Federal Lands: Information on the Use and Impact of Off-Highway Vehicles
(Letter Report, 08/18/95, GAO/RCED-95-209).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) and the Forest Service's implementation of executive
orders regulating the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) on federal
lands, focusing on the agencies': (1) designation of federal lands for
OHV use; (2) monitoring of OHV use to identify adverse effects and any
needed corrective actions; and (3) compliance with OHV regulations.
GAO found that: (1) at the 8 locations reviewed, BLM and the Forest
Service restricted OHV use in their management plans, but they generally
gave lower funding and staffing priority to OHV activities than to other
programs; (2) in fiscal year 1993, approximately two-thirds of the
estimated total funding for OHV monitoring activities came from the
states; (3) only 36 percent of the agency staff assigned to OHV
activities worked full-time on such activities; (4) local communities
and organizations provided additional funds and volunteer services and
material to support OHV activities; (5) BLM and Forest Service
compliance with the executive orders at the 8 locations was mixed
because of limited staff and funding and higher priority activities; (6)
although all 8 locations had lands prescribed for OHV use, 5 locations
did not have maps and signs ready to show the public where and under
what conditions OHV could be used; (7) at all locations, OHV monitoring
was casual, adverse effects were seldom documented, and needed
corrective actions had not been prioritized; and (8) although citations
were written for violations at all the locations, enforcement was
hampered by confusion over where and when OHV restrictions applied.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-209
TITLE: Federal Lands: Information on the Use and Impact of
Off-Highway Vehicles
DATE: 08/18/95
SUBJECT: National recreation areas
National forests
Motor vehicles
Land management
Compliance
Executive orders
Land use law
Environmental monitoring
Law enforcement
Prioritizing
IDENTIFIER: Barstow (CA)
Stateline (NV)
Cascade (ID)
San Rafael (UT)
Mt. Pinos (CA)
Upper Lake (CA)
Mesa (AZ)
Salt Lake (UT)
Boise Front Special Recreation Management Area (ID)
Paiute All-Terrain Vehicle Trail (UT)
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
Bruce F. Vento, House of Representatives
August 1995
FEDERAL LANDS - INFORMATION ON THE
USE AND IMPACT OF OFF-HIGHWAY
VEHICLES
GAO/RCED-95-209
Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ATV - all-terrain vehicle
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
GAO - General Accounting Office
OHV - off-highway vehicle
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-261498
August 18, 1995
The Honorable Bruce F. Vento
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Vento:
Executive Orders 11644 and 11989\1 were issued in the 1970s to
establish policies and procedures for regulating the use of
off-highway vehicles (OHV) on federal lands. The need for such
action arose from the increased use of motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles (ATV), four-wheel drive vehicles, and other types of OHVs
for recreation on federal lands. Sometimes, these vehicles damaged
natural or cultural resources, or their use clashed with other forms
of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, picnicking, and horseback
riding. More than 20 years later, OHVs remain popular for recreation
on federal lands, but concerns about the effects of their use
persist.
Responding to these concerns, you asked us to review the
implementation of the executive orders on OHVs by the Department of
the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service. Because neither of these agencies
maintains nationwide data on its OHV activities, we agreed with your
office to review the OHV programs at eight locations with high OHV
use--four BLM resource areas and four Forest Service ranger
districts.\2 For these eight case-study locations, we obtained data
on OHV program funding and staffing and examined the agencies'
compliance with the executive orders' requirements that they (1)
designate federal lands for OHV use, (2) monitor OHV use to identify
adverse effects and any needed corrective actions and to determine
compliance with regulations, and (3) address or correct adverse
effects caused by OHV use. We also gathered some information at an
additional location in Utah where a coalition of federal, state, and
local interests has joined forces in managing a nationally recognized
OHV trail.
Appendix I more fully discusses our scope and methodology.
Appendixes II through IX present detailed information on each of the
locations we reviewed.
--------------------
\1 Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public
Lands (Feb. 8, 1972), and Executive Order 11989, Off-Road Vehicles
on Public Lands (May 24, 1977).
\2 The four BLM resource areas were Barstow, California; Stateline,
Nevada; Cascade, Idaho; and San Rafael, Utah. The four Forest
Service ranger districts were Mt. Pinos and Upper Lake, California;
Mesa, Arizona; and Salt Lake, Utah.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
At the eight locations we reviewed, BLM and the Forest Service
generally gave lower priority to off-highway vehicle activities than
to other programs. Both agencies devoted limited funding and
staffing to these activities, relying heavily on the states for
financial support. In fiscal year 1993, for example, approximately
two-thirds of the estimated total funding ($1.8 million) for
off-highway vehicle activities at the eight locations came from the
states, which obtained most of their funds from licensing fees and
gasoline taxes. The federal government provided most of the
remaining funds. About 64 percent of the staff assigned to these
activities were also working on other activities at the time of our
review; only about 36 percent were working full-time on off-highway
vehicle activities. Additional support for off-highway vehicle
activities came from local communities and organizations, which
contributed funds at some locations and volunteered services and
materials at all locations; the total value of this support was not
readily available. Also, at some locations, coalitions of federal
and state governments, local communities, and private organizations
supplemented the resources available for off-highway vehicle
programs.
Compliance with the executive orders' requirements was mixed at the
eight locations we studied. At the time of our review, lands had
been designated and conditions had been prescribed for the use of
off-highway vehicles at all locations, but at five locations maps had
not been completed and signs had not been posted frequently or
prominently enough to show the public clearly where and under what
conditions off-highway vehicles could be used. At all locations,
off-highway vehicle use was being monitored casually rather than
systematically, adverse effects were seldom being documented, and
needed corrective actions remained to be prioritized. Although
citations were being written for violations at all locations,
enforcement was hampered by confusion over where and when
restrictions applied. At all locations, some steps had been taken to
correct adverse effects, but other needed actions were not being
performed. According to off-highway vehicle program managers and
staff at the eight locations, the higher priority assigned to other
activities and the limited funding and staffing allocated for
off-highway vehicle activities have prevented full implementation of
the executive orders' requirements.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The increased popularity and widespread use of OHVs on federal lands
in the 1960s and early 1970s prompted the development of a unified
federal policy for such use. Executive Order 11644 was issued in
February 1972 to establish policies and provide for procedures to
control and direct the use of OHVs on federal lands so as to (1)
protect the resources of those lands, (2) promote the safety of all
users of those lands, and (3) minimize conflicts among the various
uses of those lands. The order directs the agency heads responsible
for managing the federal lands to issue regulations governing the
designation of areas where OHVs may and may not be used. Under the
order, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize (1) damage
to the soil, watersheds, vegetation, or other resources of the
federal lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; and (3)
conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. The
order closes wilderness and primitive areas to OHV use. It also
requires the federal agencies to issue OHV use regulations, inform
the public of the lands' designation for OHV use through signs and
maps, enforce OHV use regulations, and monitor the effects of OHV use
on the land.
Executive Order 11989 was issued in May 1977 and contained three
amendments to the previous order. While these amendments lifted
restrictions on the use of military and emergency vehicles on public
lands during emergencies, they otherwise strengthened protection of
the lands by authorizing agency heads to (1) close areas or trails to
OHVs causing considerable adverse effects and (2) designate lands as
closed to OHVs unless the lands are specifically designated as open
to them.
Both BLM and the Forest Service have developed regulations in
response to the executive orders. These regulations require the
agencies to designate areas where OHVs may be used and to manage the
use of OHVs on public lands through each agency's resource management
planning process, which allows for public participation. The
regulations also require the agencies to monitor the use of OHVs,
identify any adverse effects of their use, and take appropriate steps
to counteract such effects.
Both BLM and the Forest Service follow the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield\3 in managing their lands. BLM transfers most of
its authority and responsibility for day-to-day operations through
its state and district offices to its over 140 resource area offices.
The Forest Service manages its lands through staff assigned to its
regions, forest supervisor offices (forests), and over 600 ranger
districts. Both BLM and the Forest Service prepare comprehensive
land and resource management plans for their public lands. BLM
develops plans for its resource areas that describe the standards,
guidelines, and goals for each use on the land--including recreation.
The section on recreation usually designates the areas within the
resource area that are open, open with restrictions,\4 or closed to
OHV use. The Forest Service prepares plans for its forests that
contain goals and objectives for using and protecting the resources
within a forest's ranger districts. These plans provide for a mix of
activities, including the use of OHVs.
Both BLM and the Forest Service supplement their comprehensive
management plans with more detailed activity plans describing the
on-the-ground actions needed to implement the management plans.
These activity plans generally identify specific areas or roads and
trails as open, open with restrictions, or closed to OHVs; stipulate
conditions for using OHVs; emphasize the use of OHVs in suitable
areas; prescribe management actions; and prescribe monitoring for
adverse effects.
External and internal reviews have identified weaknesses in BLM's and
the Forest Service's implementation of the executive orders on OHVs.
In 1979, the Council on Environmental Quality concluded, in a report
entitled Off-road Vehicles on Public Land, that both BLM and the
Forest Service have been slow to address damage from OHVs to soils,
vegetation, wildlife, and watershed resources. Similarly, the
Department of the Interior's Inspector General, in a 1991 report on
BLM's activities, and the Forest Service, in a 1986 review of its OHV
program and in an ongoing review, disclosed various deficiencies,
such as incomplete inventories of routes open and closed to OHV use,
inadequate mapping and posting of OHV routes, untimely resolution of
conflicts between OHV users and other users of the lands, and limited
monitoring of the effects of OHV use on natural and cultural
resources. According to the Forest Service, the current review is
focusing on (1) the quality of its OHV trails' design, (2) the
quality of its trails'/areas' maintenance, (3) the direction of its
forest plans, (4) its employees' knowledge and competency, and (5)
the quality of its cooperation with the private sector and other
government entities. The Forest Service plans to incorporate the
results of the review into an action plan to improve the OHV program.
--------------------
\3 Multiple-use management means the management of public lands and
their various resources in an effort to best meet the present and
future needs of the American people. Sustained yield means the
achievement and maintenance, in perpetuity, of high-level outputs of
the various renewable public lands resources consistent with
multiple-use.
\4 BLM predominately uses the term "open with limitations," although
the term "restrictions" is also used. The Forest Service uses the
term "restricted." For simplicity and consistency, we have used the
terms "open with restrictions" or "restricted use" in this report.
OHV PROGRAMS RECEIVE LIMITED
FUNDING AND STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
At the eight locations we reviewed, OHV programs generally received
limited federal funding, and relatively few staff devoted either all
or part of their time to OHV activities. According to BLM and the
Forest Service, the limited federal funding available for their
recreation programs, including their OHV programs, has generally been
less than requested and does not reflect their management needs.
Within the appropriated dollar allocations, OHV activities were given
lower funding and staffing priorities than other competing programs
at the eight locations we reviewed, and--according to agency
officials--this ranking is typical for other BLM and the Forest
Service locations with OHV activities. State governments, local
communities, and private organizations, however, were contributing
funds and volunteering services to supplement the federal efforts.
OHV PROGRAMS RELY HEAVILY ON
STATE FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
In fiscal year 1993, the OHV programs at the eight locations we
reviewed received an estimated $1.8 million in federal and state
funding.\5 (See table 1.) In the aggregate, two-thirds of this
funding came from the states. Four of the five states in which the
eight case studies were located had state OHV programs that allocated
funds through grants and other means to support OHV activities
throughout the states, including those on federal lands. The states
obtain most of their funds for the programs from OHV licensing fees
and state gasoline taxes. Almost all of the remainder of the funding
for OHV activities at the eight locations came from the federal
government. Local communities and private organizations contributed
funds at some locations and services and materials at all locations;
the total value of these contributions, however, was not readily
available.
Table 1
Fiscal Year 1993 OHV Program Funding at
Eight BLM and Forest Service Locations
Estimate
d
federal Percen State Percen Total
Location funding t funding t funding
-------------- -------- ------ -------- ------ --------
BLM resource
area
Barstow, $100,000 12 $705,000 88 $805,000
California
Stateline, 102,000 100 0 0 102,000
Nevada
Cascade, 54,000 68 25,000 32 79,000
Idaho
San Rafael, 50,000 83 10,000 17 60,000
Utah
============================================================
Subtotal $306,000 29 $740,000 71 $1,046,0
00
Forest Service
ranger
district
Mt. Pinos, 98,000 41 141,000 59 239,000
California
Mesa, 25,000 13 173,000 87 198,000
Arizona
Upper Lake, 35,000 23 117,000 77 152,000
California
Salt Lake, 110,000 89 12,000 11 122,000
Utah
============================================================
Subtotal 268,000 38 443,000 62 711,000
============================================================
Total $574,000 33 $1,183,0 67 $1,757,0
00 00
------------------------------------------------------------
As table 1 indicates, the federal contribution ranged from a low of
12 percent at the Barstow Resource Area--where California contributed
over $700,000, or about 40 percent of the total estimated funding for
the eight locations--to a high of 100 percent at the Stateline
Resource Area-- where Nevada provided no funds for the OHV program.
In dollar terms, the federal contribution was as low as $25,000 at
the Mesa Ranger District in Arizona and as high as $110,000 at the
Salt Lake Ranger District in Utah.
--------------------
\5 Federal funding figures are estimated because neither BLM nor the
Forest Service accounts for OHV programs separately from other
recreation programs. State funding for OHV programs is reported
separately.
