1 Kathleen Bond Email ktbond@aol.com Tel. 970.323.0290 Flip by mcu14908


									                                     Kathleen Bond
                                 Email: ktbond@aol.com
                                   Tel.: 970.323.0290

                                     Flip Chart Notes
                         OHV Suitability Topical Working Group
                         Dixie-Fishlake NFs Forest Plan Revision
                         Friday, January 23, 2004, 5:30-9:30 p.m.
                                   Snow College South
                                     Richfield, Utah

Note: Facilitator notations are in brackets []. These notes are transcribed from the flip
charts and from sticky notes used in a brainstorming activity.

[Participants were asked to write their perceptions of Opportunities & Challenges
for OHV use in the Dixie-Fishlake NFs in a facilitated exercise. (Methodology:
storyboarding). They were then asked to cluster the ideas into common themes and
give that cluster a title/category. The following are verbatim comments under each


A. Economics
   • Lots of money to be made!
   • An economic asset to country & local communities
   • Gives anti-OTV groups an opportunity to raise MONEY
   • The popularity of OHV use is well documented and increasing in both national
      forests. There is also a well document[ed] positive and substantial economic
      impact on surrounding communities
   • Economic benefits to rural communities
   • Economic development is the strongest opportunity for OHV use—all other uses
      are personal preference
   • Positive economic impact on adjacent town[s]
   • Economic boost to rural communities
   • Economics to rural areas
   • Economic impact on towns adjacent to trail systems
   • Economic opportunities for communities surrounded by public lands

B. Access for Physically Challenged
   • Visits by people with physical problems
   • OHV use allows access to National Forest areas that may otherwise be
       inaccessible to people
       -older people

   -handicapped people
   -N.F. workers
   -search & rescue

   •   Allows handicap access
   •   Allows some of the older citizens an opportunity to see remote areas of public
   •   Access to special places that some old, young, disabled people wouldn’t be
       able to have if there were no ATV (OHV) trails & legal accessibility
   •   Promotes opportunity for everyone, old, young, crippled, to experience
   •   Enhances all ability to access public lands
   •   Enable visits to remote areas by the physically impaired
   •   Provides older citizen and disabled access to relatively remote area[s}

C. Family Values and Recreational Benefits
   • Family activity
   • OHV trails provide opportunities to view scenic vistas and wildlife
   • Can be great way to see undeveloped natural scenic areas (experience nature)
   • Get away from the crowds. (Like the Natl. Parks!)
   • Enjoy “solitude” in an individual way—my own!
   • Family trips
   • Build on friendships w/like minded people
   • OHV use in national forests reinforces the National Forest Services goal of
      multiple uses for public lands and recognizes that there can be multiple ways
      to responsibly enjoy these lands
   • Wildlife Watching. Fast vehicles enable people to surprise & see wildlife
      before it runs away.
   • Strengthening of family relationships
   • Recreational benefits—health lifestyle promotion
   • Build family relationships through shared activities
   • A hobby that is very enjoyable.
   • Many OHV users partake in the activity as a family thereby sharing
   • See beautiful places

D. Recreation
   • OHVs can take you to places to get away from the heat or bad air.
   • OHVs can take you to places to be quiet & get away from people
   • Access to people to places they may otherwise might not go

       •   Great way to access and experience the forest
       •   Allows access in shorter periods of time
       •   Enhances access to camping, hunting, fishing
       •   A means to enjoy the outdoors/scenery/wildlife

E. Dispersal
   • Disperse use from more concentrated areas—National Parks, -etc
   • Way to disperse visitors to less visited areas
   • Allows riders to see a greater amount of the forest in a shorter period of time

F. Management
   • Marked, established trail systems help concentrate use, thus minimizing impacts
      (perception) (subjective)
   • Paiute Trail system is model for trail systems in other areas
   • The Forest Service has the opportunity now (in the Plan) to regulate the use of
      these machines
   • Fishlake demonstrates that when trails are properly mapped, and signed, and
      managed, OHV use can be monitored accurately and related resource issues can
      be addressed more efficiently & effectively.
   • A chance for all to be better at sharing the public land
   • Well managed trail systems have lots of value to OHV users. Maps, signing are
   • Develop workable process to actually DESIGNATE routes & route systems
   • Designate trail system (Paiute & GWT) are mapped & signed providing 100s of
      miles of trail riding opportunities
   • Cooperation between forest and OHV groups
   • Trail systems “can” manage OHV use---to protect resources & visitors still enjoy
      the natural resources
   • Resource problems have not been dealt with—this is an opportunity for the Forest
   • OHV users can help maintain trail systems—volunteer projects
   • OHV trails can provide a wide variety of experiences depending on level of
   • Designated trail systems with strong law enforcement can help to minimize
      impacts to the land.
   • Babysitting areas could & should be established & maintained.

