[Senate Hearing 110-546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-546
OFF-ROAD HIGHWAY VEHICLES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC
LANDS
__________
JUNE 5, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-915 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Adams, Frank, Executive Director, Nevada Sheriffs' & Chiefs'
Association, Mesquite, NV...................................... 50
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Bisson, Henri, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior; Accompanied by Jayne Belnap, Ph.D.,
RH Ecologist, Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.... 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 19
Culver, Nada, Senior Counsel, The Wilderness Society, Denver, CO. 38
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 7
Moreland, Edward, Vice President For Government Relations,
American Motorcyclist Association.............................. 28
Mumm, Greg, Executive Director, BlueRibbon Coalition, Rapid City,
SD............................................................. 32
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 20
Powell, Bradley, Western Energy and ORV Coordinator, Trout
Unlimited, Payson, AZ.......................................... 47
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 2
Tester, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Montana..................... 17
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 24
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I
Responses to additional questions................................ 63
APPENDIX II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 81
OFF-ROAD HIGHWAY VEHICLES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. All right, why don't we go ahead and get
started. I'm told Senator Domenici is delayed at another
hearing and some of the other members are on their way. But in
the interest of time why don't we get going.
The committee will today be examining the challenges of
managing off-road vehicle recreation on public lands. While the
use of off-road vehicles is certainly an appropriate use in
many places on public lands, its use has grown dramatically in
recent years. It's been accompanied by significant advances in
the power and range and capabilities of off-road vehicles. As a
result, the challenges of managing off-road use also have grown
dramatically, and it appears questionable to me whether either
the BLM or the Forest Service have been able to keep up with
this challenge of properly managing this use.
A visit to a number of off-road vehicle recreation sites on
public lands or a review of law enforcement statistics clearly
demonstrates the scope and the seriousness of the challenges.
In my State of New Mexico and throughout much of the West,
there has been vocal concern from virtually the entire array of
public land users about the issue that we're talking about
today.
In this committee we are seeing a growing number of
legislative proposals that mandate travel planning and off-road
recreation management, which I think is further evidence of
these concerns.
Both the BLM and the Forest Service have shown, at least in
theory, that they recognize that off-road use is a significant
management issue. For example, the BLM has identified travel
management on its lands as, quote, ``one of the greatest
management challenges'' it faces. Likewise, the Forest Service
has identified unmanaged recreation, including off-road vehicle
use, as one of the top four threats to the management and
health of the National Forest System.
But despite these statements, it seems to me neither agency
has been able to successfully manage this off-road use as yet.
In some cases it appears plans are not being enforced, while in
others it appears that the agencies are ignoring unregulated
use of the public lands, with significant consequences for the
health of public lands and communities and adverse effects on
other authorized public lands uses.
Given the history of repeated agency recognitions of the
problem and the mandate to solve them and the inadequate
response as yet, we cannot afford to repeat that history again.
I hope we can use today's hearing for a better understanding of
these challenges and the agencies' current efforts to address
them and any ideas that we can garner on ways to improve the
management of public lands for these purposes.
Senator Salazar is here, I notice. If he has any opening
statement, I'll defer to him. Otherwise, we'll start with the
witnesses. Did you wish to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Just a very short statement. Chairman
Bingaman, thank you for holding this hearing and for bringing
attention to this very important issue for those of us from the
West, where we have huge landholdings of both Forest Service
and BLM lands. This is a crucial issue.
On the one hand, in Colorado we very much want to make sure
that we are protecting the millions of acres that we have under
BLM and Forest Service jurisdiction, that we're protecting them
not only for today but for the future, and making sure that the
ecosystems that are related to those public lands are not ones
that we're damaging for the future, and that we're providing
for the use and enjoyment of those lands for the long-term.
On the other hand, there is a reality that there are
conflicts with OHVs and we need to make sure that we figure out
how we continue to allow those uses to continue, but at the
same time provide the protection that I articulated as our
first value.
It's important as we do that to also recognize that off-
highway vehicle users also inject huge amounts of money into
our economies. In Colorado it's in the millions of dollars. It
is a way in which many of our citizens and visitors in Colorado
have an opportunity to have actual enjoyment of our public
lands. So how we create the right policy and the right
enforcement of those policies to find that balance is very
important to me and I look very much, Mr. Chairman, to hearing
from our witnesses today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Our first panel is made up of administration witnesses:
Henry Bisson, who is a frequent witness before our committee.
We're glad to see you again. He's the Deputy Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, accompanied by Jayne Belnap, who is
a Resource Ecologist with the Geological Survey. Thank you for
being here.
Our other witness is Joel Holtrop. Joel is the Deputy Chief
of the National Forest System in the Department of Agriculture.
Thank you for being here.
Henry, do you want to start, and then we'll hear from Joel?
STATEMENT OF HENRI BISSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JAYNE
BELNAP, PH.D., RH ECOLOGIST, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Bisson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee: I thank you for inviting me to testify regarding
motorized recreational use on BLM-managed lands. I'm going to
briefly summarize my remarks and ask that the entire testimony
be included in the record.
I am accompanied, as you said, Senator, by Jayne Belnap of
the United States Geological Survey, who is prepared to answer
any questions related to USGS science regarding OHV impacts on
the land.
The BLM strives to preserve and protect resources for the
use and enjoyment of future generations while meeting the needs
of motorized recreational access today. We at the BLM are
responsible for more than 258 million acres of public land.
More than 57 million people now live within 25 miles of those
lands and the combined effect of population increases in the
West, unauthorized user-created roads, explosive growth in the
use of OHVs, advances in motorized technology, and intense
industry marketing have generated increased social conflicts
and resource impacts. Wise management of OHVs and balancing the
needs of all the users of public land is our continuing
challenge.
The vast majority of OHV users are law-abiding citizens who
comply with our rules and regulations and are welcomed by the
BLM. The USGS and others have conducted considerable research
on the impacts from OHV use on western arid and forested lands
and research continues on the impacts of OHV use. The BLM uses
this information in a comprehensive approach to address travel
management that considers public access needs while protecting
resources.
Continued designation of large areas that remain open to
unregulated cross-country travel is no longer a practical
management strategy. The BLM has sought extensive public
participation and input to designate a travel network that is
thoughtfully designed and properly managed, and with the
completion of new or updated plans the amount of land that is
currently designated as limited to roads and trails has
dramatically increased and the number of acres of what were
open areas has decreased.
Collaboration with our stakeholders and partners continues
to be a crucial piece of BLMs OHV management strategy. In many
States, partnerships between user groups, local and State
governments, and Federal agencies are managing OHV use through
cooperative education, enforcement, and trail maintenance
programs. This has allowed for more effective use of limited
resources to reduce irresponsible use, thus minimizing resource
damage.
As part of the BLM's commitment to implementing its land
use plans and protecting resources, use of law enforcement and
at times area closures to OHV use are necessary. We deploy 195
law enforcement rangers and 56 special agents cross the public
lands, about one for every 1.2 million acres. High-use
recreation areas such as sand dunes in southern California,
Utah, Idaho, and Nevada continue to be a primary focus for law
enforcement, especially on long holiday weekends and during
major events.
The BLM works closely with local law enforcement agencies
on patrols, safety, enforcement, and emergency medical
responses. We greatly benefit from the strong support of many
county sheriffs and State highway patrol organizations
throughout the West.
We will continue to prioritize and target resources to
preserve and protect the public land for the use and enjoyment
of current and future generations.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'd be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bisson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henri Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding motorized
recreational use on the public lands. My testimony today will highlight
the ongoing efforts within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
manage off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and will highlight a 2007 United
States Geological Survey (USGS) study synthesizing the literature
regarding OHV impacts on the land. The BLM manages public lands to
sustain the health, diversity, and productivity for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations.
OHV Use on BLM-Managed Public Lands
The BLM strives to preserve and protect resources for use and
enjoyment of future generations while meeting the need for motorized
recreational access today. With more than 57 million people living
within 25 miles of BLM administered public lands, motorized recreation
on these 258 million acres of public land is managed consistent with
the multiple-use mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (FLPMA). Wise management of OHVs and balancing the needs of all
the users of the public lands is a continuing challenge.
This challenge has been building over time. What was once the vast
and spacious public land of the West that few knew about and fewer
actively used for recreational purposes has now become something quite
different. Today, with the suburban sprawl of many western cities and
the increased pressure for more outdoor recreational opportunities, the
BLM has had to adjust its management of these lands to ensure their
health for future generations.
Challenges
Some facts and figures help to illustrate the reality of our
management challenges: OHV use has been a major recreational activity
across the West for the past four decades. The BLM-administered public
lands will host 58 million recreation visits from across the country
and other nations this year, a number that has nearly doubled in the
last 25 years. Many of these visitors will be responsibly riding ATVs
or motorcycles. The Motorcycle Industry Council conservatively
estimates there are four times more OHVs in the West than there were a
decade ago.
The extensive network of roads and trails, now primarily associated
with motorized and non-motorized recreation use, has largely been
inherited from historical access patterns dating back nearly 200 years.
The majority of roads and trails in use today were originally developed
for trade, mineral exploration, ranching, forestry and many other
purposes.
The combined effect of population increase in the West,
unauthorized user-created roads, explosive growth in the use of OHVs,
advances in motorized technology, and intense industry marketing have
generated increased social conflicts and resource impacts on the public
land. The BLM faces many challenges--protecting resources, minimizing
user conflicts, safeguarding visitor safety, and providing reasonable
and appropriate access.
Over the last decade, increasing recreational demand has led to an
increase in legislation, litigation and intense public interest
regarding BLM's management of OHV travel. The United States Geological
Survey (USGS) and others have conducted considerable research on the
impacts from OHV use on western arid and forested lands. Research
continues on the impacts of OHV use. A synthesis of available
scientific literature related to the effects of OHV use is available as
a USGS Open-File Report (USGS OFR 2007-1353, ``Environmental Effects of
Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature
Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and
Internet Resources''). The report was compiled by the USGS with funding
from the BLM National Science and Technology Center.