MORE STAFF WORK PART-TIME
THAN FULL-TIME ON OHV
PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
At all eight locations, the majority of the staff working on OHV
programs devoted only part of their time to OHV activities. These
individuals generally had other responsibilities involving such
activities as recreation, maintenance, and/or law enforcement. At
six of the eight locations, between two and four staff were spending
part of their time and between none and two were working full-time on
OHV activities. At the remaining two locations, where the OHV
programs were larger, more staff were devoted to OHV activities. At
the Barstow Resource Area, 11 staff spent part of their time and 13
staff worked full-time on the OHV program, and at the Mt. Pinos
Ranger District in California, 7 staff spent part of their time and 4
staff worked full-time on the OHV program. At all eight locations,
individual OHV users, OHV user groups, and local volunteers
contributed services and materials to the OHV programs.
COALITIONS CAN SUPPLEMENT
FEDERAL AND STATE RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
At two locations--the Boise Front Special Recreation Management Area
within the Cascade Resource Area in Idaho and the Paiute ATV Trail in
Utah\6 --coalitions with local governments and organizations have
supplemented the resources available for OHV programs.
The Boise Front is a 43,000-acre patchwork of public and private
lands that forms the primary watershed and a scenic backdrop for the
city of Boise. Historically, the Front has been one of the most
popular recreation areas in Idaho. Serious conflicts have arisen
between OHV use and efforts to prevent trespassing on private
property, protect watersheds, and control erosion. In 1988, the
Boise Front Coalition was formed to deal with these and other
conflicts. The coalition, whose members include representatives of
city, county, state, and federal agencies as well as private
landowner and user groups, has organized volunteers to clean up
litter, install hay bales and water bars to control erosion, place
route signs, and maintain trails. This work has supplemented the
efforts of BLM and of the state, which, between 1990 and 1993,
contributed over $120,000 to reconstruct trails, enforce laws, and
provide information and education for visitors. Currently, the
Front's OHV roads and trails have signs, maps, information boards,
and rest rooms and are patrolled by the county sheriff's department.
Although the coalition had not completely resolved the Front's
conflicts at the time of our review, it was working to do so.
The Paiute ATV Trail is an approximately 200-mile-long loop route
through mountains and canyons in central Utah. The trail runs
through BLM, Forest Service, state, county/community, and private
lands. It was opened in 1988 and is managed by the Paiute ATV Trail
Committee, a coalition of federal, state, and local interests under
the Forest Service's leadership. Through 1993, the state of Utah had
provided over $80,000 in OHV matching grant funds to post trail
signs, relocate trails, and install bridges, sanitation stations, and
erosion control measures. Local communities have also helped to
maintain trails, prepare maps, post signs, and monitor the effects of
OHV use. The trail is nationally recognized by the OHV recreation
community as a unique riding experience, and visitors come to it from
all parts of the country.
--------------------
\6 Although this trail was not among the eight case-study locations,
we obtained information about it because it operates through a
coalition of federal, state, and local interests.
AGENCIES' COMPLIANCE WITH
EXECUTIVE ORDERS HAS BEEN MIXED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
BLM and the Forest Service have partially implemented the executive
orders' requirements that they designate lands for OHV use, monitor
OHV use, and correct any adverse effects of OHV use. According to
OHV program managers and staff at the eight locations we visited, the
higher priority given to other programs and limits on the funding and
staffing allocated for OHV activities have prevented full
implementation of the executive orders' requirements.
OHV USE DESIGNATIONS HAVE
BEEN MADE BUT NOT FULLY
COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
At the eight locations we visited, BLM and the Forest Service have
completed the initial designation of their lands for OHV use, basing
these designations largely on the existing uses of areas, roads, and
trails for activities such as recreation, mining, logging, and
grazing. Subsequently, as they have updated and amended their
resource management plans, they have revised their initial
designations to better protect natural and cultural resources and
minimize conflicts among users of the lands. However, at five of the
eight locations we reviewed, the OHV program staff have not finished
inventorying their lands, mapping their designations, and posting
signs to inform the public of their designations.
LANDS ARE OPEN,
RESTRICTED, OR CLOSED TO
OHV USE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.1
The BLM and Forest Service locations we visited have designated their
lands as open, open with restrictions, or closed to OHV use. BLM's
lands are generally less hilly or mountainous and are located in more
desertlike environments than the Forest Service's lands; hence, they
provide more open terrain for cross-country OHV use. The Forest
Service's lands generally include more rugged, mountainous, and
forested terrain, where OHV use is typically restricted to roads and
trails. As table 2 indicates, about 39 percent of the lands in the
four BLM resource areas were open to unrestricted cross-country use,
while none of the lands in the four Forest Service ranger districts
were open to such use. OHV use was restricted to existing or
designated\7 roads and trails on about 59 percent of the BLM lands
and on about 53 percent of the Forest Service lands. The resource
areas had closed about 2 percent of their lands to OHV use, while the
ranger districts had closed about 47 percent of their lands.
Table 2
OHV Use Designations at Eight BLM and
Forest Service Locations
Federal Restrict
Location acres Open ed Closed
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
BLM resource
area
Stateline,
Nevada 3,671,00 70\a 30 <1
0
Barstow,
California\b 3,200,00 9 90 1
0\
San Rafael,
Utah 1,464,00 20 71 9
0
Cascade,
Idaho 487,000 50 49 <1
============================================================
Total 8,822,00 39 59 2
0
Forest Service
ranger district
Mt. Pinos,
California 441,000 0 59 41
Mesa,
Arizona 440,000 0 56 44
Salt Lake,
Utah 253,000 0 6 94
Upper Lake,
California 249,000 0 83 17
============================================================
Total 1,383,00 0 53 47
0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a A pending revision to Stateline's resource management plan will
move all but 9,180 acres currently designated as open to the
restricted category.
\b After our field visit to the Barstow Resource Area, the California
Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-433) was enacted. According
to BLM, the act transferred 367,000 of Barstow's acres to the
National Park Service and designated another 707,000 acres as
wilderness areas, which are closed to the recreational use of OHVs.
The figures in this table for Barstow do not reflect these changes.
Lands designated as open (without restrictions) include areas where
(1) OHVs have historically been used for recreation, (2) management
and resource information gathered to date has not supported
designation as closed or restricted, and/or (3) the land management
planning process has indicated that further OHV use would not have
significant adverse effects on natural or cultural resources.
Lands on which OHV use is restricted to existing or designated roads
and trails include natural or cultural resources that could be
adversely affected by unrestricted cross-country OHV use. For
example, in the Barstow Resource Area's Afton Canyon Natural Area,
vehicular access is limited to designated roads and trails to protect
sensitive riparian habitat and scenic beauty along one of the few
places where the Mojave River flows above ground.
Lands designated as closed to OHV use include wilderness areas,
natural areas where research is being conducted, some areas of
critical environmental concern, and other special management areas.
For the most part, lands closed to OHV use in the four ranger
districts we visited were located in watershed areas sensitive to
erosion or in congressionally designated wilderness areas. For
example, at the Salt Lake Ranger District in Utah, 64,000 acres were
in four designated wilderness areas. At the time of our review, the
four resource areas we visited had no designated wilderness areas,
but they did have lands that had been studied and were being
considered for possible designation as wilderness areas by the
Congress. OHV use is generally allowed in such wilderness study
areas so long as it does not impair an area's wilderness potential.
However, we found that OHV use in some wilderness study areas was
either prohibited or severely restricted. For example, in the San
Rafael Resource Area in Utah, about 253,000 acres in seven wilderness
study areas were being considered for possible designation as
wilderness areas. OHV use was prohibited in three of the areas and
restricted to a few existing trails in the other four.
--------------------
\7 OHV use is restricted in many areas to existing roads and trails.
When inventories, maps, and signs have been completed for the OHV
routes in a given area, the OHV restriction is generally shifted from
"existing" to "designated" roads and trails.
MAJORITY OF LOCATIONS
HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY
COMMUNICATING THEIR
DESIGNATIONS TO THE
PUBLIC
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.2
As required under the executive orders, BLM and the Forest Service
have issued regulations requiring that their designations of lands
for OHV use be communicated to the public through maps and signs
posted on areas and routes. However, the staff at all four of the
resource areas and one of the ranger districts we visited have had
difficulty complying with these regulations. They have not completed
inventories of their OHV areas, roads, and trails, and they have not
finished preparing maps and posting signs to indicate where OHVs may
or may not be used. Without such inventories, maps, and signs,
neither the public nor the staff can be certain whether specific
areas, roads, or trails are available for OHV use. For example, an
OHV user on an existing but unmarked trail may inadvertently ride off
of the trail, leaving new tracks. Later, other OHV users may follow
the new tracks, incorrectly assuming that they represent an existing
trail available for OHV use. At the Cascade Resource Area, agency
staff accompanying us to view a network of trails did not agree on
which ones were existing and therefore available for OHV use.
Without maps and signs to identify OHV routes, restricted-use areas
are, in effect, used and managed as open-use areas.
OHV program managers and staff at the four resource areas and one
ranger district cited limits on funding and staffing and higher
priorities for other programs as the primary reasons for their
inability to comply more fully with the executive orders'
requirements. They also noted that they manage vast land areas--from
several hundred thousand acres to over 3 million acres--and are
responsible not only for posting new signs but also for replacing
signs that have deteriorated or have been vandalized.
Program managers at three of the five locations that have not fully
complied with the executive orders' requirements for inventories,
maps, and signs--the Mesa Ranger District in Arizona, the Barstow
Resource Area in California, and the San Rafael Resource Area in
Utah--told us that they are currently compiling inventories of their
OHV routes and will eventually map these routes and post signs on
them. Managers at the Cascade Resource Area in Idaho told us that
the low density and wide distribution of OHV use in the area did not
warrant the investment of resources needed to complete the
inventories, maps, and signs. The Cascade Resource Area has,
however, completed the maps and signs for the very small portion
(less than 3 percent) of its land that lies within the Boise Front,
where OHVs are most heavily used. Managers at the Stateline Resource
Area in Nevada told us that the resource area has not had the funds
or staff to complete the inventories, maps, and signs.
In responding to a draft of this report, BLM said that it is working
with state and local governments and interest groups to supplement
federal and state funds to complete inventories, maps, and signs for
its roads and trails. According to BLM, several offices are working
innovatively with volunteers, using a geographic positioning
satellite system and a geographical information system to inventory
the roads and trails and produce maps for the public's and its own
administrative use.
The three remaining ranger districts we visited--Mt. Pinos and Upper
Lake in California and Salt Lake in Utah--have extensive maps of OHV
routes that clearly identify the location and number of each road and
trail and, in the case of the Mt. Pinos maps, describe the routes
and specify their level of difficulty and length. These maps are
available to the public at the respective ranger districts.
Informative signs were posted on the designated roads and trails in
these districts. According to OHV program staff at these locations,
the maps and signs help keep OHV users in authorized areas.
MONITORING HAS NOT BEEN
SYSTEMATIC, AND CONFUSION
HAS HAMPERED ENFORCEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
As required under the executive orders and implementing regulations,
BLM and the Forest Service have prepared resource management and
activity plans that require systematic, documented monitoring to (1)
identify any adverse effects of OHV use on natural and cultural
resources and any needed corrective actions and (2) determine users'
compliance with OHV regulations. Such monitoring includes measuring
changes in vegetation, soil, and wildlife habitat at key locations
and regular intervals; recording the data; evaluating and analyzing
the results; and modifying the program's management as necessary in
light of the results. Monitoring is particularly important in
unmapped, unmarked areas where OHVs may inadvertently be intruding on
restricted or closed areas.
None of the eight locations we visited was systematically monitoring
and documenting the adverse effects of OHV use and any needed
corrective actions except in areas where competitive events requiring
permits are held. Agency employees performing other duties and
members of the public--including both OHV users and members of
environmental groups--were periodically observing and reporting
adverse effects of OHV use, but such anecdotal evidence does not
provide the comprehensive documentation that is needed to fully
characterize the resource damage and set priorities for corrective
action.
To partially offset the difficulty of monitoring vast tracts of land
with limited funds and staff, some locations we visited were
concentrating their monitoring on locations with heavy OHV use,
sensitive soils, riparian areas, or critical wildlife habitat. The
Barstow Resource Area, for example, had developed a listing of "hot
spots" where management attention is most needed. This listing
provides the staff with a basis for setting priorities for monitoring
and taking corrective action.
The executive orders and implementing regulations also require BLM
and the Forest Service to enforce all rules and regulations governing
OHV use on their lands. These requirements are designed to, among
other things, protect public health and safety and minimize land-use
conflicts. All eight of the locations we visited were undertaking
various enforcement activities. However, such activities were
sometimes hampered because maps and signs were not available to
communicate OHV designations, and the number of law enforcement staff
was limited at the various locations.
All eight locations were issuing citations for violations of OHV
regulations, primarily for licensing and equipment violations.
Available information--from estimates, partial computer records, and
actual citations--indicates that the number of OHV citations varied
from fewer than 10 at one location to more than 200 at another during
calendar year 1993. Such wide variation was due, in part, to
differences in the size of the agencies' law enforcement staffs and
in the use the locations were making of cooperative agreements with
local communities to provide supplemental law enforcement support.
Many OHV program staff told us that they consider making one-to-one
contact with OHV users on the trail more effective as an approach to
law enforcement than issuing citations. According to staff at all of
the sites we visited, the presence of law enforcement staff helps to
ensure compliance with OHV use regulations. In addition, educational
efforts and materials are used to increase compliance with
regulations, promote visitors' safety, and decrease the adverse
effects of OHV use.