G. Utility/Access/Infrastructure Access/Tool
   • Provides range [of] management opportunities
   • Gives ranchers, & property owners better access alternatives
   • Provides optimal transportation for ranchers, sportsmen, recreationalists, etc.
       Also, EMS service access
   • OHVs can lessen impact of work on land where vehicles are necessitated, i.e.
       major rescue, farming, construction
   • Jeep, posse, rescue opportunities as well as forest fire fighting

   •   Facilitates conservation projects with less impact than heavy equipment
   •   Conservation projects are very good.

   H. Orphans (Ideas that did not readily fit into other categories)
   • If we have delineated concerns for others, there’s an opportunity to learn (or
      sharpen) our sharing skills
   • Retrieval of fuel wood helps keep a healthy forest
   • For better mental health, there is a need for quiet & solitude to clear the mental &
      emotional backlogs we all seem to have
   • Ability to reach (if desired) higher altitudes where the air is clean & clear. Health.


A. Irresponsible/Willful Disobedience (Ethically Challenged)
    • Too many users that feel the need to destroy signs, toilets & other infrastructure
    • Some when they straddle a machine lose “common sense”
    • Unsupervised OHV use & abuse by youth
    • Confrontation problems w/OHV users not staying in or on trails that are
       designated to them. Mostly very rude.
    • Off-trail use
    • Lack of control of children. Irresponsible riders
    • PEOPLE
       1. uncaring
       2. me, me, me
       3. irresponsible
       4. uneducated
       5. Not law abiding
    • Too many folks ride off-trail—or in inappropriate places-
    • Too many OHV users do not stay on the trail
    • Trail systems encourage use/creation of spurs and re-activation of closed or re-
       vegetated routes
    • There currently exists a real, “false” sense of entitlement among OHV users to use
       whatever public lands they see fit

B. Not Knowledgeable/Lack of Education
   • Inability to control people-Education, sales promotion, etc., dispersal
   • Public Access to Trail Information—In the area, or when planning trips
   • Insufficient “usable” info available to users
   • OHV users unaware of their impacts
   • Education for a proper use and safety
   • Inexperienced riders-some who have never been on an OHV—trying to negotiate
       trails way above their skill level

   •   Riders—Lack of understanding of the laws that should govern. Traffic on roads &
   •   User education needs to be improved esp. in safety/ethics
   •   Education need to be higher
       Reasons why we need all of the above

C. Economics
   • Costs to maintain-costs to police
   • Challenge of finding funds to sustain trails, programs, construction and education
   • Residential private property values adjacent to babysitting/play areas would
      probably decrease due to dust and noise
   • Economic/crime problem
      -OHVs chase off far more numerous “quiet users”
      -documented increased crime problem, from resource damage to theft, rape &
      -incompatibility means choosing OHVs at the exclusion of others
   • OHVs and their trails cost a lot to create, maintain & control
   • OHVs also are an exclusive use; “elitist” in that they cost a lot
   • Cost per user is much higher than person on foot, both economically &

D. Orphans [Ideas that did not readily fit into other categories]
   • Promotes obesity, muscle atrophy, and general laziness evident in larger
      population as a whole
   • OHVs are diminishing ops to interact with forest on its own terms/own pace
   • Need to provide these ops to experience quiet, solitude, fully functional
      ecosystems & their wildlife
   • The idea that you can see more on an ORV confuses quantity with quality and
      distance traveled with time spent-OHVs interfere with efforts to find a restorative
      visit to wild, natural forests
   • OHVs split up families & are unhealthy--puts individuals in their own loud &
      smelly world, separated from each other & the rest of the living world
   • OHVs can make it harder for the very young, old, disabled to find easy
      opportunities to experience wild nature by pushing past usual ends of the road

E. Management (Law Enforcement)
   • Agency inability to manage. Must come from education!! Self discipline. Teach
      correct principles-manage “self”
   • Challenges to provide adequate opportunity balanced with adequate regulation &
   • Not enough barriers to keep them out of sensitive areas. Land ethic.

