| Strategy 4. | Encourage Concentration of Traffic in Popular Areas |
| Tactic 4.1 | Encourage Visitors to Use Existing Routes |
| Purpose | Prevent or reduce resource damage by encouraging the repeated use of a common but limited set of ORV routes. |
| Description | In areas of moderate to heavy traffic research indicates that ORV resource damage is most effectively minimized by concentrating traffic on a limited set of routes (Deuver 1981). In these areas visitors would be encouraged to concentrate their travel on well-used ORV routes, avoiding lightly or moderately used routes and areas without routes. |
| Costs to
ORV Visitors |
Moderate. Visitors might not be able to access some areas due to lack of existing high-traffic routes. Concentration of traffic may lead to deeper rutting that would make travel more difficult. Visitor crowding and conflict with ORV and non-ORV visitors may increase. |
| Costs to
Management |
Low. Such a policy need only be communicated with supporting documentation of its rationale. |
| Effectiveness | Low-Moderate. Visitors may ignore recommendation, however, this tactic would likely result in some concentration of use, reducing the area over which impacts are spread. These reductions should offset any increased vegetation disturbance and rutting created along the routes receiving more concentrated use. |
| Comments | Maintenance of the worst spots will become necessary to sustain use of these routes and prevent expansion of impact from visitors seeking to circumvent problem spots. |
| Strategy 4. | Encourage Concentration of Traffic in Popular Areas |
| Tactic 4.2 | Require Visitors to Use Existing Routes |
| Purpose | Prevent or reduce resource damage by requiring the repeated use of a common but limited set of ORV routes. |
| Description | In areas of moderate to heavy traffic research indicates that ORV resource damage is most effectively minimized by concentrating traffic on a limited set of routes (Deuver 1981). In these areas visitors would be required to travel on well-used ORV routes, avoiding lightly or moderately used routes and areas without routes. Creation of new routes would be prohibited. |
| Costs to
ORV Visitors |
Moderate. Visitors might not be able to access some areas due to lack of existing routes and concentration of traffic may lead to deeper rutting that would make travel more difficult. Visitor crowding and conflict with ORV or non-ORV visitors may increase. |
| Costs to
Management |
Moderate. The policy and its rationale would need to be clearly communicated to all ORV riders. Enforcement of prohibition on the creation of new routes would be difficult and expensive. |
| Effectiveness | Moderate. ORV traffic would likely be further concentrated, resulting in fewer routes and overall disturbance. These reductions should offset any increased vegetation disturbance and rutting created along the routes receiving more concentrated use. |
| Comments | Maintenance of the worst spots will become critical in order to sustain use of these routes and prevent expansion of impact from visitors seeking to circumvent problem spots. |
| Strategy 4. | Encourage Concentration of Traffic in Popular Areas |
| Tactic 4.3 | Concentrate Use by Designating Access Points |
| Purpose | Prevent or reduce resource damage by encouraging the repeated use of a common set of ORV routes. |
| Description | Establishment of a fixed number of ORV accesses will concentrate ORV traffic onto a more limited set of travel routes. Access to the swamp would be restricted to these designated locations. |
| Costs to
ORV Visitors |
Moderate. Some visitors may have longer rides to access the places they want to go. Visitor crowding and conflict with ORV and non-ORV visitors may increase. |
| Costs to
Management |
High. ORV accesses would have to be selected, designed, and constructed. The policy and its rationale would need to be clearly communicated to all ORV riders. Actions to close and rehabilitate former access points would be necessary. Enforcement of the access policy could be difficult, controversial, and expensive. |
| Effectiveness | Moderate. ORV traffic would likely be further concentrated, resulting in fewer routes and overall disturbance. These reductions should offset any increased vegetation disturbance and rutting created along the routes receiving more concentrated use. |
| Comments | Maintenance of the worst spots will become critical in order for overall impact to be reduced under this tactic. |
| Strategy 4. | Encourage Concentration of Traffic in Popular Areas |
| Tactic 4.5 | Require Use of Designated Routes in Selected Areas |
| Purpose | Prevent or reduce resource damage by encouraging the repeated use of a common set of ORV routes in selected areas e.g. areas smaller than entire management units. |
| Description | Research and monitoring data, in addition to ORV rider experience, is consulted to identify resource characteristics that contribute to resistant ORV routes. These characteristics are used to select resistant routes which are then designated. Visitors are required to use the designated routes in selected areas (of high use and/or high impact). This action reduces resource impact by shifting traffic to a limited set of resistant routes. |
| Costs to
ORV Visitors |
High. Visitors would lose their freedom to travel off the designated routes within the areas selected. Visitor crowding and conflict with ORV and non-ORV visitors may increase. |
| Costs to
Management |
High. Information must be developed and applied to identify and designate the most resistant routes. Construction and maintenance of these at- or above-grade routes would also be essential. Potential for controversy is high. The policy and its rationale would need to be communicated to all ORV riders. |
| Effectiveness | High. ORV traffic would be highly concentrated, resulting in fewer routes and overall disturbance. These reductions should offset any increased vegetation disturbance and rutting created along the routes receiving more concentrated use. |
| Comments | Maintenance of the designated routes will be essential to permit vehicle use and to prevent the expansion of impacts from visitors seeking to circumvent problem spots. |
| Strategy 4. | Encourage Concentration of Traffic in Popular Areas |
| Tactic 4.6 | Require Use of Designated Routes in Selected Management Units |
| Purpose | Prevent or reduce resource damage by encouraging the repeated use of a common set of ORV routes e.g. as in the Bear Island Unit currently. |
| Description | Research and monitoring data, in addition to ORV rider experience, is consulted to identify resource characteristics that contribute to resistant ORV routes. These characteristics are used to select resistant routes which are then designated. Visitors are required to use the designated routes in selected management units. This action reduces resource impact by shifting traffic to a limited set of resistant routes. |
| Costs to
ORV Visitors |
High. Visitors would lose their freedom to travel off the designated routes within selected management units. Visitor crowding and conflict with ORV and non-ORV visitors may increase. |
| Costs to
Management |
High. Information must be developed and applied to identify and designate the most resistant routes. Construction and maintenance of these at- or above-grade routes would also be essential. Potential for controversy is high. The policy and its rationale would need to be communicated to all ORV riders. |
| Effectiveness | High. ORV traffic would be highly concentrated, resulting in fewer routes and overall disturbance. These reductions should offset any increased vegetation disturbance and rutting created along the routes receiving more concentrated use. |
| Comments | Maintenance of the designated routes will be essential to permit vehicle use and to prevent the expansion of impact from visitors seeking to circumvent problem spots. |
| Project Front Page | Table of Contents | Introduction | Selection Process | Strategies and Tactics | References |