Manager Perceptions of Issues and 

Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle 

Management on National Forests in 

California

Deborah J. Chavez and Nancy E. Knap

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PSW-RP-250

May 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Author

Dr. Deborah J. Chavez is a project leader and research social scientist with the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures 

Research Unit, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507-6099. E-mail: 

dchavez@fs.fed.us. Nancy E. Knap is a social science technician on the same unit. 

E-mail: nknap@fs.fed.us.
 Contents 	 	

1 In Brief

3 Acknowledgments 

5 Introduction 

6 Methods 

7 Results

7 Area Background Information

7 Level of Activity

7 Planning

9 Management Issues

14 Seasonality of Issues

14 Management Actions

19 Intersection of Management Issues and Actions

19 General Comments

19 Actions Used Most Often and Perceived as Most Effective

20 Discussion

22 Limitations

22 Summary

23 Future Research

24 References

27 Appendices

	 27	 A. Survey Instrument

35 B. Natural Resource Issues and Management Actions

	 36	 	 	 1: 	Soil Erosion or Trampling

	 45	 	 	2: 	Soil Erosion or Compaction

	 53	 	 	3: 	Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

	 61	 	 	4: 	Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

	 68	 	 	5: 	Vegetation Damage

	 75	 	 	6: 	Graffiti or Other Vandalism

	 83	 	 	 7: 	Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

	 90	 	 	8: 	Harassment of Wildlife

	 95	 	 	9: 	Noise and Smoke

	101	 	 	10: 	Reduction in Size of Habitat

	106	 	 	11: 	Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

	111	 	 	12: 	Dust near Developed Campgrounds

117 C. Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency Issues and Management Actions 

118 1: Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails.

127 2: OHVs Going Too Fast
136 3: Lack of Safetywear 

143 4: Alcohol Use

149 5: Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

155 6: Large Group of Four-Wheelers

161 7: Dangerous Drop-Offs, Mines, Etc.

166 8: Too Many People at Trail Access Points

172 9: Wilderness Trespass

177 10: Dangerous Driving Routes

182 11: Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

187 12: Lack of Safety Flags

192 13: Multiple Land Jurisdictions

197 14: Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

202 15: Lack of Consistent Funding

207 D. Social Conflict Issues and Management Actions 

208 1: Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

213 2: Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

218 3: Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

223 4: Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

228 5: Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

233 6: Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

238 7: Conflicts with Owners of Private Land

243 8: OSV-OHV Conflicts

249 E. General Respondent Comments on OHV Use
1

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

In Brief...

Chavez, Deborah J.; Knap, Nancy, E. 2006. Manager perceptions of issues and 

actions for off-highway vehicle management on National Forests in California. 

Res. Paper PSW-RP-250. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 253 p.

Retrieval Terms: off-highway vehicles, outdoor recreation, recreation management, 

communication, collaboration

The Chief of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Dale Bosworth recently identified four major issues facing National Forests: fire and fuel, invasive species, habitat 

fragmentation, and unmanaged recreation. Chief Bosworth cited off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use as illustrative of unmanaged recreation. OHVs are motorized 

vehicles capable of traveling off-road year-round and include over-snow vehicles 

(OSVs). 

OHV issues are complex and require research attention. Of particular interest 

are the perceptions of managers of OHV activity. They are most likely to understand the complex nature of OHV issues and to take the actions required for mitigating them. 

A survey of 45 managers of OHV areas on National Forests in California was 

conducted. Identified through an internal USFS mailing list and National Forest 

Web sites, managers received questionnaires via email in advance of telephone 

interviews. Almost all of the respondents considered control of OHV use a forest 

management concern. Several expressed concern for erosion and other negative 

impacts on natural resources (for example, water quality). Some felt that OHV use 

could be managed successfully.

Size of OHV areas for which managers were responsible varied greatly. The 

areas had a median of 0 miles of paved road open to nonhighway legal OHV use, 

275 miles of unpaved road open to nonhighway legal OHV use, 32 miles of paved 

road closed to nonhighway legal OHV use, and 36 miles of unpaved road closed to 

nonhighway legal OHV use. The median number of OHV riders annually for these 

areas was 20,050. Half of the respondents reported that most OHV use occurred 

during the summer. About one-third reported the presence of concessionaires or 

nearby businesses that rented OHVs for use in their area. 

Almost all managers reported that their forest plan had provisions for OHV 

trails and opportunities and considered the differences in use according to season. 

About half reported that they had completed other surveys to show use patterns, 

documented impacts, or visitor impressions of OHV use.
2

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

Management issues were divided into those related to Natural Resources, 

Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency, and Social Conflict. Overall, OHV managers 

reported an average 7.49 issues observed or reported. For the top 10 most frequently 

named issues, 6 were Natural Resources issues (soil erosion/trampling, soil erosion/compaction, litter/trash on roads and trails, litter/trash at trail access points, 

vegetation damage, and graffiti or other vandalism). In the Regulatory/Behavioral 

and Agency classification the issues most frequently observed or reported among 

the top 10 were: four-wheelers going off established roads or trails, OHVs going too 

fast, lack of safetywear, and alcohol use. No item in the Social Conflict classification appeared in the top 10 issues nor were any reported by more than one-fifth of 

the respondents. 

Managers did not frequently identify conflict between recreational users. When 

conflicts were named, they most often occurred between OHV riders and hikers/

backpackers and between OHV riders and mountain bikers. 

Management actions were categorized into those which indirectly impact 

recreation visitors, those which directly impact recreation visitors, resource hardening, and bridge-building/collaboration. Overall, OHV managers reported an average of 7.47 actions used. The most frequently named indirect actions were use of 

posters and signs, bulletin boards, user ethics, maps, and brochures. Direct actions 

were mainly law enforcement, but there was some reliance on closing or limiting 

use as well as relocating or designating OHV trails. The most frequently named 

resource-hardening actions were staging areas with parking facilities and use of 

artificial tread (e.g., geofabric with sand and gravel) and drain dips (reversal of 

grade). Bridge-building actions were mostly personal contacts, but also included 

volunteer patrols, local OHV club meetings, maintaining trails with local groups 

and volunteers, and adopt-a-trail programs. Actions identified most often overall 

were personal contacts (bridge building/collaboration), law enforcement (direct), 

and posters and signs (indirect). 

Some of the same issues identified by Chief Bosworth and others were identified by the managers interviewed for this study; specifically, these were soil erosion 

and habitat destruction. Managers with these same problems can use the study results to determine what kinds of actions are being used in California and to evaluate the efficacy of the actions taken.

Unlike a national study of mountain bike management in which indirect actions 

were used most often, actions used most frequently by National Forest OHV managers in California were bridge-building/collaboration and direct. Of the bridgebuilding/collaboration actions, described as “used most often” and “most effective,” 

personal contacts dominated. There may be constraints to implementing personal 
3

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

contacts, namely personnel, training, and the requisite funding. Next most frequent 

actions used were direct, such as law enforcement. These actions, too, may require 

substantial funding, personnel, and training. 

This paper is intended to provide a practical reference for future research on 

OHV use on public lands and a source of ideas for Federal and State land managers 

nationally. Appendices provide information about specific actions USFS managers in California are taking to manage respective OHV problems and how effective 

they perceive these actions to be.

 Acknowledgments

The study was funded from State OHV Trust funds provided to the Pacific Southwest Research Staion (PSW) through Rich Farrington in the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). Dr. Farrington was also instrumental in providing manager contact 

information. We are indebted to the three reviewers who offered comments on the 

first draft of this research paper.

We thank Deanne McCollum, social science technician at PSW, for her assistance with data collection. We also thank the OHV managers in California for their 

time and input in this endeavor.

5

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Introduction

The Chief of the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Dale Bosworth, recently identified 

four major issues facing national forests: fire and fuel, invasive species, habitat fragmentation and unmanaged recreation (Bosworth 2003). On unmanaged recreation, 

Chief Bosworth said, “The issue is this: Back when we had light recreational use, we 

didn’t need to manage it; but now that it’s heavier, we do” (Bosworth 2003, p. 7). The 

Chief cited off-highway vehicle (OHV) use as illustrative of unmanaged recreation. 

OHVs are motorized vehicles capable of traveling cross-country and off-road yearround and include over-snow vehicles (OSVs). OHV use has grown exponentially in 

recent years (Cordell and others 2002) increasing the need for management of this 

activity on public lands. 

There are several OHV management issues of concern, including unplanned 

roads and trails, soil erosion, water degradation, habitat destruction, the spread 

of invasive species, conflicts between different recreational user groups, damage 

to cultural sites, and violations of sites sacred to Native Americans (Bosworth 

2003, Bowles 2001, Meyer 2002, Troyer 2003). Each of these issues is complex. 

For example, soil impacts commonly occur in this progression: abrasive loss of 

protecting surface vegetation and root mass, compaction and surface subsidence, 

hydraulic disruption, breakdown of soil structure, and soil particle erosion and 

deposition (Meyer 2002). Further, these problems can lead to surface erosion or 

surface failure. Another example of the complexity of issues is social conflict. 

Social conflict has been defined as goal interference attributed to others (Jacob and 

Schreyer 1980), a threat to a person or to their belongings (Keller 1990), perceived 

differences in lifestyles (Ramthun 1995), and perceived differences in style of 

enjoying the resource (Schuett and Hollenhorst 1994, Watson and others 1991). 

Further, conflict perceptions may vary according to experience (Chavez 1997) or 

activity orientation (Watson and others 1997) and are often asymmetrical (Hoger 

and Chavez 1998, Watson and others 1991).

Despite these complex issues, the USFS is committed to continued OHV 

use on public lands. Chief Bosworth said, “We want the American people to use 

their national forests and grasslands. It gives them a stake in the land. It gives 

them a sense of place. It helps them understand why we in the Forest Service are 

so passionate about the land—why we think it’s so worth protecting” (Bosworth 

2003, p. 7). 

Similarly, managers of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Imperial Sand 

Dunes in California recognize the positive aspects of OHV use. However, at the 

same time, they are dealing with some criminal behaviors, such as those reported 

in several newspapers that described holiday weekend OHV activity in 2001 that 
6

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

resulted in two vehicular deaths, shootings, stabbings, and numerous assaults 

(Fisher 2001, Kendall 2001, McQuern 2001, Mitchell 2001, Renteria 2001, Simon 

2001). Nevertheless, managers quoted in these articles also described OHV visitors 

as largely law-abiding and ‘family-oriented’ (Mitchell 2001, Renteria 2001). 

Because OHV issues are complex, they require additional research attention. 

We focused on the perceptions of the managers of OHV activity for this study 

because they are most likely to understand the complex nature of OHV issues and 

to take the actions required for resolving or mitigating them. This study identifies 

the management issues associated with OHV use on National Forests in California 

and managers’ respective actions. The study is unique in that it identifies not only 

separate lists of issues and actions but also pairs the actions used to each issue. 

Methods

This study was based on a previous investigation addressing issues and actions 

related to mountain biking on USFS lands (Chavez 1996b). The OHV managers 

were selected based on management of OHV areas on National Forest lands in 

California as initially identified by an internal USFS mailing list provided by the 

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5; n = 60). Each potential respondent on the 

list was contacted in October 2003 to verify current management of an OHV area. 

Some names were removed from the original list and others added to achieve a pool 

of respondents with knowledge of current conditions. In cases where more than one 

respondent was responsible for a given area, respondents worked together to submit 

a single questionnaire (n = 38). Respondents represented 16 of the 18 National Forests in Region 5 plus the Humboldt-Toiyabe in the Intermountain Region (Region 

4; a portion is in California). The initial study findings were of the original contacts 

(n = 38) (Chavez and Knap 2004). After this initial data collection was complete, it 

became clear that some areas in the state were not included in the study. Based on 

evidence of previously unreported OHV activity found on USFS Web sites, an additional nine contacts were made in spring 2004. These contacts yielded seven additional respondents. The full findings are reported in this research paper (n = 45).

To streamline the lengthy interview process, questionnaires were mailed 

electronically to managers in advance of the telephone interview. Managers were 

encouraged to prepare their responses in advance and to work together where appropriate. Interview length averaged approximately 40 minutes.

Managers were asked to identify OHV management issues from a 

predetermined list of 26 items. Nine more issues were added to the list by 

respondents in reply to an open-ended request for additional issues. The final list of 

35 items included Natural Resource related issues, such as soil erosion or trampling; 
7

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

issues concerned with Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency, such as alcohol use; and 

Social Conflict issues, including conflicts with other four-wheelers on the trails. 

A separate list of 60 actions used to solve management issues (41 predetermined 

plus 19 contributed by respondents) included indirect management actions (e.g., 

posters or signs), direct management actions (e.g., closing or limiting use), resourcehardening techniques (e.g., specifying maximum grades of trails), and bridgebuilding/collaboration actions (e.g., personal contacts). For each management issue 

identified from the first list, respondents were asked to select the actions they used 

to try to solve the issue from the second list. They were asked to identify which 

of the selected actions was “used most often” and which was “most effective” in 

solving each respective issue. They were also asked a series of National Forest 

background questions about their OHV area, such as the number of miles of paved 

and unpaved roads (both open and closed to OHV use) and the number of OHV 

riders annually (see appendix A for a copy of the survey instrument). 

Results

Area Background Information

The individual OHV areas had a median of 0 miles of paved road open to nonhighway legal OHV use (range of 0 to 55 miles) and a median of 275 miles of unpaved 

road open to nonhighway legal OHV use (range of 0 to 3,000 miles). A median 

of 32 miles of paved road were closed to nonhighway legal OHV use (range of 0 

to 250 miles), and a median of 36 miles of unpaved road were closed to nonhighway legal OHV use (ranged from 0 to 1,250 miles). Totals for forests are shown in 

table 1.

Level of Activity

The median number of OHV riders annually (i.e., number of riders times number 

of rides annually) for these areas was 20,050 (range of 162 to 300,000; table 2). 

Half of the respondents reported that most use occurred during the summer (50 

percent); 21 percent reported more use during the winter, and 27 percent reported 

use to be equally distributed across seasons. About one-third (39 percent) reported the presence of concessionaires or nearby businesses that rented OHVs for use 

in their area. Of these, 65 percent offered only OSV use, while 29 percent rented 

vehicles year-round. 

Planning 

All but one manager (98 percent) reported that their forest plan had provisions 

for OHV trails and opportunities, and most (60 percent) also had forest plans that 
8

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

considered the differences in use according to season. About half (49 percent) had 

completed surveys to show use patterns, documented impacts, or visitor impressions of OHV use.

Almost all (91 percent) considered control of OHV use a forest resource management concern. In response to open-ended requests for comments, managers 

acknowledged increasing OHV use levels in their areas, and several expressed 

concern for erosion and other negative impacts caused by OHVs on natural resources, including water quality, wildlife, and aquatic vegetation as habitat. Others 

were concerned with the lack of regulations protecting natural resources and with 

increasing OHV entrance into designated wilderness. However, some felt that OHV 

use could be managed successfully and that it is the improper management of use 

that impacts negatively on the resource. OHV use was one of the top two forest 

Table 1—Miles of paved and unpaved road open and closed to OHV use by National 

Forest.

Forest Number of 

miles of paved 

road open to 

OHV use 

(n = 42)

Number of 

miles of paved 

road closed to 

OHV use 

(n = 38)

Number 

of miles of 

unpaved 

road open 

to OHV use 

(n = 41)

Number 

of miles of 

unpaved 

road closed 

to OHV use 

(n = 39)

Angeles 	 0.00 	 5.00 	 291.00 	 194.00

Cleveland 	 0.00 	 55.00 	 35.50 	 202.00

Eldorado 	 19.50 	 299.00 	 2155.00 	 57.00

Humboldt-Toiyabe 	 0.00 	 0.00 	 700.00 	 200.00

Inyo 	 0.00 	 92.00 	 4465.00 	 0.00

Klamath 	 18.00 	 0.00 	 135.00 	 65.00

Lake Tahoe Basin 	 0.00 	 19.00 	 250.00 	 50.00

Lassen 	 9.00 	 0.00 	 1000.00 	 144.00

Los Padres 	 3.00 	 106.00 	 207.00 	 213.50

Mendocino 	 24.00 	 24.90 	 1219.00 	 426.00

Modoc 	 48.50 	 0.00 	 789.54 	 3.00

Plumas 	 0.00 	 250.00 	 3000.00 	 50.00

San Bernardino 	 0.00 	 no response 	 205.00 	 1250.00

Sequoia 	 5.50 	 198.00 	 868.00 	 470.00

Shasta-Trinity 	 12.00 	 160.00 	 120.00 	 0.00

Sierra 	 55.00 	 125.60 	 1564.00 	 184.70

Six Rivers 	 0.00 	 243.00 	 1538.00 	 671.00

Stanislaus 	 1.00 	 86.00 	 666.00 	 36.00
9

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

management issues for 40 percent of respondents. Some respondents mentioned 

that while OHV management was an important issue, other issues such as fire and 

timber ranked higher. Almost all (91 percent) reported that USFS staff had observed or received reports of OHV use on closed roads or trails that exclude motorized vehicles.

Management Issues

All respondents were asked a series of questions about 26 issues related to OHV 

use. Overall, OHV managers reported an average of 7.49 (SD = 4.68) issues observed or reported. During the course of data collection, respondents added another 

nine issues. For each issue, we asked if they had observed or received reports of the 

issue. Management issues were divided into those related to Natural Resources (34 

percent of the issues identified), Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency (43 percent of 

the issues identified), or Social Conflict (23 percent of the issues identified).

Natural Resources 

The Natural Resource issues identified most frequently (n = 45) were soil erosion/

trampling (73 percent), soil erosion/compaction (56 percent), litter/trash on roads or 

Table 2—Number of riders annually by National Forest.

Forest

Riders annually (number

of riders times number of

rides annually) (n = 38)

Angeles 	 131,965

Cleveland 	 30,500

Eldorado 	 121,000

Humboldt-Toiyabe 	 60,000

Inyo 	 108,000

Klamath 	 8,100

Lake Tahoe Basin 	 21,000

Lassen 	 5,200

Los Padres 	 354,162

Mendocino 	 128,798

Modoc 	 36,000

Plumas 	 130,000

San Bernardino 	 212,000

Sequoia 	 18,300

Shasta-Trinity 	 24,000

Sierra 	 37,884

Six Rivers 	 35,300

Stanislaus 	 192,000

Tahoe 	 120,100
10

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

trails (49 percent), litter/trash at trail access points (42 percent), vegetation damage 

(38 percent), and graffiti or other vandalism (36 percent; table 3). In addition to the 

10 items provided, two Natural Resource issues were added by respondents: noise 

and smoke, and dust near developed campgrounds. If a respondent noted that they 

had observed or received reports of Natural Resource related issues, then they were 

also asked if the issue differed by season. Soil erosion/trampling, for example, was 

Table 3—Natural resource management issues ranked by frequency observed or 

reported within category and seasonal differences (n = 45). 

Management Issue:

Natural Resources

Issue Observed/

Reported

Differ by Season Differences by Season

n percent n percent

Soil erosion/

trampling

	 33 	 73 	 24 	 73 about half summer

(user-created trails) and

half winter (when trails

are wet)

Soil erosion/

compaction

	 25 	 56 	 14 	 56 most said summer

(harder compaction);

winter (wet)

Litter/trash on roads/

trails

	 22 	 49 	 10 	 45 most said summer; fall

(hunting) and winter

about even

Litter/trash at trail

access points

	 19 	 42 	 4 	 21 summer (especially

restrooms); fall

(hunting); and spring/

fall high-use seasons

Vegetation damage 	 17 	 38 	 10 	 59 year-round; slightly

more said summer

Graffiti or other

vandalism

	 16 	 36 	 7 	 44 most said summer

Destruction/defacing

of historic resources

	 12 	 27 	 5 	 42 summer; and spring/fall

high-use seasons

Harassment of

wildlife

	 6 	 13 	 2 	 33 breeding season

Noise and smoke1 	 3 	 7 	 2 	 67 winter (snowmobiles);

summer (dirt bikes)

Reduction in size of

habitat

	 1 	 2 	 0 	 0 —

Injuries to or death of

individual members

of a species

	 1 	 2 	 0 	 0 —

Dust near developed

campgrounds1

	 1 	 2 	 1 	 100 summer-only

campgrounds

1

Issue contributed by respondent(s).
11

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

reported by 24 respondents (73 percent of those identifying this issue) to differ 

by season, with about half noting the issue was observed or reported more during 

summer (user-created trails) and half during winter (when trails are wet). Within 

the Natural Resource classification, several issues were most problematic during 

summer (e.g., soil erosion/compaction, graffiti or other vandalism, and dust near 

developed campgrounds), while the others were more problematic during breeding season (e.g., harassment of wildlife). Many were problematic during high-use 

seasons (e.g., litter or trash on roads or trails and destruction or defacing of historic 

resources). 

Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency

The Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues are concerned with the violation of 

regulations by users, unsafe user behaviors, and the institutional behavior of public 

land management agencies. It may be helpful to think of Natural Resources issues 

as the consequences of Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues. For example, 

“four-wheelers going off established roads or trails” is a Regulatory/Behavioral and 

Agency issue while, one of the possible consequences, “vegetation damage,” is a 

Natural Resources issue. The Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues identified 

most frequently (n = 45) were four-wheelers going off established roads or trails (73 

percent), OHVs going too fast (58 percent), lack of safetywear (51 percent), alcohol 

use (42 percent), and inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain (29 percent; table 4). 

In addition to the 11 items provided, respondents added 4 issues: wilderness trespass, multiple land jurisdictions, nonmanageable wilderness boundaries, and lack 

of consistent funding. If respondents noted they had observed or received reports 

of Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues, then they were also asked if the issue 

differed by season. Four-wheelers going off established roads or trails, for example, 

was reported by 17 respondents (52 percent of those identifying this issue) to differ 

by season, with most noting the issue was observed or reported more during the 

summer (due to lack of designated routes and off-trail use) and during fall (deerhunting season). Some of the Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues were more 

problematic in summer (e.g., lack of safetywear and large groups of four-wheelers), 

and several were more problematic during winter (e.g., OHVs driving too fast, inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain, too many people at trail access points, and 

dangerous driving routes). 

Social Conflict 

The Social Conflict items describe negative interactions among visitors, often 

involving conflicts within and between user groups. About one-third (36 percent) 
12

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

Table 4—Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency management issues ranked by frequency 

observed or reported within category and seasonal differences (n = 45). 

Management

Issue: Regulatory/

Behavioral and

Agency

Issue Observed/

Reported

Differ by Season Differences by Season

	 n 	 percent 	 n percent

Four-wheelers going

off established roads

or trails

33 73 17 52 most said summer (lack

of designated routes,

off-trail); fall (deer

season)

OHVs going too fast 26 58 7 27 most said winter (better

traction and groomed

trails = higher speeds);

summer (especially

near summer-only

campgrounds)

Lack of safetywear 23 51 9 39 most said summer

(helmets too hot; worn

in winter for warmth)

Alcohol use 19 42 2 11 high-use seasons

Inexperienced

drivers in difficult

terrain

13 29 6 46 most said winter

(more difficult terrain,

unprepared)

Large group of fourwheelers9 20 5 56 most said summer

(larger groups, highuse)

Dangerous dropoffs/mines8 18 3 38 winter (drop-offs);

summer (mines)

Too many people at

trail access points

6 13 3 50 winter (limited

parking)

Wilderness trespass1 6 13 0 0 —

Dangerous driving

routes

3 7 1 33 winter (avalanche

conditions)

Too many fourwheelers on roads or

trails

2 4 1 50 hunting season

Lack of safety flags 1 2 0 0 —

Multiple land

jurisdictions1

1 2 0 0 —

Non-manageable

wilderness

boundaries1

1 2 0 0 —

Lack of consistent

funding1

1 2 1 100

1 Issue contributed by respondent(s).
13

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

of respondents reported at least one issue in Social Conflict, while 65 percent of 

respondents reported no Social Conflict issues of any kind. Items in the Social Conflict classification neither appeared in the top 10 issues overall nor were any reported by more than one-fifth of the respondents. The Social Conflict issues identified 

most frequently (n = 45) were conflicts with hikers or backpackers on the trail (18 

percent), mountain bikers on the trails (16 percent), and people on horseback on the 

trails (13 percent; table 5). In addition to the five items provided to all respondents, 

some respondents added three areas of conflict: conflicts with skiers or snowshoers, conflicts with owners of private lands, and OSV-OHV conflicts. If a respondent 

noted that they had observed or received reports of Social Conflict issues, then they 

were also asked if the issue differed by season. Some were most problematic during summer (e.g., with mountain bikers on the trails or people on horseback on the 

trails), winter (e.g., skiers/snowshoers), or spring (e.g., cattle on or near trails).

Table 5—Social Conflict management issues ranked by frequency observed or reported 

within category and seasonal differences (n = 45).

Management Issue: 

Social Conflict

	 Issue Observed/

Reported

	 Differ by Season Differences by

Season

	 n 	 percent 	 n 	 percent

Conflicts with hikers

or backpackers on the

trails

8 18 5 63 about half

summer and

half winter

(skiers,

snowshoers)

Conflicts with

mountain bikers on the

trails

7 16 5 71 most said

summer (no

mountain bike

use in winter)

Conflicts with people

on horseback on the

trails

6 13 4 67 summer (very

little equestrian

use in winter)

Conflicts with other

four-wheelers on the

trails

2 4 0 0

Conflicts with cattle on

or near trails

2 4 2 100 spring (damage

to trails, OHVs

come up on

cattle quickly)

Conflicts with skiers/

snowshoers1

2 4 2 100 winter

Conflicts with owners

of private lands1

1 2 1 100 winter

(trespass,

noise)

OSV-OHV conflicts1 1 2 0 0 —

1

Issue contributed by respondent(s).
14

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

Top Ten OHV Management Issues 

When management issues are ranked by frequency observed by or reported to 

resource managers, those related to Natural Resources (e.g., soil erosion/trampling 

and soil erosion/compaction) and Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency (e.g., fourwheelers going off established roads or trails and OHVs going too fast) dominate 

the top 10 

Seasonality of Issues

Seasonal differences in management issues that were identified by at least 25 

percent of the respondents were ranked by percent reporting the issue (table 6; see 

appendices B through D).

Management Actions 

The management actions are divided into those that indirectly impact recreation 

visitors, those that directly impact recreation visitors, resource-hardening, and 

bridge-building/collaboration (Chavez 1996a). Overall, OHV managers reported an 

average of 7.47 actions.

Management Issues

Figure 1—Top 10 management issues observed or reported, ranked by percent (n = 45).
15

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Indirect Actions 

The most frequently named indirect actions across all management issues were 

posters or signs (69 percent), bulletin boards (50 percent), user ethics (45 percent), 

maps (43 percent), brochures (41 percent), etiquette (28 percent), other educational 

materials (26 percent), and trail use recommendations (25 percent; table 7). In addition to the 11 indirect actions asked of all respondents, some respondents added the 

following: additional or matching funds and manufacturers’ stickers on ATVs. 

Direct Actions

The most frequently named direct action across all management issues was law 

enforcement (81 percent). Other direct actions were close or limit use (30 percent), 

relocate or designate OHV trails (20 percent), provisions for special use permits (18 

percent), organized events to do trail maintenance (15 percent), and seasonal closures 

(13 percent; table 8). In addition to the 11 direct actions asked of all respondents, 

some respondents added the following: making repairs as soon as located, picking 

up litter, and voluntary sound tests. 

Table 6—Percentage reporting an issue and percentage identifying seasonal changes 

(n = 45).

Issue Percentage

reporting issue

Percentage of those reporting issue

who identified a seasonal difference

percent percent n

Soil erosion/trampling 73 73 33

Four-wheelers going off trail 73 23 33

OHVs going too fast 58 27 26

Soil erosion/compaction 56 56 25

Lack of safetywear 51 39 23

Litter or trash on roads or trails 49 45 22

Alcohol use 42 11 19

Litter or trash at trail access

points 42 21 19

Vegetation damage 38 59 17

Graffiti or other vandalism 36 44 16

Inexperienced drivers in difficult

terrain 29 46 13

Destruction/defacing of historic

resources

27 42 12
16

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

Table 7—Indirect actions in rank order of frequency used by respondents across all 

management issues, within category (n = 336).

Indirect Action n percent

Posters or signs	 231 69

Bulletin boards 168 50

User ethics 150 45

Maps	 145 43

Brochures 139 41

Etiquette 94 28

Other educational materials 89 26

Trail use recommendations 85 25

Trail descriptions 59 18

Local newspaper article 54 16

Public service announcements 27 8

Additional/matching funding1 2 < 1

Manufacturers’ stickers on

ATVs1 1 < 1

Table 8—Direct actions in rank order of frequency used by respondents across all 

management issues, within category (n = 336).

Direct action n percent

Law enforcement 	 271 	 81

Close or limit use 	 100 	 30

Relocate or designate OHV trails 	 66 	 20

Provisions for special use

permits 	 61 	 18

Organized events to do trail

maintenance 	 51 	 15

Seasonal closures 	 45 	 13

Non-issuance of outfitter/guide/

event permits 	 26 	 8

Users ride in dispersed patterns 	 25 	 7

Separate trails 	 18 	 5

Separate user groups 	 13 	 4

Making repairs as soon as

located1 	 13 	 4

Alternate between user groups 	 6 	 2

Picking up litter1 	 6 	 2

Voluntary sound tests1 	 2 	 < 1

1Action added by respondent(s).

1Action added by respondent(s).
17

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Resource-Hardening Actions

The most frequently named resource-hardening actions across all management 

issues were staging areas with parking facilities (17 percent), artificial tread (15 percent), drain dips (15 percent), designated campsites (9 percent), and specification of 

maximum grade on trails (8 percent; table 9). In addition to the eight resource-hardening actions asked of all respondents, some respondents added the following: trail 

maintenance, barricades or barriers, trail design, various types of erosion control, 

restricting direction of events to either uphill or downhill, rolling dips, and overflow 

parking and staging areas. 

Table 9—Resource-hardening actions in rank order of frequency used by respondents 

across all management issues, within category (n = 336).

Resource-hardening action n percent

Staging areas with parking facilities 	 57 	 17

Artificail tread (e.g., geofabric with sand

and gravel) 	 52 	 15

Drain dips (reversal of grade) 	 51 	 15

Designated campsites 	 29 	 9

Specification of a maximum grade on trails 	 27 	 8

Lengthened trails to disperse riders 	 20 	 6

Trail maintenance1 	 14 	 4

Barricades/barriers1 	 14 	 4

Trail design1 	 12 	 4

Various types of erosion control1 	 11 	 3

Flexible water bars 	 7 	 2

Restricting direction of events to one (i.e.,

either uphill or downhill)1 	 5 	 1

Rolling dips/dog bones1 	 2 	 < 1

Minimum grade on trails 	 1 	 < 1

Overflow parking and staging areas1 	 1 	 < 1

Specify minimum grade 	 1 	 < 1

1Action added by respondent(s).
18

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

Bridge-Building/Collaboration Actions 

The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration action across all management issues was personal contacts (85 percent). Other bridge-building/collaboration 

actions were volunteer patrols (38 percent), local OHV club meetings (36 percent), 

maintain trail with local groups and volunteers (34 percent), adopt-a-trail programs 

(33 percent), partner with different groups (25 percent), and workshops (16 percent; 

table 10). In addition to the 11 bridge-building/collaboration actions asked of all respondents, some respondents added the following: joint clean-ups with other agencies, working with local law enforcement, mine safety evaluation form, help from 

regional office and state, and finding out from users and environmentalists where 

trails should be. 

Table 10—Bridge-building/collaboration actions in rank order of frequency used by 

respondents across all management issues, within category (n = 336). 

Bridge-building/collaboration action n percent

Personal contacts 	 285 	 85

Volunteer patrols 	 127 	 38

Local OHV club meetings 	 120 	 36

Maintain trail with local groups and

volunteers 	 113 	 34

Adopt-a-trail program 	 111 	 33

Partner with different groups 	 84 	 25

Workshops 	 53 	 16

Meetings with state OHV groups 	 42 	 13

Partner with OHV shops 	 27 	 8

Committees with different groups 	 23 	 7

Education programs1 	 10 	 3

Trail safety evaluation form 	 8 	 2

Using OHV trail crews to maintain

trails1 	 2 	 < 1

Joint clean-ups with other agencies1 	 1 	 < 1

Working with local law enforcement1 	 1 	 < 1

Mine safety evaluation form1 	 1 	 < 1

Help from regional office and state1 	 1 	 < 1

Finding out from users and

environmentalists where trails should

be1

	 1 	 < 1

1Action added by respondent(s).
19

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Top Ten Management Actions

The top 10 management actions used by respondents across all management issues 

were indirect (posters or signs, bulletin boards, user ethics, maps, and brochures), 

bridge-building/collaboration (personal contacts, volunteer patrols, local OHV club 

meetings, and maintain trails with local groups and volunteers), and direct (law 

enforcement). 

Intersection of Management Issues and Actions

In appendix B we provide the intersection of Natural Resources issues and actions. 

For example, if soil erosion or trampling is an issue of concern, the Table of Contents cross-references this issue with the page number (in appendix B) that shows 

how many respondents have observed or received reports of soil erosion or trampling, the actions they used to mitigate this issue, actions used most often, actions 

perceived to be most effective, and information about how issues and actions related to soil erosion or trampling differ by season. Similarly, appendix C offers the 

intersection of Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues and actions, and appendix 

D offers the intersection of Social Conflict issues and actions. 

General Comments

At the end of the interview we asked respondents if they had any other comments 

about OHV use. More than 50 comments can be found in appendix E. These are 

grouped into comments related to depreciative behavior, education, funding, land 

issues, law enforcement, limitations, maps, policy, politics, process, regulations, 

use levels, and other.

Actions Used Most Often and Perceived as Most Effective

Those action categories identified as “used most often” and “most effective” were 

examined for the five top-ranked management issues (named by 50 percent or 

more of respondents). For four of the top five management issues, actions belonging to the bridge-building/collaboration action category occurred most frequently 

and therefore ranked first or tied for first as “used most often,” and ranked first or 

tied for first in four of the five as “most effective” (table 11). Within the bridgebuilding/collaboration category, personal contacts is the specific action used most 

frequently. In one of the top five management issues (four-wheelers going off established roads or trails), the direct action category ranked first as “used most often.” 

For the soil erosion or trampling issue, the direct action category was tied for first 

as “used most often.” Direct actions ranked first (for lack of safetywear) or tied for 
20

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

first (for OHVs going too fast) in two of the five top issues as “most effective” (table 

11). Within the direct action category, law enforcement is the specific action used 

most frequently. 

In evaluating all the issues, personal contacts, within the bridge-building/collaboration actions classification, were perceived as more effective for the following 

issues: soil erosion/trampling, soil erosion/compaction, litter on roads and trails, 

litter at trail access points, vegetation damage, graffiti or other vandalism, destruction/defacing of historic resources, noise and smoke, alcohol use, large groups of 

four-wheelers, dangerous drop-offs/mines, too many people at trail access points, 

wilderness trespass, conflicts with hikers and backpackers, conflicts with cattle on 

or near trails, and too many four-wheelers on roads and trails. Law enforcement 

(within the direct action classification) followed personal contacts in effectiveness. 

Law enforcement actions were perceived to be most effective for the categories of 

injury or death of individual members of a species, four-wheelers going off trail, 

and lack of safetywear. Resource-hardening actions, specifically drain dips (reversal of grade), was most effective for dust near developed campgrounds. Under the 

indirect actions classification, posters were perceived as most effective for inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain, dangerous driving routes, and conflicts with 

mountain bike riders; user ethics most effective for too many four-wheelers; education at campfires most effective for lack of safety flags; and local news most effective for nonmanageable wilderness boundaries (appendices B through D).

Managers were also asked if their actions differed by season. Management action changes by season were least often found for conflicts with other four-wheelers 

on the trails, lack of safety flags, reduction in the size of habitat, injuries or death 

of individual members of a species, conflicts with cattle on or near roads or trails, 

dangerous driving routes, too many four-wheelers on roads or trails, or harassment 

of wildlife. The most action differences by season were for soil erosion/trampling. 

In some cases managers used fewer actions in winter, and sometimes they used 

seasonal closures. 

Discussion

OHV management issues of concern to Chief Bosworth and others (Bosworth 2003, 

Bowles 2001, Meyer 2002, Troyer 2003) were examined for National Forests in 

California. Some of those same issues were identified by the managers interviewed 

for this study; specifically, these were soil erosion and habitat destruction. Managers who experience these problems can use the study results to determine what 

kinds of actions are being used in California and to evaluate the efficacy of the 

actions taken.
21

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Almost all of the respondents considered control of OHV use a forest management concern. Several expressed concern for erosion and other negative impacts on 

natural resources, including water quality and wildlife impacts. Some felt that OHV 

use could be managed successfully to mitigate these impacts.

There was a large array of issues faced by OHV managers in California. They 

were categorized as those related to Natural Resources, Regulatory/Behavioral and 

Agency, and Social Conflict. There was at least one manager in the state (and more 

typically, several managers), who responded to each of the 26 issues we inquired 

about, and another nine issues were added by at least one manager (in some cases 

up to six managers added the same item). 

Management issues identified as faced by at least half the OHV managers on 

National Forests in California were soil erosion/trampling, four-wheelers going off 

road, OHVs going too fast, soil erosion/compaction, and lack of safetywear. Two 

of these were Natural Resource issues, and three were Regulatory/Behavioral and 

Agency issues. 

The managers did not identify Social Conflict or conflict between recreational 

users at high levels of frequency. Some conflicts were evident (mostly between 

OHV riders and hikers and backpackers and between OHV riders and mountain 

bike riders). Although no single social conflict was identified by a large number of 

Table 11—Management issues named by 50 percent or more respondents and ranked by frequency; actions ranked by 

percentage within category identified as “used most often” and “most effective.”

Soil erosion or

trampling1

Four-wheelers going

off established roads

or trails2

OHVs going too fast2 Soil erosion or

compaction1

Lack of safetywear2

most 

often

most 

effective

most 

often

most 

effective

most 

often

most 

effective

most 

often

most 

effective

most 

often

most 

effective

Bridgebuilding 3,4BridgebuildingDirect BridgebuildingBridgebuildingBridgebuilding4BridgebuildingBridgebuildingBridgebuilding4Direct

Direct4 Direct Bridgebuilding4Direct Direct Direct4 Direct Direct Indirect4 Bridgebuilding

ResourcehardeningResourcehardeningIndirect4 Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect ResourcehardeningDirect Indirect

Indirect Indirect ResourcehardeningResourcehardeningResourcehardeningResourcehardeningResourcehardeningIndirect – –

1 Natural Resource-related management issues.

2 Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency management issues.

3

 Bridge-building=Bridge-building/collaboration.

4 Tied ranks.
22

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

managers, there were at least two managers in the state who reported all five Social 

Conflict issues, and another three Social Conflict issues were added by at least one 

manager. Current management of the OHV program may be keeping these incidents to a minimum. 

Although California is a state with a high number of threatened and endangered 

species, only one manager reported injuries to or a death of individual members of 

a species, and only one reported reduction in the size of habitat. Perhaps current 

management of the OHV program has achieved a measure of success in the reduction of injuries to and deaths of threatened and endangered species.

Several OHV management issues were thought to differ by season. This suggests that OHV managers have issues to handle year-round, though some may be 

more problematic at particular times of the year. This may indicate more funding 

is required to run the program at particular times of the year for some programs, 

while other programs may require year-round attention and funding. 

Limitations

Limitations of the study stem from difficulties in identifying all members of the 

study population, namely persons responsible for managing OHV areas on California National Forests. Our goal was not to survey all OHV managers, but to represent all OHV areas within the geographical confines of the state. 

OHV areas are not organized according to Ranger District. They often bridge 

Ranger Districts, and sometimes management responsibilities within those Districts 

are further divided into OHV and OSV. Therefore, managers and their respective 

contact information such as telephone numbers and email addresses cannot be 

identified according to the ranger district organizational structure. Furthermore, 

because USFS personnel responsible for OHV management hold a variety of positions and titles, requests for participation in the survey cannot simply be directed 

to whomever holds a given position on a National Forest. As stated in the Methods 

section of this report, potential respondents were contacted based on an existing 

internal USFS mailing list and National Forest Web sites. Although this approach 

was a good beginning, it was far from complete in terms of reaching the goal of 

geographic coverage of the entire state. 

Summary

This study identified various actions that have been used to address or mitigate 

Natural Resources, Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency, and Social Conflict issues. 