   •   Inconsistent management within & between agencies
   •   In some areas, there aren’t enough quality experience (trails) for OHV users
   •   F.S. needs to clearly indicate rationale for closures
   •   Challenge to designate diversity of recreation opportunities
   •   Hunters often don’t feel bound by OHV rules or ethic information
   •   In the absence of properly mapped & signed trails, OHV users may stray from
       trail and abuse forest resources
   •   The absence of clear & well communicated OHV management plans in National
       Forests might suggest that the forest plan revision is ignoring one of the fastest
       growing recreational opportunities
   •   Lack of education, signing, mapping
   •   The absence of clear & well communicated OHV management plans directly
       contributes to uninformed use & abuse of resources
   •   Forest Service needs to plan and act according to documented OHV use activities.
       Plan & act means mapping & signing trails, educating & enforcing, and clear
   •   Trail closures—Why?
   •   Dispersal from over-used areas
   •   Trail network size and scale of use prohibits effective law enforcement w/o
       budgeting for said enforcement
   •   Over-reactive OHV policy could severely limit economic development of local
   •   Over use in some areas—some type of regulation needed
   •   OHV routes are really an extension of the motorized road network—especially in
       terms of disturbance to other uses, resources & wildlife—yet they are described
       by the FS are “trails” and treated differently
   •   Not enough management consistency (signing/maps/designation)
   •   Confusion over management issues versus ownership issues
   •   Not enough enforcement/Mgt. presence. $
   •   Law enforcement will increase—not always a good thing
   •   Need consistent signage and connection on trails that involved more than one land
   •   Law enforcement on OHV trails is lacking
   •   Rule/Law/Use Enforcement
   •   With better visibility of identification of ATVs. More law enforcement would not
       be necessary. The public could enforce.

F. Safety
     • Trails are not the Baja—riding too fast for the areas
     • Continuing concerns over user safety
     • Eliminate babysitting—it is dangerous
     • Very unsafe especially with no education or rules or enforcement
     • Safety with other traffic—mixed use
     • Safety on roads with other traffic
     • Promotes unhealthy, lazy behavior

   •   Very dangerous—lack of helmets. Great speeds. Climbing steep rocks—going
       over berms that were meant to keep them out

G. Resource Impact

   • OHV-driven “dispersal” into “remote” areas end that remoteness: OHV
     dispersal is a new wave of technologically enhanced invasion of the hidden
     breeding grounds & escape terrain in our public lands
  • Pollution. Over use of fossil fuels & lack of emissions control
  • May reach a point of diminishing return
  • Resource destruction especially by those who don’t stay on the trail—trampled
     plants, erosion
  • Water Quality. With OHVs stream crossing many impacts to the watershed &
  • Wildlife are often disturbed during critical life-history periods, and few “safety”
     areas remain
  • Blazing new trails—hill climbing etc—
  • Non-managed use—impact on resources. Overland travel must be controlled!
     Watershed protection. Community watersheds. Riparian degrading.
  • Allows “easy use” of wetlands, riparian areas and other sensitive lands by
     ethically challenged users
  • Too easy of access to big game domain during hunting seasons. Low deer
     number impacted
  • Invasion by exotic species
  • Noise-Fumes disturb wildlife & other non-motorized users.
  • Degrading the land. Very ugly to look upon multiple trails & erosion & to know
     the problems that are being created
  • Compaction/erosion. Loss of soil. Productivity & decline in biodiversity
  • Soil compaction, siltation, erosion, gullying are all associated with ORV use,
     legal and illegal
  • Fragments/reduces available habitat for wildlife thru overabundance of travel
     routes and noise
  • OHVs travel fast & far:
     -more wildlife disturbance
     -more human encounters
     -many times the physical impact of human on foot, yet “closeness” to nature
     lessened by helmet, visual focus overwhelming sound & smell of machine
     -effectively “shrink” the forest
 • Facilitates the spread of invasive and noxious non-native plant species
 • Sec. 3 (2) of Exec. Order 11644, “Trails shall be located to minimize harassment
   of wildlife or significant disruption of wild life habitats” has been poorly or not

   •   1 group of cross country riders can create a new trails in one afternoon in certain
       soil types
   •   Frantic movement of vehicles frightens prey animals, upsets reproduction, etc.
   •   Cost per user is greatly increased where OHVs are allowed, due to: 1) vehicle
       ability to impact; in fact the necessity of impact, 2) willingness of some users to