BLM is addressing travel management as part of a comprehensive
approach that considers public access needs for all modes of
transportation. BLM has sought extensive public participation and input
to designate a travel network that is thoughtfully designed and
properly managed and makes the best use of resources. Public
participation is essential to the BLM planning process and serves to
improve communication, develop enhanced understanding of different
perspectives, and identify solutions to issues and problems.
Additionally, in order to help address increased use of BLM lands,
the 2009 Budget proposes directing approximately $8 million from field
offices experiencing little or no population growth to field offices in
or adjacent to expanding communities. Recreation and law enforcement
are among the programs in which these funding shifts will occur.
BLM Management and Policy
In 2001, the BLM issued its National Management Strategy for
Motorized OHV Use on Public Lands to improve our management of this
recreation activity. This strategy sets comprehensive direction for
planning and managing motorized recreational use in full compliance
with Executive Orders, existing regulations, and policy guidance.
Through the planning and travel management process, public lands are
designated as ``open'', ``limited'', or ``closed'' to OHV use. Open
areas are areas where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all
times, anywhere in the area. Limited areas are lands where OHV use is
restricted at certain times or use is only authorized on designated
routes, and closed areas are lands where OHV use is prohibited. This
2001 strategy recognizes motorized recreational use as a legitimate use
of public land wherever it is compatible with established resource
management objectives.
Building on this strategy, in 2005 the BLM issued a revised ``Land
Use Planning Handbook,'' which included specific guidance for
``Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management.'' It ensures that
all new land use plans developed by the BLM will address public access,
travel management and OHV area designations. These land use plans guide
the management of all of the 258 million acres for which the BLM is
responsible.
Finally, in December 2007, the BLM sent guidance to its field
offices to further clarify travel management decisions in the planning
process. Specifically, the guidance affirmed that continued designation
of large areas that remain open to unregulated ``cross-country travel''
is not a practical management strategy. Instead, field offices are
directed to focus OHV travel on designated roads and trails. Field
offices still can and have designated open areas, where unrestricted
OHV play is permissible. Additionally, this guidance addresses route
planning, inventory and evaluation, innovative partnerships, user
education, mapping, signing, and law enforcement. The guidance will
result in establishing rational and well-analyzed travel networks,
permitting OHV users with continued opportunity to recreate on public
lands.
With the completion of new or updated plans, the amount of land
designated as limited has increased and the number of acres of open
areas has decreased. For example, in the Ely, Nevada, Resource
Management Plan (RMP) (2008), the number of acres open to cross-country
OHV use declined from 9.8 million acres to zero acres under the
preferred management alternative. More than a million acres in the
District are closed to OHV use. The closed areas consist of
congressionally designated wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, which
is in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and FLPMA. OHV use on
the remaining 10.3 million acres in the planning area is limited to
designated roads and trails. This particular area also benefits from a
congressionally designated trail system for OHV users.
Open areas have been retained in other RMPs where historical OHV
play areas have existed for many years and resource conflicts are
minimal. Open areas are appropriate for intensive OHV use where there
are no compelling resource protection needs or public safety issues to
warrant limiting cross-country use. Examples of areas open to motorized
recreational use include El Mirage OHV Area in the Mojave Desert of
California, 12,000 acres of flat lakebed used for land sailing and OHV
riding, and Hackberry Lake OHV Area in New Mexico, offering 55,000
acres of rolling dunes used for OHV play. These open areas are
extremely important local and regional destinations for OHV play with
minimal impact.
Closures are sometimes necessary to protect and conserve resources
or for public safety in a particular area. Closures can be very
controversial. The BLM frequently attempts to work with affected or
interested parties to reach agreement on options to address a
particular challenge before issuing notices of motorized travel
restrictions or temporary closures. Most closures remain in effect
until conditions change, impact is reduced or a new decision is
addressed in a plan.
For example, to protect public health and safety from exposure to
asbestos the BLM issued a temporary closure on 31,000 acres of public
land within the Clear Creek Management Area in California on May 1,
2008. The temporary closure order was issued simultaneously with the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) release of the final Asbestos
Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessment. The findings of the
assessment indicate that the asbestos exposures that EPA measured at
CCMA are high and that many of the recreation activities authorized by
the BLM pose excess lifetime cancer risks above the EPA's acceptable
risk. This closure will remain in effect until the signing of a Record
of Decision of the Resource Management Plan for the Clear Creek area.
The RMP will incorporate the results of the EPA Assessment and analyze
alternatives to minimize and reduce the human health risk from exposure
to asbestos from visitor use to ensure public health and safety.
As part of the BLM's commitment to implementing its land use plans
and protecting resources, the agency deploys 195 law enforcement
rangers and 56 special agents across the public lands, about 1 for
every 1.2 million acres. High-use recreation areas, such as sand dunes
in Southern California, Utah, Idaho and Nevada, continue to be a
challenge, especially on long holiday weekends and during major events,
and are a primary focus of BLM law enforcement. Imperial Sand Dunes in
California typically has more than 150,000 visitors during winter
holidays such as Thanksgiving, New Year's and President's Day. Over the
New Year's weekend this year, law enforcement issued 630 citations,
arrested 25 individuals. Emergency Medical Services responded to 129
calls. The BLM works closely with local law enforcement agencies on
patrols, safety, enforcement and emergency medical responses. We
greatly benefit from the strong support of many County Sheriffs and
State Highway Patrol organizations throughout the West. The use of
short-term work details of BLM officers from other states and officers
from other agencies, as well as continued support from local law
enforcement agencies through assistance agreements, has proven
invaluable.
Partnerships
The vast majority of OHV users are responsible riders. They share
the BLM's commitment to the protection of natural and cultural
resources and leave no lasting trace on the land. Working with local,
state and national OHV groups, we have improved our ability to inform,
train and educate the riding public. Partner organizations such as
Tread Lightly! and Leave No Trace have worked to develop and
disseminate stewardship education materials and have worked with
industry to encourage responsible use marketing and messaging.
Collaboration with our stakeholders and partners continues to be a
crucial piece of BLM's OHV management strategy. In Colorado, OHV groups
have stepped forward to assist in the education of OHV users by
promoting responsible recreation use. The Stay the Trail program, a
joint project between the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition and
Federal agencies, reinforces and highlights responsible OHV use and
seeks to reduce irresponsible use, thus minimizing resource damage. In
Oregon, partnerships have formed between user groups, local and state
governments and Federal agencies to cooperatively manage OHV use by
jointly developing and implementing education, enforcement and trail
maintenance programs. This has allowed for more effective use of
limited resources to reduce irresponsible use, thus minimizing resource
damage. In Idaho, BLM partners with the state Fish and Game agency to
implement the CARE/SHARE program to build awareness and user ethics
regarding public access across private lands or ranching allotments.
I would like to share with you some before-and-after photos of
restoration work being done in Southern California with the Student
Conservation Association and the BLM. The projects are primarily
focused on restoring areas defined by travel management implementation
decisions. The emphasis is to protect the habitat of several endangered
species, including the desert tortoise, as well as to ensure the
viability of the designated travel network. As you can see, the efforts
have been a success. By using a variety of techniques, including
vertical mulching and re-texturing the ground surface to erase the
impacts, these crews are successfully restoring habitat and
rehabilitating degraded trails to prevent erosion.
The BLM is dedicated to improving the health of the land by
reducing OHV impacts. Defining a rational network of roads and trails
on over 258 million acres of land is an enormously complex task. Over
the next decade, the BLM will work with the public to continue mapping
the West's public access travel networks. The BLM will continue to
prioritize and target resources and funding to develop and implement
travel management plans.
Through public land user education, law enforcement, resource
monitoring, public-private partnerships, and continued public
involvement in the land-use planning process, the BLM will move closer
toward this goal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this significant
issue. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Holtrop, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and committee members: Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today on managing the
impacts of off-highway vehicles on National Forest System
lands.
Today recreation exerts the largest demand on the national
forests and grasslands, with over 192 million visits annually.
Motorized recreation has contributed to this boom. Nearly 11.5
million visits occur each year on National Forest System lands
by visitors engaged in off-highway vehicle, or OHV, activities.
Motorized recreation, including operating OHVs, is a legitimate
use of National Forest System lands in the right places, with
proper management, and when operated responsibly.
We have a tremendous obligation and a great opportunity to
serve these users and, through them, our local communities and
economies. We see that as an important part of our mission.
However, unrestricted cross-country travel with motor vehicles
often results in impacts to sensitive meadows, wetlands,
wildlife habitat, soils, cultural sites, and stream channels.
Therefore unrestricted cross-country travel with motor vehicles
is no longer environmentally sustainable.
After extensive consultation with others concerned about
this issue, including motorized recreation groups, we
instituted a travel management rule in November 2005. The rule
provides a nationally consistent framework for local
decisionmaking for motor vehicle use in national forests and
grasslands. Under the rule we are designating the National
Forest System roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor
vehicle use. Once complete, motor vehicle use will be
restricted to designated routes and areas as identified on a
motor vehicle use map.
One of the most challenging aspects of travel management
planning is managing the public participation process. Interest
in travel management decisions is high, as is the controversy.
Conflicts arise because some members of the public are
concerned about losing motorized recreational opportunities
they have enjoyed for years, while other members of the public
are concerned that too many routes and areas will be left open
to motor vehicle use, resulting in unacceptable environmental
damage or disruption of their non-motorized recreational
activities.
Most national forests and grasslands are involved in the
route and area designation process or soon will be. In fiscal
year 2007, 36 national forests and grasslands completed their
designation decisions and produced a map consistent with the
travel management rule. This fiscal year an additional 41 units
are scheduled to be completed, with the remaining units
scheduled for completion by December 2009.
However, designating routes and areas is only the
beginning. To manage OHV use on the ground, we clearly need a
combination of appropriate law enforcement combined with good
route location and decision and effective user education,
supplemented by our partners in the responsible OHV community.
Many organizations assist the Forest Service with
disseminating educational messages about responsible recreation
use. The National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council is
made up of enthusiasts who promote responsible riding in many
ways. Let me highlight the off- highway vehicle program of the
San Bernadino National Forest Association, a collaboration for
conservation, recreation, and education among the association,
the San Bernadino National Forest, the State of California, on
OHV user groups and industry. On this single forest, volunteers
contribute over 25,000 hours each year.
