Tough terrain: the conflicts associated with multi-use trails.

Increasing numbers of Americans are taking to the forests, mountains and open spaces of our country to enjoy the ever-growing number of hiking, cycling and off-road vehicle trails on our nation's public lands. Public land managers at every level from local parks to national forest and park lands report growth in the use of trails. Trail enthusiasts may love their trails, but what happens when everyone decides to get out and hike, bike and ride at the same time on the same trails?

"Trail-user conflict" is a term that has become an accepted part of the trail manager's lexicon. It can describe everything from the annoyance that hikers who are seeking solitude and quiet feel when they hear a string of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) barreling down the trail across the valley, to the very real danger when a horse and rider are startled by a mountain biker who comes up from behind, in silence, and without a courtesy warning.

A number of comprehensive national surveys have found that by aim large, recreational trail users are satisfied with their trail experience. In addition, most trail users do not report any kind of trail conflicts and continue to use trails for recreation and enjoyment. Most trail conflicts that are reported happen on multiple-use trails, otherwise called shared-use or diversified trails. Some conflicts occur on unplanned, unregulated trail routes cut across public lands by ATV riders.

Some conflicts with hikers and other pedestrians occur from "free-riding" mountain bikers who are looking for technical challenges. Whatever the cause, conflicts are emerging as all types of trails from back-country wilderness paths to multi-lane urban paved trails become more heavily used by an American public that is seeking out door recreation, improved personal health and quality leisure time.

However, trail experts have a surprising diversity of opinion on the causes of trail-use conflicts:

"Motorized vs. non-motorized," says Celina Montorfano, director of conservation programs for the American Hiking Society.

"Overuse is at the core of trail-use conflict," says John Monroe, director of Connecticut and Rhode Island projects for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service.

"Trail-use conflict is a management and maintenance issue," says Jeff Ciabotti, vice-president of trail development for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

While there may be a multitude of opinions over the causes of trail-use conflicts, "It is important to distinguish between real trail-use conflicts and perceived conflicts," says Scott Linnenburger, trail solutions coordinator for the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). "A lot of folks have 'perceived' conflicts, and most of these are just due to their needs not being met, such as their serenity being disturbed. Accidents and near accidents are 'real' trail-use conflicts; and these can come from things like having high speed bikes on trails with blind corners or poor shoulders, or slower users not knowing that high speed users regularly travel on the trail they are hiking."

The sheer volume of use is clearly one of the fundamental causes of trail-use conflicts. "The popularity of some trails is a good tiring and a bad tiring," says Martha Roskowski, GoBoulder program manager and former campaign manager for America Bikes. "There are inherent conflicts on all types of trails that allow different types of users. But in years gone by, I regularly biked trails in Colorado that were simultaneously used by hikers, mountain bikers, ATVs, horses and motorcycles, and we rarely had any conflicts because there were so few trail users. If trails are not heavily used, all uses can co-exist."

The hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that have been added to local, state and national recreational trails in the past generation, however, have not kept pace with the explosive growth of outdoor recreation on these trails, and the resulting deterioration of trail conditions and ecological damage from overuse or uncontrolled use is as much a cause for trail-use conflicts as are user-to-user conflicts.

Motorized vs. Non-motorized

The explosive growth of sales of ATVs is changing the face of America's public lands at an astonishingly rapid pace. In less than 10 years, the number of ATVs in the United States has tripled according to the All Terrain Vehicle Association (ATVA), to nearly 7 million vehicles today. Double-digit sales growth continues to fuel the boom, and more and more riders are seeking public lands and public trails on which to ride.

While not against the existence of ATVs, a number of trail advocacy organizations have spoken forcefully against uncontrolled, unmanaged use of these sports vehicles in parks and on public lands. "The proliferation of uncontrolled, off-road-vehicle (ORV) use is one of the greatest challenges facing land managers today, and is presently one of the most serious threats to our national public lands and national forests," says Celina Montorfano of American Hiking Society.

Mary Margaret Sloan, executive director of American Hiking Society, states in prepared testimony, "This spring we began a survey of our 150 member organizations, with a combined membership of over half a million people. What we are learning is that off-road vehicle use is displacing hikers in all regions of the country."

