Management of degraded OHV trails presents a significant challenge to resource managers. Degraded trails are already a serious problem in many parts of the country, and the mileage of degraded trails increases year by year. The degradation is fueled by an increase in OHVs and the limited number of areas that can sustain increased levels of use. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America is a national nonprofit trade association representing manufacturers of all-terrain vehicles. According to the institute, the ATV industry has experienced double-digit growth for the past 5 years (Yager 2000).

The increased use of OHVs to provide access to the backcountry is having a dramatic effect on many trail systems. This is especially true in Alaska and other States with sensitive trail environments.

Simple observation of backcountry trails provides somber testimony to the conflict that is arising from the use of these vehicles across permafrost, wet or steep terrain, or other sensitive areas. It is well documented that a few passes can begin a pattern of degradation that is difficult—if not impossible—to stop. Increasingly, environmental observers are voicing concern over the expansion of OHV impacts: extended trail systems, degraded trail surfaces, and braided trail sections. Recently, concerns about secondary impacts have been voiced. These impacts include the effects of sediment on water quality, destruction of fish habitat, and threats to irreplaceable archeological values.

Responding to these impacts requires understanding the sensitive nature of onsite resources, particularly the soil. It requires understanding the dynamics of impact—how sites are affected and the patterns of degradation. It also requires the development of management components, such as documentation of baseline trail conditions and prescriptions for trail stabilization and recovery. Most importantly, it requires the development of alternative management options, such as trail rerouting, seasonal or type-of-use restrictions, use limitations, trail hardening, and trail closure.

This document provides an introduction to these topics. In college terms, it is 'Degraded Trails 101.' Unfortunately, there is no 'Degraded Trails 102' that answers all of the questions and solves all of the problems. At best, this document will stimulate resource managers who are struggling to respond to this issue in their own areas of responsibility. At worst, it will document some of the challenges faced by their contemporaries. In either case, the information is provided in the hope that it contributes to resolving the problems of trail degradation.

The author would appreciate receiving information from fellow trail managers on their experiences with managing degraded trails. Please send comments on management elements described in this document and descriptions of your field experiences—your successes and failures. Your contributions will bring us a little closer to developing a set of best management practices for OHVs that protect environmental values and access for OHV users.

The final photo (figure 27) shows Park Service geologist Danny Rosenkrans standing at the beginning of a 40-foot test installation of 2-inch GeoBlock installed in 1996 on the Reeve Field Trail in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. The trail is unprotected in front of the installation and beyond it. The hardened trail section is supporting more than 90-percent vegetation cover with no detrimental impacts to the sensitive permafrost soils at the site. This is impressive, considering that the protected trail section had just received heavy OHV use. Unprotected sites farther down the trail were impassable. While all attempts to harden trails will not be as successful as this one, the photo clearly documents that options are available to address the problems of trail degradation.

Figure 27—A hardened, protected section
of trail 4 years after installation.