One example of the work they do is engaging other OHV
enthusiasts in the field as peers, encouraging them to ride on
designated routes, to minimize impacts on native species and
habitats.
We believe most OHV users want to do the right thing. With
effective public education, route location design and signing,
we can focus law enforcement resources on those users who do
not heed the law.
Americans cherish the national forests and grasslands for
the benefits they provide. The Forest Service must strike an
appropriate balance in managing all types of recreational
activities within the capacities of the land. The travel
management rule enhances and simplifies enforcement with a
nationally consistent approach, while emphasizing local
decisionmaking. This will make it easier for OHV users who want
to do the right thing to be able to do so.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the
committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on managing the impacts of off-
road vehicles on National Forest System lands.
BACKGROUND
The Forest Service manages 155 national forests and 20 national
grasslands, in 42 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. By law,
these lands are managed under multiple use and sustained yield
principles. The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service
oversees a vast and complex array of natural resources and
opportunities.
One of the key opportunities provided on National Forest System
lands is outdoor recreation. The most recent National Visitor Use
Monitoring figures show that the national forests and grasslands
receive 192 million visits each year. Visitors participate in a wide
range of motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, including
camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, cross-
country skiing, snowmobiling, and operating off-highway vehicles
(OHVs).
National forest recreation provides healthy opportunities to enjoy
the outdoors, connecting people to their federal land and representing
a significant contribution to the economy of many rural areas.
Motorized recreation has contributed to that boom. Approximately 11.5
million visits occur on National Forest System lands each year by
visitors engaged in OHV activities. Snowmobilers and visitors driving
forest roads for pleasure add to this total.
In the past, user impacts and conflicts focused on issues such as
timber, grazing and mining. Currently, recreation in all of its forms
places the largest demand on the national
forests and grasslands, due to the proximity of many national
forests and grasslands to urban population centers with affluent,
mobile populations who seek the recreational amenities offered by these
lands.
Motorized recreation, including operating OHVs (defined as motor
vehicles capable of traveling cross-country) are legitimate uses of
National Forest System lands--in the right places with proper
management, and when operated responsibly. We have a tremendous
obligation and a great opportunity to serve these users and, through
them, our local communities and economies. We see it as an important
part of our mission.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 280,000 miles
of National Forest System roads open to motor vehicle use. In addition,
approximately 144,000 miles of trails are managed by the Forest
Service, with an estimated 33 percent or 47,000 miles open to motor
vehicle use, including over-snow vehicles and motorized watercraft
operating on water trails.
This transportation system ranges from paved roads designed for
passenger cars to single-track trails used by dirt bikes. Many roads
designed for high-clearance vehicles (such as log trucks and sport
utility vehicles) also accommodate use by all terrain vehicles (ATVs)
and other OHVs not normally found on city streets. Almost all National
Forest System trails serve non-motorized users, including hikers,
bicyclists, cross-country skiers and equestrians, alone or in
combination with motorized users. National Forest System roads
accommodate non-motorized use as well.
National forests also include public roads managed by state,
county, and local governments. These roads serve the commercial and
residential needs of local communities and private lands intermingled
with and near the lands we manage. Many county roads are cooperatively
constructed and maintained through cooperative forest road agreements
executed under the National Forest Roads and Trails Act. State and
county roads also provide access to National Forest System lands, and
we continue to work in cooperation with states and counties to manage
our multi-jurisdictional transportation system.
In the 1960s, motorized recreational traffic on the National Forest
System roads was relatively light compared with timber traffic. Today,
recreational traffic is 90 percent of all traffic on National Forest
System roads. Much of the road system maintenance needs and resource
damage concerns are the result of continuous recreation use of roads
only designed for controlled intermittent commercial use. We consider
capability to maintain roads in decisions to designate roads for
motorized use.
INCREASING DEMAND FOR OHV USE
In 1972, President Nixon signed Executive Order 11644 directing
federal agencies to manage off-road vehicles. At the time, the
Executive Order estimated 5 million Americans participated in OHV
recreation. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
estimated that the number of people aged 16 and over participating in
OHV recreation was 37.6 million in 1999 and 2000, rose to a high of
51.6 million in 2002 and 2003, and dropped somewhat to just over 44.4
million for the most recent survey period of 2005 to 2007.
According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, annual sales of new
ATVs rose from 278,000 in 1995 to a peak of 813,000 in 2004, and then
dropped slightly to 748,000 in 2006, the most recent year for which
information is available. Today, vehicles created for specialized off-
highway uses are marketed and sold as family cars, and are more
powerful and more capable of off-highway travel than those of a decade
ago.
NEED FOR MANAGEMENT OF OHV USE
As of January 2008, about 64 million acres of National Forest
System lands were completely open to cross-country motor vehicle use.
When OHVs were less popular, this scenario may not have been a problem.
However, as the sales and technology of ATVs increased, opportunities
for Americans to enjoy Federal lands grew. The magnitude and intensity
of motor vehicle use have increased to the point that the intent of
E.O. 11644, and the subsequent E.O 11989, cannot be met while still
allowing unrestricted cross-country motor vehicle use. The first motor
vehicle driving across a particular meadow may not harm the land, but
by the time 50 motor vehicles have crossed the same path a user-created
trail will likely be left behind that causes lasting environmental
impacts on soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Additionally,
some visitors report that their ability to enjoy quiet recreation
experiences is affected by the noise from motor vehicles.
We have many miles of user-created roads and trails on the national
forests and grasslands. These user-created routes are not part of the
forest transportation system, did not undergo environmental analysis,
were not designed and constructed for recreational use, and do not
receive routine maintenance by the Forest Service. Some of these routes
may merit consideration, with appropriate environmental analysis, as
potential additions to our transportation system. Others run through
wetlands, riparian areas, and stream channels, and their use by motor
vehicles adversely affects water quality, causes erosion, and
introduces invasive species. User-created routes causing unacceptable
resource damage should not be designated for motor vehicle use.
THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE
To address the need for more active management of OHV use, the
Forest Service promulgated a travel management rule on November 9,
2005. This rule can be found in 36 CFR 212, Subpart B.
The travel management rule provides a nationally consistent
framework for local decision-making regarding motor vehicle use in
National Forest System roads and trails and in areas on National Forest
System lands. Decisions are made by local agency officials, who have
greater knowledge of the affected resources. Local decision-making also
allows for more effective participation by the public; local, county,
state, and other federal agencies; and tribal governments.
The rule requires designation of a national system of National
Forest System roads, Nationals Forest System trails, and areas on
National Forest System lands that are open to motor vehicle use. Once
the system is implemented, motor vehicle use will be restricted to
designated routes and areas as identified on a motor vehicle use map
(MVUM).
The following elements form the framework for the Forest Service's
national travel management system for motor vehicle use:
Each administrative unit of the National Forest System
designates those National Forest System roads, National Forest
System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that
are open to motor vehicle use, by class of vehicle and if
appropriate, by time of year.
The public must be given the opportunity to participate in
the designation process.
Limited motor vehicle use solely for big game retrieval and
dispersed camping may be allowed within a specified distance of
certain designated routes.
Local managers must coordinate with appropriate federal,
state, county and other local government agencies and tribal
governments in the designation process.
The rule exempts emergency vehicles and motor vehicles
authorized by permit or contract from designations and
preserves longstanding authorities for management of over-snow
vehicles, which may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited
locally.
Specific criteria must be considered when making designation
decisions including effects on natural and cultural resources,
public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access
needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands,
the need for maintenance and administration of roads and trails
under consideration for designation, and the availability of
resources for that maintenance and administration.
Once designated routes and areas are identified on a motor
vehicle use map (MVUM), motor vehicle use inconsistent with the
designations is prohibited.
The Forest Service must monitor the effects of motor vehicle
use on designated roads and trails and in designated areas.
Designations may be revised as needed to meet changing
conditions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE
All national forests and grasslands are either currently involved
in the route and area designation process, or will begin soon. In
fiscal year 2007, 36 national forests and grasslands completed their
designation decisions and produced an MVUM consistent with the travel
management rule. This represents about 12.5 percent or 23.9 million
acres of National Forest System lands. In fiscal year 2008, 41 units
are scheduled to be completed. In fiscal year 2009, 64 units are
scheduled to be completed, and in the first quarter of fiscal year
2010, the remaining 35 units are scheduled for completion.
CHALLENGES IN MANAGING OHV USE
One of the most challenging aspects of travel management planning
is managing the public participation process. Interest in travel
management decisions is high, as is the controversy. Attendance by over
100 people at public meetings is not uncommon. Some meetings are quite
contentious. Conflicts arise because some members of the public are
concerned about losing motorized recreational opportunities that they
have enjoyed for years, while other members of the public are concerned
that too many routes and areas will be left open to motor vehicle use,
resulting in unacceptable environmental damage or disruption of their
non-motorized recreational activities.
Another challenging situation involves areas protected by the 2001
Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Some people feel that these areas will
be degraded if motorized travel is increased by allowing user-created
routes to be designated for motorized use. Other members of the public
are concerned that they will lose motorized access they currently have
in these areas. These challenges will be addressed during each unit's
route and area designation process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
Although completing the route and area designation process and
publishing MVUMs represents a tremendous amount of work for the Forest
Service, and the public, they represent only the beginning of the
process to actively manage motor vehicle use. Informing the public
about where and when they can use various classes of motor vehicles
will be critical. In some areas we will need to overcome user's
assumptions developed after many years of unmanaged motor vehicle use.
For example, in some forests visitors could ride ATVs virtually
anywhere the vehicle's capability allowed outside designated wilderness
areas. Once an MVUM is published, motor vehicle use will be allowed
only on designated routes and in designated areas. Other visitors are
accustomed to being able to drive cross-country to a dispersed campsite
in some forests. Once an MVUM is published, driving a motor vehicle
to a dispersed campsite will be allowed only within a specified
distance of certain designated routes.