   •   OHVs “disperse” people into the very places that interfere with wildlife,
       watershed & wilderness. Core natural areas are what are so needed by wildlife,
       functioning streams, and wilderness visitors.
   •   In providing “access” to “remote” forest areas, OHVs ruin the very thing people
       are attempting to visit: often they pass by the opportunity to see a natural, remote
       forest by driving right by.
   •   Habitat fragmentation & loss of species diversity
   •   Degraded water quality & chemical contamination. Erosion.
   •   Watershed impacts:
       -reduced absorption & recharge
       -stream functions impacted (amphibians, fish, macro invertebrates)
       -increased sedimentation
       -weakened banks
       -high impacts in fragile margins (i.e. shoreline, stream bank, floodplain)
       -increased flooding damage
   •   Facilitates destructive human activities, e.g., poaching, archeology site theft &
   •   Too many trails in the same proximity going/leading to the same place
   •   Certain limited specific uses of OHVs may lead to disproportionally more stress
       or damage to the forest than other OHV uses. For example, shed hunting.
   •   ORVs, esp. 2 cycle machines reduce or eliminate non-motorized user’s sense of
       solitude and remoteness

H. Intangible Resource Impact
    • Impact on soul
       -experience for others

I. Social Conflict
    • Quest for access to everything by everybody throws opportunities for quiet
        recreationists & true nature lovers way out of balance
    • Conflicts with other uses & users. Solitude—noise—speed.
    • OHV use, spread, and development are part of a mechanization of U.S. National
    • Sound, dust degrade the desired experience
    • Conflicts with some non-motorized uses
    • Over use of the more popular sites & trails

   •   Jamboree conflict during hunting season
   •   Conflicts between users
   •   Too much polarization of users/non-users breeds un-needed conflict
   •   Rob quiet recreationists of their family togetherness & social opportunities
   •   Differences in user expectations are not tolerated well
   •   Speed and quest to see/cover more ground faster emphasize quantity over quality
   •   Speed & all terrain technology amplify every person’s impacts over huge areas &
       other people

J. Both Social and Resource Conflict [Sticky notes were placed on the flip chart sheet
pages between the categories of Social Conflict and Resource Conflict, indicating the
ideas fit into both categories].

   •   Too many users to some areas get over used
   •   Noise. Bothering other forest users, property owners adjacent to trails, wildlife
   •   Too noisy. Disturbs wildlife & other public land users
   •   Noisy machines carry for long distances and disturb non-users & wildlife
   •   Noise

III. Tasks

   What? [Description]                              Who? [Person responsible]
Laws/Utah 4122 Utah code                        Fred Hayes
Snowmobile study                                Fred Hayes
1998 Access/Travel Mgmnt
Northern Region Guide                           Frank Fay
Roads Analysis criteria                         Frank Fay
Fresh participant list                          Kathy Bond
Criteria goals/criteria objectives statements   Kathy Bond to develop worksheet &
from the categories developed in this           distribute before next meeting
meeting                                         Participants to work on before next

IV. Next Meeting
[Discuss] criteria statements and discuss:

   •   Which are criteria for capability?
   •   Which are criteria for suitability?
   •   The group will come up with hierarchy
   •   Take the most important criteria then talk about GIS/assign weight
   •   Look at the most important
   •   The criteria statements [generated by the participants] will be broad statements,
       e.g., “The FS will…”

V. Observer Comments
   • There were overlaps in opportunities/challenges even among divergent viewpoints
   • [Discussion/information] is useful in Dixie’s travel management project
   • Good job controlling the group—keeping everyone together

VI. Evaluation

+ What went right about tonight’s meeting?
   • Identified some areas needing consideration
   • Real interaction on a personal level
   • Good job on time—getting done with meeting on schedule
   • Time well spent…”huge progress”
   • Robin’s presentation—Kudos!
   • Forced us to be open-minded in brainstorming [to look at] both positives and
   • Materials well prepared

  What improvements do you recommend?

   •   Try to hurry through the issue everyone already knows
   •   Need personal contact for discussion outside of meeting
   •   Longer breaks to facilitate conversation
   •   Suggest weekend workshop (more time for discussion)
   •   Side conversations
   •   [Some participants] didn’t stay on the subject—keep it to OHVs—stay focused



To top