SOME ACTIONS HAVE BEEN
TAKEN, BUT OTHERS ARE NEEDED
TO CORRECT ADVERSE EFFECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
As required by the executive orders and implementing regulations, BLM
and the Forest Service were taking actions to correct the adverse
effects of OHV use at the eight locations we visited. However,
because the agencies did not have complete monitoring data, the full
nature and extent of the adverse effects and the actions needed to
correct them are unknown.
All eight locations were taking actions, such as relocating trails,
maintaining trails, replanting vegetation, and closing affected
areas. These actions were designed to prevent further damage from
OHV use, maintain existing or provide additional opportunities for
OHV recreation, or resolve conflicts between OHV users and other
users and residents. At the Barstow Resource Area, a camping and OHV
staging area was closed to protect the habitat of the desert
tortoise, and a new access road was graded to attract OHVs to a
nearby open-use area. At the Upper Lake Ranger District, erosion
control measures were installed on a system of OHV trails to minimize
the damage to soils and watersheds from OHV use and preserve
opportunities for OHV recreation. At the Mesa Ranger District, an
area was partially closed to OHVs to allay public concerns about
health and safety problems and the visual degradation of the area;
the area was fenced; locked entrance gates were installed; designated
looped trails were numbered and posted; closed routes were
barricaded; and play areas,\8 including hill climbs, were planted
with vegetation.
Staff at all eight locations identified adverse effects of OHV use
that, at the time of our visits, had not been corrected. At the Mesa
Ranger District, for example, extensive damage to resources caused by
vehicles driving up and down the banks of, and across, a dry
streambed had not been corrected because funding and staffing had
been allocated to other areas with greater OHV use. Similarly, at
the Nellis Dunes OHV play area in the Stateline Resource Area, health
and safety problems--including high-speed, uncontrolled,
cross-country OHV riding; garbage dumping; auto stripping;
indiscriminate camping; partying; and firearms shooting--had not been
corrected because the limited resources were being used to manage
higher-priority OHV racing competitions generally held elsewhere.
--------------------
\8 Areas where OHVs are used heavily and their cross-country use is
unrestricted are sometimes referred to as "play" areas.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Although more than 20 years have passed since the issuance of the
first executive order calling for the management of OHV use on
federal lands, BLM's and the Forest Service's compliance with the
provisions of the two orders has been mixed. According to OHV
program managers and staff at the eight locations we visited, both
agencies have given higher priority to other activities and have
allocated limited funding and staffing to their OHV programs.
Furthermore, both agencies have relied heavily on the states to
support their OHV programs so that, in an era of constrained federal
funding, the extent of their future compliance is likely to depend on
the level of support they receive from nonfederal sources. Should
such support waver or cease in the future for any reason, the
agencies' ability to comply with the executive orders would be
further hampered.
Some BLM and Forest Service locations have made more efficient use of
the resources available to them by targeting their monitoring and
enforcement to the most heavily used or the most environmentally
sensitive lands. Also, some have formed coalitions with state
governments, local communities, and private organizations (such as
the Boise Front Coalition and the Paiute ATV Trail Committee), to
supplement their resources for OHV programs. As the agencies
continue to inventory, map, and post signs to identify their OHV
areas, roads, and trails, they should be able to implement the
executive orders' provisions more fully.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
This report provides information on the use and impact of OHVs on
public lands. It makes no recommendations.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Departments
of the Interior and Agriculture. We met with and received comments
from agency officials, including the Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior, and the Acting Associate
Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. They
generally agreed with the information and conclusions in the report
and offered several technical clarifications, which we incorporated
in the report where appropriate. In addition, Interior and
Agriculture provided the following comments, which addressed broader
issues than our work at the eight case-study locations.
Interior stated that BLM is revising its OHV, trail, access, and
transportation manuals and handbooks to clarify its management goals
and objectives and to integrate these components into a holistic
transportation access network. The transportation access network
will be planned, designed, constructed, maintained, and monitored to
meet the needs of recreationists, authorized users, and BLM. BLM
believes that this systematic approach will prove more effective for
managing OHV use than the individual activity approach used in the
past. In addition, BLM is hiring an OHV/trail technical assistant to
provide its resource areas with help and training in ways to
inventory, plan, develop, maintain, operate, and monitor roads and
trails. BLM is also revising its sign catalog and procedures for
ordering signs to improve the resource areas' ability to acquire and
use consistent signage.
Interior also said that BLM is moving from an agency that manages
specific activities on federal lands to one that manages the
condition of the lands' resources according to consistent standards.
The use of OHVs, along with all other uses of the public lands, will
be allowed in areas or along trails where the use is compatible with
the desired condition of the resources. Staffing and funding will
emphasize a holistic approach to managing a specific piece of ground
rather than individual activities. By enabling BLM to apply
consistent standards to all activities, this approach should support
the agency's efforts to focus staff time and funding on problems in
"hot spots" or areas where the resources are not in the desired
condition.
In its comments, Agriculture said that at current funding levels, the
Forest Service will continue to restrict its mapping, signing, and
monitoring of adverse effects to the areas that receive the heaviest
OHV use and are the most ecologically sensitive. Agriculture further
said that efforts to more fully implement the executive orders depend
heavily on the availability of funding, that the amounts available
generally fall well below the amounts needed and requested, and that
each ranger district has to make very difficult choices about how to
allocate its limited resources among its various programs and
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We conducted our review between December 1993 and June 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and Members of Congress, the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the
Chief of the Forest Service, and other interested parties. We will
also send copies to others upon request. Please call me at (202)
512-7756 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors
to the report are listed in appendix X.
Sincerely yours,
James Duffus III
Director, Natural Resources
Management Issues
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
Representative Bruce F. Vento asked us to review the implementation
of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 by the Department of Interior's
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service. These orders were issued in the 1970s to establish
policies and provide for procedures to regulate the use of
off-highway vehicles (OHV) on federal lands. More specifically, our
objectives were to obtain information on (1) the funding and staffing
for OHV programs and (2) the extent to which the two agencies were
complying with the executive orders' requirements that they designate
federal lands for OHV use, monitor OHV use to identify adverse
effects and any needed corrective actions and to determine compliance
with regulations, and address or correct any adverse effects of OHV
use.
To perform this review, we reviewed the executive orders and BLM's
and the Forest Service's implementing regulations. We spoke with and
obtained information from (1) BLM and Forest Service headquarters
officials; (2) BLM state, district, and resource area officials and
OHV program staff; (3) Forest Service regional, forest, and ranger
district officials and OHV program staff; (4) state government OHV
program officials; (5) representatives of OHV user groups, including
the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the Motorcycle Industry Council; and
(6) representatives of environmental groups, including the Sierra
Club and the Audubon Society.
We learned that neither BLM nor the Forest Service had nationwide
data on its funding and staffing for OHV programs and neither had
reliable data on the extent or effects of OHV use on its lands.
Hence, we agreed with the requester's office to obtain information
illustrative of BLM's and the Forest Service's OHV programs by
reviewing the implementation of such programs at four BLM resource
areas and four Forest Service ranger districts where, we were told,
the use of OHVs was high. During our review, we visited several
other BLM and Forest Service locations to obtain additional
information about the agencies' OHV programs.
SELECTION OF LOCATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
We selected the eight locations on the basis of (1) the number of
acres managed, (2) the estimated extent of OHV use, (3) the type of
OHV use, (4) and the type of terrain on which OHVs were used. We
attempted to obtain some diversity in our selection while
concentrating on the areas with the highest use that exhibited the
types of problems OHV program managers face at the local level. We
limited our selection to the western states because they have the
most OHV activity and the most acres of land managed by BLM and the
Forest Service. We obtained concurrence from the requester's office
and from BLM and Forest Service headquarters and state/regional
officials that the locations selected would illustrate each agency's
OHV program and the problems associated with OHV use. A brief
description of the eight locations and the basis for their selection
follows.
BLM LOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1
Barstow Resource Area, California. California ranks first in OHV use
on BLM lands and fourth in the number of acres of BLM lands in the
conterminous United States. The OHV use reported by BLM for
California is about double that reported by BLM for the next 10
highest states. According to BLM's California state office, the
Barstow Resource Area has the most OHV use of any BLM location in the
state. Four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles are most commonly
used for this largely desert terrain.
Stateline Resource Area, Nevada. Nevada ranks sixth in OHV use on
BLM lands and first in the number of acres of BLM lands in the
conterminous United States. The Stateline Resource Area receives
substantially more OHV use than any other BLM resource area in the
state. Four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, and all-terrain
vehicles (ATV) are preferred for this mostly desert terrain.
Cascade Resource Area, Idaho. Idaho ranks eighth in OHV use on BLM
lands and eighth in the number of acres of BLM lands in the
conterminous United States. OHV use in the Cascade Resource Area is
concentrated in an area known as the Boise Front, which has the most
intensive OHV use in the state. The Boise Front encompasses BLM,
Forest Service, state, and private lands and has been managed
cooperatively over the past 10 years. Four-wheel drive vehicles and
motorcycles are used most often for this terrain consisting of
mountain valleys and forested foothills.
San Rafael Resource Area, Utah. Utah ranks second to California in
OHV use on BLM lands and second to Nevada in the number of acres of
BLM lands in the conterminous United States. The San Rafael Resource
Area, according to BLM's Utah state office, has some of the highest
OHV use on BLM lands in the state. Four-wheel drive vehicles,
motorcycles, and ATVs are preferred for this semiarid terrain with
some canyons.
FOREST SERVICE LOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2
Upper Lake Ranger District, California. California ranks first in
OHV use on Forest Service lands and first in the number of acres of
Forest Service lands in the conterminous United States. According to
the Forest Service, OHV use reported for California is more than
double that reported for the next highest state, which is Arizona.
OHVs, primarily motorcycles, are used year round on terrain ranging
from chaparral at lower elevations to conifer forests at higher
elevations.
Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California. A second Forest Service
location in California was selected because the use of OHVs in the
state is high. All types of OHVs--including motorcycles, four-wheel
drive vehicles, and ATVs--are widely used in the Mt. Pinos Ranger
District on terrain ranging from chaparral at lower elevations to
conifer forests at higher elevations.
Mesa Ranger District, Arizona. Arizona ranks second to California in
OHV use on Forest Service lands and sixth in the number of Forest
Service acres in the conterminous United States. The Mesa Ranger
District has the highest OHV use in the state. ATVs and four-wheel
drive vehicles are used most frequently for this arid terrain, which
ranges from rolling hills to mountains.
Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah. Utah ranks fifth in OHV use on
Forest Service lands and 10th in the number of Forest Service acres
in the conterminous United States. The Salt Lake Ranger District has
some of the highest OHV use in the state. Motorcycles and four-wheel
drive vehicles are used most commonly for this terrain consisting of
foothills and steep canyons.
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
During our visits to each of the eight locations, we reviewed
resource management plans and activity plans that addressed OHV
management. Additionally, to obtain information on funding and
staffing, we held discussions with resource area and ranger district
managers and their OHV program staff and obtained available
documentation on funding and staffing. Precise funding and staffing
information was not available because none of the BLM and Forest
Service locations accounted for the OHV program separately from other
recreation programs. OHV program staff provided us, for fiscal year
1993, with estimates of the amount of federal funding and the number
of staff that were being devoted to OHV activities at each of the
eight locations and with the actual amount of state funding provided
through cooperative partnerships at all of the locations except the
one where state funding was not provided.
To obtain information on the designation of land for OHV use, we
talked with resource area and ranger district managers and OHV
program staff and reviewed regulations, resource management plans,
activity plans, and other documentation relevant to the determination
of where OHVs are and are not allowed. We also obtained information
on how these determinations were communicated to the public through
such means as maps and signs.
To obtain information on the monitoring of OHV use to identify its
adverse effects and to determine compliance with regulations for it,
we spoke with resource area and ranger district managers, OHV program
staff, and law enforcement staff. We also reviewed regulations,
resource management plans, activity plans, and other documentation to
determine how and to what extent monitoring--systematic, documented
monitoring as well as casual, sporadic monitoring--of OHV use was
being done, how any adverse effects of such use and any needed
corrective actions were being identified, and how regulations for OHV
use were being enforced through the issuance of citations and other
means.
To obtain information on the corrective actions being taken to
address the adverse effects of OHV use, we spoke with resource area
and ranger district managers and OHV program staff and reviewed
documentation on the types of corrective actions needed, taken, and
not taken. To develop more specific information on corrective
actions, we concentrated on two sites within each resource area and
ranger district--one site where corrective actions had been taken and
one site where corrective actions had not been taken or additional
actions remained to be taken. When needed corrective actions had not
been taken, we determined the reasons why.
We conducted our review of the eight case-study locations between
December 1993 and June 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
BARSTOW RESOURCE AREA, CALIFORNIA
========================================================== Appendix II
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
The Barstow Resource Area is part of BLM's California Desert
District. It includes about 3.2 million acres of BLM land in
southern California's Mojave Desert and is located 1 or 2 hours
driving time northeast of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, where 15
million people reside. The resource area includes some of the most
popular and intensively used OHV areas in California. OHV use is
highest at a number of designated open-use areas near Los Angeles and
several other rapidly growing communities; it includes organized,
competitive, high-speed racing events; hill climbing; and sand dune,
trail, and cross-country riding. (Fig. II.1 shows, among other
things, the location of the resource area and of Afton Canyon and
Juniper Flats--two sites we reviewed during our visit.)
Figure II.1: Location of the
Barstow Resource Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Funding for the Barstow Resource Area's OHV program comes from both
BLM and the state of California. During fiscal year 1993, for
example, the estimated funding for Barstow's OHV program totaled
about $805,000--of which $705,000, or 88 percent, was provided by the
state and an estimated $100,000, or 12 percent, was provided by BLM.