Public outreach will also involve informing people how to minimize
their impacts with motor vehicles while they are enjoying the national
forests. Messages will include staying on designated routes, being
courteous to other users, and being knowledgeable of agency
regulations. Education generally will be provided by Forest Service
employees, but will be routinely supplemented by the many volunteers
and other partners. The Forest Service's capability to inform and
educate the public about where and how they may operate motor vehicles
is greatly enhanced by the many hours of time provided by volunteers
and partners.
Education works both ways. Many members of the public have
extensive historical and practical knowledge of various parts of the
landscape. Involving them in the process and having them educate us is
an essential element of the dialogue.
Several national organizations assist the Forest Service with
disseminating educational messages about responsible recreation use.
The National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) is made
up of enthusiasts who promote responsible riding in many ways.
Recently, they developed and are now delivering Route Designation
Workshops across the country, with a target audience of Forest Service
employees and OHV enthusiasts.
The American Motorcyclist Association helps inform their members
about the Forest Service route and area designation process, and
encourages their members to get involved in travel management planning
processes. They recently partnered with the Motorcycle Industry Council
to update and produce a brochure on responsible riding. Another example
is Tread Lightly! Tread Lightly! is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect recreation access and opportunities through
education and stewardship. Tread Lightly! works with the Forest Service
and other land management agencies, as well as manufacturers, industry,
and motorized recreation organizations.
A forest-level example of the tremendous support we receive from
cooperators for promoting responsible riding concepts is the Off
Highway Vehicle Program of the San Bernardino National Forest
Association, a collaboration for conservation, recreation and education
among the National Forest Association, San Bernardino National Forest,
State of California and OHV user groups and industry. The program
involves 300 volunteers who contribute over 25,000 hours each year.
The National Forest Association trains the volunteers and organizes
patrols and work projects in coordination with the San Bernardino
National Forest. These volunteers engage other OHV enthusiasts in the
field as peers, encouraging them to ride on designated routes to
minimize impacts on native species and habitats. The volunteers also
inform other riders about regulations, provide general information
about the San Bernardino National Forest and answer questions.
Volunteers also adopt and maintain motorized routes, provide
responsible riding presentations to the public, and conduct special
projects such as elimination of illegal fire rings and trash pick-up.
Although signs are no longer the primary tool for enforcement of
motor vehicle restrictions on National Forest System lands, signs
remain a critical part of OHV management in the National Forest System.
Signs and route markers are installed, as appropriate, to help the
public navigate and to identify clearly the routes and areas designated
for motor vehicle use. In some places the Forest Service may also
install barriers, such as a berm or a gate, that show that a route is
closed to motor vehicles.
The Forest Service will monitor designated routes and areas for
effects on natural and cultural resources, public safety, and conflicts
among uses. Monitoring may also focus on the level of compliance and
route conditions. Revisions to designations may be made based on the
results of monitoring.
ENFORCEMENT OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RESTRICTIONS
As shown by these examples of collaborative efforts, most OHV users
want to do the right thing. We believe with effective public education,
route design, and signing, we can focus law enforcement resources on
those few users who do not heed the law.
Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in
ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public
safety, and protecting National Forest System resources. Enforcement of
motor vehicle restrictions has consistently remained one the top five
priorities for Forest Service law enforcement officers. The Forest
Service also maintains cooperative law enforcement agreements with
state and local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support
across jurisdictional boundaries.
Prior to promulgation of the travel management rule, the only way
for the Forest Service to enforce motor vehicle restrictions was
through issuance of a forest order. The content of these orders varied
from unit to unit, and in some cases numerous orders existed on a
single forest, which caused confusion for the public regarding where
motor vehicles could legally be operated.
Another regulation commonly enforced prior to the travel management
rule was the prohibition on using a vehicle off road in a manner which
damages the land. Issuance of a violation notice for this offense
requires a judgment call on the part of the officer, and has been
difficult to prove in court. The new prohibition clarifies requirements
and makes it easier for responsible OHV users to comply with the
regulation since it provides for a more objective enforcement of motor
vehicle use consistent with the route and area designations identified
on an MVUM.
The travel management rule enhances and simplifies enforcement by
replacing forest orders with issuance of an MVUM, which is posted on
the World Wide Web and made available at the Forest Supervisor's or
District Ranger's office, and a nationwide regulatory prohibition
against motor vehicle use off the designated system. This nationally
consistent approach will augment public understanding of where a motor
vehicle may be operated on any national forest or grassland across the
country, and will enhance the agency's ability to gain compliance. We
believe this will make it easier for OHV users who want to do the right
thing to be able to do so.
CONCLUSION
Americans cherish the national forests and grasslands for the
benefits they provide, which include opportunities for healthy
recreation and exercise, natural scenic beauty, natural resources,
protection of rare species, wilderness, a connection with history, and
opportunities for unparalleled outdoor adventure. The Forest Service
must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types of
recreational activities within the capacities of the land. A designated
system for motor vehicle use, established with public involvement, will
enhance public enjoyment of the national forests, while maintaining
other important values and uses of National Forest System lands.
Effective implementation of designation decisions, through public
education and appropriate law enforcement, will be critical.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may
have.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much.
Let me just start with a question to you, Mr. Bisson. The
Forest Service seems to have a fairly clear direction that
they're headed in of trying to, through this travel management
rule, have each local forest as I understand it, each
management unit, designate the routes and areas that are
appropriate for this kind of off-road vehicle use and then put
that on maps and educate the public and try to get law
enforcement.
Now, there are a lot of questions and I'll try to get to
them in a minute with Mr. Holtrop about how you actually get
all that done. But does BLM have anything similar that you're
doing?
Mr. Bisson. Senator, there's not a whole lot of difference
between what the Forest Service process is, what they're doing,
and what we're doing. We don't have a rule. But we do have
policies in place which direct our field offices to go through
a similar process as part of the resource management plans.
The big difference is that--and I cast no aspersions on the
Forest Service--our travel management planning involves all
uses. It's not just OHVs. We're looking at mountain bikes,
we're looking at hiking trails, we're looking at equestrian. So
we're trying to develop travel networks for all of the users
that need to access and go across our lands at the same time
through our planning process.
The Chairman. If you work on the assumption, and I guess we
all have to, that if there are clear rules and people know what
they are, they'll try to abide by them. I think if we don't
assume that we're in real trouble.
Mr. Bisson. I agree with you, sir.
The Chairman. OK. The Forest Service, I understand, is
trying toset out what those rules are in each national forest
unit and then get people a map and do an education program to
say, this is what's permitted and this is what's not permitted,
and then also have law enforcement back that up. Does the BLM
have a similar effort to map and to educate the public and say,
if you want to come on this BLM tract of land, here is what's
permitted?
Mr. Bisson. That's exactly where we're moving. We have--in
the last 10 years the numbers of acres which were
undesignated--what we're trying to do is move to a place where
the bulk of our lands, better than 90 percent of our lands, 99
percent of our lands, are designated, so that people know what
routes they can travel on and that they can't go cross-country.
We will likely always have some small open play areas in
historic use areas, like in southern California. But for the
bulk of the public lands, we're moving toward designating and
limiting access to routes that, working with the public, we've
identified as suitable places for this activity to happen.
The Chairman. Now, I understood Mr. Holtrop to say that
they expect by December 2009 to have all of this done, or at
least have in place the plans with regard to each national
forest unit. What is the timeframe for the BLM doing the same
thing?
Mr. Bisson. I am informed that, based on our planning
schedule, we will have ours done in about 10 years.
The Chairman. Ten years.
Mr. Bisson. In about 10 years, sir.
The Chairman. That's a long time.
Mr. Bisson. It's a very long time. But we're doing the best
we can with the resources that we have.
The Chairman. So in order for you to get this done in a
more timely fashion you just need more planning resources or
what?
Mr. Bisson. I think that--again, I'm not lobbying for
money. But I think that with the funds that we have we have
built the schedule to complete this work, given our resource
capability. I think that the process that we use involves
communities, it involves local citizens. It takes time and it
takes going to lots of meetings. It takes producing maps, and
we're going as fast as we can. So resources to support those
activities obviously would help.
The Chairman. Let me ask Dr. Belnap. You know, if we're
talking about 10 years to get this done, get the plans in
place, as I understand it, on all of the BLM land, what is the
extent of the damage that we're talking about here? Is there
some significant damage to public lands that is occurring as we
sit and discuss this issue?
Ms. Belnap. Certainly there is, especially in the areas
that are currently unrestricted. Again, people can be
responsible users and still be doing some severe impacts.
Probably one of the biggest issues is soil erosion. It's well
known that ORVs do increase soil erosion, and this can
compromise air and water quality, which is the major issue,
especially in the West.
To go further with that, dust is a major, major issue there
because of the impact it has on accelerated melt rates and thus
delivery of late season water into rivers and streams. Late
season are already low water flows and so this is something
that we all really need to be concerned about.
Ten years is a long time and I would hope that this
schedule could be moved forward.
The Chairman. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
It seems to me from your response, Mr. Bisson, to Chairman
Bingaman's questions that you are working on plans and those
plans are 10 years out. I'm sure there are parts of those plans
that are already in place in some areas, but to get to the
state of completion you're still some years out. I think the
Forest Service also has plans at different stages of
development and implementation.
I want to ask you a question about enforcement of the
rules. It seems to me that the first thing that needs to be
done is to have the plans completed and let the public know
where it is that they can go, where they can't go, what kinds
of vehicles can be used, what kind they can't use. But then the
question becomes one of enforcement, and I think in your
opening statement, Mr. Bisson, you indicated there were, I
think, less than 200 officials within BLM that have
responsibility then for enforcing the rules.
My question to you on behalf of BLM and then to Mr. Holtrop
on behalf of the Forest Service is how you can work with local
law enforcement, with the sheriffs in many of these counties
and others, in mutually cooperative agreements to make sure
that those laws are enforced? What are we doing? What more
could we be doing? Henry and then Joel.
Mr. Bisson. Thank you, Senator. First of all, we could not
do what we're doing without the support of local law
enforcement, whether it's county sheriffs or State highway
patrols. We have a number of agreements already in place. Our
funds are limited in terms of being able to spread it across
several hundred counties that we work with.