Management actions to address those issues included actions within four categories: indirect actions (such as posters or signs, bulletin boards, user ethics, maps, 
23

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

and brochures), direct actions (such as law enforcement, close or limit use, and 

relocating or designating OHV trails), resource-hardening actions (such as staging 

areas with parking facilities, artificial tread, and drain dips), and bridge-building/

collaboration (such as personal contacts, volunteer patrols, local OHV club meetings, maintain trails with local groups and volunteers, and adopt-a-trail programs). 

Unlike a national study of mountain bike management where indirect actions 

were used most often (Chavez 1996a, b), actions used most frequently by National 

Forest OHV managers in California were bridge-building/collaboration (especially 

personal contacts) and direct actions (especially law enforcement). Of the bridgebuilding/collaboration actions described as “used most often” and “most effective,” 

personal contacts dominated. Next most frequent actions were direct, such as law 

enforcement. Implementing personal contacts and law enforcement actions may be 

constrained by the need for substantial increases in time, personnel, and training, 

all of which imply increases in funding. 

Sometimes the action thought to be most effective was not the one used most 

often. When the action used most often does not match the one thought to be most 

effective, then managers should consider refocusing their resources to the effective 

actions. 

Overall, it appears that OHV managers have many issues to handle, which 

may change seasonally, and they have implemented many actions to mitigate these 

issues, again sometimes having to switch actions seasonally. Clearly, OHV management in California is complex. These data further suggest that there is often congruence between the action taken and the one perceived to be most effective.

There is reason to be concerned about OHV management on National Forests 

in California because of the large number of issues that occur within the state. But 

there is also reason to commend the managers of these programs for the many actions they have taken to mitigate these issues.

Future Research

Additional research studies are needed. An expansion of this study at a national 

level would further address USFS Chief Bosworth’s concerns about OHV use. 

Other research topics might include the value of volunteer patrols and partnerships 

for reducing conflict or resource damage, and trail construction guidelines to alleviate resource damage. More research into bridge-building/collaboration successes 

would be quite useful, as would studies of communication techniques. 

The resource managers in the study were each asked specifically about 26 issues and 41 actions, and each respondent had an opportunity to react to those items. 

Another 9 issues and 19 actions were identified by respondents during the course 
24

RESEARCH REPORT PSW-RP-250

of the study. It may be that these issues are larger in importance than they appear 

in this report. In other words, if each respondent was asked about these additional 9 

issues in a comparable way to the original 26, then we might find them to be more 

problematic than found in the current study. In addition, some actions may be under-represented in the study because they, too, were unavailable to all respondents. 

We suggest the entire list of issues and actions identified here be included in future 

studies.

References

Bosworth, Dale. 2003. Managing the National Forest System: Great issues and 

great diversions. Speech at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, April 22, 

2003. 10 p.

Bowles, Jennifer. Desert back roads closed. Press-Enterprise 31 October 2001. B10. 

Chavez, Deborah J. 1997. Bunny hops or vegetable tunnels? Perceptions and 

preferences of mountain bike riders on the San Jacinto Ranger District. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry 24: 33–51.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1996a. Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge 

building management styles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 14: 

21-35.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1996b. Mountain biking: Issues and actions for USDA 

Forest Service. Res. Paper PSW-RP-226. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 33 p.

Chavez, Deborah J.; Knap Nancy E. 2004. Management problems of and 

strategies for off-highway vehicle management: National forests in 

California. Unpublished report on file with author.

Cordell, H. Kenneth; Teasley, R. Jeff; Super, Greg; Bergstrom, John C.; McDonald, 

Barbara. 2002. Outdoor recreation in the United States: Results from the 

national survey on recreation and the environment. Asheville, NC: USDA 

Forest Service, Southeastern Research Station. 

Fisher, Michael. Collision at dunes kills man. Press-Enterprise 28 November 

2001. B3. 

Hoger, Jennifer L.; Chavez, Deborah J. 1998. Conflict and management: Tactics 

on the trail. Parks & Recreation, September, 41-56. 

Jacob, Gerald R.; Schreyer, Richard. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A 

theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12: 368–380.
25

Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management on National Forests in California

Keller, Kit D. 1990. Mountain bikes on public land: A manager’s guide to the 

state of the practice. Washington, D.C.: Bicycle Federation of America. 

Kendall, Mark. Gobblin’ up sand. Press-Enterprise 22 November 2001. C9. 

McQuern, Marcia. Lawless in the desert. Press-Enterprise 30 November 2001 

Editorial. 

Meyer, Kevin G. 2002. Managing degraded off-highway vehicle trails in wet, 

unstable, and sensitive environments. Tech. Rep. 0223-2821-MTDC. Missoula. 

MT: Missoula Technology and Development Center, USDA Forest Service. 48 p.

Mitchell, Laura. Plenty of visitors, fewer law officials formula for wild weekend. 

Imperial Valley Press 29 November 2001 [http://ivpressonline.com/archives/

index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2001/November/28-1192 12/3/2001] 

Ramthun, Roy. 1995. Factors in user group conflicts between hikers and 

mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 17: 159-169.

Renteria, Mario. Horde descends on dunes for holiday. Imperial Valley 

Press 25 November 2001 [http://ivpressonline.com/archives/index.

inn?loc=detail&doc=/2001/November/25-288 12/3/2001] 

Schuett, Michael A.; Hollenhorst, Steven J. 1994. Access, impacts, user conflict 

and more: Issues and problems facing mountain biking in the national 

forests. In: Book of Abstracts of The Fifth International Symposium on 

Society and Resource Management; 1994 June 7-10; Ft. Collins, CO: Colorado 

State University; 234. 

Simon, Darren. Five arrested in shooting released pending investigation. 

Imperial Valley Press 28 November 2001 [http://ivpressonline.com/archives/

index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2001/November/28-1193 12/3/2001] 

Troyer, Jack. Regional Forester for the Intermountain Region, United States Forest 

Service [Personal communication with Deborah J. Chavez]. 12 December 2003.

Watson, Alan; Asp, Charles; Walsh, J.; Kulla, Andrew. 1997. The contribution of 

research to managing conflict among national forest users. Trends 34: 41–44.

Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel R.; Daigle, John J. 1991. Sources of conflict 

between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of 

Park and Recreation Administration 9: 59-71.

27

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Appendix A—Survey Instrument
Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Within 

The Forest Service

Ranger District_____________________________________Region____________

Contact___________________________________________Date______________ 

The first few questions are about OHV use in general. OHVs are a group of

motor vehicles that are designed to be capable of operating off of highways,

streets, and roads designed and maintained for passenger vehicle use. OHVs may

be street legal (e.g., four-wheel drive trucks, sport utility vehicles, and dual-sport

motorcycles) or non-street-legal (e.g., enduro type motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and sand rails).

1. Do you have OHV activity within your _____YES 

Ranger District? _____NO (STOP INTERVIEW)

1a. What is the current estimated number of 

OHV riders annually? _____# RIDERS

*If one person rides 10 times a year, count that as 10.

1b. Are there more riders in the summer, 

winter, or about the same? _____S _____W _____SAME

2. Have you received any requests to use 

OHVs on closed roads or trails that

exclude motorized vehicles? _____YES _____NO 

2a. In the past year, approximately how many 

requests have you received? _____# CLOSED RD

REQUESTS

3. Have you received any requests to use 

OHVs within wilderness? _____YES _____NO

3a. In the past year, approximately how many 

requests have you received? _____# WILDERNESS REQ.

3b. Have you received more requests in the 

summer, winter, or the same? _____S _____W _____ SAME

4. Have you received any requests for races 

or rallies? _____YES _____NO

4a. In the past year, approximately how many

requests have you received? _____# RACE/RALLY REQ.

28

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250
29

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

5. Have you encountered problems with 

commercially advertised or sponsored 

OHV tours coming to the District without 

permits? _____YES _____NO

6. Do you have concessionaires or nearby 

businesses that rent OHVs for use on the 

District? _____YES _____NO 

6a. Do the concessionaires operate only in the 

summer, the winter, or year-round? _____S ____W

_____YEAR-ROUND

6b. Approximately how many are on the 

District? _____# CONCESSIONAIRES

6c. How many are nearby? _____# NEARBY

7. Does your forest plan have provisions for 

OHV trails or opportunities? _____YES _____NO

7a. Does the forest plan consider differences 

in use according to season? _____YES _____NO 

8. Do you consider control of OHV use a 

forest resource management concern? _____YES _____NO

8a. Why or why not?

9. Is the management of OHV use one of the 

top two issues on your district? _____YES _____NO 

10. Has your staff observed or received reports

of OHV use on closed roads or trails that 

exclude motorized vehicles? _____YES _____NO 

10a. In the past year, approximately how many

vehicles have been observed or reported 

on these roads? _____# ON CLOSED ROADS

10b. Have more vehicles been observed or 

reported on these roads in the summer, 

winter, or about the same? _____S _____W _____SAME

11. Have you completed any surveys to show 

use patterns, documented impacts, or to 

reflect visitor feelings on OHV use? _____YES _____NO
30

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Now I have a few questions about management problems related to OHV use.

As I read each problem, please tell me which ones you have observed or received

reports of and if they differ by season.

12. (1) _____ destruction/defacing of historic 

resources Differ by season? How?

(2) _____ soil erosion or trampling Differ by season? How?

(3) _____ litter or trash on roads or trails Differ by season? How?

(4) _____ graffiti or other vandalism Differ by season? How?

(5) _____ litter or trash at trail access 

points Differ by season? How?

(6) _____ conflicts with other fourwheelers on the trails Differ by season? How?

(7) _____ conflicts with people on horseback on the trails Differ by season? How?

(8) _____ conflicts with cattle on or near 

roads or trails Differ by season? How?

(9) _____ conflicts with mountain bikers 

on the trails Differ by season? How?

(10) _____ conflicts with hikers or backpackers on the trails Differ by season? How?

(11) _____ dangerous driving routes Differ by season? How?

(12) _____ OHVs going too fast Differ by season? How?

(13) _____ alcohol use Differ by season? How?

(14) _____ large group of four-wheelers Differ by season? How?

(15) _____ dangerous drop-offs, mines, etc. Differ by season? How?

(16) _____ four-wheelers going off 

established roads or trails Differ by season? How?

(17) _____ inexperienced drivers in 

difficult terrain Differ by season? How?

(18) _____ too many people at trail access 

points Differ by season? How?

(19) _____ too many four-wheelers on 

roads or trails Differ by season? How?

(20) _____ lack of safety flags Differ by season? How?

(21) _____ lack of safety wear (such as 

helmets, etc.) Differ by season? How?
31

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

(22) _____ soil erosion or compaction Differ by season? How?

(23) _____ harassment of wildlife Differ by season? How?

(24) _____ vegetation damage (either food 

source or cover) Differ by season? How?

(25) _____ reduction in size of habitat Differ by season? How?

(26) _____ injuries to or death of individual members of a species Differ by season? How?

(27-29) _____ Are there any problems related 

to OHV use that you have 

observed or received reports 

of that I did not mention? _____YES _____NO 

13. OK, now for each management problem related to OHV use that you named,

tell me which strategies from the list of strategies provided that you use to 

prevent that problem. (Go through strategies list for EACH problem identified.) 

Strategy Sheet for (write name of problem)

___________________________________________________________________

For preventing this problem, which of the following strategies do you use?

_____ posters or signs _____ maps

_____ brochures _____ public service announcements

_____ other educational materials _____ local newspaper articles

_____ user ethics _____ bulletin boards

_____ etiquette _____ trail descriptions

_____ trail use recommendations

*******************************************************************

_____ close or limit use _____ provisions for special use 

permits

_____ non-issuance of outfitter, guide, _____ law enforcement

or event permits

_____ organized events to do trail _____ users ride in dispersed patterns

maintenance

_____ relocate or designate OHV trails _____ separate trails

_____ seasonal closures _____ separate user group

_____ alternate between user groups

*******************************************************************
32

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

_____ Do you specify a _____ artificial tread (e.g., geo

maximum grade on trails? fabric with sand and gravel, 

(If yes,) concrete blocks)

What percent would that be? 

_____%

_____ How about a minimum grade? _____ lengthened trails to disperse

(If yes,) riders

What percent? _____%

_____ drain dips (meaning a reversal _____ staging areas with parking 

of grade) facilities

_____ flexible water bars _____ designated campsites 

*******************************************************************

_____ personal contacts _____ partner with different groups

_____ local OHV club meetings _____ volunteer patrols

_____ meetings with state OHV groups _____ partner with OHV shops

_____ adopt-a-trail program _____ workshops

_____ trail safety evaluation form _____ committees with different groups 

_____ maintain trail with local groups and volunteers 

*******************************************************************

14. Are there strategies you use to prevent 

this problem that I didn’t mention? _____ YES _____ NO

14a. Do the strategies you use to prevent 

this problem differ by season? _____ YES _____ NO

14b. How? 

14c. Of all the strategies you use to prevent this problem, which is the one strategy

you use most often?

14d. Of all the strategies you use to prevent this problem, which is the one strategy

you think is most effective? Why?

This last set of questions is background information on your District. Please 

tell me the approximate number of miles of each of the following that are on your

District. 

15. How many miles of paved road open to 

non-highway legal OHV use? _____ miles 

16. How many miles of paved road closed

to non-highway legal OHV use? _____ miles
33

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

17. How many miles of unpaved road open to 

non-highway legal OHV use? _____ miles 

18. How many miles of unpaved road closed to 

non-highway legal OHV use? _____ miles

19. How many miles of hiking trails (overall)? _____ miles 

20. How many miles of hiking trails open to

non-highway legal OHV use? _____ miles 

21. Do you have designated wilderness on 

your District? Yes or no? _____YES _____NO

22. How many acres of wilderness do you 

have? _____ acres 

23. Are there any other comments you would like to make about OHV use on your

District?

We’re finished! Thanks for all your time and effort. 

Would you like a copy of the report that will be written using the information 

from this survey?

If YES, record mailing address.

For questions or additional information: Dr. Debbie Chavez: (909) 680-1558, 

or e-mail dchavez@fs.fed.us

35

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Appendix B—Natural Resource Issues

and Management Actions

Introduction Appendices B through D 

This appendix provides information about what selected managers in California 

are using and the actions they perceive to be the most effective. It does not necessarily suggest these are the only actions that could be used, nor does it necessarily identify the most effective action for the particular issue. Also, note the

very small numbers of responses for many of the actions. These small numbers

severely restrict the generalizability of the results.

In appendix B we provide the intersection of Natural Resources issues and

actions. For example, if soil erosion or trampling is an issue of concern, the

Table of Contents cross-references this issue with the page number (in appendix

B) that shows how many respondents have observed or received reports of soil

erosion or trampling, the actions they used to mitigate this issue, actions used

most often, actions perceived to be most effective, and information about how

issues and actions related to soil erosion or trampling differ by season. Similarly,

appendix C offers the intersection of Regulatory/Behavioral and Agency issues

and actions, and appendix D offers the intersection of Social Conflict issues and

actions. 

Actions added by respondents, and therefore not available for selection by all

respondents, are marked with an asterisk (*).
36

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

1: Soil Erosion or Trampling

There were 33 respondents (73 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Of these, 24 indicated that the issue differed by season. In summer, for example, changes were in user-created trails or offtrail and streamside impacts. Winter changes caused by wet and muddy ground

were also reported. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, maps, bulletin boards, and brochures. The most frequently named direct actions were law

enforcement, close or limit use, and relocate or designate OHV trails. The most

frequently named resource-hardening actions were drain dips (meaning a reversal

of grade) and artificial tread. The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts and maintaining trails with local groups and

volunteers. The actions used most often and seen as most effective were bridgebuilding/collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and direct (mostly law enforcement). Why these were perceived as most effective included the following

explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Talking to someone is better than leaving a note on an information board

(won’t get read). Message gets across better.

• Gives users an opportunity to ask for clarification of the rules; lets the users

know that we are keeping an eye on the resources.

• You can post signs and talk all you want, but change really happens when 

the tickets start getting written.

Half of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used changed

seasonally. Most of these said the change occurred in the summer.
37

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

33 73.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

12 26.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 31)

24 77.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

6 19.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 3.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this

management issue indicated that they did not know if the issue

differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Fall hunt season—more

◊ In summer—user-created trails. In winter—wet/muddy.

◊ More in summer (2)

◊ More in winter (wetter)

◊ More in winter because it’s wetter

◊ Spring to snow—have it

◊ Spring–Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people

◊ Summer low season-low moisture-depend upon water

◊ Summer more

◊ Summer mostly, hard to do in winter

◊ Summer only (2)

◊ Summer users

◊ Summer: off-trail and streamside impacts. Winter—spring: meadow mud slops

◊ Summer-only problem

◊ Summer—powdering-out of roads/going across meadows

◊ Thunderstorms

◊ Wet soils—less erosion. When dry on steeper slopes—worse.

◊ Wet weather closures—more problems in winter when wet

◊ Winter involves more vegetation damage—summer more soil erosion

◊ Winter is worse.

◊ Winter—closure for POC protection

◊ Winter—more
38

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting soil erosion or trampling (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

16 48.5 close or limit use 6 18.2 provisions for 

special use permits

6 18.2 non-issuance of 27 81.8 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

10 30.3 organized events 3 9.1 users ride in

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

15 45.5 relocate or 1 3.0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

8 24.2 seasonal closures 1 3.0 separate user groups

1 3.0 make repairs as 1 3.0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 1 3.0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting soil erosion or trampling (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

23 69.7 posters or signs 17 51.5 maps

16 48.5 brochures 2 6.1 public service 

announcements 

9 27.3 other educational 2 6.1 local newspaper 

materials articles 

12 36.4 user ethics 17 51.5 bulletin boards 

9 27.3 etiquette 7 21.2 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 9 27.3 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding,

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
39

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting soil erosion or trampling (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

9 27.3 Specify a 12 36.4 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks)

What percent? 

mean = 13.1429

SD = 2.41030

0 0 Specify a 3 9.1 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

14 42.4 drain dips 8 24.2 staging areas 

(meaning a with parking facilities

reversal of grade)

3 9.1 flexible water bars 6 18.2 designated campsites

1 3.0 for events, restricted 3 9.1 barricades, barriers*

to one direction 

(e.g., uphill or 

downhill)*

2 6.1 trail design: limit 3 9.1 general trail maintenance 

long straightaways/ use natural obstacles*

use all single track/ including consistent, 

mechanized & 3-year 

plan*

1 3.0 rolling dips, dog 0 0 overflow parking and 

bones* staging areas*

1 3.0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
40

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting soil erosion or trampling (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

27 81.8 personal contacts 10 30.3 partner with different

groups 

15 45.5 local OHV club 13 39.4 volunteer patrols 

meetings

5 15.2 meetings with 2 6.1 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops

15 45.5 adopt-a-trail 6 18.2 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 2 6.1 committees with 

evaluation form different groups

0 0 education, 18 54.5 maintain trail with 

including camp- local groups and 

fire programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 work with sheriff’s

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
41

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 31)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

7 22.6 personal contacts

5 16.1 posters or signs

4 12.9 law enforcement

3 9.7 general trail maintenance

2 6.5 drain dips

2 6.5 close or limit use

2 6.5 maintain trail with local groups and volunteers

1 3.2 non-issuance of permits

1 3.2 organized events to do trail maintenance

1 3.2 relocate or designate OHV trails

1 3.2 barricades, barriers

1 3.2 use OHV trail crews to maintain trails

1 3.2 trail design
42

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 32)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

11 34.4 personal contacts ◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs.

◊ Dialog between user and us important. Give

them “a why.” Explain to them.

◊ Explain regs. and then use law enforcement 

◊ Gets their attention.

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources.

◊ One-to-one contact gets message across better.

◊ Personal contacts with users is important—

club contacts help too.

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note on info board (won’t get read). Message 

gets across better.

◊ Users see us out there; it establishes a 

presence. Give them information to make the 

right choice because they want to do the right 

thing.

◊ With volunteers (peers) and done at the time 

of the problem.

◊ Νo response (1)

6 18.8 law enforcement ◊ 95 percent of this unit’s OHV is on existing 

admin. roads—little to no problems if OHVs 

stay on routes—fencing for minor off-road 

activities. 

◊ Because there are direct consequences for the 

violator that don’t negatively affect responsible 

users.

◊ People need a consequence for doing 

something they shouldn’t do. 

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

◊ You can post signs and talk all you want, but 

change really happens when the tickets start 

getting written.

◊ no response (1)
43

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 32)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

3 9.4 drain dips ◊ Been proven to work.

◊ Last longer.

◊ Removes water from trail.

3 9.4 posters or signs ◊ Better way to educate—display signs at 

trailheads. It’s a way to educate at the meeting 

point.