About $550,000 of the state funding was directed toward the El Mirage
OHV Recreation Area, a 24,000-acre intensive-use OHV area, which is
located 100 miles from Los Angeles and is operated by BLM under a
federal, state, and county cooperative management plan. About
$561,000 (or about 70 percent) of the combined $805,000 in funding at
Barstow was spent on staff salaries, supporting 13 full-time OHV
staff and 11 staff who devote part of their time to OHV activities.
Of the full-time OHV staff, 10 work at El Mirage--3 law enforcement
rangers, 1 recreation planner, 1 park ranger, 3 facility maintenance
staff, 1 site manager, and 1 administrative assistant. The remaining
three full-time staff--one recreation planner and two park
rangers--work at other locations. The 11 staff who devote part of
their time to OHV activities include 9 law enforcement rangers, 1
supervisory recreation planner, and 1 equipment operator, all of whom
work outside El Mirage. The remaining $244,000 was spent on
nonsalary items, including contracted road construction, grading,
equipment, and signs.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Barstow's OHV use designations were initially based on an
environmental analysis that was completed in the course of developing
the 1980 California Desert Conservation Area Plan (the resource
management plan covering the Barstow Resource Area) and a 1982
amendment to the plan. The plan's objectives in designating lands
for OHV use include minimizing damage to natural, cultural, and
aesthetic resources; providing a network of routes for desert travel;
reducing conflicts among desert users; and providing for appropriate
off-highway recreation. Traditional land uses heavily influenced the
designations. Table II.1 shows that, at the time of our review, OHV
use on 2.87 million acres, or 90 percent of the Barstow Resource
Area's 3.2 million acres, was restricted to designated routes in
marked areas and existing routes in unmarked areas to (1) minimize
harm to resources by preventing the harassment of wildlife and
protecting threatened and endangered species, (2) prevent damage to
land being considered for designation as wilderness, and (3) minimize
conflicts with other users of the desert. Another 300,000 acres (9
percent) at five locations\1 were designated as open to OHV use
because of their recreational importance. The remaining 30,000 acres
(1 percent) were closed to OHV use to protect certain sand dune
systems, dry lakes, and primitive areas.
Table II.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Barstow
Resource Area
Total BLM acres in resource
area 3,200,000\a
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 9 percent (300,000 acres)
Restricted to certain areas 90 percent (2,870,000 acres)
Closed to OHV use 1 percent (30,000 acres)
Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles/
motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) 41
Trend in OHV use Static
Posting of OHV routes Incomplete
Mapping of OHV routes Complete
------------------------------------------------------------
\a After we visited the Barstow Resource Area, the California Desert
Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-433) was enacted. According to
BLM, the act transferred 367,000 acres from Barstow to the National
Park Service and designated another 707,000 acres as wilderness
areas, which are closed to OHV recreational use. The figures for
Barstow in this table do not reflect these changes.
After developing the 1980 Desert Plan, Barstow allowed OHV use on all
existing routes unless they were posted as closed because it did not
have an inventory of existing routes open to OHV use. In 1989, BLM
finished publishing a series of desert-access maps showing existing
routes, closed routes, closed areas, and open cross-country use
areas. Barstow is currently developing an inventory of routes open
to OHV use and is changing its practice from allowing OHV use on all
existing routes unless posted as closed to allowing OHV use only on
those routes posted as open. About 2.3 million acres, or about 72
percent of Barstow's lands, have been inventoried and, according to
Barstow recreation planners, the routes being proposed as open to OHV
use represent about 32 percent of the existing routes shown on the
1989 desert-access maps.
On most Barstow Resource Area lands, posting for OHV use is either
incomplete or has not been done at all. Signs are, however, in place
at the five OHV open-use areas and at areas where site-specific plans
have been written, including the Rainbow Basin Natural Area, the
Afton Canyon Natural Area, and the Juniper Flats Cultural Area.
Signs at the five OHV open-use areas include perimeter boundary signs
and visitor information boards. At Rainbow Basin, Afton Canyon, and
Juniper Flats, routes open to OHV use have been posted. The other
locations available for OHV use within the resource area have
generally not been posted because of insufficient funds.
Unauthorized OHV use in inadequately posted areas sometimes damages
resources, such as soils and plants, and creates conflicts among
users of the lands.
OHV competitions occur frequently within the Barstow Resource Area;
41 events involving 10,000 participants and 35,000 spectators took
place during fiscal year 1993. The events require a BLM permit and
primarily occur on weekends in the designated open-use areas,
especially Johnson Valley, Stoddard Valley, and El Mirage. Events
for all types of OHVs--including motorcycles, ATVs, desert buggies,
and four-wheel drive vehicles--are held. While most of these events
are timed, competitive races, some nonspeed, nontimed events are held
for vehicles registered for street use. At El Mirage, all-out,
high-speed time trials are held.
--------------------
\1 The five locations designated as open to OHV use are Johnson
Valley, Stoddard Valley, El Mirage, Dumont Dunes, and Rasor.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
The Barstow Resource Area has not implemented a systematic OHV
monitoring program to identify and document the adverse effects of
OHV use. Although the 1980 Desert Plan identified such monitoring as
an important component of the OHV program and included establishing a
desertwide monitoring program by the end of fiscal year 1987 as a
program goal, OHV monitoring has not been established at Barstow
because of constraints on staff resources and the higher priority of
other work. According to Barstow OHV program staff, the effects of
OHV use are primarily identified through the incidental, undocumented
observations of Barstow staff while they are in the field performing
work for other programs. The effects of OHV use have also been
reported to BLM staff by the public, including OHV users and
environmental groups. Except for monitoring permitted OHV
competitions, we were told, Barstow's OHV and other recreation
program staff do little of the systematic, documented monitoring
specified in the regulations, the Desert Plan, and site-specific
management plans.
Barstow has 13 authorized law enforcement ranger positions; however,
according to the chief ranger, only 7 positions were staffed in all
of 1993 and about 40 percent of the rangers' time was spent on
enforcing the regulations for OHV use. According to OHV program
staff, public safety receives a higher priority than resource
protection. Barstow law enforcement rangers issued 237 citations
during 1993, most of which were for vehicle registration and
inspection violations. Fewer than 10 citations were issued in 1993
for resource damage and OHV use in unauthorized areas because,
according to law enforcement staff, it is difficult to establish
intent when existing routes in most areas are not posted for OHV use.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
In January 1994, the Barstow Resource Area Manager developed a
listing of 12 locations that were most in need of corrective actions
to address the adverse effects of OHV use. The listing, referred to
as the Barstow OHV management's "hot spots" listing, was based on the
field observations of law enforcement rangers and other Barstow
staff. Among the adverse effects listed were erosion, vandalism of
signs, OHV use in unauthorized areas, shooting, and garbage dumping.
Actions needed to correct these adverse effects included closing
areas to OHV use, increasing law enforcement ranger patrols, fencing,
and increasing cooperative efforts with local residents and interest
groups.
OHV program staff identified two locations within the Barstow
Resource Area for us as examples of places where needed corrective
actions have, or have not, been taken. They pointed to the Afton
Canyon Natural Area, which includes 35,000 acres of resource area
lands and 6,500 acres of private lands, as a place where corrective
actions have eliminated the adverse effects of OHV use, including
erosion, damage to riparian vegetation, and aesthetic degradation.
In 1980, BLM designated Afton Canyon as an area of critical
environmental concern to protect aesthetic values and habitat for
wildlife (bighorn sheep and birds of prey). Afton Canyon is one of
the few natural riparian areas in the Mojave Desert. Before its
designation, it was a popular free-play area for motorcycles: Hill
climbs took place at "Competition Hill," and OHVs could be used in
all areas, including riparian ones. In 1989, BLM restricted OHV use
in the Afton Canyon area to routes designated by signs as open. The
area has been partially fenced, metal barriers have been placed on
closed routes (see fig. II.2), and local youth scouting groups are
scheduled to assist with rehabilitation work at Competition Hill.
Signs posted at the primary highway access to Afton Canyon inform the
public that OHV use in the area is restricted. The signs also inform
the public about the location of a nearby OHV open-use area. About
$110,000 had been spent through fiscal year 1993 at Afton Canyon
under a site-specific management plan that identified actions BLM
believed were needed to address the adverse effects of OHV use.
According to Barstow OHV program staff, the actions taken thus far
have been successful, and OHV users interested in cross-country,
free-play activities have moved to the nearby OHV open-use areas.
Figure II.2: Metal Barrier at
Competition Hill, Afton Canyon
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Juniper Flats is the first location on Barstow's list of OHV hot
spots and was identified by OHV program staff as a site where some
corrective action has been taken but much more is needed. Juniper
Flats encompasses about 17,000 acres that are located in a critical
watershed, provide important wildlife habitat, and have high cultural
sensitivity and shallow, fragile soils. According to OHV program
staff, heavy OHV use by residents of communities adjacent to Juniper
Flats has eroded soil, damaged vegetation, degraded riparian areas,
and destroyed fences and signs.
In 1993, BLM placed Juniper Flats under an emergency closure.
Motorized vehicle use in the area was restricted to posted routes, a
condition that was expected to last for 2 years pending completion of
a more thorough site-specific management plan. Posting of routes
open to OHV use is ongoing: About two-thirds of the signs have been
installed. Vandalism of signs and OHV use outside designated routes
are continuing problems in the area. Additional needed actions
identified by OHV program staff include installing the remaining
signs, rehabilitating hill climb areas (see fig. II.3), raking and
seeding, installing barriers, planning cooperatively with local
citizens and interest groups, and establishing priority law
enforcement surveillance. The Barstow Resource Area Manager told us
that she had requested funding for the rehabilitation work but that
the other actions will have to wait until additional staff and funds
become available.
Figure II.3: Hill Climb Area
at Juniper Flats
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6
At the Barstow Resource Area, we discussed BLM's management of OHV
use with a representative of the American Motorcycle Association, who
was very familiar with the area. He said that he has motorcycled
there about 25 weekends each year for the past 5 years. The
representative is primarily involved in organized motorcycle events.
He told us that he accepts the fact that BLM has designated five
areas as open to cross-country OHV use and has restricted OHV use
elsewhere to posted routes. He identified desert buggy racing in
Stoddard Valley and casual OHV use in the Cinnamon Hills desert
tortoise habitat as negatively affecting these areas. He said that
BLM could strengthen Barstow's OHV management by improving its
oversight of desert buggy racing, its handling of conflicts between
OHV use and other forms of recreation, its posting of the boundaries
of the five areas designated as open to OHV use, and its
communications with the OHV community.
We also discussed OHV use in the Barstow Resource Area with a
representative of the Sierra Club's California Desert Committee, who
has resided in southern California for over 50 years and visits
Barstow several times a year. Overall, he characterized the Barstow
Resource Area as doing a good job of managing OHV use. However, he
characterized Cinnamon Hills as adversely affected by OHV use,
primarily because damage is being done to desert tortoise habitat.
Among his other concerns are the land scars caused by OHV hill
climbs, such as those at Juniper Flats; the spillover of OHV use into
restricted areas from the five designated open-use areas; and heavy
OHV use near parking, camping, and picnic areas. He is also
concerned because several areas of critical environmental concern are
located within OHV open-use areas and are therefore susceptible to
damage. The representative would like to see OHV use outside the
open-use areas more strictly limited to routes that have been posted
as open to OHV use.
CASCADE RESOURCE AREA, IDAHO
========================================================= Appendix III
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
The Cascade Resource Area is part of BLM's Boise District. It is
located in southwest Idaho adjacent to Boise, the capital and largest
city in Idaho, and includes about 487,000 acres of BLM land. OHV
activities in the resource area are mainly concentrated in an area
known as the Boise Front, which is the most intensively used OHV area
in Idaho. (Fig. III.1 shows the location of the resource area and
of the Boise Front and Treasure Valley Corridor--two sites we
reviewed during our visit.)
Figure III.1: Location of the
Cascade Resource Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
The Cascade Resource Area's OHV program is funded by BLM and the
state of Idaho. Cascade OHV program staff estimated that funding
totaled about $79,000 for fiscal year 1993, of which about $54,000
came from BLM and $25,000 from the state Off-Road Motor Vehicle Gas
Tax Fund. The funding provided by BLM was spent on staff salaries,
partially funding four positions--two recreation specialists, one
maintenance worker, and one law enforcement ranger, each of whom
spent only part of his or her time on OHV activities. The funding
received from the state, which accounted for almost one-third of the
total amount of funds, was spent for maintenance equipment and signs.
In addition, the state provides its counties with funds from the
Off-Road Motor Vehicle Gas Tax Fund for law enforcement and
maintenance within BLM resource areas to support OHV program
activities. In fiscal year 1993, the state provided various Idaho
counties with $20,000 for law enforcement patrols in the Boise Front
and $17,500 for fencing and maintenance in other Cascade OHV areas.
The Cascade Resource Area's OHV program is also supported by
volunteers working through the Boise Front Coalition, a community
service organization with representation from city, county, state,
and federal agencies; private landowners; and user groups.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
The Cascade Resource Area's OHV use designations, originally based on
historic use, were revised after an environmental analysis was
completed during the development of the 1988 Cascade Resource
Management Plan. As table III.1 shows, 244,118 acres, or
approximately half of Cascade's lands, were designated as open to OHV
use because no significant adverse effects were identified in the
analysis. OHV use on another 241,215 acres, or just under half of
Cascade's lands, was restricted because the analysis identified
highly erodible soils, watershed values, and sensitive species
habitats as needing protection. The remaining 2,113 acres were
closed to OHV use because the analysis determined that OHV use would
conflict with other recreational activities, the survival of
sensitive plant species, or mining activities.