But we do have agreements. Where we primarily utilize them
is where we have what we call hot spots or areas where we have
a lot of OHV use, and particularly on big weekends we
supplement our law enforcement work force with local law
enforcement and we pay for time and a half. We pay appropriate
overtime for them to work with us on those weekends and to work
on emergency response and search and rescue and the whole
thing.
So we are doing it. We just don't have enough resource to
be able to do as much as we probably could or should.
Senator Salazar. I know you're resource-limited now in
terms of putting those agreements together. But if resources
were not an issue here, would you try to put together those
kinds of agreements in every one of the counties where you have
BLM lands that have some kind of OHV issue, so that you have
the local law enforcement involved in overseeing the rules?
Mr. Bisson. I think that if we had resources like that we
absolutely would increase the numbers of agreements that we
have out there with the counties in places where we have the
most significant----
Senator Salazar. Is there a prototype of those agreements
that you currently use----
Mr. Bisson. Yes.
Senator Salazar [continuing]. Or are they customized? So
there is a prototype of those agreements?
Mr. Bisson. We could, as a follow-up to this hearing, we
could provide copies of some of the agreements that we have in
place right now.
Senator Salazar. It would be useful for me and perhaps for
the committee to have a copy of the prototypes of those
agreements.
Let me ask you this. If you were to quantify the resources
that you would need to be able to develop these enforcement
agreements with local law enforcement, what would that be?
Mr. Bisson. I can't answer that today, but I would be happy
to respond in writing.
Senator Salazar. I would appreciate getting that response
in writing, because it seems to me that many times the sheriff
on the ground or the deputy sheriff, local law enforcement, can
be a great asset to us. In our State Colorado this last year we
actually passed through the General Assembly a State law that
empowers sheriffs and local law enforcement to help out on some
of these issues on public lands.
Mr. Holtrop, can you respond to the same series of
questions concerning the Forest Service?
Mr. Holtrop. I'd be happy to. First of all, I agree with
what Mr. Bisson said and what your statement was, that once we
have our plans in place enforcement is going to be critical to
the success of this. I'm absolutely committed to making sure
that we're making a difference on the ground, not just making a
difference through the planning and the mapping process. So
that is something that we are spending time and energy and
thinking about how are we going to be as effective as we can
possibly be.
So our law enforcement authorities and our law enforcement
resources have to be brought to bear on this. Over the past
many years, enforcement of OHV activities on National Forest
System lands has been one of the highest priority work that our
law enforcement officers do. It's in the top five priorities
every year.
We also work through cooperative agreements with local,
usually sheriffs, sheriff departments, and that's critical to
our success and it will continue to be critical to our success.
Those are agreements that we use our funds to help pay for----
Senator Salazar. So you have formalized agreements and
prototypes?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, we do.
Senator Salazar. Are they similar to what BLM has?
Mr. Holtrop. I'm not certain, but I suspect that there's a
great deal of similarity.
Senator Salazar. If you can get copies of those agreements
to us, I would appreciate that as well.
Mr. Holtrop. We'd be happy to.
Senator Salazar. Do you have the resources that you need in
order to be able to implement all of these agreements that you
would want to have across the great swath of Forest Service
land?
Mr. Holtrop. If we had more resources, of course we would
be able to have more agreements and we'd be able to spend those
resources wisely. Recognizing the large number of people who
are using off-highway vehicles on the public lands and
recognizing the need that we have to manage that as wisely and
as efficiently as possible is one of those things that led us
to saying we're going to do this travel management rule, we're
going to come up with a common approach to how we're going to
manage OHVs across the country. It'll improve our ability to be
effective with our law enforcement, improve the off-highway
vehicle community's desire to--those that desire to be law-
abiding, to do so, because we'll have a consistent approach.
Senator Salazar. Just a final request. If you can do the
same thing as Mr. Bisson, and that is to provide us with a
quantification of the necessary resources to implement the law
enforcement agreements with local law enforcement that would be
helpful to us as we try to quantify what the need is there.
Mr. Holtrop. We'll do that.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding the hearing.
I guess one of the biggest concerns I hear when it comes to
motorized vehicle access in the case of a road that's being
closed is access for hunting. I was curious to know if you
consider hunting access or alternative modes of access to areas
when you're looking at travel management. Both, please.
Mr. Bisson. Yes, sir. Absolutely. When we go through the
travel planning process, we look at all types of uses and
needs, and we meet with people in the communities to discuss
those before we make decisions on which routes to leave open
and which routes to close. Sometimes from a hunting standpoint
it's favorable to leave routes open and sometimes it's
favorable actually to close them to improve hunter quality. So
it depends on the situation.
Mr. Holtrop. I would give the same answer. Absolutely,
hunting access, all forms of access needs, are taken into
account in the decisionmaking process.
Senator Tester. On the other side of the equation, wildlife
habitat, cultural sites, are they considered when you're
talking about designating potential roads or trails?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, they are.
Mr. Bisson. Yes.
Senator Tester. To what degree would better designation and
signage of the trails and better enforcement of the rules
reduce conflict between motorized and non-motorized users?
Would it have an impact at all?
Mr. Bisson. I personally believe that it is having an
impact where we're completing the plans and doing the
designations, and I think it will have a greater impact as we
complete the process across our lands.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Holtrop. I would also like to add. The models that we
use to put together our national approach to this are models of
success where that's happened in places around the you, where
we have had designated routes and how that has helped.
Senator Tester. All right. Does the Forest Service or BLM
ever end up designating trails that were illegally created?
Mr. Holtrop. Our process allows the local line officer to
look at those trails and make an assessment as to whether those
make sense to put into the trail system or not to. Some of
those illegally created trails, of course, are in situations
where it does not make sense from a natural resource protection
standpoint to continue to allow those, and our expectation is
those decisions will be made not to do that.
In other cases, some of those user-created trails may
actually have great recreational or access benefit, and we want
to give the local land officer the opportunity to take a look
at that, make an assessment, make a decision as to whether they
should be included or not.
Mr. Bisson. My response is essentially identical, with one
exception. If the illegal route were, as an example, in a
wilderness study area, not on a route that had preexisted
designation, then we would probably close it regardless because
it's an illegal route in a WSA.
Senator Tester. I want to talk a little bit about what
Senator Salazar talked about somewhat, and Senator Bingaman,
too, law, or law and order, I should say, in the hills and how
you're using local sheriffs to do that. How do you reimburse
them for that? If you're utilizing the local sheriff's
department, are they doing it free or are you reimbursing them,
and how do you do it? Is there a required number of patrols on
trails or a certain numbers of hours per week or month or per
year, or is it pretty much left open?
Mr. Holtrop. I may need to get back to you with some more
detail on that question. Generally, those are worked out on a
local basis, the local Forest Service official working with
their sheriff's departments as to what are the priority areas
where, as Henry said, where are the hot spots that we need to
focus our attention. In some places that's going to be the OHV
trails. In other places it might be some other activity.
Senator Tester. Henry, do you do the same thing?
Mr. Bisson. We do. I think it's situational. I think in
some cases there are probably some county agreements where we
would pay for a deputy sheriff to patrol. In other times it's
used for those officers for a weekend, where we combine forces.
Senator Tester. Have you seen destruction--and that's maybe
a bad word, but it's the only one I can think of right now--
destruction of the resource over the last, let's just pick 5 or
10 years, one or the other? 5 years; is it on the uptick? Dr.
Belnap talked about dust. You can answer the question if you'd
like, Dr. Belnap. It's in your backyard. You talked about dust
and erosion and those kind of things. Is that simply due to use
on the trail, or are we seeing an uptick of folks getting off
the trail? I know it only takes a few bad apples, but there's
always a few bad apples.
Ms. Belnap. There's several factors here. One is that, at
least in the areas that I see, there is an uptick. But I don't
think there's a greater proportion of people. There's just a
lot more people and so that proportion stays about the same.
But one thing that we are seeing is, because of the current
climate conditions and other things, the use 10 years ago now
is having a much more profound impact than it did 10 years ago.
Given future conditions predicted, it's going to be worse.
Senator Tester. Because of the drought?
Ms. Belnap. Yes. We've got drought and we're predicted for
drought for the next 30 years. So we've got to really think
ahead about something that might not have been such a problem
10 years ago could be a much bigger problem.
Senator Tester. So can you give me an insight on what
that--and I'm going to have to give up here after this
question--but what that forward thinking may involve? I mean,
we've got to think ahead. Does that mean closing more roads?
Truthfully, if tough decisions have to be made, is that what
we're talking about?
Ms. Belnap. I think it is, from not just a resource, but
the dust issue really is going to become a major, major issue.
It changes the albedo on the snowpacks and we're going to have
profound impacts on water delivery. Just the presence of the
roads and trails produces dust. You don't even have to drive on
them. But when they are driven on, we're literally seeing many
billions of pounds of dust a year coming off of these trails.
So just the presence of them is an issue. So we've got to
be really selective about what we leave open.
Senator Tester. Just curious, and then I'll kick it over.
But do you think the dust is the biggest problem or is erosion,
water erosion I should say?
Ms. Belnap. Water erosion is bad, too, but it's local. One
of the big problems with the dust is that we're seeing it's a
regional impact on water that's going to be limited anyway.
Senator Tester. Thank you for your answers.
The Chairman. Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding these hearings. There is no
question that in the West especially and in the large public
lands States' off-road vehicle use and off-road recreation is a
major opportunity, resource, and enjoyment today. In my State
of Idaho, we have more licensed off-road vehicles per capita
than any other State in the Nation. It is something we view
with pride because it is part of why people come to live in my
State, and they enjoy it.
I live in a suburban part of Boise and it is not unusual on
a Saturday morning to see a 30-something and a family or a 70-
something and his or her wife or husband loading up their four-
wheelers and heading out.
So how we balance this is a responsibility of yours, and
doing it in a way that not only complies with our environmental
needs, but recognizes that we have those lands also for the
purpose of recreating on them and enjoying them, not just to
view them from afar, as if they were a museum piece to be
constantly coddled and protected.
I say that because I found it very interesting when the
Forest Service began its road closures a few years ago, and
they went in with D-9 Cats and built tank traps and tore up the
countryside to close roads. One winter a local snowmobiler, not
knowing that the tank traps had been built--and folks, I'm
talking about 12-foot berms across roads--flew over the top of
one on his snowmobile, broke his back, and today is a semi-
invalid in southeastern Idaho. Was it his fault? Could have
been. Was it the Forest Service's fault? Probably was. Signage?