◊ Designated routes with lots of signs and 

monitoring...the paradigm on the [name of 

forest] is closed unless designated open... 

this is the most effective way to provide the 

use and keep it concentrated.

◊ Keeps people in the right area, affordable 

2 6.3 general trail ◊ Because consistent annual mechanized trail 

maintenance maintenance keeps on top of the problem,

facilitates drainage. Without it, gullying and

“rilling” occur [rilling = furrows begin to 

make channels].

◊ Keeping trails maintained makes it no longer 

an issue.

1 3.1 close or limit use ◊ Something user groups understand (i.e., 

closures)—no funding to use other strategies.

1 3.1 non-issuance ◊ Permits have more intense impact—if worried, 

of permits we don’t issue them a permit.

1 3.1 relocate or ◊ Relocate trails to lower grade—a long-term 

designate OHV solution. Then erosion becomes a minimal 

trails problem.

1 3.1 maintain trail ◊ Wouldn’t get stuff done without volunteers.

with local groups 

and volunteers

1 3.1 barricades, ◊ Barriers “last forever”; can’t be cut.

barriers

1 3.1 use OHV ◊ Trail machine moves dirt more efficiently.

trail crews to Take care of all trail things before they get 

maintain trails really bad.
Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 32)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

16 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management

issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

16 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management

issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Different types of use during different seasons. Winter-snow (problem not as critical at that time). Use fewer strategies.

◊ Don’t get too many volunteers in the heat of summer or rain.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement (expand)

◊ Erosion occurs during winter, soil saturation. Erosion increases the problem.

◊ Hunting seasons

◊ In the winter we enforce seasonal closures and allow snowmobile use when cover is adequate.

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Different resources of concern change with season.

◊ N/A in winter

◊ Only winter—maintenance of trails

◊ Summer issue

◊ Summer only

◊ Thunderstorms create big problems (summer).

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.

◊ Wet weather closures

◊ Winter and summer differ—roads closed in summer are open in winter.

◊ Winter closures are used.

44

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Soil Erosion or Trampling 

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 32)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 3.1 trail design ◊ Someone once said, there are no bad users, 

only bad trails... This has proven to be true in 

many trail studies on erosional impacts from 

various users.
45

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

2: Soil Erosion or Compaction

There were 25 respondents (56 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Of these, 14 indicated that the issue differed by season. In summer, for example, changes were in user-created trails, or

off-trail and streamside impacts. Winter changes caused by wet and muddy soil

were also reported. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, brochures,

and bulletin boards. The most frequently named direct actions were law enforcement and close or limit use. The most frequently named resource-hardening actions

were drain dips (meaning a reversal of grade) and artificial tread. The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts and

maintaining trails with local groups and volunteers. The actions used most often

were bridge-building/collaboration, direct, and indirect. Those seen as most effective were bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts), and direct

(mostly law enforcement). Why these were perceived as most effective included

the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Combine USFS presence with signs for enforcement of rules and regulations.

• With volunteers, done at the time of the problem.

• They seem to listen closer to a law enforcement officer.

Less than half of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used 

changed seasonally. Changes in summer trail maintenance, winter maintenance,

and fall for hunting season were mentioned.
46

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Soil Erosion or Compaction 

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

25 55.6 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

20 44.4 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 22)

14 63.6 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

7 31.8 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 4.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed 

by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondent said it differed.

◊ Harder compaction in summer

◊ In summer—user-created trails. In winter—wet/muddy.

◊ More in summer

◊ More in winter—wetter

◊ Mostly summer, hard to do in winter

◊ Not much erosion/compaction by OSVs—in lower elevations there are soil impacts late season.

◊ Spring–Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer issue

◊ Summer only

◊ Summer season

◊ Summer: off-trail and streamside impacts. Winter–spring: meadow mud slops

◊ Winter closures for POC protection

◊ Winter—more (2)
47

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Soil Erosion or Compaction

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting soil erosion or compaction (n = 21)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

13 61.9 posters or signs 10 47.6 maps 

12 57.1 brochures 1 4.8 public service

announcements

7 33.3 other educational 1 4.8 local newspaper 

materials articles

10 47.6 user ethics 11 52.4 bulletin boards 

4 19.0 etiquette 4 19.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 10 47.6 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting soil erosion or compaction (n = 21)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

11 52.4 close or limit use 4 19.0 provisions for 

special use permits

3 14.3 non-issuance of 18 85.7 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

5 23.8 organized events 2 9.5 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

9 42.9 relocate or 0 0 separate trails

designate OHV

trails 

7 33.3 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user 

groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between

soon as located* user groups

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail 

crews to maintain 

trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
48

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting soil erosion or compaction (n =21)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

6 28.6 Specify a 7 33.3 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand and 

on trails gravel, concrete blocks)

What percent?

mean = 18.3333

SD = 6.05530

1 4.8 Specify a 2 9.5 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

mean = 0.0000 

(only response)

10 47.6 drain dips 6 28.6 staging areas with

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

3 14.3 flexible water bars 2 9.5 designated campsites 

1 4.8 for events, 1 4.8 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

2 9.5 trail design: limit 1 4.8 general trail 

long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

1 4.8 rolling dips, dog 0 0 overflow parking and 

bones* staging areas*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
49

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting soil erosion or compaction (n = 21)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

19 90.5 personal contacts 7 33.3 partner with different 

groups 

7 33.3 local OHV club 7 33.3 volunteer patrols 

meetings

2 9.5 meetings with state 2 9.5 partner with OHV

OHV groups shops 

10 47.6 adopt-a-trail 4 19.0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 1 4.8 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 11 52.4 maintain trail with

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
50

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Soil Erosion or Compaction

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 20)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

4 20.0 posters or signs

4 20.0 personal contacts

2 10.0 close or limit use

2 10.0 drain dips

2 10.0 maintain trail with local groups and volunteers

2 10.0 general trail maintenance

1 5.0 user ethics

1 5.0 organized events to do trail maintenance

1 5.0 law enforcement

1 5.0 barricades, barriers
51

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Soil Erosion or Compaction

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 21)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

7 33.3 personal contacts ◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs.

◊ Dialog between user and us important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them. Plus, give 

them other places to ride.

◊ Explain WHY they need to stay on trails—can 

lose their riding privilege. When they 

understand, they comply.

◊ Gets their attention.

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ Personal contact with users is important—

club contacts help too.

◊ With volunteers, done at time of problem. 

4 19.0 law enforcement ◊ People need a consequence for doing 

something they shouldn’t do. 

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

◊ You can post signs and talk all you want but 

change really happens when the tickets start 

getting written.

◊ no response (1) 

3 14.3 drain dips ◊ Been proven to work. 

◊ Last longer. 

◊ Reduce erosion. 

2 9.5 posters or signs ◊ Relatively inexpensive and it informs 

the public of impacts.

◊ With problems like this you have to explain 

more. We develop our own signs with 

additional information other than “stay on 

trail.” Tell them what the problem is/why road 

closed. 

2 9.5 close or limit use ◊ no response (1)

◊ Prevents heavy use and compaction from 

going on. Control use that way.
52

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Soil Erosion or Compaction

Actions Reported Most Effective (contined)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 21)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 4.8 maintain trail with ◊ Wouldn’t get stuff done without volunteers.

local groups and 

volunteers

1 4.8 barricades, ◊ Barriers “last forever;” can’t be cut.

barriers

1 4.8 general trail ◊ Between EIS and Trail Plan, maintaining and 

maintenance rerouting trails to eliminate erosion. 

Soil Erosion or Compaction

Seasonal Differences of Actions

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions (n = 21)

9 42.9 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

12 57.1 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Don’t get too many volunteers in heat of summer or rain.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement.

◊ Hunting season 

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Resources of concern change 

with season.

◊ No maintenance during summer—too dry

◊ Only winter—maintenance of trails

◊ Summer only 

◊ Summer trail maintenance 

◊ Winter closures are used.
53

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

3: Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

There were 22 respondents (49 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received 

reports of this management issue. Of these, 10 indicated that the issue differed by season.

Most indicated this was a summer issue.

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, bulletin boards, and

user ethics. The most frequently named direct action was law enforcement. The most frequently named resource hardening action was staging areas with parking facilities. The

most frequently named bridge building/collaboration actions were personal contacts and

volunteer patrols. The action used most often and seen as most effective was bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts). Why this was perceived as most effective

included the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• It gives us a chance to educate and interact with visitors.

• Gives users an opportunity to ask for clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources.

About one-third of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used

changed seasonally.
54

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

22 48.9 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

23 51.1 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 22)

10 45.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

11 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 4.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Fall hunt season—more

◊ Hunting season more—August-September

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people. 

◊ Summer

◊ Summer mostly

◊ Summer only

◊ Summer problem

◊ Summer season

◊ Winter 4x4 over snow access to campgrounds, vandalism burning tables, etc. leaving trash

◊ Winter more
55

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting litter or trash on roads or trails (n = 22)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

16 72.7 posters or signs 7 31.8 maps

8 36.4 brochures 1 4.5 public service 

announcements 

6 27.3 other educational 4 18.2 local newspaper 

materials articles

12 54.5 user ethics 13 59.1 bulletin boards 

8 36.4 etiquette 2 9.1 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 4.5 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting litter or trash on roads or trails (n = 22)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

2 9.1 close or limit use 4 18.2 provisions for 

special use permits

1 4.5 non-issuance of 18 81.8 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

4 18.2 organized events 1 4.5 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 4.5 relocate or 1 4.5 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 4.5 seasonal closures 1 4.5 separate user groups 

1 4.5 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

3 13.6 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
56

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting litter or trash on roads or trails (n = 22)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

1 4.5 Specify a 2 9.1 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand

on trails? and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 4.5 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade? disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 4.5 drain dips 4 18.2 staging areas with

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water bars 1 4.5 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)*

0 0 trail design: limit 1 4.5 general trail 

long maintenance

straightaways/use including consistent,

all single track/ mechanized & 3-year

use natural plan*

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, dog 0 0 overflow parking

bones* and staging areas*

1 4.5 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
57

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting litter or trash on roads or trails (n = 22)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

20 90.9 personal contacts 4 18.2 partner with 

different groups 

7 31.8 local OHV club 10 45.5 volunteer patrols 

meetings

3 13.6 meetings with 2 9.1 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops

7 31.8 adopt-a-trail 2 9.1 workshops 

program

1 4.5 trail safety 1 4.5 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 4.5 education, 9 40.9 maintain trail with

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

1 4.5 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s dept.*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
58

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” ( n = 22)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

8 36.4 personal contacts ◊ Gets their attention; FS also organizes an 

event to clean up forest each year.

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ It gives us a chance to educate and interact

with visitors.

◊ People get handed a trash bag and told to 

“Pick it up.”

◊ Talk about human waste issues, “I can’t

believe someone would dump their trash 

here.” Hard to know whose trash it is. May be 

boaters, camper, not OHV.

◊ Talk to them and get them on your side; have 

good attitude helps get them to see things your 

way.

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols 

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users.

no response (1)

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 21)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

7 33.3 personal contacts

4 19.0 posters or signs 

5 23.8 law enforcement

2 9.5 maintain trail with local groups and volunteers

1 4.8 user ethics

1 4.8 adopt-a-trail program

1 4.8 volunteer patrols
59

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 22)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

5 22.7 law enforcement ◊ Because there are direct consequences for 

the violator that don’t negatively affect 

responsible users.

◊ People don’t read signs. A ticket is effective. 

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note on info board (won’t get read) Message 

gets across better.

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO. 

◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions.

3 13.6 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to be 

a problem.

◊ Monitor themselves (hopefully).

◊ Most people know not to put trash on the trail.

2 9.1 maintain trail with ◊ After they work on a trail, the peer pressure 

local groups and is great.

volunteers 

◊ no response (1)

1 4.5 adopt-a-trail ◊ If they’re picking it up, they won’t throw

program it down.

1 4.5 volunteer patrols ◊ Get out there and contact public more often. 

They’re there when we are not. Peer-to-peer 

interactions help.

1 4.5 pick up litter ◊ Pick up most visitor trash along roads/trails. 

◊ Keep it clean—most people don’t litter if the 

area looks nice.

1 4.5 posters or signs ◊ Because 99 percent of folks take stuff with 

them is evidence that signs are working at the 

staging areas: they are pretty clean where 

sign is. Along road to area, not so good (but 

no signs there).
60

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Litter or Trash on Roads or Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 22)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

8 36.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

14 63.6 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs 

in aquatic areas.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement.

◊ Hunting season

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time. 

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Different resources of concern change with season.

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence. 

◊ Winter is problem time—when most of the use is.

◊ Winter worse
61

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

4: Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

There were 19 respondents (42 percent of the sample) who said they observed

or received reports of this management issue. Of these, only four indicated that the

issue differed by season. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, bulletin

boards, and user ethics. The most frequently named direct actions were law

enforcement, provisions for special use permits, and organized events to do trail

maintenance. The most frequently named resource-hardening action was staging

areas with parking facilities. The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts, adopt-a-trail program, maintaining trails with

local groups and volunteers, and volunteer patrols. The actions used most often and

seen as most effective were bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and indirect (posters and signs). Why these were perceived as most effective

included the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Talk about human waste issues: “I can’t believe that someone would dump

their trash here.” Hard to know whose trash it is. May be boaters, campers, 

not OHV.

• Hand out trash bags—pass the word to pick up trash. Use large staging area 

as a place to do this.

• Post signs at trailheads to remind users to pick up trash. Makes them aware 

of the problem. 

Less than one-third of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they

used changed seasonally.
62

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

19 42.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

26 21.1 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 19)

4 73.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

14 5.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed.

◊ Fall hunt season—more

◊ Spring—Fall are high use seasons so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer problem

◊ Trailhead restrooms trash more in summer; winter access is limited.

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting litter or trash at trail access points (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

18 94.7 posters or signs 6 31.6 maps 

8 42.1 brochures 2 10.5 public service

announcements 

5 26.3 other educational 5 26.3 local newspaper

materials articles 

13 68.4 user ethics 14 73.7 bulletin boards 

9 47.4 etiquette 1 5.3 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 5.3 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
63

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting litter or trash at trail access points (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

1 5.3 close or limit use 5 26.3 provisions for 

special use permits

1 5.3 non-issuance of 13 68.4 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

5 26.3 organized events 1 5.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 10.5 relocate or 1 5.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 5.3 seasonal closures 1 5.3 separate user groups 

1 5.3 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

3 15.8 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
64

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting litter or trash at trail access points (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using 

using action action Action using action action Action

1 5.3 Specify a 2 10.5 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 5.3 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 5.3 drain dips 5 26.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water bars 2 10.5 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, 

restricted to one barriers*

direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: limit 1 5.3 general trail

long maintenance 

straightaways/use including consistent, 

all single track/ mechanized &

use natural 3-year plan*

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking 

dog bones* and staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
65

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting litter or trash at trail access points (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

17 89.5 personal contacts 4 21.1 partner with different 

groups 

6 31.6 local OHV club 8 42.1 volunteer patrols 

meetings

3 15.8 meetings with 2 10.5 partner with OHV shops 

state OHV groups

10 52.6 adopt-a-trail 2 10.5 workshops 

program

1 5.3 trail safety 1 5.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 5.3 education, 9 47.4 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* dept.*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 19)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

6 31.6 personal contacts

5 26.3 posters or signs 

3 15.8 bulletin boards

2 10.5 law enforcement

2 10.5 maintain trail with local groups and volunteers 

1 5.3 volunteer patrols
66

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Actions Reported Most Effective

( n = 19)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

6 31.6 personal contacts ◊ Hand out trash bags—pass the word to pick 

up trash. Use large staging area as a place to 

do this. 

◊ It gives us a chance to educate and interact 

with visitors. 

◊ Talk about human waste issues, “I can’t 

believe someone would dump their trash 

here.” Hard to know whose trash it is. May be 

boaters, campers, not OHV.

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols 

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users.

◊ Try to educate people.

◊ no response (1)

2 10.5 user ethics ◊ Getting them to do it on their own means 

more than a ticket. Shows more of a 

responsibility of the individual—if they get it,

ceases to be a problem. 

◊ More of them than us. Peer pressure. 

2 10.2 bulletin boards ◊ Because it works. 

◊ Bulletin boards tell the public all the 

regulations, and they are close to the trailheads.

2 10.5 adopt-a-trail ◊ Adopt-a-trail puts more people out there—

program additional number of people.

◊ Club signs at trailheads get respect by other 

users. 

2 10.5 maintain trail with ◊ It is essentially free, and it reaches the most 

local groups and people. 

volunteers

◊ no response (1)

2 10.5 pick up litter ◊ If users see less trash, they are less apt to do it.

Research says so. 

◊ If you can keep it clean, most people don’t

litter because it looks nice.
67

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

(n = 19)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 5.3 posters or signs ◊ Post them at the trailhead to remind users 

to pick up trash. Makes them aware of the 

problem.

1 5.3 law enforcement ◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

1 5.3 volunteer patrols ◊ Get out there and contact public more often. 

They’re there when we are not. Peer-to-peer 

interactions help.

Litter or Trash at Trail Access Points

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 19)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

5 26.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

14 73.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Adopt-a-trail is for snowmobiles only. There are no maps for summer—undeveloped dispersed-type use.

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs in aquatic areas.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement 

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season.Resources of concern change with season.

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.
68

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

5: Vegetation Damage

There were 17 respondents (38 percent of the sample) who said they observed 

or received reports of this management issue. Of these, 10 indicated that the issue

differed by season. In summer, for example, managers reported more damage.

Some managers reported more damage in winter while others reported less damage

in winter. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, brochures,

bulletin boards, and user ethics. The most frequently named direct actions were law

enforcement and close or limit use. The most frequently named resource-hardening

actions were drain dips (meaning a reversal of grade) and artificial tread. The most

frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts 

and local OHV club meetings. The actions used most often were bridge-building/

collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and indirect (mostly posters and signs).

The most effective actions were bridge-building/collaboration and indirect. Why

these were perceived as most effective included the following explanations by

respondents to an open-ended question:

• Because we get to talk to and educate our publics. There is a good chance 

for dialog and a good chance to explain why an area is closed, or there are 

certain rules for a reason.

• Explain why they need to stay on trails—can lose their riding privilege. 

When they understand, they comply.

• They respect signs. Special signage talks about plants and gives more 

in-depth information about what is being protected.

• Use signs saying “save the vegetation” and “don’t drive on meadows.” 

Personal contact is limited by budgets.

Less than one-third of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they

used changed seasonally.
69

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Vegetation Damage

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

17 37.8 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

28 62.2 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 17)

10 58.8 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

7 41.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Less in snow

◊ More damage in summer

◊ More in summer

◊ Only summer

◊ Slight amount in winter—can clip tops of small trees.

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer

◊ Vegetation damage to meadows in spring and summer

◊ Winter closures for POC protection

◊ Winter—more
70

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting vegetation damage (n = 17)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 47.1 close or limit use 3 17.6 provisions for 

special use permits

1 5.9 non-issuance of or 14 82.4 law enforcement

outfitter, guide,

event permits

3 17.6 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

4 23.5 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

4 23.5 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

1 5.9 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Vegetation Damage

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting vegetation damage (n = 17)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

12 70.6 posters or signs 6 35.3 maps 

10 58.8 brochures 1 5.9 public service 

announcements 

4 23.5 other educational 4 23.5 local newspaper 

materials articles

8 47.1 user ethics 9 52.9 bulletin boards 

3 17.6 etiquette 3 17.6 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 5 29.4 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding,

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
71

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting vegetation damage (n = 17)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 4 23.5 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 1 5.9 lengthened trails to

minimum grade disperse riders

n/a

What percent?

4 23.5 drain dips 3 17.6 staging areas with

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 2 11.8 designated campsites 

bars 

0 0 for events, 1 5.9 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g.,

uphill or 

downhill)* 

1 5.9 trail design: 1 5.9 general trail 

limit long maintenance including

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 5.9 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
72

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting vegetation damage (n = 17)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

16 94.1 personal contacts 5 29.4 partner with 

different groups 

7 41.2 local OHV club 6 35.3 volunteer patrols

meetings 

3 17.6 meetings with state 1 5.9 partner with 

OHV groups OHV shops

5 29.4 adopt-a-trail 4 23.5 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 1 5.9 committees with

evaluation form different groups

0 0 education, 6 35.3 maintain trail with

including campfire local groups and

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s 

department

0 0 mine safety 

evaluation form* 0 0 help from regional 

office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
73

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Vegetation Damage

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 16)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

6 37.5 personal contacts ◊ Because we get to talk and educate our 

publics. There is the chance for dialog and 

a good chance to explain why an area is 

closed, or there are certain rules for a reason.

◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs.

◊ Explain WHY they need to stay on trails—

can lose their riding privilege. When they 

understand, they comply.

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ It is difficult to know the extent—usually 

must be observed.

◊ no response (1)

Vegetation Damage

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 17)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

6 35.3 personal contacts

5 29.4 posters or signs

3 17.6 law enforcement

1 5.9 user ethics

1 5.9 close or limit use

1 5.9 trail design
74

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Vegetation Damage

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 16)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

5 31.3 law enforcement ◊ Educate/provide consequence for actions.

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions.

◊ no response (2)

3 18.8 posters or signs ◊ Able to identify/make users aware of info.

◊ They respect signs (special signage: talk about 

plants/gives more in-depth information about 

what is being protected). 

◊ Use signs saying “Save the vegetation” and 

“Don’t drive on meadows.” Personal contact 

is limited by budgets.

1 6.3 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to 

be a problem.

1 6.3 trail design ◊ Often good trail design will encourage users to 

stay on existing trails.

Vegetation Damage

Seasonal Differences of Actions

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

5 29.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

12 70.6 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcenment

◊ Hunting season

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time.

◊ Summer only 

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.
75

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

6: Graffiti or Other Vandalism

There were 16 respondents (36 percent of the sample) who said they observed

or received reports of this management issue. Of these, only seven indicated that

the issue differed by season.

The most frequently named indirect actions were user ethics and posters or

signs. The most frequently named direct actions were law enforcement and organized events to do trail maintenance. The most frequently named resource-hardening

actions were artificial tread and staging areas with parking facilities. The most

frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts,

maintaining trails with local groups and volunteers, local OHV club meetings,

adopt-a-trail program, and volunteer patrols. The actions used most often were

indirect (poster and signs and user ethics), direct (mostly law enforcement), and

bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts). The actions seen as most

effective were bridge-building/collaboration and indirect (mostly user ethics). Why

these were perceived as most effective included the following explanations by

respondents to an open-ended question:

• The “Forest Service presence” whether to help or enforce regulations is 

effective. Use motorcycle patrols to be “one of them.” Someone who has 

riding ability and can talk bikes with users. 

• Talk to them and get them on your side; having good attitude helps get them 

to see things your way.

• Personal contacts (sting operations). Law enforcement officers get them, 

they contact perpetrators. They don’t go there to recreate—vandalism is 

their goal. OHVers don’t do it.

About one-third of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they

used changed seasonally. Most of these said the change occurred in the summer.
76

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

16 35.6 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

29 64.4 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 15)

7 46.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

7 46.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 6.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ In summer, more (2)

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer is use season; winter—no problem

◊ Summer problem

◊ Very few in summer—tied in to lookouts.

◊ Winter 4x4 over snow access to campgrounds, vandalism, burning tables, etc., leaving trash
77

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting graffiti or other vandalism (n = 16)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 50.0 posters or signs 4 25.0 maps 

4 25.0 brochures 2 12.5 public service 

announcements 

4 25.0 other 5 31.3 local newspaper 

educational articles

materials

9 56.3 user ethics 7 43.8 bulletin boards 

5 31.3 etiquette 1 6.3 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 6.3 trail use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding,

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
78

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting graffiti or other vandalism (n = 16)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 6.3 close or limit use 2 12.5 provisions for

special use permits

1 6.3 non-issuance of 3 18.8 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

3 18.8 organized events 1 6.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 6.3 relocate or 1 6.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 6.3 seasonal closures 1 6.3 separate user groups 

3 18.8 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
79

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting graffiti or other vandalism (n = 16)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 6.3 Specify a 2 12.5 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand and 

on trails gravel, concrete blocks) 

What percent?

mean = 15.00

(only response) 

0 0 Specify a 1 6.3 lengthened trails

minimum grade to disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 6.3 drain dips 2 12.5 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water bars 1 6.3 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers* 

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 1 6.3 general trail 

limit long maintenance 

straightaways/use including consistent, 

all single track/ mechanized & 3-year 

use natural plan*

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 6.3 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
80

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting graffiti or other vandalism (n = 16)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

14 87.5 personal contacts 4 25.0 partner with different

groups 

6 37.5 local OHV club 6 37.5 volunteer patrols 

meetings 

3 18.8 meetings with 2 12.5 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

6 37.5 adopt-a-trail 2 12.5 workshops

program 

1 6.3 trail safety 1 6.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 6.3 education, 6 37.5 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” n = 15

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

4 26.7 law enforcement

2 13.3 posters or signs

3 20.0 personal contacts

2 13.3 make repairs as soon as located

2 13.3 user ethics 

1 6.7 etiquette

1 6.7 volunteer patrols
81

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Actions Reported Most Effective (continue)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 15)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

5 33.3 personal contacts ◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources.

◊ Talk to them and get them on your side; have

good attitude helps get them to see things 

your way. 

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note on info board (won’t get read) Message 

gets across better. 

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users. 

no response (1)

2 13.3 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more 

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to 

be a problem. 

◊ Have to depend on the user—we can’t really

catch them. 

2 13.3 make repairs as ◊ Removing graffiti prevents more of it

soon as located

◊ Signs get shot up. Replacing them doesn’t 

promote same kind of activity. Replace 

signs—don’t encourage the same kind 

of vandalism. 

2 13.3 law enforcement ◊ Able to investigate and contact person who 

did it and publish in paper.

◊ Personal contact (sting operations) LEOs get 

them. Contact perps. Don’t go there to 

recreate—vandalism is their goal. OHVers 

don’t do it.

1 6.7 posters or signs ◊ Visible in many locations.

1 6.7 etiquette ◊ Most people know not to do such things.
82

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 15)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 6.7 volunteer patrols ◊ Get out there and contact public more often.

◊ They’re there when we are not. Peer-to-peer 

interactions help.

1 6.7 maintain trail ◊ After they work on a trail, the peer pressure

with local groups is great. 

and volunteers

Graffiti or Other Vandalism

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 15)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

7 47.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

8 53.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ (Summer) Law enforcement—need to have more of a presence out there to prevent problem. 

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs

in aquatic areas. 

◊ Hunting season 

◊ Less in winter—smaller area. Summer—more dispersed use. 

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Resources of concern change 

with season. 

◊ There is more OHV activity in summer. 

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence. 
83

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

7: Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

There were 12 respondents (27 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received

reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

12 26.7 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

33 73.3 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 12)

5 41.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

7 58.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ More in hunting season.

◊ More in summer.

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer at river access.

◊ Summer—at lookouts, unmanned. Access not there in winter.
84

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting destruction/defacing of historic resources (n = 12)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

9 75.0 posters or signs 2 16.7 maps 

4 33.3 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

5 41.7 other educational 3 25.0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

7 55.3 user ethics 4 33.3 bulletin boards 

4 33.3 etiquette 2 16.7 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 2 16.7 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
85

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting destruction/defacing of historic resources (n = 12)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

7 55.3 close or limit use 5 41.7 provisions for 

special use permits

2 16.7 non-issuance of 9 75.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

1 8.3 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 16.7 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user 

groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail 

crews to maintain 

trails*

0 0 voluntary sound

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
86

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting destruction/defacing of historic resources (n = 12)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 2 16.7 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand and 

on trails gravel, concrete blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 1 8.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water bars 0 0 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 1 8.3 general trail maintenance

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
87

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting destruction/defacing of historic resources (n = 12)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

9 75.0 personal contacts 2 16.7 partner with different

groups 

3 25.0 local OHV club 3 25.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 8.3 meetings with 1 8.3 partner with OHV shops 

state OHV groups

2 16.7 adopt-a-trail 2 16.7 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with different 

evaluation form groups 

0 0 education, 3 25.0 maintain trail with local 

including campfire groups and volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional office 

evaluation form* and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 11)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

3 30.0 close or limit use

2 20.0 posters or signs

3 30.0 personal contacts

2 20.0 law enforcement

1 10.0 volunteer patrols
88

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 12)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

5 41.7 personal contacts ◊ Dialog between user and us important. 

Give them “a why.” Explain to them.

◊ Gets their attention.

◊ Gives users opportunities to ask for 

clarification of rules; let users know that 

we keeping an eye on resources.

◊ With volunteers (peers) and done at the time 

of the problem. 

◊ no response (1)

3 25.0 close or limit use ◊ Keep some distance from vandals.

◊ Limits use completely—these areas are 

completely closed unless there is a tour.

◊ Much less damage is done by people that 

walk into these areas versus people that 

drive and bring in camping and digging 

equipment and the damage done by the 

vehicle to the soil and vegetation.

1 8.3 posters or signs ◊ It is there for everyone to see, and it informs 

the public of the relevance and the need 

to protect historic resources.

1 8.3 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more 

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to 

be a problem.

1 8.3 relocate or ◊ Relocating the trail makes it no longer an issue.

designate OHV

trails

1 8.3 law enforcement ◊ Allows patrol officers to gain a first-hand 

knowledge of what’s happening now.
89

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Destruction/Defacing of Historic Resources

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 12)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

7 58.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season. 

5 41.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Don’t get too many volunteers in the heat of summer or rain. 

◊ Hunting season

◊ In winter in [respondent’s forest] the problems shift due to the change from summer to winter 

recreation. For example, in the winter we have more problems with historic cabins being used 

as warming huts. We patrol the areas to determine violations and respond accordingly. 

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Different resources of concern change 

with season.

◊ Snow conditions allow less use.

◊ Summer only

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence. 
90

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

8: Harassment of Wildlife

There were six respondents (13 percent of the sample) who said they observed or

received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number we advise

caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Harassment of Wildlife

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

6 13.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

39 86.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 6)

2 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

4 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ breeding season closures

◊ breeding season of species

Harassment of Wildlife

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting harassment of wildlife (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 50.0 posters or signs 1 16.7 maps 

3 50.0 brochures 1 16.7 public service 

announcements 

2 33.3 other 1 16.7 local newspaper 

educational articles 

materials

3 50.0 user ethics 3 50.0 bulletin boards 

1 16.7 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
91

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting harassment of wildlife (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 50.0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 6 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events to 0 0 users ride in dispersed 

do trail patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate

OHV trails

3 50.0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between user 

soon as located* groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews to 

maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
92

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting harassment of wildlife (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread

maximum grade (e.g., geofabric with 

on trails sand and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

n/a

0 What percent?

0 0 drain dips 1 16.7 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to 

one direction 

(e.g., uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Harassment of Wildlife

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” n = 6

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

3 50.0 law enforcement

1 16.7 posters or signs

1 16.7 personal contacts

1 16.7 close or limit use

93

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting harassment of wildlife (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

6 100.0 personal contacts 1 16.7 partner with 

different groups 

2 33.3 local OHV club 1 16.7 volunteer patrols

meetings 

1 16.7 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s dept.*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
94

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Harassment of Wildlife

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

4 66.7 law enforcement ◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

◊ We call it the 3 Es: Engineer, Educate, Enforce.

You MUST do the first two but the message is

most effectively sent when the rules are

enforced. It doesn’t take much of the third 

“E” if the first two are done well. 

◊ no response (2) 

1 16.7 posters or signs ◊ Able to identify wildlife that live in area.

Educate to prevent harassment.

1 16.7 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to be 

a problem.

Harassment of Wildlife

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 6)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 16.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

5 83.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how they differed.

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement.
95

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

9: Noise and smoke

This issue was added by the respondent(s) and was not included in the set of issues available

to all respondents.There were three respondents (7 percent of the sample) who said they 

observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we 

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Noise and Smoke

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

3 6.7 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

42 93.3 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 3)

2 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

1 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Noise—summer dirt bikes, winter snowmobiles—complaints from skiers.

◊ Winter only
96

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Noise and Smoke

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting noise and smoke (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 33.3 posters or signs 0 0 maps 

0 0 brochures 1 33.3 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other 1 33.3 local newspaper 

educational articles 

materials 

0 0 user ethics 1 33.3 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
97

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting noise and smoke (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for 

special use 

permits

0 0 non-issuance of 2 66.7 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 33.3 relocate or 1 33.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 33.3 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user 

groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

2 66.7 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
98

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting noise and smoke (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand and 

on trails gravel, concrete blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water bars 0 0 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
99

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting noise and smoke (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 100.0 personal contacts 3 100.0 partner with different 

groups 

1 33.3 local OHV club 1 33.3 volunteer patrols

meetings

1 33.3 meetings with 1 33.3 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 33.3 adopt-a-trail 1 33.3 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Noise and Smoke

Actions Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 3)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

2 66.7 personal contacts

1 33.3 posters or signs
100

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Noise and Smoke

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 3)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

2 66.7 personal contacts ◊ Explain more out at the trailhead—conflicts 

occur at trailhead. 

◊ Use personal contacts for voluntary sound 

checks. “Your bike sounds noisy. Can we

check it for you?” There is a NEW California 

law on reduced noise levels.

1 33.3 voluntary sound ◊ Noise checks at staging areas and events 

checks off-forest inform/educate users and lower 

noise levels.

Noise and Smoke

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 3)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

2 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

1 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ No way to check noise for snowmobiles. (Sound check equipment is not designed 

for snowmobiles.) Have to use personal contact in winter.

◊ Winter only
101

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

10: Reduction in Size of Habitat

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of 

this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Reduction in Size of Habitat

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

n = 1

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

Reduction in Size of Habitat

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting reduction in size of habitat (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

1 100.0 brochures 1 100.0 public service 

announcements 

1 100.0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles

1 100.0 user ethics 1 100.0 bulletin boards 

1 100.0 etiquette 1 100.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 100.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
102

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting reduction in size of habitat (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for 

special use permits

1 100.0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

1 100.0 organized events 1 100.0 users ride in dispersed 

to do trail patterns

maintenance

1 100.0 relocate or 1 100.0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 100.0 seasonal closures 1 100.0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs 1 100.0 alternate between user 

as soon as located* groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews to 

maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
103

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting reduction in size of habitat (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 1 100.0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 1 100.0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent,

straightaways/use mechanized & 

all single track/ 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking 

dog bones* and staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
104

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting reduction in size of habitat (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 1 100.0 partner with 

different groups 

1 100.0 local OHV club 1 100.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings 

1 100.0 meetings with 1 100.0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 100.0 adopt-a-trail 1 100.0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 1 100.0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 100.0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s dept.*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Reduction in Size of Habitat

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” ( n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 close or limit use
105

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Reduction in Size of Habitat

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 0)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

no response

Reduction in Size of Habitat

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of 

respondents Percent Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.
106

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue 

(n = 1)

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

11: Injuries or Death of Individual 

Members of a Species

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample)

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of

this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting injuries or death of individual members of a species (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

1 100.0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other 0 0 local newspaper 

educational articles 

materials 

0 0 user ethics 1 100.0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
107

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting injuries or death of individual members of a species (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 close or limit 0 0 provisions for special 

use use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in dispersed 

to do trail patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

1 100.0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between user 

soon as located* groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
108

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting injuries or death of individual members of a species (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 1 100.0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to 

one direction 

(e.g.,uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
109

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting injuries or death of individual members of 

a species (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 0 0 volunteer patrols 

meetings 

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with local 

including groups and volunteers

campfire 

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 close or limit use
110

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 law enforcement no response

Injuries or Death of Individual Members of a Species

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of 

respondents Percent Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.
111

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

12: Dust near Developed Campgrounds

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of 

this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Dust near Developed Campgrounds

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 1)

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management issue 

indicated that the issue differed by season.

Dust near Developed Campgrounds

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting dust near developed campgrounds (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

1 100.0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 100.0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 100.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
112

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting dust near developed campgrounds (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 1 100.0 provisions for 

special use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

1 100.0 organized events 1 100.0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
113

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting dust near developed campgrounds (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 Specify a 1 100.0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent?

mean = 15.00

(only response) 

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 100.0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

1 100.0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
114

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting dust near developed campgrounds (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal 1 100.0 partner with different 

contacts groups

1 100.0 local OHV 1 100.0 volunteer patrols 

club meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 100.0 adopt-a-trail 1 100.0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 100.0 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
115

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Dust near Developed Campgrounds

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 organized events to do trail maintenance

Dust near Developed Campgrounds

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “most effective” ( n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 drain dips ◊ Last longer. 

Dust near Developed Campgrounds 

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of 

respondents Percent Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

117

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Appendix C—Regulatory/Behavioral

and Agency Issues and Management

Actions

This appendix provides information about the actions in use on National Forests 

in California for each of the management issues identified under the Regulatory/

Behavioral and Agency category.

Eleven issues were asked of all respondents, and some managers included

additional issues. These were wilderness trespass, multiple land jurisdictions, nonmanageable wilderness boundaries, and lack of consistent funding. These small

percentages reflect the responses of only those respondents who added them to the

list. If they had been on the original list to all respondents, then the numbers might

be different.
118

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

1: Four-Wheelers Going Off Established 

Roads or Trails

There were 33 respondents (73 percent of the sample) who said they observed or

received reports of this management issue. Of these, 17 indicated that the issue 

differed by season. In summer, for example, changes were going off-trail and trespassing. Fall/hunting season changes were also reported. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs and bulletin

boards. The most frequently named direct actions were law enforcement and close

or limit use. The most frequently named resource-hardening actions were drain dips

(meaning a reversal of grade) and staging areas with parking facilities. The most

frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal contacts and

local OHV club meetings. The actions used most often and seen as most effective

were bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and indirect (mostly

posters or signs). Why these were perceived as most effective included the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Dialog between the user and us is important. Give them “a why.” 

Explain to them. Plus, they know they’re being watched. 

• Face-to-face contact works.

• Dealing with users directly—word of mouth among users. Word

reaches people faster.

• We call it the “3 Es”: Engineer, Educate, Enforce. You must do the first

two, but the message is more effectively sent when the rules are enforced. 

It doesn’t take much of the third “E” if the first two are done well.

Only seven of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used

changed seasonally.
119

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

33 73.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

12 26.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 30)

17 56.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

12 40.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 3.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Happens mostly in fall (deer season) ATVs and Jeeps.

◊ Hunting season—more often

◊ In winter, snowmobiles go in wilderness areas.

◊ More in summer (2)

◊ More in summer (not snow machines)

◊ Mostly during hunting season, hunters going off established roads or trails

◊ Mostly summer

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer

◊ Summer [illegible] going.

◊ Summer season

◊ Summer they go off-trail; winter wilderness trespass

◊ Summer only. Some “wheeled” vehicles go on snowmobile trails.

◊ Summer: 4-wheelers—certain areas they want to go in—off-trail and trespassing

◊ Summer—lack of designated routes—which is now being changed over and in transition to designated routes

◊ Winter—closure for POC protection
120

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting four-wheelers going off established roads or trails (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

27 81.8 posters or signs 19 57.6 maps 

17 51.5 brochures 3 9.1 public service 

announcements 

14 44.4 other educational 7 21.2 local newspaper 

materials articles 

16 48.5 user ethics 21 63.6 bulletin boards 

10 30.3 etiquette 4 12.1 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 10 30.3 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting four-wheelers going off established roads or trails (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

15 45.5 close or limit use 6 18.2 provisions for 

special use permits

3 9.1 non-issuance of 32 97.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

6 18.2 organized events 3 9.1 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

7 21.2 relocate or 1 3.0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

4 12.1 seasonal closures 1 3.0 separate user groups 

2 6.1 make repairs 0 0 alternate between

as soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 1 3.0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
121

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting four-wheelers going off established roads or trails (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 6.1 Specify a 6 18.2 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

SD = 0.00000

0 0 Specify a 2 6.1 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

7 21.2 drain dips 7 21.2 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

1 3.0 flexible water 4 12.1 designated campsites 

bars 

1 3.0 for events, 5 15.2 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

1 3.0 trail design: 1 3.0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single plan*

track/use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
122

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting four-wheelers going off established 

roads or trails (n = 33)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

29 87.9 personal contacts 10 30.3 partner with different 

groups 

16 48.5 local OHV club 13 39.4 volunteer patrols 

meetings

5 15.2 meetings with 3 9.1 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops

13 39.4 adopt-a-trail 6 18.2 workshops

program 

1 3.0 trail safety 2 6.1 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 3.0 education, 12 36.4 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

1 3.0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
123

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” n = 30

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

9 30.0 personal contacts

7 23.3 posters or signs

6 20.0 law enforcement

2 6.7 maps

2 6.7 close or limit use

2 6.7 barricades, barriers

1 3.3 organized events to do trail maintenance

1 3.3 relocate or designate OHV trails
124

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 32)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

11 34.4 personal contacts ◊ Because [respondent] said so. 