Patrick Holtz, Washington, D.C., staff person for the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) says that the AMA recognizes that unmanaged off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation is a problem. "We take this issue very seriously, and we have focused on legislation, HR 3247, the TRAIL Act of 2003, to address it." He notes that each federal land managing agency has a different standard of what constitutes an offense, and there are no consistent enforcement authorities. "Our willingness to focus on enforcement is proof that the motorized community takes uncontrolled use seriously."

The chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, identified unmanaged off-road vehicle recreation as one of the greatest threats facing our national forest lands. In an Earth Day 2003 speech, he described the impacts to the land, to visitors and to the forest from unplanned and renegade routes through Forest Service lands. "We're seeing more and more erosion, water degradation and habitat destruction. We're seeing more and more conflicts between users." To give an idea of the scope of the problem, more than 90 percent of the nation's 177 forests and grasslands are open to authorized OHV use, but the Forest Service has estimated that there are upwards of 60,000 miles of unplanned and renegade routes.

The urgency of the problem was highlighted by Bosworth who says, "This is not an easy issue to tackle, but if we wait a day, a week, or even a year, the impact on the land and the issues surrounding this problem will become even harder to deal with. We need to address this issue now."

To address the problems created by uncontrolled, unmanaged off-road vehicle use, the Forest Service issued a new draft policy statement on off-highway vehicle use in national forests and grasslands. Opportunity for public comment has closed, but the Forest Service's monumental undertaking to begin to comprehensively manage off-highway vehicle use in the nation's forests and grasslands will put an even greater burden on trail planners, managers and rangers to plan for and manage multiple use trails. The potential for trail-use conflicts will he exacerbated on trails, which may not have been well planned to begin with, and that could be soon be filled to capacity and beyond once designated routes are named.

Poor Trail-Use Design

It is an axiom of trail design that good trail planning will lead to good trails with fewer user conflicts. The converse is equally true: Little or no trail planning almost inevitably leads to trail-use conflicts. "In looking at different trail systems across the country, it is evident that in 85 percent of cases, an actual accident or potential accident could have been prevented with better trail design," says Linnenburger of IMBA.

"A lack of planning for the future is often the beginning of user conflict," says Ciabotti of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. "The more popular a trail becomes the more potential for conflict occurs. If a trail is not planned for future growth and heavier use, problems and conflicts that were not apparent at the outset of public use will surface as trail use gets heavier," he adds. "The trail managers must get user groups around the table at the beginning of the design phase of trail planning. The earlier users are involved in the process, the better. Local public involvement must occur throughout. Also, this process is educational for all the users, and it should continue as the trail is built since it is an excellent vehicle for dispelling user conflicts as they occur."

One aspect of good trail design deals with visitor capacity, and how much use to allow. "Carrying capacity," says Laura Loomis of NPCA, "is a very complicated question, and it depends very much on the objective of the land managing agency for the land and the resource. Until you have that objective established, you can't really decide on proper carrying capacity." Loomis notes that few managers want to say there will be a limit to the amount and type of use. "Many land managers don't want concrete, specific standards, and are reluctant to establish them because of the controversy it creates. This issue, however, has a great bearing on where to put trailheads, how big of a parking lot to build for wilderness areas, and other important management decisions."

Crowded Trails

Stuart Macdonald of American Trails and chair of the National Association of State Trail Administrators doesn't necessarily see a crowded trail as one that is a problem trail. "If you have a trail with too much use, you have a successful trail," he says. "The last thing you want to do is reduce the use. Trying to reduce the use of a popular trail by excluding certain types of users just leads to all kinds of problems, and is not the correct solution," says Macdonald.

Martha Roskowski of GoBoulder agrees. "There are some things that you can do to address overcrowding--such as creation of volunteer trail patrols, promotion of alternate routes, dispersing use by reducing intensity of use, splitting trails at high-use areas into one-way segments--but the first approach should always be education."

However clever and creative trail managers are, practical solutions to crowded trails do not make up for selfish behavior on the part of some trail users. Christopher Douwes, a planner for the byways and bikeways team of the Federal Highway Administration who administers the nationwide Recreation Trails Program grants, says, "There are some people who refuse to share the trail. It's not that they can't, but a very small percentage thinks their use of the trail is better than yours, and elitism like that can cause trail-use conflicts."