Nonexistent.
We've changed a little of that. But I'm also fascinated
when we do road closures and road obliteration and it appears
there is nearly more environmental damage done at the time of
closure than if you would simply go in and lightly grass them
over, in which you would sod-base them, and at that point some
off-road vehicles could continue to use them.
But the other side of it, of course, is working with off-
road vehicle organizations and groups to develop what the
average user in Idaho wants to do, and that's access in a
responsible way, and most want to do it. You're always going to
have some young renegades on dirt bikes that want to go to the
highest point anywhere they can find it, and that's a matter of
signage and discipline and education and law enforcement, and I
don't dispute that.
But access is critical to the economy of my State and to
the economies of the West and large public land States. Whether
you're hiking, backpacking, horsebacking, or whether you're
doing it on an off-road vehicle, it really is a matter of
organization. I have been extremely frustrated over the years
that there appears to be a growing attitude in our land
management agencies that the best way to handle a problem is
simply to keep people off, instead of to try to organize them,
to try to build trail systems, and to try to sustain trail
systems in a way that is a responsible take.
We're in the midst now in three of my major forests in
Idaho in looking at travel plans, and I have not seen more
communities more upset at the local forest supervisor because
he or she is proposing limiting access that has been there for
50 years or 60 years or 70 years or 100 years, access that has
been viewed not only as a traditional point of access, but
almost a right. I don't argue that with them, but strongly they
believe it, and I can understand why.
I don't own an off-road vehicle today. I have owned and
worn out a few of them in my lifetime, in my other life.
So we watch very closely what is done. But please, in the
process of protecting the environment, strike the balance that
says access for recreational purposes on these marvelous lands
is a part of what we do. There are lands that by designation
are more fragile than others and therefore gain a greater level
of protection and a greater level of responsibility. There are
others, and they are by far the vast majority in sheer acreage
numbers, in which organized recreational activities remains
critical to the wellbeing.
I once had a forest industry in my State. It's gone. Why?
We changed the policy in Washington. I once had a mining
industry in my State. It's gone. Why? Because we changed the
policy in this city.
I now have a thriving recreational industry in my State--
skiing, hiking, off-road vehicling. Don't destroy it by
regulation and policy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came in in
the middle of my colleague's comments, but you talk about so
many of the issues that resonate in my State back home--access,
just the limitation of those things that we thought we had a
privilege, had a right to, and through government policies all
of a sudden you wake up and things have changed and things have
changed in a manner that isn't very settling for many of our
constituents.
I apologize that I was not here for the testimony of the
panel. If these questions have been already asked and answered,
I apologize. But I want to make sure that I understand kind of
where we are on this discussion as it relates to off-highway
use on public lands by vehicles. It's been about 36 years,
exactly 36 years, since President Nixon issued the executive
order that required the Federal land managers to regulate the
use on public lands. I guess the question to you, Mr. Bisson,
and maybe to you, Mr. Holtrop, is whether or not you believe
that the authorities that you presently have are adequate to
balance the interests in public use, of public lands, with
resource protection.
Do we need legislation in this area or do we have what we
need in order for you to provide for sufficient regulation?
Henry?
Mr. Bisson. Senator, I believe we have what we need. I
believe the legislation that currently exists, the executive
orders that are in place, the policies that we have in place,
give us all the tools that we need. It's a matter of I think
identifying the appropriate transportation network that,
working with the people on the ground, that they need to access
those public lands, reaching agreement on it, and then having
the resources to enforce it.
So I believe we have all the tools that we need.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Holtrop.
Mr. Holtrop. I would say the same thing. We have the
authorities that we need to manage this. I also want to add
that I appreciate the concerns that Senator Craig and you,
Senator Murkowski, have raised about the implications of the
decisions we're making. Our goal with our travel management
rule was to have a system that allows us to sustain off-road
vehicle use on the public lands. That's what our goal is.
Senator Murkowski. You feel that it should be permitted and
encouraged on public lands?
Mr. Holtrop. Absolutely. But we believe it has to be
managed and a system of designated routes is a way to manage
that, which is--and it's not all that surprising to me that as
we go about making the actual decisions at the local level
there are disagreements as to what those decisions are, because
these are highly valued, highly contentious issues for the
local folks.
But the decisions ought to be made locally with public
involvement.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, because we have the
great debate that goes on between the motorized users of the
public lands versus the non-motorized. You've got the quiet
ones and you've got the ones that have the engines. We're going
to have a witness on the next panel that's going to suggest
that the non-motorized recreational users are concerned that
the current planning efforts don't provide enough opportunities
for those who want to recreate more quietly on the public
lands.
Do you think that this is a correct statement? Should the
recreational--should the motorized recreational users be
concerned that perhaps the tide is turning against them on this
issue and that they're going to lose their opportunities to
enjoy the public lands? Where do you see this going?
Mr. Bisson. That's a difficult question, because I
personally believe that we have had a huge sea change on the
public lands in terms of the numbers of people that are out
there using it for all the different uses. I think that it's a
challenge for us to maintain all of those uses at the same time
in the same place.
So there are some who would argue that we ought to have
places where certain uses happen and certain uses don't happen.
That's what wilderness is about. We have a lot of wilderness
study areas. We have designated wilderness, which are quiet
places where people can go. We are in fact significantly
reducing the numbers of routes that people can use on public
lands, working with local folks to develop a transportation
network.
I think we're trying to get there on both fronts. We're
trying to preserve the opportunity for people to use motorized
recreation and find those places where they can get quiet. It's
a challenge for us, but I think it's exactly where we're trying
to go. We're trying to balance those decisions.
Mr. Holtrop. I think that's an excellent answer. We have
between the two agencies, we have hundreds of millions of acres
of public lands that I think it's our responsibility to look
for those opportunities to provide opportunities for both the
off-road vehicle users and the quiet recreationists and do that
in a way that's sensitive to both their needs, and that's what
we are engaged in doing.
I do again believe that the most effective decisions are
made at the local level, with the affected public involvement
from all sides of the issue, and that's what both agencies are
engaged in trying to accomplish, just that.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is over.
The Chairman. Let me just ask one or two more questions. I
think you referred to what is happening on the public lands, as
a sea change in the extent of the use of public lands, both
with motorized or off-road vehicles, but other types of uses as
well. I think both of you said you have the authority you need
to deal with this, to properly manage this change.
But it's my strong belief that you don't have the
resources. I would say the BLM needs more resources in order to
get the mapping done a lot quicker than 10 years. But even once
the mapping's done, that's when the resource need even grows
dramatically. The more off-road or off- highway vehicle use
we're going to have on the public lands and permit on the
public lands, the more resources are going to be required to
properly monitor that and manage that and control that. Is that
a fair statement?
Mr. Holtrop. I would agree with that statement. I will tell
you, Senator, that we are looking very hard at BLM's law
enforcement program. The program has been managed using a tin
cup, where there was very little law enforcement money actually
allocated and the money came from recreation and other
programs. We're trying to now build a solid program with a base
of funding for it.
At the same time, we're doing what we call a capability
analysis, and we're going through and looking at where
violations are occurring, what kinds of violations those are,
how many officers we have, in which counties and which States,
and we're going to try to develop an assessment of what our
needs are, and then at some point request appropriate money to
meet those needs.
Mr. Holtrop. If I could----
The Chairman. Yes, go right ahead, please.
Mr. Holtrop. Because I also think your statement is a fair
statement. I would like to add a couple of elements to what
it's going to take to be successful in the long term once
routes are designated, once maps are produced. We do need to
have the resources for enforcement. Some of that's going to be
our own employees that do that law enforcement activity. Some
of it's going to be through cooperative agreements with local
authorities, sheriff's departments, etcetera.
But we also need to continue to rely on our partnerships
with the responsible OHV community that's going to educate
their own about what it means to have the right and the
privilege to operate motor vehicles on the National Forest
System and on the public lands. I think that's going to
continue to be even more important over the long run if we're
going to be successful.
Again, I think a system of designated routes improves our
ability to work with those communities effectively.
Mr. Bisson. Could I add something, Senator?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Bisson. A number of States which have been at the
forefront of addressing how we go about managing appropriate
use of OHVs have in fact enacted State laws which allow
licensing of vehicles or some sort of permit fee which the
State uses to supplement local law enforcement. Some States are
looking at that possibility as well. So I think some
combination of State and Federal effort to address the problem
is what--it can't all just be Federal money. I think that we've
got to work with the States as well in terms of finding sources
of revenue to address the problems.
The Chairman. So you think that State licensing and State
generation of revenue to help with this issue are good steps as
well?
Mr. Bisson. I think where that has occurred it's been very
helpful.
The Chairman. OK.
Yes, Dr. Belnap?
Ms. Belnap. I just want to add that I think education is
vitally critical here and probably more than the enforcement,
because I really do think people want to do good. A lot of
people just don't understand the impact of their actions. We've
done tremendous amounts in different areas, different districts
and field offices, in educating people and watching it really
work. So I would like to see resources too dedicated toward
that.
The Chairman. So the priorities are: get the mapping done,
designate the areas that off-road vehicle use is permitted so
that people know what those are, then educate people about that
so that we have as much of the problem solved through voluntary
efforts by the public as possible, and then beef up law
enforcement to deal with those few who are not going to
voluntarily cooperate? Is that the right set of priorities?
Mr. Holtrop. That's a very good summary, Senator.
Mr. Bisson. I would add, and continue to evaluate how
effective our work has been over time as well and adjust as
adjustments are called for.
The Chairman. OK. Let me see if any Senators have any
additional questions of this panel. We have another panel
coming. Senator Tester?
Senator Tester. I just have one. First of all, we've been
asking a lot about what you need for resources, and I think,
the resources you need for education. I agree with you, Dr.
Belnap, it's critically important, and we need to know what
kind of resources are needed in both of these agencies for
education, because I agree with you, I think people want to do
right. They just need to know what the impacts are, because
sometimes they don't understand them.