◊ Because we get to talk and educate our publics.

There is the chance for dialog and a good 

chance to explain why an area is closed or 

there are certain rules for a reason. 

◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs. 

◊ Dialog between user and us is important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them. Plus, they 

know they’re being watched.

◊ Face-to-face contact works. 

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ Like to get more information.

◊ The “FS presence,” whether to help or enforce 

regulations, is effective. Use motorcycle 

patrols to be “one of them.” Someone who has 

“riding ability” and can “talk bikes” with users. 

◊ Users see us out there; it establishes a 

presence. Give them information to make the 

right choice because they want to do the right 

thing. 

◊ no response (2) 

9 28.1 law enforcement ◊ Because there are direct consequences for the 

violator that don’t negatively affect responsible 

users. 

◊ Dealing with users directly—word of mouth 

among users. Word reaches people faster.

◊ Educate/provide consequence for actions. 

◊ Signs are ignored without back-up. 

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO. 

◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions. 
125

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 32)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

◊ We call it the 3 Es: Engineer, Educate, Enforce. 

You MUST do the first two but the message 

is most effectively sent when the rules are 

enforced. It doesn’t take much of the third “E”

if the first two are done well. 

◊ no response (2) 

3 9.4 posters or signs ◊ Designated routes with lots of signs and 

monitoring...the paradigm on the Cleveland 

is closed unless designated open...this is the 

most effective way to provide the use and keep 

it concentrated. 

◊ OHV use has specific borders. Put Carsonite 

signs on illegal trails—this works well. 

◊ Volunteers help put them up. 

3 9.4 barricades, barriers ◊ Can’t get past the barricade of rocks. Barricade

there all the time when personnel isn’t. 

◊ If it takes time/effort to disassemble block, 

they will stay on route—most likely. Otherwise

they risk chance of being caught by us/public. 

◊ Last longer.

1 3.1 other educational ◊ Non-local trail-bike/ATV users have switched 

material to other districts with OHV trail opportunity. 

OSV clubs are excellent at policing their own 

user type.

1 3.1 maps ◊ Maps tell where can ride and cannot. (Most 

people do that.) ATVs/motorcycles do more 

off-trail—4WDs don’t.

1 3.1 close or limit use ◊ Closed by private landowner. 

1 3.1 relocate or ◊ Need to have adequate signing of trail 

designate OHV designations for OHV use. Education of 

trails where OHVs are allowed to be—needs to be 

combined with a good map.

1 3.1 drain dips ◊ Last longer

1 3.1 trail design ◊ If we can provide quality experiences, 

four- wheelers will tend to stick to the trails.
126

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Four-Wheelers Going Off Established Roads or Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

( n = 31)

Number of 

respondents Percent Seasonal nature of actions

16 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

16 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs 

in aquatic areas. 

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcenment.

◊ Hunting season. 

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time.

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Resources of concern change with season. 

◊ Use barricades/barriers in summer, not in winter. 

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.
127

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

2: OHVs Going Too Fast

There were 26 respondents (58 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Of these, only seven indicated that the

issue differed by season.

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs and maps.

The most frequently named direct action was law enforcement. The most frequently

named resource-hardening action was artificial tread. The most frequently named

bridge building/collaboration actions were personal contacts and local OHV club

meetings. The actions used most often and seen as most effective were bridgebuilding/collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and direct (mostly law enforcement). Why these were perceived as most effective included the following

explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Try to educate/warn them of violations (safety concerns/violations). They 

pay attention to the risk of getting injured and/or paying a fine.

• Can explain why instead of just what the rule is. It goes a long way.

• Due to fines, very effective.

• Because users pay attention to law enforcement, but fast is part of the 

experience. 

Only six of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used changed

seasonally.
128

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

OHVs Going too Fast

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

26 57.8 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

19 42.2 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 24)

7 29.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

16 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 4.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed 

by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Complaints of going too fast near campground that is open only in summer

◊ In winter, speed of snowmobiles around blind corners is an issue. Groomed trail lends itself to higher speed.

◊ More in winter, better traction, less dust.

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊ Summer season—motorcycles and quads

◊ Winter more

◊ Winter only
129

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

OHVs Going too Fast

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting OHVs going too fast (n = 26)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

18 69.2 posters or signs 14 53.8 maps 

11 42.3 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

7 26.9 other 2 7.7 local newspaper 

educational articles

materials

13 50.0 user ethics 13 50.0 bulletin boards 

9 34.6 etiquette 2 7.7 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 6 23.1 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
130

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting OHVs going too fast (n = 26)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 3.8 close or limit use 4 15.4 provisions for 

special use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 23 88.5 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

3 11.5 organized events 2 7.7 users ride 

to do trail in dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 7.7 relocate or 1 3.8 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 3.8 seasonal closures 1 3.8 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
131

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting OHVs going too fast (n = 26)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 7.7 Specify a 4 15.4 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 12.5000

SD = 3.53553

0 0 Specify a 2 7.7 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

3 11.5 drain dips 2 7.7 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 1 3.8 designated campsites 

bars

1 3.8 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

3 11.5 trail design: 1 3.8 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 3.8 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
132

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting OHVs going too fast (n = 26)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

21 80.8 personal contacts 7 26.9 partner with different 

groups 

13 50.0 local OHV club 9 34.6 volunteer patrols 

meetings

3 11.5 meetings with 1 3.8 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

7 26.9 adopt-a-trail 4 15.4 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 3 11.5 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 5 19.2 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

with BLM* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

OHVs Going too Fast

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 25)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

9 36.0 personal contacts

8 32.0 law enforcement

5 20.0 posters or signs

2 8.0 user ethics

1 4.0 trail design
133

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

OHVs Going too Fast

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 25)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

9 36.0 personal contacts ◊ Can explain why instead of just what the rule 

is—goes a long way. 

◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs. 

◊ Dialog between user and us important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them.

◊ If you explain why better—educational/cost $ 

explanations. 

◊ One-on-one information to deal with the 

problem is best—let them know. 

◊ Personal contacts can be educational 

in the field. 

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note on info board (won’t get read). Message 

gets across better. We are right there when 

it happens. 

◊ Try to educate/warn them of violations (safety 

concerns/violations). They pay attention to the 

risk of getting injured and/or paying a fine. 

◊ no response (1)

9 36.0 law enforcement ◊ Because there are direct consequences for the 

violator that don’t negatively affect responsible 

users. 

◊ Because users pay attention to law 

enforcement. (“Fast is part of the experience.”)

◊ Due to fines, very effective. 

◊ Get a ticket, gonna do it again? 

◊ Prefer personal contact with teeth—although 

does not currently exist with budget restraints.

◊ Talk to them and get them on your side; having 

a good attitude helps get them to see things 

your way.

◊ Ticketing a lot—word of mouth gets out (local 

folks more than visitors)
134

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

OHVs Going too Fast

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 25)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions.

◊ You can post signs and talk all you want, but 

change really happens when the tickets start 

getting written.

3 12.0 user ethics ◊ If we get them to be responsible for their own 

safety, it’s the best. Get them to do it on their 

own means more than a ticket. Shows more of 

a responsibility of the individual—if they get 

it, ceases to be a problem.

◊ More of them than us. Patrol themselves.

◊ Peer pressure. Organized groups are into 

“Tread Lightly” (same message as on 

signs/bulletin boards)

3 12.0 posters or signs ◊ Posted speed limits and safety signs help by 

getting info to riders.

◊ Speed limits are placed at staging areas. 

◊ Thoughtful trail layout and design (including 

signs) affects user experiences in many ways, 

including conflicts. A good design may 

substantially reduce conflicts.

1 4.0 trail design ◊ All single track keeps speed down. 
135

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

OHVs Going too Fast

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 26)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

6 23.1 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

20 76.9 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time.

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Different resources of concern change with season.

◊ Signs—in winter only—“slow” at trailheads. 

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence. 

◊ Winter primarily.

◊ Winter snowmobile use is not necessarily on trails. 
136

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

3: Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

There were 23 respondents (51 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Of these, nine indicated that the issue

differed by season. Most indicated this was a summer issue (mostly because winter

users wear helmets for warmth).

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs, bulletin

boards, and brochures. The most frequently named direct action was law enforcement. The most frequently named resource-hardening action was staging areas

with parking facilities. The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration

actions were personal contacts and volunteer patrols. The actions used most often

and seen as most effective were direct (mostly law enforcement) and bridge building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts). Why this was perceived as most

effective included the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended

question:

• They get a ticket.

• No regulations/laws to do with safety except helmet on ATV. Tell them they 

are not wise to wear shorts, etc. Write tickets for no helmet.

• Tell people face-to-face what they need to wear for safety.

About one-third of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they

used changed seasonally.
137

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

23 51.1 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

22 48.9 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 23)

9 39.1 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

13 56.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 4.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that they did not know if the issue 

differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ During fall hunting season—more

◊ More of a problem in summer. Worn in winter for warmth.

◊ More of a problem in summer—a law in summer on ATVs. Snowmobilers wear them for warmth.

◊ Most OSVs wear helmets for warmth.

◊ Not required to wear helmet on snowmobile.

◊ Riders don’t want to wear helmets in the summer and during deer season because it’s too hot.

◊ Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of the problems are related to he number of people.

◊ Summer only

◊ Summer season
138

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting a lack of safetywear (n = 23)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

16 69.6 posters or signs 4 17.4 maps 

13 56.5 brochures 2 8.7 public service 

announcements

8 34.8 other educational 3 13.0 local newspaper 

materials articles

11 47.8 user ethics 13 56.5 bulletin boards 

5 21.7 etiquette 1 4.3 trail descriptions 

1 4.3 manufacturers’ 1 4.3 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting a lack of safetywear (n = 23)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 4.3 close or 3 13.0 provisions for 

limit use special use permits

1 4.3 non-issuance of 23 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

2 8.7 organized events 1 4.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 4.3 relocate or 1 4.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 4.3 seasonal closures 1 4.3 separate user groups 

1 4.3 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
139

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting a lack of safetywear (n = 23)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 4.3 Specify a 2 8.7 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum geofabric with sand 

grade on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 4.3 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 4.3 drain dips 3 13.0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 2 8.7 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g.,

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 1 4.3 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 4.3 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 23)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

8 34.8 personal contacts

7 30.4 law enforcement

6 26.1 posters or signs

1 4.3 maps 

1 4.3 bulletin boards

140

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting a lack of safetywear (n = 23)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

20 87.0 personal contacts 4 17.4 partner with 

different groups 

4 17.4 local OHV club 7 30.4 volunteer patrols 

meetings

3 13.0 meetings with 2 8.7 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

4 17.4 adopt-a-trail 3 13.0 workshops 

program

1 4.3 trail safety 1 4.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 4.3 education, 3 13.0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
141

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 22)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

10 45.5 law enforcement ◊ Because there are direct consequences for the 

violator that don’t negatively affect responsible

users. 

◊ Dealing with people with guns (hunting) get 

belligerent—their goal is to get a deer—safety 

is not a priority.

◊ Just a few tickets go a long way—word travels 

fast among users. 

◊ Lack of safetywear is an individual issue, only 

affecting themselves (the wearer). 

◊ No regs/laws to do with safety except helmet 

on ATV. Tell them they are not wise to wear 

shorts, etc. Write tickets for that one thing (no 

helmet). 

◊ They get a ticket.

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO. 

◊ Ticket with a fine—state law violation. 

◊ Users can’t ignore law enforcement. 

◊ no response (1) 

8 36.4 personal contacts ◊ Able to answer why—cite person—answer 

questions Enforce/why/options.

◊ Getting a ticket gives them “a clue.” 

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note or info board (won’t get read). Message 

gets across better. 

◊ Tell people face-to-face what need to wear 

for their safety.

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols 

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users. 

◊ no response (2) 
142

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 22)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 4.5 brochures ◊ Detailed regs. from California vehicle code, 

cost of violation. If they know that they are 

violating California code (and not just ours) 

and how much the fines are ($150), less 

likely to do without safetywear. 

1 4.5 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more 

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to be 

a problem.

1 4.5 maps ◊ Our OHV/OSV map has all the correct 

safetywear on it.

1 4.5 bulletin boards ◊ Informed public generally do the right thing.

Lack of Safetywear (such as helmets, etc.)

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 23)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

8 34.8 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season

15 65.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs 

in aquatic areas. 

◊ Different equipment needed for snowmobiles. 

◊ During hunting season—do more law enforcement

◊ Hunting season.

◊ In deer hunting season—don’t want to wear safety gear.

◊ No law on helmets on snowmobiles. 

◊ Summer only.

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.
143

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

4: Alcohol use

There were 19 respondents (42 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received

reports of this management issue. Of these, only two indicated that the issue differed by season. 

The most frequently named indirect actions were posters or signs and brochures. The most frequently named direct action was provisions for special use 

permits. The most frequently named resource-hardening action was artificial tread.

The most frequently named bridge-building/collaboration actions were personal

contacts and volunteer patrols. The actions used most often and seen as most effective were bridge-building/collaboration (mostly personal contacts) and direct

(mostly law enforcement). Why these were perceived as most effective included

the following explanations by respondents to an open-ended question:

• Using alcohol makes them uneasy—they will comply if they know they 

will have their vehicle searched. Use a check station—talk to everyone 

and tell them not to drink and they may be searched.

• Personal contact is more effective than a passive poster.

• People don’t tend to drink when law enforcement is present.

Only five of the respondents reporting this issue said the action they used

changed seasonally.

Alcohol Use

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

19 42.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

26 57.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 19)

2 10.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

16 84.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

1 5.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management issue indicated that they did not know if the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊Spring—Fall are high-use seasons, so most of problems are related to the number of people.

◊Summer—Mostly young riders drinking.
144

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Indirect actions used by those reporting alcohol use (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 42.1 posters or signs 3 15.8 maps 

7 36.8 brochures 2 10.5 public service 

announcements 

5 26.3 other educational 3 15.8 local newspaper 

materials articles 

6 31.6 user ethics 6 31.6 bulletin boards 

4 21.1 etiquette 2 10.5 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 2 10.5 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting alcohol use (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 10.5 close or limit use 5 26.3 provisions for 

special use permits

1 5.3 non-issuance of 1 5.3 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

2 10.5 organized events 1 5.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 10.5 relocate or 1 5.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails 

1 5.3 seasonal closures 1 5.3 separate user 

groups

1 5.3 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
145

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting alcohol use (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 5.3 Specify a maximum 2 10.5 artificial tread (e.g., 

grade on trails geofabric with sand 

and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 5.3 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 5.3 drain dips (meaning 1 5.3 staging areas with 

a reversal of grade) parking facilities 

0 0 flexible water bars 1 5.3 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 1 5.3 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

1 5.3 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Alcohol Use

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 18)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

9 50.0 personal contacts

5 27.8 law enforcement

2 11.1 posters or signs

1 5.6 local OHV club meetings

1 5.6 working with Sheriff’s Dept.

146

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting alcohol use (n = 19)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

17 89.5 personal contacts 4 21.1 partner with different 

groups 

5 26.3 local OHV club 6 31.6 volunteer patrols 

meetings

2 10.5 meetings with 2 10.5 partner with 

state OHV groups OHV shops 

5 26.3 adopt-a-trail 3 15.8 workshops 

program 

1 5.3 trail safety 1 5.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 5.3 education, 3 15.8 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 1 5.3 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
147

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Alcohol Use

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 19)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

10 52.6 personal contacts ◊ Dialog between user and us is important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them.

◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance to 

explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answer visitors’ questions, etc. 

◊ Gets attention of users.

◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources.

◊ Not a specific law for a long time. FPOs don’t 

really do law enforcement (law enforcement is 

also personal contact). Peer pressure.

◊ Personal contact is more effective than, say, 

a passive poster.

◊ Talking to someone is better than leaving a 

note on info board (won’t get read). Message 

gets across better. People get tired of reading 

negative posters. 

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols 

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users. 

◊ Using alcohol makes them uneasy—they will 

comply if they know they will have vehicle 

searched. Use a check station—talk to everyone and tell them not to drink/may be searched. 

◊ no response (1)

6 31.6 law enforcement ◊ Dealing with underage drinking and of-age, 

but irresponsible.

◊ Educate/provide consequence for actions.

◊ People don’t tend to drink when law 

enforcement is present.

◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO.

◊ You can post signs and talk all you want, but 

change really happens when the tickets start 

getting written. (FS LEOs working with 

county sheriff)

◊ no response (1)
148

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Alcohol Use

Actions Reported Most Effective (continued)

Actions reported “most effective” ( n = 19)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 5.3 posters or signs ◊ Information is “in their face” to read. They 

have had specific signs made for this and 

posted on trail and at trailhead.

1 5.3 user ethics ◊ Getting them to do it on their own means more 

than a ticket. Used to do law enforcement but 

unarmed FPOs can’t do it. When alcohol is 

around, FPOs don’t deal with it because 

unarmed. Need to call cops who aren’t 

available much.

1 5.3 working with ◊ Do 15-minute program. Kids pay attention, 

sheriff’s department but hard to know how well it works. Haven’t 

found much that works. 

Alcohol Use

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 19)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

5 26.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

14 73.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could 

be a safety hazard to others (rutting).

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs 

in aquatic areas. 

◊ During hunting season, do more law enforcement

◊ Hunting season 

◊ We have limited staff in winter with little to no field presence.
149

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

13 28.9 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

32 71.1 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 12)

6 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

6 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ In summer, on technical trails, 4x4s get stuck.

◊ More in summer

◊ Most use November through May

◊ Winter drivers stuck in the snow (not prepared).

◊ Winter is more difficult riding terrain.

◊ Winter, summer is not as much of a problem, because winter access is limited. 

5: Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

There were 13 respondents (29 percent of the sample) who said they observed 

or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number we

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.
150

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain (n = 13)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

9 69.2 posters or signs 10 76.9 maps 

5 38.5 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

3 23.1 other educational 2 15.4 local newspaper 

materials articles

4 30.8 user ethics 5 38.5 bulletin boards 

2 15.4 etiquette 8 61.5 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 7 53.8 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

1 7.7 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain (n = 13)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 7.7 close or limit use 1 7.7 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance 6 46.2 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 15.4 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails 

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

1 7.7 make repairs 0 0 alternate between

as soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
151

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain (n = 13)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a maximum 2 15.4 artificial tread (e.g., 

grade on trails geofabric with sand 

and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

2 15.4 drain dips 3 23.1 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water bars 1 7.7 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, restricted 1 7.7 barricades, barriers*

to one direction (e.g., 

uphill or downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 13)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

4 30.8 posters or signs

3 23.1 personal contacts

2 15.4 trail descriptions

1 7.7 maps

1 7.7 trail use recommendations

1 7.7 relocate or designate OHV trails

1 7.7 additional funding, matching funds

152

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain (n = 13)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 61.5 personal contacts 1 7.7 partner with different 

groups 

3 23.1 local OHV club 5 38.5 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with state 0 0 partner with OHV

OHV groups shops 

4 30.8 adopt-a-trail 1 7.7 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 3 23.1 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
153

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 13)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

6 46.2 posters or signs ◊ Getting the right information to users will 

allow them to make good decisions.

◊ OHV use has specific borders. Put Carsonite 

signs on illegal trails—this works well.

◊ People think they are more experienced than 

they are (so trails signed by difficulty help).

◊ Signs get message out to everybody, as 

opposed to a handout.

◊ Trails are rated by difficulty, although there is 

no real standard—sometimes the most difficult 

trail in an area is automatically a black 

diamond.

◊ no response (1)

3 23.1 personal contacts ◊ Because we get to talk and educate our publics.

There is the chance for dialog and a good 

chance to explain why an area is closed or 

there are certain rules for a reason.

◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs.

◊ One-on-one, hand out info (Tread Lightly) with

safety tips.

1 7.7 local newspaper ◊ Peer pressure—people don’t want others to 

articles know they got stuck. 

1 7.7 trail-use ◊ Identify easy/moderate/difficult riding areas 

recommendations and let them know where they are (information 

is on maps, too). 

