modoc master 5 strategy

8/7/2019 MODOC Master 5 Strategy

1/21


2/21

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 ofthe 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, asspecified 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 MLRTs largest neighbor, sharing the majority ofthe 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 aneffective 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 aretypical 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 managementrecommendations 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

OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 2 / 21


3/21


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 theMLRTs 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 betweenViewland 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 aredifficult 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 tovehicles without 4wd..

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

Madeline to Likley.




4/21


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 emergencyvehicles is crucial to allow effective emergency response and rescue. Management of the

trail surface should be guided by maintaining evacuation routes and access by standardemergency 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. Atrail 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 andhazards 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 doneto prevent crime along the MLRT, because law enforcement will not be able to effectively




5/21


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 trailheadsare an inviting target for thieves. Locking cars and making sure the parking area has goodvisibility 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 isprone 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 maybe 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 airquality. Historic and cultural sites are also vulnerable to impacts caused by trail use. A

considerable amount of the MLRT trail managers time and resources will be spent on

attempting to minimize impacts on these resources. All trail use, regardless of travel mode,

impacts natural resources.




6/21


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 theentire 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 abatementshould 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 allotmentsor 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 costlyvegetation 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 welcomeencountering 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 locallandowners 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.




7/21


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-friendlysurface 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 madeaware 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 attrailheads 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 conflictsassociated 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 regions 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




8/21


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 resultedin 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 usersof 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 remoteareas. 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 beregularly 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 regularinterval and at popular stoopping points and trailsheads. Regular trash maintenance must beensured.

Recommendation: Place trash barrels at all trailheads and popular rest spots,

secure and cover against wildlife, empty regularly.




9/21


5.2.3 Providing High-Quality User Experiences

Researchers believe that people who participate in outdoor recreation activities do so becausethey hope to gain certain rewards or outcomes, such as solitude, challenge, being with friends orfamily, 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 amongothers; 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 ofcausing some users to end their use and be displaced by other pre-emptive users (Schreyer1979).

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 competitionfor 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, anddissatisfaction resulted, but only one was due to conflict as defined here.




10/21


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 ofparticipation, status, range of experience, and definitions of quality (e.g., experts andnovices may not mix well).

Resource Specificity-The significance attached to using a specific recreation resourcefor 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 differentfrom 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. Alsonote 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 todifferentiate 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 usersare 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


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 10 / 21


11/21


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 willemploy 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. Conflictoccurs when these coping strategies are inadequate, unsuccessful, or unavailable in anacceptable 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 ismore 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 overtconfrontation 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 theexperience 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, andnonmotorized 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


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 11 / 21


12/21


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 beenfound 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 visitorsbeing 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), forexample, 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 toparticular 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 sometimesmore 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 toconclude that "all of them are rude."

Violation of Norms-Individuals and groups with different standards of behavior (socialand 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) willinfluence 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 amongindividuals 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


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 12 / 21


13/21


14/21


15/21


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, andmountain 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 MarinCounty, 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 newspaperheadlines but incidents such as these are not

representative of rail-trail projects nationwide. Aswith 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 medias attention and created an unjustifiedimage 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 thecommunity. In addition, this study takes a closer

look at rail-trail opponents, why some rail-trailprojects fail, and some of the many rail-trail success

stories.


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 15 / 21


16/21


5.3 Management Options

This section describes in detail the different categories of trail use and facilities to beconsidered 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


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 16 / 21


17/21


18/21


19/21


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

laymans 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


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 19 / 21


20/21


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.


OCTOBER30, 2010 PAGE 20 / 21


21/21

modoc master 5 strategy

Documents