Table III.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Cascade
Resource Area
Total BLM acres in resource
area 487,466
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 50.0 percent (244,118 acres)
Restricted to certain areas 49.5 percent (241,215 acres)
Closed to OHV use 0.5 percent (2,113 acres)
Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles/
motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) None
Trend in OHV use Up slightly
Posting of OHV routes Incomplete
Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete
------------------------------------------------------------
OHV use in the 241,215 restricted acres is limited either to existing
or designated roads and trails. On 229,220 of these acres, OHV use
is restricted to existing roads and trails; however, Cascade does not
have an inventory, maps, or signs to identify the number of miles or
the location of the existing roads and trails that are available.
Hence, OHV users on these lands have no way of knowing whether they
are using an existing trail open to OHV use or engaging in prohibited
cross-country activities. The remaining 11,995 acres--about 3
percent of the land in the resource area--are located within the
Boise Front, where OHV use is restricted to 15 miles of designated
roads and trails that have been inventoried, mapped, and posted to
minimize resource damage. Outside the Boise Front OHV area--about 97
percent of the land in the resource area--maps have not been prepared
and signs have not been posted, according to the OHV program manager,
because these areas are less intensively used, existing use is
dispersed, and available resources have been devoted to the
higher-priority Boise Front.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4
The Cascade Resource Area does not systematically monitor OHV use and
document the adverse effects of such use, even though its Off-Road
Vehicle Management Plan--the OHV program activity plan for
implementing the Cascade Resource Management Plan--contains specific
guidance for formal monitoring. According to the Cascade OHV program
manager, some systematic monitoring of the effects of OHV use was
done in the early 1980s, but it was discontinued because of limits on
staffing and funding and other work priorities. Monitoring is
currently limited to casual, sporadic observations made by Cascade
staff while out in the field performing range, wildlife, road
maintenance, and other program work. Eventually, some more
systematic monitoring is intended for the heavily used Boise Front,
but OHV monitoring in less intensively used areas will continue to be
handled in a cursory manner.
Enforcement problems include vandalism and OHV use off of roads and
trails, especially in the Boise Front. BLM has cooperative
agreements with state and county law enforcement agencies for the
enforcement of OHV regulations in the Boise Front. About 200
citations are issued annually by BLM law enforcement rangers and
county sheriffs who patrol the area. Typically, citations are issued
for vehicle licensing and equipment violations, and warnings are
usually given for OHV use off of designated routes.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5
Although the Cascade Resource Area maintains no official listing of
areas where corrective actions have been or need to be taken to
address the adverse effects of OHV use, the Cascade OHV program
manager identified the (1) Boise Front as an area where corrective
actions have been taken and (2) Treasure Valley Corridor as an area
where OHV use is a management problem and such actions have not been
taken. We visited the two locations as a part of our review.
Because of its proximity to Boise, the Boise Front is a popular area
where (1) intensive OHV use has eroded soil in watershed areas and
(2) vandalism has damaged signs, gates, and sanitation facilities.
As a result, OHV use on the Boise Front has been restricted to
designated roads and trails, which have been mapped and posted to
communicate their location to the public. Other corrective actions
taken in the Boise Front include closing roads and trails to OHV use
(see fig. III.2), planting vegetation on closed trails, annually
scheduling and performing road and trail maintenance, replacing
damaged route markers and signs, and increasing the presence of law
enforcement officers in the late afternoons and evenings. Since
1990, over $100,000 in state funds has been spent for Boise Front
projects.
Figure III.2: Closed OHV Trail
in the Boise Front
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The Treasure Valley Corridor is becoming problematic for the Cascade
Resource Area as the number of new roads and trails increases.
Because OHV use in this area is less intensive than in the Boise
Front, the Corridor has historically received less BLM management
attention and fewer staffing and funding resources. Although OHV use
on federal lands in the Corridor is restricted to existing roads and
trails, few signs, maps, or trail markers inform the public which
roads and trails are open to OHV use. As new trails appear from
unauthorized cross-country OHV use and few signs identify the
existing trails, the public finds its increasingly difficult to
distinguish between the trails that are and are not available for OHV
use. As figure III.3 shows, there is little perceptible difference
between the two classes of trails: The trail that runs horizontally
across the picture is authorized for use, while the two trails that
appear to go uphill from this trail are not.
Figure III.3: Unmarked Trails
in the Treasure Valley Corridor
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6
At the Cascade Resource Area, we discussed BLM's management of OHV
use with members of the Idaho Trail Machine Association. The members
told us that they frequently ride their motorcycles in the Boise
Front. Among the OHV management problems they identified at this
location were vandalism and the need for more OHV trails. The
members also mentioned the need for maps and other information on OHV
opportunities in areas other than the Boise Front. They would like
to see BLM provide more funding for OHV recreational opportunities on
its lands.
We also discussed OHV use with a member of the Idaho Conservation
League who frequently rides horses and hikes in the Boise Front.
This individual identified vandalism; erosion from OHV use off of
designated trails; and OHV conflicts with other recreational
activities such as horseback riding, mountain biking, and hiking as
continuing OHV management problems in the Boise Front. He would like
to see the Boise Front closed to OHV use because of these problems.
SAN RAFAEL RESOURCE AREA, UTAH
========================================================== Appendix IV
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
The San Rafael Resource Area is part of BLM's Moab District. Located
in Emery County in south central Utah, it is about 2 hours driving
time southeast of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, which has a
population of about 1.1 million. The resource area includes about
1.5 million acres of BLM land, which receive some of the highest OHV
use in the state. (Fig. IV.1 shows, among other things, the
location of the resource area and of Justensen Flats and Mexican
Mountain--two sites we reviewed during our visit.)
Figure IV.1: Location of the
San Rafael Resource Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2
Funding for San Rafael's OHV program comes from both BLM and the
state. OHV program staff estimated that funding for fiscal year 1993
totaled about $60,000, of which $50,000, or 83 percent, was provided
by BLM and $10,000, or 17 percent, was provided by the state. The
federal funding helped to pay the salaries of two staff--a recreation
planner and a law enforcement ranger--who spent part of their time on
OHV activities. The state funding was spent on sanitation facilities
and other improvements at a resource area campground that is used by
OHV enthusiasts. In addition, in 1993, Emery County supported San
Rafael's OHV program with an estimated $32,000 worth of labor and
equipment to construct access roads and paths to this campground.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3
San Rafael's OHV use designations, initially based on historic use,
were revised after an environmental analysis was completed as part of
the development of the 1991 San Rafael Resource Management Plan. As
shown in table IV.1, OHV use on 1,035,895 acres, or about 71 percent
of the San Rafael Resource Area's lands, is restricted to roads and
trails; cross-country OHV use is prohibited to protect areas of
critical environmental concern, developed recreation sites, critical
soils, riparian areas, and wildlife and plant habitats.
Additionally, 293,233 acres, or about 20 percent of the lands, were
designated as open to OHV use because no significant adverse effects
were identified during the environmental analysis\2 . The remaining
133,766 acres, or about 9 percent of the lands, were closed to OHV
use to protect undisturbed plant communities and primitive scenic
areas.
Table IV.1
OHV Use Statistics for the San Rafael
Resource Area
Total BLM acres in resource
area 1,463,894
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 20 percent (293,233 acres)
Restricted to certain areas 71 percent (1,035,895 acres)
Closed to OHV use 9 percent (133,766 acres)
Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles,
ATVs,
and motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) None
Trend in OHV use Up slightly
Posting of OHV routes Incomplete
Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete
------------------------------------------------------------
Although the San Rafael Resource Management Plan provides that OHV
use in restricted areas be limited to designated roads and trails,
such roads and trails have not been fully identified through an
up-to-date inventory or maps and signs. The San Rafael Resource Area
inherited numerous roads and trails dating from uranium exploration
in the 1950s and 1960s and was compiling an inventory of the existing
roads and trails at the time of our review. Also, the resource area
was considering whether to continue posting only closed routes or to
begin posting open routes instead. San Rafael has placed signs at
points of entry to some closed areas, including a 12,000-acre area
where an emergency closure was invoked to protect a threatened
species of cactus and wildlife habitat. According to the San Rafael
Resource Area Manager, a low-keyed and cautious approach towards
identifying and publicizing OHV recreational opportunities exists
within the resource area because of an ongoing controversy over
right-of-way access across BLM lands.
--------------------
\2 There are temporary seasonal closures on approximately 93,000
acres of these lands, which were identified as critical winter range
habitat for antelope, deer, and elk.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4
San Rafael does not systematically monitor OHV use to identify and
document the adverse effects of such use. Casual, sporadic
monitoring, which is often undocumented, is done incidentally when
resource area staff are in the field working on range, wildlife,
cultural, and other BLM programs. According to the OHV program
manager, a schedule had been set up to monitor intrusions into San
Rafael wilderness study areas, including those by OHVs. At the time
of our review, however, this was the only systematic monitoring of
OHV use that was going on. Monitoring OHV use has not been a
priority, according to the OHV program manager, because the resource
area has had limited staff and funds.
San Rafael shares a law enforcement ranger with another resource
area. As a result, this one ranger has about 2.5 million acres of
BLM lands to patrol for all law enforcement purposes, including the
enforcement of OHV regulations. The ranger, assigned to San Rafael
in May 1993, had issued about 80 OHV citations through March 1994.
Most of the citations, according to the ranger, were written for
using OHVs in closed areas--including riding cross-country off of
roads and trails.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5
No studies, reports, or other official records were available at the
San Rafael Resource Area to identify either the corrective actions
that have been or need to be taken to address the adverse effects of
OHV use. San Rafael's OHV program manager, however, identified (1)
Mexican Mountain, located north of the Interstate 70 highway
corridor, as an area where corrective actions have been taken to
address the adverse effects of OHV use and (2) Justensen Flats, which
is also located in the Interstate 70 highway corridor, as an area
where OHV use is a management problem and corrective actions are
needed. We visited the two locations.
Mexican Mountain is a 59,000-acre wilderness study area, half of
which is in the San Rafael Resource Area and the other half in
another BLM resource area. Mexican Mountain was recently closed to
OHV use because the 1991 San Rafael Resource Management Plan
classified it as a highly scenic primitive area. A 4-mile stretch of
existing road extends into the closed area, providing easy access
from the adjacent Buckhorn Draw area, which receives heavy OHV use.
In the summer of 1993, the road was posted as closed, and law
enforcement patrols were increased on weekends. In January 1994, a
metal gate barricade and fencing were installed at a key entry point
in an effort to deny access to four-wheel drive vehicles and ATVs
(see fig. IV.2). San Rafael's OHV program manager estimated that,
excluding the costs associated with ranger patrols, about $5,000 was
spent between May 1993 and May 1994 to control OHV intrusions into
the Mexican Mountain area. He believes that intrusions into the
closed area have since declined because the gate, signs, and patrols
clearly indicate that OHV use is prohibited at this location.
Figure IV.2: Metal Gate
Barricade at Mexican Mountain
(See figure in printed
edition.)
San Rafael OHV program staff consider Justensen Flats problematic
because OHV use at this location spills over into adjacent lands that
BLM has closed to OHV use. Justensen Flats is part of the 9,610-acre
Devil's Canyon wilderness study area and is a popular location for
weekend camping and OHV use because it is easily accessible from the
highway. Eight signs prohibiting OHV use at various locations in and
around Justensen Flats have been strategically posted, but OHV use in
the closed areas is continuing, as shown in figure IV.3.
Surveillance at Justensen Flats has declined because fewer volunteers
are helping to patrol the area. San Rafael's law enforcement ranger,
who has patrol duties elsewhere, visits the area only about once a
month. San Rafael's OHV program manager told us that he intends to
request $10,000 in funding next year for fences, gates, and an
information kiosk at Justensen Flats. According to him, erosion
control measures--such as installing rock barriers and raking and
planting vegetation on unauthorized trails--are also needed at this
location.
Figure IV.3: Unauthorized OHV
Play Area, Justensen Flats
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:6
At the San Rafael Resource Area, we discussed BLM's management of OHV
use with the president of the Utah Trail Machine Association, who
told us he had motorcycled in the area for the past 20 years. He
characterized the San Rafael Resource Area as one of BLM's most
restrictive areas in Utah in terms of OHV use. In his view, San
Rafael closes areas to OHVs too quickly in its efforts to confine
their use. He expressed concern because San Rafael does not have an
inventory of roads and trails or maps for identifying available OHV
routes. He was also concerned that state OHV funds were being spent
on campgrounds within the resource area rather than on roads and
trails.
We also discussed OHV use in the San Rafael Resource Area with a
representative of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. He, too,
expressed concern that the San Rafael Resource Area does not have
maps showing the location of designated OHV trails. He noted other
OHV management problems, including unposted closed areas, damage to
riparian areas and sensitive soils, and conflicts with other
recreational activities, such as mountain biking and hiking.
Overall, however, he considered the San Rafael Resource Area's OHV
program to be the best of all such programs in Utah's BLM resource
areas.
STATELINE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA
=========================================================== Appendix V
BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
The Stateline Resource Area is part of BLM's Las Vegas District. It
includes 3.7 million acres of BLM land in Nevada located adjacent to
Las Vegas, a rapidly growing metropolitan area with a population of
850,000. The resource area offers a variety of recreational
opportunities for OHV users. Casual OHV use of four-wheel drive
vehicles, ATVs, and motorcycles on Stateline lands is increasing as
the Las Vegas population continues to grow. Also, organized OHV
competitions are frequently held within the resource area. (Fig.