Jeff Spellman, park ranger for Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, concurs from his own experiences. "It is not necessarily the type of use such as hiking or biking or running that causes conflict, but it comes down to the user, and the respect they show for each other."

Loomis of NPCA says, "Trail-use conflicts often occur because there hasn't been a clear explanation and discussion of what is appropriate behavior. There needs to be a clear understanding of what is appropriate and what isn't. If you treat people as if they are intelligent and explain your decisions, they will respect them."

GoBoulder's Roskowski has perhaps the most succinct answer to the problem of crowded trails: "The solution is really very simple," says Roskowski. "It's more trails!"

Case Study in User Conflicts

The Mianus River Park in Stamford, Conn., provides a good window on how trail-use conflicts begin with increased use and perceptions of overcrowding, and once perception becomes reality, problems grow until park users sit down and agree to work toward a solution that benefits everyone. Stamford, Conn., owns the 110-acre undeveloped woodland park that abuts another 110-acre tract of woodland owned by Greenwich, Conn.

The Mianus River, a natural trout stream bordered by a mature oak forest, flows through the Stamford tract, and attracts fishermen, swimmers and waders. The woodlands are crisscrossed with dirt trails that get heavy use from hikers, dog-walkers, mountain bikers, fitness walkers, trail runners and bird watchers. Dense suburban development surrounds the forestland, and "many, many people are looking to enjoy outdoor recreation in the woodlands," says John Monroe, National Park Service planner for the Rivers and Trails Program.

Problems have grown from steadily building public use, which is growing primarily from word-of-mouth, according to Monroe, who has been invited by the city to help facilitate resolution of some of the conflicts. "It's become a park that is being loved to death by those who use it, and people have a lot of passion about how it is treated," he says. "Overuse is at the core of the conflict, and overuse diminishes the trail experience for everyone," Monroe asserts. "Actual uses may not conflict with each other, but it is the park users' perception that they do."

Roger Moore, a recognized expert on trail conflicts who published a 1994 report for the Federal Highway Administration and the National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee entitled "Conflict on Multiple-Use Trails," distinguishes between the conflict of expectations and the conflict of mode, and notes the conflict of expectations is more important. He also notes that no actual contact between users needs to occur for conflict to be perceived.

Monroe credits the city of Stamford with being proactive about solving the user conflicts in Mianus River Park, and providing good support to involve park users in a dialogue. "The key to solving these conflicts has been building working relationships among the user groups," he says. "They need to get acquainted, identify the real and perceived conflicts, and then identify and agree on potential solutions." Monroe notes that "Even if they sit down confident that they will never agree with other groups, it is surprising how much understanding is possible. I love that moment when understanding creeps around the room."

Monroe described another Rivers and Trails-sponsored gathering of trail user groups from around the state, w*ho produced an unexpected outcome from their discussion of trail conflict issues. "The group absolutely agreed on one fundamental principal, namely, that the loss of open space in the state was their biggest problem, and that they should all work collectively to prevent its loss."

Promise and Perils of Technology

Many trail experts believe that advances in technology can lead to solutions for trail-use conflicts. Advances in snowmobile engine technology, for example, are widely credited with reducing the noise impact of snowmobiles in backcountry environments. Significant improvements in 4-stroke engine technology have made snow machine engines quieter, so much so that the primary noise from 4-stroke machines "now comes from the tracks themselves, not the engines," says Chris Jourdain, executive director of the American Council of Snowmobile Associations. And the perceived loss of power? "Not so," says Jourdain. "Those who say that, just haven't ridden them. It may have been true for first and second generation engines, but not any more."

However, off-highway vehicle noise is clearly one of the most widespread and difficult causes of trail-use conflicts. Dennis Mann, founder of the Sensible, Courteous, Off-road Enthusiasts (SCORE) and technical director of the Pennsylvania Off Highway Vehicle Association (PAOHV), says that "Clearly, for us, noise from motorized, off-road vehicles is the biggest source of trail-use conflicts." Mann also says with some regret, "Unfortunately, many still believe in the old way of thinking, that 'louder is stronger,'" adding, "This is not about 2-stroke or 4-stroke engines. The industry has made huge gains in getting maximum performance from a quiet engine. The issue comes down to noise, and we need to solve that."