1 7.7 relocate or ◊ Redesignate county road for nonlicensed OHV.

designate OHV

trails

1 7.7 additional funding, ◊ Money drives everything.

matching funds
154

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Inexperienced Drivers in Difficult Terrain

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 13)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

4 30.8 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

9 69.2 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ More publicity in winter

◊ Mostly in winter 

◊ Winter-only problem 

◊ Winter—warning signs about dangers and road closures; Summer—public contacts and information 
155

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Large Group of Four-Wheelers

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

9 20.0 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

36 80.0 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 9)

5 55.6 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

4 44.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Holiday weekends—heaviest use

◊ More in winter

◊ Summer

◊ Summer—larger groups

◊ Summer use of [respondent named] trail

6: Large Group of Four-Wheelers

There were nine respondents (20 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.
156

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting large groups of four-wheelers (n = 9)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 22.2 close or limit use 2 22.2 provisions for special 

use permits

1 11.1 non-issuance of 5 55.6 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

1 11.1 organized events 3 33.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 22.2 relocate or 0 0 separate trails

designate OHV

trails 

2 22.2 seasonal closures 1 11.1 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Large Group of Four-Wheelers

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting large groups of four-wheelers (n = 9)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 22.2 posters or signs 5 55.6 maps 

3 33.3 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

0 0 other 0 0 local newspaper 

educational articles 

materials

6 66.7 user ethics 2 22.2 bulletin boards 

4 44.4 etiquette 2 22.2 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 3 33.3 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting large groups of four-wheelers (n = 9)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 1 11.1 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 1 11.1 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 11.1 drain dips 3 33.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 2 22.2 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 1 11.1 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, * 1 11.1 overflow parking and 

dog bones staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

157

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California
158

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge Building/Collaboration Actions used by those reporting large groups of four-wheelers (n=9)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

7 77.8 personal contacts 2 22.2 partner with 

different groups 

6 66.7 local OHV club 3 33.3 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 11.1 meetings with 1 11.1 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

3 33.3 adopt-a-trail 1 11.1 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 1 11.1 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 11.1 education, 3 33.3 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Large Group of Four-Wheelers

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 9)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

3 33.3 personal contacts

2 22.2 law enforcement

1 11.1 staging areas with parking facilities

1 11.1 adopt-a-trail program

1 11.1 partner with different groups

1 11.1 education, including campfire programs
159

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Large Group of Four-Wheelers

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 9)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

3 33.3 personal contacts ◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users know 

that we are keeping an eye on the resources. 

◊ More personal than info. board.

◊ One-on-one contact to pass on info. In field 

and at OHV meetings—club members spread 

word to other members. 

◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience, not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions.

2 22.2 law enforcement ◊ If you want to disperse people, threaten people 

with tickets—works good.

1 11.1 staging areas ◊ Providing a staging area with parking directs 

with parking activity to an area where they can camp and 

facilities off-load (easing crowding). 

1 11.1 adopt-a-trail ◊ You have these groups that have numerous 

program members that travel as groups; monthly 

meetings (50 groups) get messages out so 

can share goals. 

1 11.1 partner with ◊ Able to meet with lots of people to educate 

different groups them.

1 11.1 barricades, ◊ Large groups of 4-wheelers cause adverse 

barriers impacts when they camp or gather. Effective 

barriers combined with designated camping 

often meets needs and contains impacts to 

roads.
160

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Large Group of Four-Wheelers

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 9)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

3 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

6 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Hunting season

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time.

◊ Most use is November—May.
161

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

7: Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, Etc.

There were eight respondents (18 percent of the sample) who said they observed 

or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we 

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, Etc.

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

8 17.8 respondents observed or received reports of this management ssue

37 82.2 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 8)

3 37.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

5 62.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ In winter, “explorers” on snowmobiles go off trail and encounter dangerous drop-offs.

◊ Summer—lots of old mining claims, some have hazards

◊ Winter trails—due to weather—temperature gets holes to open up. In summer, a mine 

(on private land)—FS flags it off during events.
162

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, Etc.

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting dangerous drop-offs, mines, etc. (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

7 87.5 posters or signs 2 25.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

1 12.5 other educational 0 0 local newspaper

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 12.5 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 2 25.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 3 37.5 trail-use

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting dangerous drop-offs, mines, Etc. (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 100.0 close or limit use 1 12.5 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 4 50.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance 

2 25.0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between

soon as located* user groups

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
163

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting dangerous drop-offs, mines, Etc. (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails? and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade? disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 1 12.5 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
164

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting dangerous drop-offs, mines, Etc. (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

5 62.5 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

1 12.5 local OHV club 2 25.0 volunteer patrols

meetings 

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 12.5 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 2 25.0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

1 12.5 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, Etc.

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 8)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

4 50.0 posters or signs

2 25.0 personal contacts

2 25.0 close or limit use
165

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, etc.

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 8)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

4 50.0 posters or signs ◊ Real visual signs (colorful—HAZARD

AREA) gets message across.

◊ Signs are on site, on the ground. Repeat 

users know to look for the signs.

◊ no response (2)

3 37.5 personal contacts ◊ Best to give warning face to face.

◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance 

to explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answers visitors’ questions, etc. 

◊ Gets their attention.

1 12.5 close or limit use ◊ Closed by private landowner.

Dangerous Drop-offs, Mines, etc.

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 8)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

2 25.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

6 75.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could 

be a safety hazard to others (rutting).

◊ Winter: re-groom signs “Danger”; use re-writeable sign for trail conditions, “avalanche,” etc., 

grooming, too. Summer: flag off mine. 
166

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Too Many People at Trail Access Points

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

6 13.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

39 86.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 6)

3 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

3 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Winter more

◊ Winter more/limited parking

◊ Winter, only—a few trails overflow.

8: Too Many People at Trail Access Points

There were six respondents (13 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received 

reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we advise caution in

interpreting the results in this section.
167

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting too many people at trail access points (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 50.0 close or limit use 2 33.3 provisions for special 

use permits

1 16.7 non-issuance of 4 66.7 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

1 16.7 organized events 2 33.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 33.3 relocate or 1 16.7 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

3 50.0 seasonal closures 1 16.7 separate user groups 

1 16.7 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Too Many People at Trail Access Points

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting too many people at trail access points (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

4 66.7 posters or signs 4 66.7 maps 

2 33.3 brochures 1 16.7 public service 

announcements 

2 33.3 other educational 2 33.3 local newspaper 

materials articles 

3 50.0 user ethics 2 33.3 bulletin boards

3 50.0 etiquette 2 33.3 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 4 66.7 trail-use

stickers on ATVs* recommendations

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
168

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting too many people at trail access points (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 16.7 Specify a 1 16.7 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 15.00

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 16.7 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 16.7 drain dips 2 33.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 1 16.7 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
169

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting too many people at trail access points (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

5 83.3 personal contacts 2 33.3 partner with different 

groups 

2 33.3 local OHV club 2 33.3 volunteer patrols

meetings 

1 16.7 meetings with 1 16.7 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 16.7 adopt-a-trail 1 16.7 workshops

program 

1 16.7 trail safety 2 33.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 16.7 education, 1 16.7 maintain trail with local 

including campfire groups and volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Too Many People at Trail Access Points

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

3 50.0 personal contacts

1 16.7 posters or signs

1 16.7 etiquette

1 16.7 staging areas with parking facilities
170

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Too Many People at Trail Access Points

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

3 50.0 personal contacts ◊ Dialog between user and us important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them. Give them a 

description on where to go park.

◊ Parking and trailhead are along 

Hwy [named] and have so many snowmobiles 

at parking lot/trailhead they direct traffic. 

◊ The “FS presence” whether to help or enforce 

regulations is effective. Use motorcycle patrols 

to be “one of them.” Someone who has “riding 

ability” and can “talk bikes” with users.

1 16.7 user ethics ◊ If people are nice to one another and take 

turns, works better. Get them to do it on their 

own means more than a ticket. Shows more 

of a responsibility of the individual—if they 

get it, ceases to be a problem.

1 16.7 maps ◊ Gives different trailhead locations so users 

can find other opportunities to ride, launch, 

and park. 

1 16.7 staging areas ◊ By providing enough access, many crowding 

with parking issues may be resolved. Additionally, trail 

facilities crowding may often be limited by available 

parking.
171

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Too Many People at Trail Access Points

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 6)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

5 83.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

1 16.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Change with fire, wet weather, spring. Restrictions in spring to avoid fawning, nesting, and frogs 

in aquatic areas.

◊ Message to public/talking points change with season. Different resources of concern change with season. 

◊ Winter access is limited by areas that are plowed. 

◊ Winter—only problem 
172

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

9: Wilderness Trespass

This issue was added by the respondent(s) and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There were six respondents (13 percent of the sample) who said

they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Wilderness Trespass

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

6 13.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

39 86.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 5)

5 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

Wilderness Trespass

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting wilderness trespass (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

6 100.0 posters or signs 2 33.3 maps 

2 33.3 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 16.7 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 1 16.7 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 16.7 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
173

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting wilderness trespass (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 16.7 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance 0 0 law enforcement

of outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 16.7 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
174

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting wilderness trespass (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars 

0 0 for events, 1 16.7 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Wilderness Trespass

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

2 33.3 posters or signs

2 33.3 personal contacts

1 16.7 law enforcement

1 16.7 barricades, barriers

175

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting wilderness trespass (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

5 83.3 personal contacts 0 0 partner with 

different groups 

2 33.3 local OHV club 1 16.7 volunteer patrols

meetings 

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 16.7 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 16.7 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with 

with BLM* sheriff’s department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
176

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Wilderness Trespass

Actions Reported Most Effective 

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

3 50.0 law enforcement ◊ They seem to listen closer to LEO. 

◊ Word gets around.

◊ no response (1) 

2 33.3 personal contacts ◊ Gives users an opportunity to ask for 

clarification of the rules; lets the users 

know that we are keeping an eye on the 

resources. 

◊ Personal contacts: allows discussion and 

agreement to the situation. 

1 16.7 barricades, barriers ◊ no response (1) 

Wilderness Trespass

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 5)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

3 60.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

2 40.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ During hunting season—do more LE.

◊ Hunting season 

◊ Winter closures—use signs; winter—add different signs along boundaries—use grey and black signs.
177

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

10: Dangerous Driving Routes

There were three respondents (7 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Dangerous Driving Routes

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

3 6.7 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

42 93.3 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 2)

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondent said it differed:

◊ Winter—avalanche conditions

Dangerous Driving Routes

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting dangerous driving routes (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 100.0 posters or signs 2 66.7 maps 

1 33.3 brochures 2 66.7 public service 

announcements 

1 33.3 other educational 2 66.7 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 33.3 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 1 33.3 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
178

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting dangerous driving routes (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 33.3 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 33.3 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 33.3 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
179

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting dangerous driving routes (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated 

bars campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Dangerous Driving Routes

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 3)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 33.3 posters or signs

1 33.3 other educational materials

1 33.3 public service announcements

180

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting dangerous driving routes (n = 3)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 66.7 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 2 66.7 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 33.3 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
181

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Dangerous Driving Routes

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 3)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 33.3 posters or signs ◊ Designated routes with lots of signs and 

monitoring...the paradigm on the [name of 

forest] is closed unless designated open...this 

is the most effective way to provide the use 

and keep it concentrated.

1 33.3 other educational ◊ SUV guide (25 pages, glossy publication) has 

history of driving routes, difficulty of trails. 

Many agencies involved, third printing, very 

popular. 

1 33.3 public service ◊ Users can take the easy trail route. 

announcements

Dangerous Driving Routes

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 3)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

2 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Do public service announcements only in the winter and daily.
182

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

11: Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

There were two respondents (4 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number we advise caution in

interpreting the results in this section.

Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

(n = 2)

2 4.4 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

43 95.6 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondent said it differed:

◊ Opening week of deer season
183

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting too many four-wheelers on roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 close or limit use 1 50.0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 50.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 50.0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting too many four-wheelers on roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 posters or signs 2 100.0 maps 

1 50.0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

1 50.0 user ethics 1 50.0 bulletin boards 

1 50.0 etiquette 1 50.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 50.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
184

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting too many four-wheelers on roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported used most often” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 50.0 personal contacts

1 50.0 etiquette

185

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting too many four-wheelers on roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 2 100.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

1 50.0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation different groups 

form 

0 0 education, 1 50.0 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
186

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 50.0 personal contacts ◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance 

to explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answers visitors’ questions, etc.

1 50.0 user ethics ◊ Get them to do it on their own means more 

than a ticket. Shows more of a responsibility 

of the individual—if they get it, ceases to be 

Too Many Four-Wheelers on Roads or Trails

(n = 2)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondent said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could be 

a safety hazard to others (rutting).
187

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

12: Lack of Safety Flags

There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Lack of Safety Flags

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

(n = 1)

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this management 

issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

Lack of Safety Flags

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting a lack of safety flags (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 0 0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

1 100.0 user ethics 1 100.0 bulletin boards 

1 100.0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on recommendations 

ATVs*

0 0 additional 

funding, 

matching funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
188

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting a lack of safety flags (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

trails 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
189

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting a lack of safety flags (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g.,

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
Lack of Safety Flags

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 education, including campfire programs

190

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting a lack of safety flags (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 0 0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 100.0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department.*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
191

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Lack of Safety Flags

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 education, ◊ The public needs to be informed. 

including 

campfire

programs

Lack of Safety Flags

Seasonal Differences of Actions

( n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of

this management issue indicated that their actions did not differ 

by season.
192

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Multiple Land Jurisdictions

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

(n = 1)

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

13: Multiple Land Jurisdictions

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) who said they

observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small 

number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Multiple Land Jurisdictions

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting multiple land jurisdictions (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 0 0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
193

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting multiple land jurisdictions (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 1 100.0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
194

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting multiple land jurisdictions (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
195

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting multiple land jurisdictions (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 1 100.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 100.0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including campfire local groups and 

programs* volunteers

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 1 100.0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Multiple Land Jurisdictions

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 posters or signs
196

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Multiple Land Jurisdictions

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 nothing works ◊ Politics—City refuses to take part in fixing the 

problem.

Multiple Land Jurisdictions

Seasonal Differences of Actions

( n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.
197

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

14: Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of 

this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

(n = 1)

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting non-manageable wilderness (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 1 100.0 public service 

announcements 

1 100.0 other educational 1 100.0 local newspaper 

materials articles

0 0 user ethics 0 0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
198

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting non-manageable wilderness (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 100.0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
199

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting non-manageable wilderness (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
200

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting non-manageable wilderness (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 1 100.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 

with BLM* 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” ( n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 posters or signs
201

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 local newspaper ◊ peer pressure 

articles

Non-Manageable Wilderness Boundaries

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.
202

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Lack of Consistent Funding

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting a lack of consistent funding (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 posters or signs 0 0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 0 0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

1 100.0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

15: Lack of Consistent Funding

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues available to all

respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received

reports of this management issue. Due to this small number, we advise caution in interpreting the

results in this section.

Lack of Consistent Funding

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

(n =1)

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondent said it differed:

◊ Most use November through May (winter)
203

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting a lack of consistent funding (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 0 0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance 

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails 

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
204

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting a lack of consistent funding (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
205

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting a lack of consistent funding (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 personal contacts 1 100.0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 0 0 volunteer patrols

meetings 

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 1 100.0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Lack of Consistent Funding

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 partner with different groups
206

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Lack of Consistent Funding

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 partner with ◊ Need to augment funding.

different groups 

Lack of Consistent Funding

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondent said they differed.

◊ Most use occurs November through May and on weekends—also trail maintenance period.

More money at that time.
Appendix D—Social Conflict Issues

and Management Actions

This appendix provides information about the actions in use on National Forests 

in California for each of the management issues identified under the Social

Conflict category.

Five issues were asked of all respondents, and some managers included additional issues. These were conflicts with skiers/snowshoers, conflicts with owners

of private lands, and OSV-OHV conflicts. These small percentages reflect the

responses of only those respondents who added them to the list. If they had been

on the original list to all respondents, then the numbers might be different.

207

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California
208

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

1: Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

There were eight respondents (18 percent of the sample) who said they observed 

or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we 

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

8 17.8 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

37 82.2 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 8)

5 62.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

3 37.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ All in summer

◊ Concentration of use in winter

◊ Conflicts between snowmobilers and skiers

◊ Hiker-OHV and skier/snowshoer-OSV

◊ More in summer
209

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with hikers or backpackers on the trails (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

7 87.5 posters or signs 5 62.5 maps 

3 37.5 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

1 12.5 other educational 1 12.5 local newspaper articles 

materials

4 50.0 user ethics 6 75.0 bulletin boards 

2 25.0 etiquette 4 50.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 6 75.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with hikers or backpackers on the trails (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 25.0 close or limit use 1 12.5 provisions for special 

use permits

2 25.0 non-issuance of 6 75.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

1 12.5 organized events to 1 12.5 users ride in 

do trail maintenance dispersed patterns

3 37.5 relocate or 1 12.5 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 12.5 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 1 12.5 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
210

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with hikers or backpackers on the trails (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 1 12.5 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 1 12.5 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

2 25.0 drain dips 1 12.5 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 1 12.5 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

1 12.5 trail design: 0 0 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control* 

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
211

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with hikers or backpackers on 

the trails (n = 8)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

8 100.0 personal contacts 4 50.0 partner with different 

groups 

3 37.5 local OHV club 3 37.5 volunteer patrols 

meetings

8 100.0 meetings with 1 12.5 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

4 50.0 adopt-a-trail 2 25.0 workshops 

program

1 12.5 trail safety 1 12.5 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 3 37.5 maintain trail with

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 8)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

6 75.0 personal contacts

1 12.5 posters or signs

1 12.5 trail design
212

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” ( n = 8)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

5 62.5 personal contacts ◊ Can explain why, instead of just what rule 

is—goes a long way.

◊ Combine FS presence with signs for 

enforcement of rules and regs. 

◊ Deal with people one-on-one and discuss 

issues and send letters to OHV groups about it.

◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance 

to explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answers visitors’ questions, etc 

◊ User conflicts are often isolated incidents.

1 12.5 law enforcement ◊ Educate/provide consequence for actions.

1 12.5 partner with ◊ Each group complains about the other—so 

different groups get the groups TOGETHER. Explain to each 

other what their experiences are.

1 12.5 trail design ◊ Thoughtful trail layout and design affects user 

experiences in many ways including conflicts. 

A good design may substantially reduce 

conflicts. 

Conflicts with Hikers or Backpackers on the Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 8)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

3 37.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

5 62.5 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could be 

a safety hazard to others (rutting). 

◊ No hikers in winter. 

◊ Summer only
213

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

2: Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

There were seven respondents (16 percent of the sample) who said they observed 

or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we 

advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

7 15.6 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

38 84.4 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 7)

5 71.4 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

2 28.6 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ All in summer

◊ No mountain bike use in winter

◊ Summer

◊ Summer only—no mountain biking in winter

◊ Winter—more
214

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with mountain bikers on the trails (n = 7)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 14.3 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

1 14.3 non-issuance of 4 57.1 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 1 14.3 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 14.3 relocate or 2 28.6 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 1 14.3 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with mountain bikers on the trails (n = 7)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

4 57.1 posters or signs 4 57.1 maps 

2 28.6 brochures 1 14.3 public service 

announcements 

1 14.3 other educational 1 14.3 local newspaper 

materials articles 

4 57.1 user ethics 4 57.1 bulletin boards 

3 42.9 etiquette 3 42.9 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 2 28.6 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
215

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with mountain bikers on the trails (n = 7)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 14.3 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

mean = 10.0

(only response)

0 0 Specify a 1 14.3 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

1 14.3 drain dips 1 14.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 1 14.3 designated campsites

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

1 14.3 trail design: 0 0 general trail 

limit long maintenance including 

straightaways/use consistent, mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
216

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with mountain bikers on the trails (n = 7)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

6 85.7 personal contacts 3 42.9 partner with different 

groups 

3 42.9 local OHV club 3 42.9 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 14.3 meetings with 1 14.3 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

2 28.6 adopt-a-trail 1 14.3 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 1 14.3 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 3 42.9 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 7)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

2 28.6 personal contacts

2 28.6 posters or signs

1 14.3 user ethics

1 14.3 trail descriptions

1 14.3 volunteer patrols
217

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 7)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 14.3 posters or signs ◊ Discourages the honest people—tend to 

follow previous users 

1 14.3 user ethics ◊ Needs a lot of work—new group. Ethics 

need to be ingrained. Mountain bikers 

causing problems for OHVers. Do have it—

“feeling the fear” or get restrictions. 