V.1 shows, among other things, the location of the Stateline Resource
Area and of Nellis Dunes and Ivanpah Valley--two sites we reviewed
during our visit.)
Figure V.1: Location of the
Stateline Resource Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
At the Stateline Resource Area, funding for the recreation program is
synonymous with funding for the OHV program because the recreation
program staff work almost entirely on administering organized OHV
competitions. For fiscal year 1993, BLM provided about $102,000 for
Stateline's OHV program--an amount that fully funded two recreation
planners and partially funded one law enforcement ranger. According
to Stateline budget staff, virtually no BLM funding was available for
signs, maps, or road maintenance. We were also told that the state
of Nevada does not provide funding for Stateline's OHV program.
However, Clark County--which is located within the Stateline Resource
Area--provides about $75,000 annually to the program for signs to
restrict OHV use and a BLM law enforcement ranger to patrol
designated critical desert tortoise habitat.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
Although Stateline's OHV use designations were initially based on
historic use, they were--at the time of our review--being revised as
part of the development of a Stateline Resource Management Plan. The
designations shown in table V.1 below were those in effect at the
time of our review. OHV use was then restricted on 1,104,166 acres,
or about 30 percent of Stateline's lands, to either existing routes
in unposted areas or designated routes in posted areas in an effort
to protect (1) primitive lands in wilderness study areas, (2) soils
in fragile watershed areas, (3) scenic lands, and (4) the desert
tortoise and its habitat. Some 2,563,862 acres, or almost 70 percent
of the lands, were designated as open to OHV use. The remaining
3,313 acres, or less than 1 percent of the lands, were closed to OHV
use in an effort to protect significant archeological resources.
Table V.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Stateline
Resource Area
Total BLM acres in resource
area 3,671,341
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 70 percent (2,563,862 acres)
Restricted to certain areas 30 percent (1,104,166
Closed to OHV use acres)\a
<1 percent (3,313 acres)
Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs,
and motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) 27
Trend in OHV use Up
Posting of OHV routes Incomplete
Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes 320,000 acres covered by an interim closure notice
limiting the use of motorized vehicles to posted, designated routes
to protect the desert tortoise and its habitat.
A recent draft of the Stateline Resource Management Plan proposed
considerable changes in the designation of lands available for OHV
use to increase protection for wildlife habitat, cultural resources,
and soils, as well as improve nonmotorized recreational
opportunities. Among the proposed changes was a reduction in the
number of acres designated as open to OHV use from 2,563,862 (70
percent) to only 9,180 (less than 1 percent). Conversely, under the
plan, the number of acres designated as restricted would increase
from 1,104,166 (30 percent) to 3,649,757 (99 percent).
The Stateline Resource Area has not provided an inventory, maps, or
signs to identify the total number of miles, or the location, of the
routes available for OHV use. According to OHV program staff, it has
not done so because the OHV program has relatively low priority and
receives limited resources. They told us that the only routes posted
for OHV use are those located in a 135,000-acre critical desert
tortoise habitat area. The staff intends to inventory some OHV
routes in other areas in the near future if funding becomes
available.
Although OHV competitions requiring permits occur frequently within
the Stateline Resource Area, the draft management plan proposed
reducing the number of acres where competitive OHV racing is allowed
from 2,655,278 to 238,162. During fiscal year 1993, 27 OHV events
were held within the resource area. Some of the races were over 200
miles long, and the events involved over 200 participants and over
500 spectators and members of support crews. Different events were
held for different types of OHVs, including motorcycles, ATVs, desert
buggies, and four-wheel drive vehicles. Although most of the events
are timed, competitive races, some are untimed events for vehicles
registered for street use.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4
According to Stateline's OHV program staff, no systematic monitoring
is done to identify and document the adverse effects of casual OHV
use. The monitoring of casual OHV use, according to the staff,
consists of incidental, undocumented observations made by resource
area staff working in the field on other recreational, range,
wildlife, and cultural programs. The OHV program staff stated that,
in their opinion, casual OHV use has not had a significant adverse
effect within the Stateline Resource Area because such use is so
dispersed and because the area's terrain is rough.
The Stateline Resource Area does systematically monitor OHV
competitions for which a BLM permit must be obtained. In addition to
issuing permits for such events, this monitoring includes documenting
conditions before and after the event, particularly those that have
an effect on the desert tortoise. Such OHV events are generally
limited to sand washes, powerline roads, trails for four-wheel drive
vehicles, and other courses used in past events that have received
biological and archeological clearances.
Stateline shares two law enforcement rangers with another resource
area; each ranger has about 3.5 million acres of BLM lands to patrol.
While on patrol, the rangers say, they perform multiple duties,
including monitoring OHV use; checking for mining infractions,
tortoise habitat violations, cactus thefts, drug problems, and
hazardous materials dumping; and responding to complaints. Fewer
than 10 OHV-related citations were written during 1993, according to
the rangers, and these were for cross-country OHV use in areas where
OHVs are restricted to designated and posted routes. The rangers
stated that relatively few citations were issued because Stateline
had only recently posted some of the designated routes.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5
No studies, reports, or other official records were available at
Stateline to identify the corrective actions that either have been
taken or need to be taken to address the adverse effects of OHV use.
Stateline OHV program staff, however, did identify for us the Ivanpah
Valley as an area where management actions have been taken to address
the effects of competitive OHV racing and the Nellis Dunes as an area
where OHV use is a management problem and corrective actions are
needed. We visited the two locations during our review.
Ivanpah Valley, located about 20 miles southwest of Las Vegas,
encompasses approximately 315,000 acres, of which 224,000 are
available for OHV use. Because of its proximity to Las Vegas and
accessibility from an adjacent four-lane highway, Ivanpah Valley is
used extensively for OHV competitions of all types, as well as for
casual OHV use. Management actions taken to minimize the adverse
effects of OHV competitions include limiting OHV events to 10
annually and allowing no more than 250 participants per event;
confining the events to existing routes; monitoring both before and
after the events to identify any adverse effects on the desert
tortoise; monitoring by OHV and law enforcement staff on the day of
the event; requiring sponsors of the event to remove food and
garbage; and confining spectators and work crews to designated,
previously disturbed areas. Figure V.2 shows desert buggy racing and
signs that were posted by Stateline staff to protect a desert
tortoise burrow. The adverse effects of OHV competitions at this
location are now under control, according to OHV program staff, and
any OHV impact off of existing roads and trails in the vicinity is
the result of casual use.
Figure V.2: Desert Buggy Race
and Marked Tortoise Burrows,
Ivanpah Valley
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
According to OHV program staff, the Nellis Dunes, a 9,180-acre
designated OHV play area located about 15 miles northeast of Las
Vegas, has Stateline's highest OHV use. No management attention is
directed to the Nellis area, however, because Stateline's limited OHV
program funds and staff are being used to manage OHV competitions
that are generally conducted elsewhere in the resource area. No
signs, maps, sanitation facilities, trash cans, or other improvements
exist at the Nellis Dunes. Increasingly, the area is being used for
garbage dumping, auto stripping, indiscriminate camping, drinking and
partying, and shooting. Stateline staff also cited cross-country OHV
driving at unsafe speeds and the dumping and burning of stolen autos
as problems at Nellis. According to the staff, they may visit Nellis
about once a month, generally in connection with a nearby OHV
competition. In addition, a local user group occasionally assists
the resource area in providing visitor services and monitoring OHV
use in the Nellis Dunes area.
Figure V.3: Heavily Used OHV
Play Area, Nellis Dunes
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6
At the Stateline Resource Area, we discussed BLM's OHV program with a
representative of the Southern Nevada Off-Road Enthusiasts, who is
also an active desert buggy racer on Stateline lands. He
characterized Stateline's OHV program as underfunded and
understaffed. His primary concern with Stateline's OHV management,
as a racer, is the restriction of OHV races to previously used
routes. He maintained that this practice concentrates the effects of
OHV use on the same roads and trails, giving the resources no time to
recover. Despite this concern, the representative would like to see
more maps, signs, and route markers within the resource area to slow
the increase in the creation of unauthorized trails through
uncontrolled, casual OHV use.
We also discussed OHV use with a representative of the Red Rock
Audubon Society. He characterized Stateline's management of OHV
competitions as good, but of casual OHV use as not so good. He
expressed concern that casual OHV use receives little management
attention and that the number of new unauthorized trails is
increasing, especially in the Ivanpah Valley. This representative
would like to see more maps, trail signs, efforts to teach
responsible OHV use, and enforcement of OHV rules.
MESA RANGER DISTRICT, ARIZONA
========================================================== Appendix VI
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1
The Mesa Ranger District is part of the Tonto National Forest, within
the Forest Service's Southwestern Region. It is located in the
south-central part of Arizona, less than half an hour's drive east of
Phoenix. It provides OHV recreational opportunities to the 2.2
million residents of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. The
ranger district's 440,327 acres range from low hills to mountains,
with numerous streams, washes, mesas, and plateaus throughout. The
vegetation is highly diverse because of wide variations in the soil,
elevation, and climate. (Fig. VI.1 shows, among other things, the
location of the Mesa Ranger District and of the Bulldog Canyon and
Lower Sycamore Creek OHV areas--two sites we reviewed during our
visit).
Fig. VI.1: Location of the
Mesa Ranger District
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2
During fiscal year 1993, the Mesa Ranger District's OHV program
manager estimated that about $198,000 was available for OHV
activities. About $25,000, or 13 percent of this amount, represented
federal funds, and $173,000, or 87 percent, represented state funds.
Of the federal funds, about $24,000, or 96 percent, was spent on
salaries; the remaining $1,000 was spent on purchasing signs. All of
the state funding was earmarked for restoring OHV trails.
The OHV program manager told us that there are no full-time OHV staff
at Mesa. He said that he is responsible for the ranger district's
OHV activities and recreational, range, wildlife, and cultural
resource programs. Thus, he is able to spend only about 10 percent
of his time on the OHV program. In addition, a law enforcement
ranger spends about 10 percent of his time on OHV enforcement
activities within the Mesa Ranger District.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3
According to the program manager, OHV use designations within the
Mesa Ranger District have generally been made through the ranger
district's planning process, although historical uses of the land
have influenced some of the designations. As table VI.1 shows, there
were no OHV open-use areas at Mesa at the time of our review.
Instead, OHV use was restricted to designated roads and trails on
about 247,827 acres; the remaining 192,500 acres were closed to OHV
use. The closed areas included wilderness areas, areas reserved for
research, and a desert botanical garden.
Table VI.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Mesa Ranger
District
Total acres in ranger district 440,327
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 0
Restricted to certain areas 56 percent (247,827 acres)
Closed to OHV use 44 percent (192,500 acres)
Types of OHVs used ATVs, 4-wheel drive
vehicles,
and motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) None
Trend in use Up slightly
Posting of routes 75 percent complete\a
Mapping of routes Two OHV areas
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Although 75 percent of the OHV roads and trails have been marked
with a numbered sign, nothing tells the OHV user that this posted,
numbered sign designates an OHV route. According to the OHV program
manager, this information will be conveyed to the public when mapping
is done.
As table VI.1 shows, OHV use in the Mesa Ranger District is generally
limited to designated roads and trails. In practice, however, it is
limited to existing roads and trails because restricted-use
information has not been communicated to the OHV users. The Mesa
Ranger District does not have an inventory of its existing roads and
trails. Signs and maps identifying the location of roads and trails
that are available for OHV use are complete for two areas, the
Bulldog Canyon OHV Area and the Lower Salt River Recreation Area.
For the remainder of the lands in the Mesa Ranger District where
restricted OHV use is allowed, mapping has not been done because
staff and funds have been limited.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4
The Mesa Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV use to
identify and document its adverse effects. Its staff do, however,
make casual, undocumented observations when they are in the field
working on range, wildlife, and other programs. According to Mesa's
OHV program manager, the ranger district's limited resources and
other higher-priority work have precluded formal studies or
evaluations of the adverse effects of OHV use. The ranger district
has used the staff's casual observations of OHV degradation to
prioritize some of the corrective actions that are needed if and when
funds become available.
Restrictions on OHV use are enforced in the Bull Dog Canyon OHV Area
and the Lower Salt River Recreation Area where OHV management has
been implemented and where Mesa's law enforcement staff estimated
that he issues 10 or fewer citations per year. Outside these two
areas, the ranger told us, citations are generally issued for damage
to resources, not for riding off the trail, because no signs or maps
tell OHV users where they can or cannot go. According to the law
enforcement staff, it is difficult to prove that resources have been
damaged by an OHV user's straying off an existing road unless the
damage is witnessed.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5
An increase in the number of unauthorized trails--disturbing soil in
previously undisturbed areas--is Mesa's most significant OHV problem.
According to Mesa's OHV program manager, actions have been taken to
correct this problem at the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area. At the Lower
Sycamore Creek OHV Area, however, inappropriate OHV use is causing
adverse effects, and corrective action is needed.
According to the program manager, the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area
encompasses about 20,500 acres and contains about 8 miles of OHV
roads and trails traveled primarily by four-wheel drive vehicles and
ATVs. Past OHV damage has been rectified by fencing the entire
area\11 and closing it to motorized vehicles except on designated
routes. Before OHV use was restricted in the area, it degraded soils
and vegetation, detrimentally affecting wildlife habitat, aesthetics,
and water quality. In addition, uncontrolled access to the area had
led to indiscriminate shooting, trash dumping, and partying.