Mann's group SCORE was the recipient of the 2004 national award for education from the Recreational Trails Coalition, a trail advocacy group for both motorized and non-motorized groups, for its creation of a technical library that focuses on five 'problem zones' relating to the impacts of off highway vehicle riding including sound, water quality, erosion, wildlife and other user groups (for more information on the library, which is on CD-ROM, visit the PAOHV Web site at www.paohv.org). "Our whole focus on every issue is education," Mann says. "There are a small percentage of people who don't want to change and who don't care what the other side thinks.

Everyone should realize that they don't have the right to take a good outdoor experience away from people by their noise."

Some aspects of new technology make trail managers and advocates quite concerned. New and evolving ways to put motorized vehicles on trails have every type of trail manager wary. "New technology is making it easier, faster and more convenient to give access to even the most remote areas of our public lands," says Loomis of NPCA. "Technology advances are one of the greater sources of challenges for public lands managers. Park agencies should require that as any new form of technology is introduced to convey people on public lands that there be an agency-level determination of appropriateness of use before granting authority for allowing such use," says Loomis. "And granting of this authority should not be pushed down to the local manager level. Frequently, they are not in a position to assess the impact of such uses." She notes the difficulties that the National Park Service has bad with the unregulated use of Personal Watercraft (PWCs) in National Parks. "There was a real fight over this because there was no policy in place."

"We can never really tell what future technology will bold," says Spellman, the park ranger from Phoenix. "Motorized skate boards with big wheels, mini-mini bikes--we just don't know what the next fad will be." Spellman offers a comment on the positive benefits of new technology and new trail design techniques as well. "New technology has greatly assisted our physically challenged patrons," he says. Assisted devices and better design of accessible trails has led to development of "Challenge Trails," which create an enjoyable trail experience tier seniors and the physically challenged.

Others have pointed to the promise of technology, such as improvements in trail counter technology. Linnenburger of IMBA describes new automated infrared trail counters that not only tell you exactly how many trail users you have and when, but are sensitive enough to distinguish whether they are hikers, mountain bikers, or horseback riders.

Spellman notes how the vastly increased use of the Internet by trail patrons was beneficial for getting the word out on trail conditions, special events, and regulations. He noted that information could become quickly outdated, and that if it is inaccurate it creates nightmares. One of the best aspects of the Internet for trail users was that it gave them excellent opportunities to give feedback, and report hazardous or problem conditions on the 250 miles of Phoenix trails.

Trail-Use Solutions

The most encouraging news to surface from the discussion of trail-use conflicts is the fact that there is real hope for real solutions, and there is evidence from many trail managers and trail users across the country of true progress in solving conflicts.

"One of the best things that ever happened to the trail-use community was the creation of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP)," says Christopher Douwes of the Federal Highway Administration. "The requirement for each state to form State Trail Advisory Committees composed of both motorized and non-motorized users who regularly sit down and try to work out solutions to trail-use conflicts gives me hope for the future."

IMBA's Linnenburger says that one &the best signs that real solutions are possible is the growth of multi-use trail advocacy groups. He describes the Ohio Trails Partnership as a great example of "hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers and other trail users sitting down at the same table, looking of solutions." He notes the Friends of Haw Ridge in Haw Ridge, Tenn., and the Capital "W" Wilderness Advocates in Virginia as other excellent examples of this philosophy in action.

"They recognize it makes no sense for us to work against each other because we all realize that by working together we are all getting what we want." And, he notes that when these groups get together and ask for more open space or new trails, they are a much larger and more cohesive community of interest, and they olden get what they ask for. "Sixty percent of the Ohio Trails Partnership trail proposals become a reality."

"Most trail-use conflicts can be solved at the local level if people are willing to work with each other," says Steve Elkinton, program leader for the National Trails System for the National Park Service.

Ciabotti, a visionary thinker of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy says, "I am optimistic that increased use will bring increased cooperation among trail users. As more and more people use trails, I believe people will respect each other more as they see others using and enjoying trails. After all," says Jeff with a twinkle in his eye, "Trails are a living laboratory for democracy."

For more information, visit www.americantrails.org, which is maintained by the national non-profit trail advisory group, American Trails.