1 14.3 trail use Seems to work. 

recommendations

1 14.3 law enforcement ◊ If we write them a ticket, it tells them that 

we mean business.

1 14.3 partner with ◊ Each group complains about the other—so 

get the groups TOGETHER. Explain to 

each other what their experiences are. 

1 14.3 volunteer patrols ◊ Teaching personal responsibility (user-touser contact) 

1 14.3 trail design ◊ Thoughtful trail layout and design affects 

user experiences in many ways, including 

conflicts. A good design may substantially

reduce conflicts.

Conflicts with Mountain Bikers on the Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 7)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

3 42.9 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

4 57.1 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ n/a in winter 

◊ Summer only 

◊ Winter increases use. 
218

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

6 13.3 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

39 86.7 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

( n = 6)

4 66.7 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

2 33.3 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how it differed.

◊ On roads/summer

◊ Summer only

◊ Summer problem—no winter horseback—working with user group

◊ Very little equestrian use in winter

3: Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

There were six respondents (13 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received

reports of this management issue. Because of this small number, we advise caution in interpreting

the results in this section.
219

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with people on horseback on the trails (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 50.0 posters or signs 3 50.0 maps 

1 16.7 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

1 16.7 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

3 50.0 user ethics 5 83.3 bulletin boards 

3 50.0 etiquette 4 66.7 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 3 50.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with people on horseback on the trails (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

3 50.0 close or limit use 1 16.7 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 3 50.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

1 16.7 organized events 1 16.7 users ride in

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

2 33.3 relocate or 2 33.3 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 2 33.3 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 1 16.7 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
220

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with people on horseback on the trails (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails? and gravel, concrete 

blocks)

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 1 16.7 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade? disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 2 33.3 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

1 16.7 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized 

all single track/ & 3-year plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various erosion 

controls*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
221

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with people on horseback on the trails (n = 6)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

4 66.7 personal contacts 3 50.0 partner with different 

groups 

2 33.3 local OHV club 4 66.7 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 1 16.7 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

4 66.7 adopt-a-trail 1 16.7 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 1 16.7 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

1 16.7 education, 3 50.0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

2 33.3 personal contacts

1 16.7 trail use recommendations

1 16.7 law enforcement

1 16.7 partner with different groups

1 16.7 education, including campfire programs
222

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 6)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

2 33.3 partner with ◊ By getting groups to work together.

different groups

◊ Each group complains about the other—so 

get the groups TOGETHER. Explain to each 

other what their experiences are.

1 16.7 trail use ◊ Minimizes contact. 

recommendations

1 16.7 law enforcement ◊ Type of visitor—young males—care mostly 

about their experience, not the NF. They will 

pay attention if prosecution is result of their 

bad actions. 

1 16.7 personal contacts ◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance to 

explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answers visitors’ questions, etc. 

1 16.7 trail design ◊ Thoughtful trail layout and design affects user 

experiences in many ways, including conflicts. 

A good design may substantially reduce 

conflicts. 

Conflicts with People on Horseback on the Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 6)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

3 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

3 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could be 

a safety hazard to others (rutting).

◊ Little or no problem with winter use. Summer use getting out of control. Law enforcement and 

personal I&E contacts only strategy at this time.

◊ n/a in winter
223

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

4: Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

There were two respondents (4 percent of the sample) who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

2 4.4 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

43 95.6 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

2 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this

management issue indicated that the issue did not differ by season.

Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with other four-wheelers on the trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 posters or signs 0 0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 0 0 bulletin boards 

1 50.0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 2 100.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
224

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with other four-wheelers on the trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 50.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, 

or event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in dispersed 

to do trail patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 1 50.0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
225

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with other four-wheelers on the trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
226

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with other four-wheelers on the trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 50.0 personal contacts 1 50.0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 1 50.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 

state OHV groups 0 0 partner with OHV

shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 2 100.0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 1 50.0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 50.0 maintain trail with local 

including groups and volunteers

campfire 

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 50.0 partner with different groups

1 50.0 law enforcement
227

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 50.0 committees with ◊ Group reps. hear concerns from other reps. 

different groups and return information to their groups—

improved communication and understanding 

and potential group sport benefits.

1 50.0 law enforcement ◊ If we write them a ticket, it tells them that 

we mean business. 

Conflicts with Other Four-Wheelers on the Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 2)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

2 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.
228

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with cattle on or near roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 50.0 posters or signs 1 50.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 50.0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 1 50.0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 1 50.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

5: Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

There were two respondents (4 percent of the sample) who said they observed or 

received reports of this management issue. Because of this small number we advise 

caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

2 4.4 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

43 95.6 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

2 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Limited conflict when cattle let out, OHVs come up on them quickly.

◊ Spring—Cattle create lots of trail damage on soft trail treads.
229

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with cattle on or near roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 50.0 close or limit use 1 50.0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 50.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 50.0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
230

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with cattle on or near roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated

bars campsites

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)* 

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking 

dog bones* and staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
231

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with cattle on or near roads or trails (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 1 50.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV shops groups

1 50.0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program 

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 50.0 maintain trail with local

including groups and volunteers

campfire 

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

2 100.0 personal contacts
232

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” ( n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 50.0 personal contacts ◊ Due to the interaction with visitors, chance 

to explain in more detail why there are rules, 

answers visitors’ questions, etc. 

1 50.0 nothing works ◊ None seem very effective.

Conflicts with Cattle on or near Roads or Trails

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 2)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Areas are closed to ATVs in winter where we don’t want them damaging trails that could

be a safety hazard to others (rutting). 
233

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

6: Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

This issue was added by the respondent(s) and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There were two respondents (4 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of 

this small number we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

2 4.4 respondents observed or received reports of this management issue

43 95.6 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this management issue

(n = 2)

2 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondents said it differed:

◊ Winter problem

◊ Winter—isolated use areas (groomed trails)

Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with skiers/snowshoers (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 posters or signs 2 100.0 maps 

1 50.0 brochures 1 50.0 public service

announcements 

0 0 other educational 1 50.0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

2 100.0 user ethics 2 100.0 bulletin boards 

1 50.0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 2 100.0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
234

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with skiers/snowshoers (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 50.0 close or limit use 1 50.0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 2 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

1 50.0 relocate or 1 50.0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 1 50.0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
235

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with skiers/snowshoers (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated 

bars campsites 

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g.,

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
236

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with skiers/snowshoers (n = 2)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

2 100.0 personal contacts 2 100.0 partner with different 

groups

2 100.0 local OHV club 1 50.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 50.0 meetings with state 0 0 partner with OHV

OHV groups shops 

1 50.0 adopt-a-trail 2 100.0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 1 50.0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 50.0 personal contacts

1 50.0 posters or signs
237

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 2)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 50.0 personal contacts ◊ Dialog between user and us important. Give 

them “a why.” Explain to them. Let them air 

out their complaints. 

1 50.0 posters or signs ◊ Acknowledges that multiuse is going on to 

other groups (identifies all of the types of uses 

allowed) so people know who's around. Gives 

directions to alternative use trails. 

Conflicts with Skiers/Snowshoers

(n = 2)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

1 50.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions did not differ by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondents said they differed.

◊ Intensity of issue (higher in wintertime). Solutions differ according to season. 
238

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflict with Owners of Private Land

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting conflicts with owners of private land (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 0 0 public service 

announcements 

0 0 other educational 0 0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 0 0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

7: Conflict with Owners of Private Land

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of

this small number we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

Conflict with Owners of Private Land

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this 

management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this 

management issue

( n = 1)

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

For those who reported the issue differed by season, how the respondent said it differed:

◊ More in winter (ATVs going on horse trails, trespass, noise)
239

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Direct actions used by those reporting conflicts with owners of private land (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails

designate OHV

trails

0 0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
240

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting conflicts with owners of private land (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent? 

n/a

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade)

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
241

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting conflicts with owners of private land (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

0 0 local OHV club 0 0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

0 0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.

Conflict with Owners of Private Land

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 law enforcement
242

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Conflict with Owners of Private Land

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 law enforcement ◊ Showing public that they respond to 

complaints. With the landowners’ help,

identify individuals and contact them. 

Conflict with Owners of Private Land

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondent said they differed.

◊ More complaints in winter.
243

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

8: OSV-OHV Conflicts

This issue was added by the respondent and was not included in the set of issues 

available to all respondents. There was one respondent (2 percent of the sample) 

who said they observed or received reports of this management issue. Because of 

this small number we advise caution in interpreting the results in this section.

OSV-OHV Conflicts

Issue Observed or Reports Received

Number of 

respondents Percent

1 2.2 respondents observed or received reports of this 

management issue

44 97.8 respondents did not observe or receive reports of this 

management issue missing

(n = 1)

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that the issue differed by season.

OSV-OHV Conflicts

Actions Used

Indirect actions used by those reporting OSV-OHV conflicts (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 posters or signs 1 100.0 maps 

0 0 brochures 1 100.0 public service 

announcements

0 0 other educational 1 100.0 local newspaper 

materials articles 

0 0 user ethics 1 100.0 bulletin boards 

0 0 etiquette 0 0 trail descriptions 

0 0 manufacturers’ 0 0 trail-use 

stickers on ATVs* recommendations 

0 0 additional 

funding, matching 

funds*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
244

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Direct actions used by those reporting OSV-OHV conflicts (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 close or limit use 0 0 provisions for special 

use permits

0 0 non-issuance of 1 100.0 law enforcement

outfitter, guide, or 

event permits

0 0 organized events 0 0 users ride in 

to do trail dispersed patterns

maintenance

0 0 relocate or 0 0 separate trails 

designate OHV

trails

1 100.0 seasonal closures 0 0 separate user groups 

0 0 make repairs as 0 0 alternate between 

soon as located* user groups 

0 0 pick up litter* 0 0 use OHV trail crews 

to maintain trails*

0 0 voluntary sound 

tests*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions
245

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Resource-hardening actions used by those reporting OSV-OHV conflicts (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

0 0 Specify a 0 0 artificial tread (e.g., 

maximum grade geofabric with sand 

on trails and gravel, concrete 

blocks) 

What percent?

n/a 

0 0 Specify a 0 0 lengthened trails to 

minimum grade disperse riders

What percent?

n/a

0 0 drain dips 0 0 staging areas with 

(meaning a parking facilities 

reversal of grade) 

0 0 flexible water 0 0 designated campsites 

bars

0 0 for events, 0 0 barricades, barriers*

restricted to one 

direction (e.g., 

uphill or 

downhill)*

0 0 trail design: 0 0 general trail maintenance 

limit long including consistent, 

straightaways/use mechanized & 3-year 

all single track/ plan*

use natural 

obstacles*

0 0 rolling dips, 0 0 overflow parking and 

dog bones* staging areas*

0 0 various types of 

erosion control*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
246

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

Bridge-building/collaboration actions used by those reporting OSV-OHV conflicts (n = 1)

Number of Number of

respondents Percent using respondents Percent using

using action action Action using action action Action

1 100.0 personal contacts 0 0 partner with different 

groups 

1 100.0 local OHV club 1 100.0 volunteer patrols 

meetings

1 100.0 meetings with 0 0 partner with OHV

state OHV groups shops 

0 0 adopt-a-trail 0 0 workshops 

program

0 0 trail safety 0 0 committees with 

evaluation form different groups 

0 0 education, 0 0 maintain trail with 

including local groups and 

campfire volunteers

programs*

0 0 joint clean-ups 0 0 working with sheriff’s 

with BLM* department*

0 0 mine safety 0 0 help from regional 

evaluation form* office and state*

0 0 find out from 

users and 

environmentalists 

where trails 

should be*

*Actions added by respondents in response to open-ended questions.
247

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

OSV-OHV Conflicts

Actions Reported Used Most Often

Actions reported “used most often” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“used most often” “used most often” Action

1 100.0 maps

OSV-OHV Conflicts

Actions Reported Most Effective

Actions reported “most effective” (n = 1)

Number of

respondents

reporting action Percent reporting

“most effective” “most effective” Action Why “most effective”

1 100.0 education ◊ Explaining the situation and offering 

an alternative play area.

OSV-OHV Conflicts

Seasonal Differences of Actions

(n = 1)

Number of Percent of

respondents respondents Seasonal nature of actions

1 100.0 of those respondents who observed or received reports of this 

management issue indicated that their actions differed by season.

For those who reported their actions differed by season, how the respondent said they differed.

◊ Snow is a limiting factor. Conditions vary sometimes—not accommodating to OHV use. 

249

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Appendix E—General Respondent

Comments on OHV Use 

This appendix provides respondent comments to the open-ended question, “Are there

any other comments you would like to make about OHV use on your District?”

No qualitative analysis has been conducted. Comments were grouped by topic for 

ease of comprehension.

Comments

Question: Are there any other comments you would like to make about OHV

use on your District?

Depreciative Behavior:

• Biggest problem: keeping OHVs on roads and trails. 

Larger issue: • Commercials on TV/media promoting “extreme” experience

—promote bad behavior (Hummer commercial).

• We have extremely limited resources and no LEO. Illegal OHV

use continues to be a growing problem on District. Resistance 

from locals to follow regs. because there has been no enforcement

for decades. Areas with illegal trails suffer from benign 

neglect—serious resource damage is likely.

• 4WD vehicles going off established routes—we are signing 

designated routes and closing new routes created ASAP. We 

are rehabilitating any new routes to prevent them from 

becoming established.

Education: • Public calls Forest Service OHV “OHV parks.” They stress 

trails-only. “OHV parks” is a state term that means a free-forall. Need to educate on that.

• In my opinion, it is essential that the land managers establish 

an education campaign at the manufacture and sales levels so 

that resource values may be established among OHV users.

• Have to educate them [the new participants]. Problem—state 

doesn’t want to help with funding. Write ticket for “no Green

Sticker”—check every bike/OHV.
250

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

• Staging areas—great place to meet people and contact them, 

set up information and talk to people. In their management of

OHV, the 3 Es (a management tool) (1) Education: can’t expect

much if we don’t educate the public, (2) Engineering: put signs 

up where they are visible, legible, in good place/produce good

route plans, and (3) Enforcement: if no compliance with 1 & 2,

use enforcement to manage recreation works well. 

• OHV users are confused about (or don’t care about or support) 

the rules, and managers are frustrated trying to interpret and

implement the rules. When the 3E approach is successfully 

(and fully) implemented, both users and managers are much 

happier with the program. We have had several successes with 

this on the [named] District, [named] National Forest.

Funding: • Need to find allocated Forest Service funds, not rely on state 

(amounts go up and down; 2 years without any funding). Need

money! So much potential, but no money or personnel. Grants

don’t help.

• OHV does not get enough support and resources to effectively 

manage OHV use. Funding relies too much on state funds. 

Not enough valid OHV opportunities.

• Give us more money so we can do our jobs better.

• Lack of funding. Application for funding is cumbersome. 

Changes in state program. Didn’t apply for funds due to 20% 

Forest Service charge for overhead. Funding is up for maintenance; “cranked up” details needed by state—makes it hard to 

participate in application process. Contributing more recreation

money to apply than getting back. Forest Service dollars are 

more flexible, but both are dwindling.

• Summer use exploding. Need funding for a plan and actions.

Land Issues: • Area needs to be large enough to support use—less land is 

available and shrinking allocation—compromising quality to 

meet demands (“saddle time” less—what else do they do with 

their day?).
251

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

Private land 

issues: • Too many people at trail access points is also due to limited 

parking and trail heads. They need to apply for snow parks 

(need at least one). Middle of public survey needs assessment 

to determine best use of land. It’s also feedback for future 

planning in [named] Region.

• Soil erosion—in the short term, we repair damaged areas and

rehab them ASAP. In the long term, we are trying to improve 

trail routings to reduce steep grades and problem areas.

• Dangerous mines—we have an active mine-closure program.

Law

Enforcement: • Low fines for infractions. Are they accurate? Are they effective?

• Should they be raised?

• More users and less people on Forest Service end to deal with

issues. They [users] can be out there running amok. Not just

“Recreation’s problem.” Need to internally share enforcement.

Other Forest Service personnel “pass the violators by,” so 

users think their behavior is OK.

• Need more cooperation from county sheriffs to enforce. 

County receives money; no emphasis on help in drinking, 

riding in areas without helmets.

Limitations: • Above mileages are not totally accurate. Best guess estimates. 

To get more accurate count would [require] lots of time and 

review of old records, etc. 

Maps: • Need professionally produced OHV maps to encourage proper 

use—District by District and one forestwide.

Policy: • 22 years of intensive management using state funded grants 

for development, operations and maintenance. Largest summer 

program. 

• Currently receiving Green Sticker money. Have for 20 years.

Without it, wouldn’t have OHV opportunities that we do. 

Without funds, can’t provide the level of service/keep up trails.

OHV recreation, without funds, should be closed.

• I believe that it is very important to designate OHV routes as 

closed unless signed open.
252

RESEARCH PAPER PSW-RP-250

• Too much micromanagement at staff levels. 

• More restrictions in each area (more consolidation). 

• More areas being closed outside of District. People come there

from closed areas.

• Since the paradigm on the [named] Forest is closed unless 

open, I would like to know what the [named] Region OHV

mapping exercise funded with Green Sticker state funding will

contribute to this forest’s management of OHV areas. 

Politics: • Understand need for survey, some factors cannot be quantified

—political considerations—private landholders near forest 

where owners feel OHV lowers land values can make problem 

for OHV. Those active in the environmental community use

influence to reduce funding. Manager can be managing OHV

well, but still be opposed to it.

Process: • Most difficult: Lack of continuous loops. Burdensome NEPA

requirements—hard to get anything done—leads to a choppy 

route system which invites people to make their own.

Regulations: • Middle of route inventory—mileage gone up significantly 

(still in progress).

Use Levels: • OHV use is increasing with the closures in the desert and San

Bernardino National Forest.

New trend: • Preloaded trailers from southern California rented and brought

up.

Web sites: • On abandoned mines/ghost towns ecotourism.

• Geocaching—lots of that.

• Day-use shift ([named] District—people driving in from 

[named town], etc.)

• OHV use seems to be growing at an exponential rate, land 

managers have a responsibility to establish sustainable 

opportunities and close areas where resource damage is 

occurring.

• It is a growing sport.

• Increase in demand (30 percent) in OHV sales from local 

shops. Recreation customer seeking extreme challenges—

Forest may or may not provide those opportunities. 

Customers look at Web sites for information. 
253

Manager Perception of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Management on National Forest in California

• Inexperienced drivers in difficult terrain—we sign the 

commonly used winter route to warn drivers that it is difficult

and not a through route.

• OHV use on [named] Ranger District is diverse in a wide 

variety of forest settings with numerous opportunities for a 

range of different vehicles year round. AND the sport is 

growing.

Other: • OHV use on the District: 90% of use not causing impacts. If 

can take care of that other 10%, we will be in good shape.

• He recognizes use numbers are low due to lack of OHV opportunities on the District. But, even though small in comparison 

to other Ranger Districts, provides an important/unique niche

that’s special: OHV touring for nearby urban populations.

Touring for scenery—where folks can take their SUVs and 

cruise at 20-30 mph and enjoy sights.

• We do not have a big program on District, but does cause an 

inordinate amount of effort to enforce regs. per visitor than 

other programs.

• Most OHV is focused here, because [a root disease is] found 

on Districts north of here. 

• OHV is minor component of recreation use and, therefore, a 

minor problem.

• OHV use is a valid and fun recreational passtime—we need to 

support it while minimizing damage. 

• Cattle conflicts—no current solutions. We just repair damage 

as we can.

• Soil erosion/compaction—we receive state funding for conservation and prevention of erosion problems. We do monitoring 

and repairs as needed.

• Small program, limit routes, mostly Level II roads behind 

locked gates—1.5 miles of single track trail. 

• Impact from fire in southern California.
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

Pacific Southwest Research Station

PO Box 245

Berkeley, CA 94701

www.fs.fed.us/psw
Deborah J. Chavez and Nancy E. Knap 

in CaliforniaHighway Vehicle Management on National ForestsManager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for OffMay 2006 PSW-RP-250 Research Report Research Station Pacific Southwest Forest Service Agriculture Department of United States 
PSW

RP-250

May

2006 on National Forests in California Manager Perceptions of Issues and Actions for Off-Highway Vehicle Management