Corrective actions included not only fencing strategic parts of the
area but also installing gates and combination locks at the two
access points (see fig. VI.2). To gain access to the area, OHV
users now have to obtain a use permit and the lock combination (which
is changed periodically) from staff at the Mesa Ranger District.
Figure VI.2: Entrance to the
Bulldog Canyon OHV Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Corrective actions in the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area have also included
blocking some roads and trails with boulders and signs and
obliterating some trails and then replanting vegetation. Because of
this work, off-road traffic and partying have decreased; however, the
program manager said that routine law enforcement staff patrols,
trash removal, and sign and fence maintenance are necessary for
continued success.
The Lower Sycamore Creek OHV area, part of the 27,000-acre Sycamore
Creek Management Area, consists of a sandy streambed with low hills
to the east and a wide, open flood plain to the west. Within this
area, Sycamore Creek often travels underground. The OHV program
manager said that he does not know how many acres are in the Lower
Sycamore Creek OHV Area because exact boundaries have not been
defined. Although OHV use in the area is restricted, no maps have
been prepared, and no roads or trails have been posted for OHV use
except a 1-mile road leading into the area. Because of limited
staffing and funding, the area was not being managed as a restricted
area, and the limits on OHV use were not being enforced at the time
of our visit.
OHV use has degraded the Lower Sycamore Creek area. Vehicles driving
back and forth across the streambed and up and down the stream banks
have eroded the soil and trampled the riparian vegetation. (See fig.
VI.3.)
Figure VI.3: Aesthetic Damage
From Unmanaged OHV Use in the
Lower Sycamore Creek Area
(See figure in printed
edition.)
No effort has been made to minimize the impact of OHV use on the
Lower Sycamore Creek area. Both OHV use and its adverse effects
increased in this area about the time that OHV use was curtailed in
the Bulldog Canyon area and many users shifted to the Lower Sycamore
Creek area, according to Mesa's OHV program manager. The manager
also said that the ranger district's available OHV resources have
thus far been used to improve areas that have greater conflicts among
OHV users or more intensive OHV use than Lower Sycamore Creek. He
said, however, that the Lower Sycamore Creek area is next in line for
corrective action once resources become available.
--------------------
\11 As a corrective action, fencing was installed for about 5 miles
along the western and northern boundaries of the Bulldog Canyon OHV
Area. This work was done primarily by the Arizona Boys Ranch. The
southern boundary had already been fenced, and the steep, rugged
mountains along the eastern boundary are inaccessible to OHVs.
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6
We discussed the Mesa Ranger District's management of OHV use with a
member of the Arizona Governor's OHV Advisory Group; he is also
active in the Arizona State Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs and
comes from four generations of OHV users. He characterized Mesa's
OHV program as lacking maps, signs, law enforcement staff, funds for
road and trail repairs, and funds in general. He pointed out that
the ranger district has almost nothing that an OHV user can take or
view on an outing, such as a map, instructions, or signs, that would
help the user stay on designated roads and trails and adhere to
whatever rules might apply.
We also discussed the Mesa Ranger District's management of OHV use
with a member of three environmental organizations--the National
Audubon Society's Arizona Conservation Committee, a Maricopa County
hikers' group, and the Sierra Club. He is involved in and informed
about environmental issues and concerns in and around the ranger
district. He is primarily concerned about the adverse effects of OHV
use on riparian areas, such as in the Lower Sycamore Creek area. He
expressed concern about conflicts between OHV users and other
recreationists, noting that birds and wildlife are impossible to
observe when OHVs are in an area because the vehicles make so much
noise. The lack of OHV maps and signs and the lack of law
enforcement presence within the Mesa Ranger District also concern
him.
MT. PINOS RANGER DISTRICT,
CALIFORNIA
========================================================= Appendix VII
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1
The Mt. Pinos Ranger District is part of the Los Padres National
Forest, within the Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Region. It
encompasses about 441,000 acres located about 60 miles north of the
Los Angeles, California, metropolitan area, where 15 million people
reside. The ranger district, which provides a variety of OHV
opportunities, has been used by OHV enthusiasts since the late 1950s.
OHV use is particularly heavy in two areas--(1) Ballinger Canyon on
the western side of the ranger district and (2) a series of trails
connecting the ranger district with a state recreational area on the
eastern side. (Fig. VII.1 shows, among other things, the location
of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District and of Ballinger Canyon and
Lockwood Creek--two sites we reviewed during our visit.)
Figure VII.1: Location of the
Mt. Pinos Ranger District
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2
During fiscal year 1993, an estimated $239,000 was available for OHV
activities in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District. About $98,000, or 41
percent of this amount, was provided by the Forest Service and about
$141,000, or 59 percent, was provided by the state. Of the federal
funds, approximately $96,000 was spent on maintenance and salaries;
the remaining $2,000 was available for the planning and analysis
required for rerouting OHV trails--the major problem at Mt. Pinos.
The state funds were generally spent to maintain and restore trails
and pay the salaries of OHV program personnel, including law
enforcement officers.
The Mt. Pinos OHV staff includes four full-time OHV patrol officers
and seven staff who spend varying proportions of their time on OHV
activities--five recreation staff (25 percent), one recreation
officer (30 percent), and one administrative officer (10 percent).
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3
The Mt. Pinos Ranger District's OHV use designations, originally
based on historic use, were revised after an environmental analysis
was completed during the development of the 1976 Los Padres National
Forest OHV Management Plan. As table VII.1 shows, no OHV open-use
areas existed in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District at the time of our
review except for a 300-acre parcel of land adjacent to and managed
by a state recreation area on the eastern side of the ranger
district. OHV use within the ranger district was restricted to
designated roads and trails on about 260,000 acres. The remaining
181,000 acres, which include wilderness, natural, and other special
interest areas, were closed to OHV use.
Table VII.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Mt. Pinos
Ranger District
Total acres in ranger
district 441,000
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 0
Restricted to certain areas 59 percent (260,000)
Closed to OHV use 41 percent (181,000)
Types of OHVs used Motorcycles/4-wheel drive
vehicles
Special OHV events (annually) 2
Trend in use Up slightly
Posting of routes 100 percent complete
Mapping of routes 100 percent complete
------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed map of all the roads and trails available for OHV use in
the ranger district has been published, and the posting of signs on
roads and trails has been completed. The Mt. Pinos OHV program
manager estimated that, within the ranger district, OHV users can
explore more than 350 miles of roads and trails.
The Mt. Pinos Ranger District issues permits for two
speed-controlled timed races that are held each year in the Ballinger
Canyon area. The race route covers about 75 miles, and each event
has about 250 participants.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:4
The Mt. Pinos Ranger District has no systematic monitoring program
to identify and document the adverse effects of OHV use. Although a
general OHV monitoring plan exists as an attachment to the 1976 OHV
management plan, it does not include needed standards for measuring
changes to resources caused by OHV use. At the time of our review, a
task force was working to establish these standards. Monitoring is
currently limited to day-to-day, casual observations made when ranger
district staff are in the field performing other routine duties.
Monitoring for specific purposes, such as the two races or
environmental assessments, has been conducted on various OHV routes
to identify damage to resources, trails needing rerouting, or actions
required to bring trails up to certain standards.
For the two races each year, the Mt. Pinos OHV program manager told
us that staff monitor conditions before and after the event, conduct
technical inspections, and check for vehicle licenses and safety
equipment. As a part of these activities, they inspect the race
route for adequate trail markings, such as flags and signs, before
the race, and for damage and trash after the race.
The Mt. Pinos law enforcement staff do not consider illegal OHV
activities to be a significant problem within their ranger district.
The staff, however, issued about 115 citations during fiscal year
1993. Typically, citations were issued for license or equipment
violations, and warnings were given to OHV users found riding off of
designated routes. The Mt. Pinos law enforcement staff have no
cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:5
Although the Mt. Pinos Ranger District maintains no official listing
of areas where corrective actions have been or need to be taken to
address the adverse effects of OHV use, the Mt. Pinos OHV program
manager identified (1) Ballinger Canyon as an area where corrective
actions have been taken to address such adverse effects and (2)
Lockwood Creek as an area where OHV use is a management problem and
corrective actions have not been taken.
Ballinger Canyon encompasses about 7,000 acres and contains about 50
miles of trails used annually by an estimated 5,000 OHV enthusiasts,
according to the Mt. Pinos District Ranger. Unauthorized OHV use
caused erosion and visual scarring in the canyon, decreasing water
quality and disturbing wildlife. Corrective actions that have been
taken by the Mt. Pinos Ranger District include repairing trails,
rerouting a trail, fencing the access to routes where trespassing
occurred, frequently patrolling the area by rangers, and, as shown in
figure VII.2, posting signs and trail markers.
Figure VII.2: Information
Signs in Ballinger Canyon
(See figure in printed
edition.)
OHV use in the Lockwood Creek area is a problem, according to Mt.
Pinos OHV staff, yet because of limited resources, corrective actions
remain to be taken. The problem centers on an OHV route that follows
a narrow, rocky creek bed, which is bound on both sides, at least for
part of the route, by canyon walls (see fig. VII.3). The OHV route
crosses the creek in 23 places, and OHVs using it have damaged the
streamside environment and disturbed wildlife. According to OHV
staff, this bank-to-bank riding increases sedimentation, destroys
vegetation, and threatens the creek's waters and vegetation with
pollution from potential oil and gas leaks. The ranger district's
wildlife biologist told us that habitat for sensitive species, such
as the California Red Legged Frog and the Western Pond Turtle, exists
along the OHV route that runs through Lockwood Creek.
At the time of our review, an environmental analysis was being done
that included Lockwood Creek. According to the OHV program manager,
the plan--when completed--will reroute OHV use away from the creek.
Figure VII.3: Lockwood Creek
OHV Route
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:6
During our visit to the Mt. Pinos Ranger District, we interviewed a
lifelong OHV enthusiast who is familiar with the ranger district's
OHV roads and trails and holds membership in several OHV groups. He
and his family use both four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles for
their OHV activities. According to the enthusiast, many OHV users in
the Mt. Pinos Ranger District are primarily concerned about land
management decisions made by the Forest Service that further restrict
OHV use in particular areas. He stated, for example, that an OHV
trail was recently closed after the area through which it passed was
designated as a wilderness. He also said that temporary route
closures would not be necessary if the Forest Service did not drag
its feet in identifying and correcting problems before the need for
closure arose.
We also interviewed a member of the Sierra Club who campaigned for
the legislation that established three wilderness areas in the Los
Padres National Forest in California and who is very familiar with
the Mt. Pinos Ranger District. In her opinion, OHV use in the
ranger district, particularly motorcycle use, causes unwanted noise;
resource damage in the form of erosion, devegetation, habitat
disruption and destruction, and stream siltation; and aesthetic
degradation.
SALT LAKE RANGER DISTRICT, UTAH
======================================================== Appendix VIII
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:1
The Salt Lake Ranger District is part of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, within the Forest Service's Intermountain Region. It is
located in northern Utah and includes the Stansbury Mountain Range to
the west and the Wasatch Mountain Range to the east of Salt Lake
City, a metropolitan area with a population of about 1.1 million.
OHV activities within the 253,000-acre ranger district are
concentrated along the western slope of the Wasatch Mountain Range in
an area known as the Wasatch Front.\4
(Fig. VIII.1 shows, among other things, the location of the Salt
Lake Ranger District and of Ward Canyon and the Davis County
Front--two sites we reviewed during our visit.)
Figure VIII.1: Location of the
Salt Lake Ranger District
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\4 The Wasatch Front is located east of Salt Lake City and extends
through three Utah ranger districts, including Salt Lake, Ogden, and
Logan.
FUNDING AND STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:2
During fiscal year 1993, an estimated $122,000 was available for OHV
activities in the Salt Lake Ranger District. Of this amount, about
$110,000, or 90 percent, was provided by the Forest Service, and
about $12,000, or 10 percent, was provided by the state. According
to Salt Lake's OHV program manager, about $41,000 of the Forest
Service funds was spent on recurring items, such as maintenance and
salaries, while the remainder was spent on an OHV restoration project
in Ward Canyon. All of the state funds were spent on OHV restoration
projects.
There are no full-time OHV staff in the Salt Lake Ranger District.
The OHV program manager said that he and a recreation staff member,
however, each spend about 15 percent of their time on OHV activities.
In addition, two law enforcement staff spend part of their time on
OHV activities.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:3
The Salt Lake Ranger District's OHV use designations were initially
based on historic OHV use, according to the OHV program manager.
These designations were revised, however, in 1985 after the ranger
district's roads and trails were assessed in the course of developing
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Subsequently, a number of routes were closed. As table VIII.1 shows,
238,000 acres, or 94 percent of the ranger district's land, is closed
to OHV use. Much of this closed land is being protected as
wilderness areas or watersheds. OHV use on the remaining 15,000
acres, or 6 percent of the ranger district's land, is restricted to
designated roads and trails. According to Salt Lake's OHV program
manager, the ranger district has no open areas for cross-country OHV
travel and allows no special OHV events. All roads and trails within
the ranger district are considered closed unless posted as open.
