guidelines and mitigation measures, January 1993.
Strategic Plan - 1994-98, Mountain Biking Program, San Jacinto Ranger District. USDA Forest Service Region Nine, San Bernardino National Forest.

On January 31, 1998, the Club's Wild Planet Strategy Team unanimously adopted the Background and Guidelines above to accompany the 1994 Policy on Off-Road Use of Bicycles. The guidelines are intended to provide Club groups and chapters with information and guidance useful to making trail use decisions in their area. The roles of policy and guidelines are discussed in "Conservation Policy Development," available from Sierra Club's Office of Volunteer Services.
The Wild Planet Strategy Team would like to thank those who reviewed and commented on the several drafts of the guidelines. A summary of comments on the most recent draft, and responses to those comments, is available from the undersigned.
We will appreciate your thoughts on the guidelines as they are put to use in specific situations: what works, what doesn't, and where improvements can be made. We would also like to add to the Appendices new studies and information that can assist Club volunteers dealing with bicycle use questions. Descriptions of group and chapter experiences with bicycle trail planning and projects will also be useful. Please forward all such comments to the undersigned.
Finally, we are working with the International Mountain Bicycling Association and its affiliates on recreation and conservation projects of mutual interest. To that end, Mark Bettinger of the Club's Northeast Office is available to help resolve conflicts over bicycle use. If your Sierra Club group or chapter is having difficulties with bicycle issues and needs assistance, please contact him at 85 Washington St., Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 (518 587-9166; e-mail: mark.lawler@sierraclub.org).
Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 7-8, 1994
Back to Top