Table VIII.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Salt Lake
Ranger District
Total acres in ranger
district 253,000
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV Use 0
Restricted to certain areas 6 percent (15,000 acres)
Closed to OHV use 94 percent (238,000 acres)
Types of OHVs used Motorcycles/4-wheel drive
vehicles
Special OHV events (annually) None
Trend in use Up
Posting of routes 80 percent complete
Mapping of routes 100 percent complete
------------------------------------------------------------
Although the ranger district has no accurate inventory of its roads
and trails, the OHV program manager estimated that about 11 percent
are available for OHV use. The manager also told us that posting of
the ranger district's OHV travel routes was about 80 percent complete
at the time of our review and that an OHV travel map, called for in
the 1985 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan, was completed and issued in 1994.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:4
The Salt Lake Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV use
to identify and document its adverse effects. According to the OHV
program manager, the ranger district does not have the staff and
funding needed to do systematic monitoring. Casual, undocumented
observations, however, are made on an ad hoc basis when staff are in
the field. The frequency of field visits to a particular location
varies greatly, from weekly visits when a project or activity is
under way to monthly visits after it has been completed.
Two Salt Lake Ranger District staff are engaged in OHV law
enforcement activities, including issuing citations. Together, they
issued about 100 OHV citations in fiscal year 1993. Most of the
citations were written for vehicles trespassing off of designated
routes. In addition to these enforcement activities, the ranger
district maintains agreements with local law enforcement agencies for
cooperative law enforcement on Forest Service lands.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:5
Despite the lack of systematic, documented OHV monitoring in the Salt
Lake Ranger District, the OHV program manager identified several
adverse effects of OHV use on resources. Problems considered
significant were (1) trespassing by OHV users who travel off of
designated roads or trails and (2) vandalism of signs, gates, and
other facilities by OHV users. A variety of actions have been taken
within the Salt Lake Ranger District to correct the damage that has
been done, including blocking access to trails with boulders and
signs and obliterating, restoring, or closing trails. The Salt Lake
OHV program manager identified Ward Canyon for us as an area where
corrective actions have been taken to address the adverse effects of
OHV use. This particular area encompasses about 5,000 acres and
contains about 18 miles of OHV roads and trails used annually by an
estimated 15,000 to 20,000 OHV enthusiasts, according to the manager.
Trespassing by numerous OHVs had displaced and subsequently eroded
soil, causing visual scarring and rutting. A major effort was
undertaken in 1993 to restore the area by posting signs, closing
routes with boulders, and replanting vegetation (see fig. VIII.2).
At the time of our review, about $60,000 had been spent to mitigate
the adverse effects of OHV use in this area. The work was about 75
percent complete.
Figure VIII.2: Blocked Access
to Cross-Country Trespass Route
in Ward Canyon
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The Davis County Front, covering about 3,200 acres in the Salt Lake
Ranger District, is considered to be a problem, yet because of
limited resources within the ranger district, according to the OHV
program manager, corrective actions remain to be taken. Although no
routes have been designated on the Front, trespassing is occurring
because OHV users are able to gain access to the area through an old
fire-line road that traverses almost the entire length of the Front.
Although the fire-line road itself is not open to OHV use, it does,
in fact, provide easy access to the entire Davis County Front area.
As figure VIII.3 shows, numerous trails and tracks, created by
trespassing vehicles, have caused devegetation, erosion, and
aesthetic damage. In addition, local teenagers use the area for
partying.
Figure VIII.3: OHV Trespass
Trails Along the Davis County
Front
(See figure in printed
edition.)
According to the Salt Lake Ranger District's OHV program manager, the
problems occurring along the Davis County Front are intensifying
because more OHV users are coming to the ranger district from nearby,
rapidly growing urban communities. According to the program manager,
some monitoring in this area was begun in the summer of 1994 and some
corrective actions have also recently begun. The manager told us
that corrective actions in this area had not been taken earlier
because the ranger district's limited staff and funds were initially
directed toward the Ward Canyon area--a more heavily used OHV area.
COMMENTS FROM
USER/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:6
At the Salt Lake Ranger District, we interviewed an OHV enthusiast
who is a member of both the Utah All-Terrain Vehicle Association and
the Utah State OHV Advisory Council and is very familiar with OHV
activities in the ranger district. When we discussed OHV use in this
ranger district with him, he expressed concern that, until recently,
there was no mapping of, and little posting of signs on, OHV trails.
He told us that it was very difficult for OHV users to know which
roads and trails were available to them and, as a result, they did
not always travel on designated OHV routes. He noted, however, that
the ranger district's efforts to map routes and post signs, as well
as rehabilitate trails, had improved recently.
We also interviewed a member of a large environmental organization
and who is familiar with OHV use in the Salt Lake Ranger District.
He expressed concern that the ranger district is planning to restore
an OHV trail that runs parallel to the Deseret Peak Wilderness Area,
which is within the ranger district. Although several places along
the trail are currently in need of repair, the environmentalist
objects to the restoration because he believes that it will attract
OHV enthusiasts who may stray off the trail into the adjacent
wilderness area.
UPPER LAKE RANGER DISTRICT,
CALIFORNIA
========================================================== Appendix IX
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:1
The Upper Lake Ranger District is part of the Mendocino National
Forest, within the Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Region. It
consists of about 250,000 acres and is located about a 2-hour drive
north of the San Francisco metropolitan area and its population of 6
million. The Upper Lake OHV program manager estimated that about
80,000 OHV enthusiasts use the ranger district's roads and trails
annually. OHV activities are among the ranger district's most
popular recreational activities, which also include camping,
backpacking, and fishing. (Fig. IX.1 shows, among other things, the
location of the Upper Lake Ranger District and of Sled Ridge Trail
and Streeter Ridge Trail--two sites we reviewed during our visit.)
Figure IX.1: Location of the
Upper Lake Ranger District
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FUNDING AND STAFFING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:2
During fiscal year 1993, the Upper Lake Ranger District had an
estimated $152,000 available for its OHV program. According to Upper
Lake's OHV program staff, an estimated $35,000, or 23 percent of the
total, was provided by the Forest Service and about $117,000, or 77
percent, was provided by the state. The OHV program staff told us
that all of the Forest Service funds were spent on salaries, while
state funds were spent on salaries and maintenance and construction.
The OHV program staff consists of (1) one full-time OHV specialist
who spends her time in resource protection, law enforcement, and
other OHV program activities and (2) three other staff who spend
about 10 to 15 percent of their time on OHV program activities--an
OHV program manager, a recreation staff person, and a law enforcement
staff.
DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR OHV USE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:3
All lands in the Upper Lake Ranger District have been designated as
either closed to OHV use (41,327 acres) or restricted to designated
roads and trails (208,000 acres). See table IX.1. The ranger
district's OHV designations were originally based on historic use.
They were recently reviewed during the development of the Mendocino
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which was in draft
form at the time of our review. The draft plan confirmed the need to
prohibit cross-country OHV use within the ranger district and called
for an ongoing analysis of the existing OHV trail system and the
closing of OHV trails that adversely affect the sensitive Northern
Spotted Owl or other wildlife.
Table IX.1
OHV Use Statistics for the Upper Lake
Ranger District
Total acres in ranger
district 249,327
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Acres designated as--
Open to OHV use 0
Restricted to certain areas 83 percent (208,000 acres)
Closed to OHV use 17 percent (41,327 acres)
Types of OHVs used Motorcycles
Special OHV events (annually) 4
Trend in use Static
Posting of routes 100 percent complete
Mapping of routes 100 percent complete
------------------------------------------------------------
According to OHV program staff, an official inventory of OHV roads
and trails had not been prepared because of the ranger district's
limited resources and other work priorities. The ranger district
had, however, developed a map of its roads and trails that is
available for OHV use, and we were told that signs had been posted
for all of the OHV roads and trails listed on the map. We were
further told that OHV users can explore about 420 miles of roads and
trails in the ranger district. Four special events for motorcycles
are allowed each year in this ranger district, for which a Forest
Service permit is required.
OHV MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:4
The Upper Lake Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV
use to identify and document its adverse effects except for four
special motorcycle events that take place each year. These events
use about 120 miles of the roads and trails within the ranger
district. The monitoring of these special events is documented and
includes (1) riding the route beforehand to determine its condition
and ensure that it is correctly marked and (2) riding the route
afterwards to check for damage to resources. In addition, two
special studies have been conducted to assess the impact of OHV use
on water quality and noise level.
Monitoring to identify and document the adverse effects of general
OHV use is not done, primarily because the ranger district has
limited staffing and funding and other higher-priority work.
However, according to the Upper Lake OHV specialist, the effects of
OHV use are observed casually during a normal work day. She and
other ranger district staff then attempt to correct problems on the
spot or have them corrected within a few days. The OHV specialist
said, for example, that she rides all OHV roads and trails at least
once every 6 weeks, heavy-use trails about two to three times each
week, and private property trails once a week, to observe OHV use and
identify its impact on resources. Comments from the public also help
the ranger district identify problems.
Enforcement is a part of the OHV specialist's responsibilities. She
said that she issues between 10 and 25 citations each year for such
things as vehicle license or equipment violations. In addition, she
can request assistance from the ranger district's law enforcement
staff or the county sheriff's department, with which the ranger
district has a cooperative agreement. The specialist said that, in
her opinion, enforcement is not a big problem in the Upper Lake
Ranger District. She said that some users may be a bit careless,
while others may be confused about where they can ride.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:5
Although the Upper Lake Ranger District maintains no official listing
of the areas where corrective actions have been or need to be taken
to address the adverse effects of OHV use, the OHV program specialist
identified (1) Sled Ridge Trail as an area where corrective actions
have been taken to address such effects and (2) Streeter Ridge Trail
as an area where, although corrective actions have been taken, the
potential for problems from OHV use still exists.
Sled Ridge Trail provides the only access for OHVs from one of the
busiest campgrounds in the Upper Lake Ranger District, up and over
Elk Mountain, to the heart of the ranger district's designated OHV
trail system. Sled Ridge Trail had become known as an OHV users'
playground, where a growing number of unauthorized trails and other
effects of OHV use, such as erosion and stripped vegetation, were
occurring, particularly around the campground and on Elk Mountain (a
sensitive watershed area). As a result of the erosion and subsequent
rutting from constant OHV use, Sled Ridge Trail had become impossible
to negotiate for all but the most experienced riders; thus, less
experienced riders were being restricted to the area immediately
adjacent to the campground.
Since 1987, the Upper Lake Ranger District has spent over $156,000 to
correct the adverse effects of OHV use on Sled Ridge Trail and in the
campground area, and OHV users can now travel from the campground,
over Elk Mountain, to other OHV trails in the ranger district.
Corrective activities included posting routes, barricading
unauthorized routes, looping the remaining trails to deter
trespassing when riders reach a dead end, and constructing barricades
and a fence in strategic places to ensure that riders stay on the
trail. About 100 erosion control devices, including water bars,
catch ponds to retain water and trap moving soils, rolling dips,
drains, and banked elevated turns were installed throughout the
trail. In addition, on a steep part of the trail where severe
erosion had occurred, the trail's surface was hardened, through a
process called armoring, by installing interlocking concrete bricks
(see fig. IX.2).
Figure IX.2: Armoring on Sled
Ridge Trail
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Streeter Ridge Trail, located within critical habitat for the
sensitive Northern Spotted Owl, crosses Bucknell Creek, a tributary
to the Eel River and a spawning area for anadromous salmon. On the
section of trail that crosses the creek, some corrective actions have
been taken, but the potential for problems still exists. Because
this section of the trail is extremely steep, attempts by many OHV
users to negotiate the 25 to 40 percent grade have caused deep ruts
and other damage to the trail and negatively affected both the creek
and the recreational experience at this location.
The Upper Lake Ranger District monitored the creek's water quality
during the winters of 1991 and 1992 and found sedimentation levels to
be within state limits. Nevertheless, the ranger district staff
decided to reduce sedimentation by adding water bars to slow and
divert the flow of water and by rerouting a steep section of the
trail. These actions have reduced both sedimentation and trail
proliferation and damage. Ultimately, however, OHV program staff
said that further relocation of the trail is the best solution to the
problem. The staff said that about $15,000 has been made available
for this purpose and that work is scheduled to begin in August 1995.
USER AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:6
At the Upper Lake Ranger District, we interviewed an OHV enthusiast
who is active in several local user groups and participates in
meetings sponsored by the Forest Service for users twice each year.
He told us that he has ridden all of the trails in the Upper Lake
Ranger District and considers himself knowledgeable about OHV use in
this area. A motorcycle club to which he belongs sponsors one
special event each year, using trails in the Pine Mountain area of
the ranger district. This event regularly draws 300 to 400
participants. Together with the Upper Lake OHV specialist, he and
other club members monitor the race route before and after the event
and agree on any damage caused by the event that the club needs to
correct. The OHV enthusiast believes that even though OHV users
cannot do everything they want to do in the Upper Lake Ranger
District and the ranger district has limited funds to work with, the
ranger district is well posted, has good maps, and is well managed.
We also interviewed a member of a wildlife coalition who grew up in
the area and hikes the trails of Upper Lake. Although this
environmentalist has family members who are OHV enthusiasts, he said
that he would like to see all OHV use prohibited in national forests.
He realizes, however, that this is not a realistic approach. In his
opinion, an increase in the number of unauthorized trails and the
resulting resource degradation are the most significant problems in
the Upper Lake Ranger District. He identified a sensitive watershed
area, which includes Streeter Ridge Trail, as an area that he
believes should be closed to OHV activity.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix X
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Larry D. Hamner
Ralph W. Lamoreaux
SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE
David A. Arseneau
Sharon K. Caporale
Denis P. Dunphy
Anndrea H. Ewertsen
Richard J. Griffone
Judy K. Hoovler
Steven G. Reed
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Stanley G. Feinstein