I guess my question revolves around what are the penalties
for those who don't use their off-road vehicles in an
appropriate way?
Mr. Bisson. I can't tell you what that penalty is. There
are bail schedules that our officers use working with local
judges that determine how much, and it varies by location, it
varies by jurisdiction.
Senator Tester. It's typically a fine, though?
Mr. Bisson. It's a fine of some sort.
Senator Tester. Is it ever losing the privilege to be in
the forest or on public lands, I should say?
Mr. Bisson. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Holtrop. Not that I'm aware of that would be associated
specifically with OHV use. It might be what they were using the
OHV to access the forest to do. There might be something that
would include the loss of those privileges, or the loss of the
vehicle.
Senator Tester. I understand.
OK, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden, you have not had any questions
for this panel. Do you have questions?
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. I did, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
your courtesy, and I apologize to the witnesses. A hectic
morning.
In my State, thousands of Oregonians responsibly use off-
road vehicles for work and recreation. But there has been an
astronomic increase in the popularity of the vehicles that has
caught a lot of public lands managers unprepared. For example,
ORV sales in our State has increased 400 percent between 1990
and 2004. We've got roughly 138,000 active operating permits
today, and currently travel management plans are pending for 11
national forests and 9 BLM districts, representing more than 19
million acres of our public lands in total.
Given the variety and vastness of the public lands, it
seems to me that there is room for both motorized and non-
motorized recreation if the agencies, particularly the two
agencies we have here, Mr. Holtrop and Mr. Bisson, can put in
place in a comprehensive and responsible way a plan that will
enhance opportunities for ORV users while keeping the public
lands safe and accessible for all recreation. This is very much
on my mind today because I'm introducing legislation that would
increase recreational opportunities in central Oregon by
establishing an Oregon Badlands Wilderness program involving
30,000 acres for wilderness recreation and solitude.
So my question to you, Mr. Holtrop and Mr. Bisson, is
essentially this. According to your agency, between 2005 and
2007 there were more than 5,000 ORV-related law enforcement
incidents in Oregon and Washington States alone. Now, the
National Parks have partnered with not-for-profit groups so as
to supplement Federal funding for park maintenance. Don't you
think that one possible way to responsibly manage these issues
I'm discussing and perhaps confront the shortage of agency
resources is to build more public-private partnerships, the
kind that we have in Oregon with the hunting community, the ORV
volunteers, the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council?
Those kinds of partnerships it seems to me, with a boost by
your two agencies, could help us get a lot done in terms of
trail maintenance or a variety of things like that. I'd like to
hear your thoughts on doing more in that area.
Mr. Holtrop. I absolutely think that that's an element of
success in the long run as to how we're going to manage these.
There are examples in your State and in Washington State and
throughout the country where we are doing just that. I think we
need to build on those successes as we look into the future in
order to have the opportunity to be as effective as we need to
be in enforcement and in the educational arena.
The Chairman. Can you be more specific in terms of telling
me what your agency would like to do?
Mr. Holtrop. One of the examples that I had in my testimony
is an example on the San Bernadino National Forest, where we
have a partnership with OHV user groups and industry and the
State of California and a private association, nonprofit
association associated with the San Bernadino National Forest.
Around 300 volunteers spend a total of 25,000 hours a year
doing all the same things that you were talking about--
education of other off-highway vehicle users, trail
maintenance, patrolling to talk to people about the importance
of managing their vehicles responsibly.
Senator Wyden. Why don't we do it this way, and I
appreciate that. You send me a written response to that
question outlining the future prospects for increasing the
number of public-private partnerships.
Mr. Holtrop. Be happy to do so.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Bisson. Senator, we agree also that seeing more public-
private partnerships in terms of education and building trails,
maintaining trails, is exactly where we need to be going. We
have a program called Challenge Cost Share. It's tied to our
recreation program and we're already doing projects which are
jointly funded between Federal dollars and State and other
partner dollars to build trails and maintain them. So I don't
have specific examples in Oregon, but I'd be happy to follow up
with something in writing to you.
Senator Wyden. We'll keep the record open for that. I
understand that it's not possible to list all of the public-
private partnerships that would be under consideration today.
But I'd like to see us aggressively expand this, and we'll keep
the record open.
I think I have time for one additional question. The other
concern we've heard in Oregon, particularly from the ORV
community, is that the laws and rules vary as they apply to the
use of private, county, State, and federally owned lands, and
so you've got trail riders and others just baffled by what laws
control.
What can your two agencies do to better coordinate and
standardize these rules? I know my time is up and the
chairman's been very gracious. Just an answer from you, Mr.
Holtrop and Mr. Bisson: What can we do to kind of get through
this bureaucratic lingo that's got people so confused?
Mr. Holtrop. I think a couple of things. One is we can at
least within our own agency reduce the irregularities of what
the rules are from one forest to another forest, from one
ranger district to another. That's one of the things our rules
apply.
Then once that has been done, I think that also sets the
stage for us to be able to continue to work more effectively
with other entities that also provide those off-highway vehicle
opportunities, and we then, we should do that and are dedicated
to doing just that.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Bisson. Senator, in Oregon we are about to begin a
process to do travel planning for all of the east side
districts at the same time. What we hope is to avoid that very
problem, so that by working with local individuals, working
with the groups that operate statewide we can come up with one
system of signage and rules and regulations that apply to
everybody.
We're doing the same thing in the western Oregon plans as
well.
Senator Wyden. It sounds like it could be a good model.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Craig, did you have additional questions for this
panel?
Senator Craig. A couple of additional ones.
First of all, I think the response and dialog of the last
few moments has been obviously very, very constructive, and I
agree with you, doctor: Education is key to a lot of this. Most
who enter our public lands want to treat them well. Oftentimes
they don't understand the impact of what they do, especially in
high desert environments that are oftentimes a good deal more
fragile because of lack of moisture, those types of things.
Let me talk a minute about law enforcement, because I think
one of the things that is important in local areas, where it
isn't a recreationalist coming in from out of State, but it's a
local community recreating on their public lands, is the
important area of law enforcement. First of all, respecting the
law enforcement process is important. I respect a law
enforcement process that is answerable to someone. That's where
cooperative law enforcement agreements with local sheriffs and
deputizing or deputizing in the local area is oftentimes in my
opinion more effective than the feds coming in.
They don't see the Forest Service personnel or BLM
personnel as law enforcement people. They see them as
conservationists. They see them as land managers. They see them
as resource contacts for informational purposes. There is
oftentimes substantial resentment when the feds roll in with
lights flashing. That's not a role that has been well played
out in the West in many locations.
What has worked well is when you have those cooperative law
enforcement agreements with an accountable elected local law
enforcement entity and then the educational process, where
oftentimes it is extended with and through law enforcement,
becomes increasingly more valuable and, if you will, more
attended to or attentive of the local community.
Simply a suggestion, and about 28 years of experience on
that issue as I have watched the feds gun up, if you will, and
I have watched local communities resent it, and I've watched a
decline in cooperative law enforcement agreements, because we
want our law enforcement community to be not only there
present, instructional, effective, but we also want them to be
accountable. When the Forest Service law enforcement person in
Idaho is accountable to somebody in Ogden, Utah, and not in the
community adjacent to where the situation happened, there is a
lack and it's understood and frustrating, and our locals are
very frustrated by it.
Joel, how much did you spend, how much did the Forest
Service spend, developing the Forest Service travel management
rules and plans? Did you push the total button?
Mr. Holtrop. We haven't pushed the total button because we
aren't completed yet. We're in the process. Our estimation is
that for every national forest unit it's going to take anywhere
from say $750,00 to $1.5 million to complete the travel
management rule on each national forest.
Now, that's the additional work that needs to be done to
accomplish what we've asked for in the rule. That needs to be
understood in context of we have an ongoing travel management
process that we do on a regular basis and have been doing, and
so that's the additional expense of going through the NEPA
process, the public involvement process, the preparation of the
map.
Senator Craig. Is that why you don't have adequate money to
implement? You spent more money planning than you have? Or if
it is such a priority, then why don't you budget for it?
Mr. Holtrop. I think what we have done with the travel
management rule is to recognize that as we have the increased
use that's going on and the increased pressures that's coming
from that, that we need to come up with an approach that allows
us to be as cost effective and efficient with the funds that we
do get, an approach that allows us to work more effectively
with our partner agencies and partner entities, such as the
sheriff's departments, and an approach that gives us the
opportunity to work effectively with our OHV community through
educational opportunities. That's the approach that we've
taken.
We think that the amount of time, effort, energy, money
that we're putting into this process is going to pay big
dividends for us in the long run.
Senator Craig. May I suggest the BLM observe what the
Forest Service has done. Maybe you can learn to save money if
you're just beginning that process.
Mr. Bisson. We've actually been engaged in it for a while,
Senator. But we're not doing it by rule. We're doing it by
policy.
Senator Craig. Yes, there is a difference there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, do you have additional
questions?
Senator Murkowski. No, I'm fine; thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much and we'll go ahead
withthe second panel. Our second panel is made up of: Ed
Moreland, who is the Vice President for Government Relations
with the American Motorcyclist Association here in Washington;
Greg Mumm, who's the Executive Director of the BlueRibbon
Coalition in Rapid City, South Dakota; Nada Culver--is ``NAE-
duh'' the right pronunciation?
Ms. Culver. Yes.
The Chairman. OK. Nada Culver, who is Senior Counsel with
the Wilderness Society in Denver; Mr. Brad Powell, who's the
Arizona Public Lands Coordinator with Trout Unlimited in
Payson, Arizona; and Frank Adams, who is the Executive Director
of the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association, from Mesquite,
Nevada.
Thank you all for being here. Why don't each of you take 5
minutes and summarize the main points that you'd like us to
understand from your testimony, and we will include your full
testimony in the hearing record. We very much appreciate your
being here.
Ed, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD MORELAND, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moreland. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee: My name is Ed Moreland. I have the pleasure of
serving as Vice President of Government Relations for the
American Motorcyclist Association. AMA is an organization
representing nearly 300,000 dues-paying enthusiast
motorcyclists and ATVists. The AMA appreciates the opportunity
to provide testimony today regarding off- road vehicle
management on public lands.
Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth correctly
observed that the threat to the health of our public lands was
not from recreation, as many have asserted, but from unmanaged
recreation. Recreation, like any other resource, must be
actively managed. Active management of our public lands
includes those designated appropriate for motorized--including
those designated appropriate for motorized recreation, must
include collaboration from the users of that area, honor the
mission of multiple use, and provide proper staffing, adequate
enforcement, and a set of deliverables that includes a
recreation environment with facilities to meet the unique
demands of OHV recreation. All these requirements are tied
directly to the issue of funding.
OHV recreation is pursued by millions of people each year
and has steadily been on the rise as a family activity for the
better part of the past 2 decades. As noted in many of the
statements today, the national survey on recreation and
environment reports that nearly 20 percent of the United States
population will participate in an off-highway vehicle
experience this year.
Unfortunately, while interest and participation in off-
highway recreation has rapidly increased in recent years, the
funding, management, and recreation opportunities themselves
have just as rapidly decreased. This has led to more
concentrated impacts on the remaining lands available to OHVs.
It has increased the burden on land management staff and has
contributed to user conflicts.
We recognize that this type of growth represents many
unique challenges for our public land managers. Additionally,
as primary stakeholders, the recreation community enjoys an
impressive track record of collaborating with other users as
well as land managers to create workable solutions. Indeed, the
motorized recreation community has authored some of the most
often used recreation resources. I've brought three of them
with me today. One is the ``Off-Highway Motorcycle and ATV
Trails Guidelines for Design, Construction, Maintenance, and
User Satisfaction,'' commonly referred to as ``the Wernex
Report.'' This allows land managers to have a guideline for
construction and maintenance of trail systems.
Another is ``Park Guidelines for OHVs,'' shared with us
today from the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council.
A third document is ``Management Guidelines for OHV
Recreation,'' This is the bible for managing off-highway
vehicle recreation areas once they're established.
Additionally, AMA has supported a recent series of
workshops sponsored by NOHVC to help people understand the
travel management rule itself, what it means to them, the
possible and potential impacts going forward. They plan to host
a series of follow-up meetings to help people implement the
plan and what it means for them downstream.
We've also supported in the past a recreation fee program
in an effort to create more local revenue for agencies to
properly manage OHV recreation.
Additionally, we've been a long-time supporter of the
recreational trails program. RTP, as most of you know, funded
exclusively by motorized recreation, also paves the way for
hikers, bikers, equestrians, and all other users of our public
lands through a program that allocates funds based on a formula
of 30 percent motorized, 30 percent non- motorized, and the
remaining balance of 40 percent from mixed use.
The off-highway community also continues to actively
support legislation that will impose stiffer fines and
penalties for those who knowingly damage our public lands.
H.R. 1484, sponsored in the House by Representatives
Tancredo and Udall, is a bipartisan bill that also establishes
a consistent law enforcement authority for all Federal land
agencies, including BLM, the Forest Service, and the Park
Service.
In recognition of the need for increased active management
of many of our national forests, the AMA and other motorized
recreation groups supported the new travel management rule,
with a number of caveats, not the least of which was our
opposition to unfunded mandates for the agencies and the
artificial deadlines that would sacrifice accuracy for
expediency. That seems to be a popular theme today, that
without the revenue and artificial deadlines they're unable to
accomplish the goals and guidelines that are both satisfactory
to the user groups as well as the agencies themselves.
It's ironic now, 2 years later, that those very issues
threaten to undermine the genuine efforts by the Forest Service
to fully inventory their trail systems. Nowhere is this more
clearly demonstrated than in the State of Colorado. There, off-
highway enthusiasts from the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle
Coalition, COHVCo, have formed trail inventory gap resolution
teams to systematically collect additional route information
using state-of-the-art GPS systems to share with the Forest
Service in the White River, Gunnison, Pike, San Juan National
Forests and others. Unfortunately, the personnel on those
forests have cited timing as their No. 1 reason for not being
able to accept some of that data. They don't have the time to
process or evaluate the data.
Our concern is if those trails don't go in the early maps,
they're not going to ever make the maps and we can lose
hundreds of miles of trails in that State alone to a travel
management plan that doesn't allow adequate acceptance of a
user-based collaborative approach and collection of trail
systems.
I share this information with you today as a cautionary
tale for what we're seeing on many of our forests around the
country. An inventory system that fails to provide adequate
time and funding is destined to file. We urge the committee to
be cautious as you consider similar planning for other land
management agencies and, while it remains incumbent on the
agencies to provide a managed setting for recreation, the users
to engage in the debate and help provide resources, education,
and expertise, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure
that the agencies have sufficient resources to accomplish their
mission.
Active management cannot simply be defined as reducing the
costs of management. We've seen what simply cutting the budget
can do. Now we've seen what wholesale elimination of trail
systems can do. In both cases, everybody loses. What we have
yet to see is the adoption of full-scale active management, a
truly collaborative approach and the budgets and people to
accomplish a truly multiple use mission.
The motorized recreation community has a long history of
volunteerism and stands ready to help public managers, as we
have in many of the areas that we've talked about today. San
Bernadino is a perfect example of the system working correctly.
Colorado, on the other hand, is an area where it is working as
poorly as it can.
The AMA is confident with the continued commitment of the
recreation community, a renewed commitment from the agencies to
actively manage, and adequate funding from Congress, the
challenges facing our public lands can be overcome.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to
working with members of the committee and I am pleased to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moreland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Moreland, Vice President for Government
Relations, American Motorcyclist Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward
Moreland. I have the pleasure of serving as the Vice President of
Government Relations for the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA).
AMA is an organization representing nearly 300,000 dues paying
enthusiasts.
Established in 1924, the AMA was formed to pursue, promote and
protect the rights of both on-highway and off-highway motorcyclists
while addressing the specific needs of its members. The AMA appreciates
this opportunity to provide testimony regarding off-highway vehicle
management on public lands.
Former US Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth correctly observed
that the threat to the health of our public lands was not from
recreation as many have asserted, but from ``unmanaged recreation''.
Recreation, like any other resource, must be actively managed.
Active management of all public lands, including those designated
appropriate for motorized recreation, must include collaboration with
the users of that area, honor the mission of multiple use, and provide
proper staffing, adequate enforcement, and a set of deliverables that
includes a recreation environment with facilities to meet the unique
demands of OHV recreation. All of these requirements are tied directly
to the issue of funding.
OHV recreation is pursued by millions of people each year and has
steadily been on the rise as a family activity for the better part of
the past two decades. The National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment (NSRE) reports that nearly 20% of the US population will
participate in an off highway vehicle experience this year.
Unfortunately, while interest and participation in off-highway
recreation has rapidly increased in recent years, the funding,
management and recreation opportunities have just as rapidly decreased.
This has led to more concentrated impacts on those areas where OHV
recreation is still allowed, an increased burden on land management
staff and has contributed to user conflicts.
We recognize that this type of growth presents many unique
challenges for public land managers. Additionally, as a primary
stakeholder, the recreation community enjoys an impressive track record
of collaborating with other users as well as land mangers to create
workable solutions.
Indeed, the motorized recreation community has long been a leader
in developing some of the most widely accepted sustainable guideline
tools available to land managers. Three documents in particular have
become the standard for proper trail planning, construction,
maintenance and ongoing management. In addition to their wide use by
public land agencies they are quite literally the textbooks that are
used to teach these specific skills at Marshall University where OHV
recreation management is a degreed program.
The Wernex Report, by Mr. Joe Wernex, in conjunction with the
American Motorcyclist Association, outlines the proper design,
construction and maintenance of sustainable Off Highway Vehicle (OHV)
trails. Contributions from national trails experts describe the methods
and implementations of developing trail systems that minimize habitat
encroachment and maximize user satisfaction. The goal of the Wernex
Report is to provide the necessary information to help managers and
enthusiasts develop responsible trail riding opportunities and to
maintain and protect those that currently exist.
Park Guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicles, by Mr. George E. Fogg, is
a publication offered by the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council (NOHVCC) that serves as a manual to the step-by-step process of
creating a new OHV park. Recently in its second printing, the manual
provides information, answers common questions, and offers suggestions
on creating a successful OHV park that will employ the resources
available through private interests and government organizations. Park
Guidelines for OHV is so comprehensive that it is required reading for
Marshall University students in their OHV recreation management
program.
Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation, by Mr. Tom Crimmins, in
association with NOHVCC, is a crucial tool for land managers and OHV
club leaders to guide them through proper management of sustainable
trail systems. The publication helps codify the future of a successful
trail system by discussing user needs, the four elements of OHV
management (Education, Engineering, Enforcement, and Evaluation), the
vision for the trail system and how to maintain active trail
management.
Additionally the AMA supported a recent series of workshops held
around the country led by the National Off Highway Vehicle Conservation
Coalition (NOHVCC), Americans for Responsible Recreational Access
(ARRA) and the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA). NOHVCC
conducted over 20 of these workshops to educate the public about the
Travel Management Rule in an effort to prepare the public for the
process as well as the anticipated outcomes.
The OHV community continues to support the Recreational Trails
Program (RTP). RTP provides critical funding for all trail enthusiasts
through the collection of a small portion of fuel tax revenues
generated by the purchase of fuel for use in vehicles that are not
operated on the road. These funds go directly to support trail
construction and maintenance. Again, while this program is funded
exclusively by motorized recreation, all users including hikers,
bikers, and equestrians benefit through this program that allocates
funds based on a formula of 30% motorized, 30% non-motorized and 40%
mixed use.
We also supported the Recreation Fee Program in an effort to create
more local revenue for the agencies to properly manage OHV recreation
facilities.
The OHV community has worked diligently has sacrificed considerably
to assist the agencies' requirements for additional revenue. Sadly,
while many have made good faith efforts to discover new opportunities
to augment existing program dollars, the base budgets continue to erode
yearly. The money that was intended to augment federal budget dollars,
has simply supplanted it.
The off-highway community also continues to actively support
legislation that will impose stiffer fines and penalties for those who
knowingly damage our public lands. H.R. 1484, sponsored by
Representatives Tancredo and Udall of Colorado is a bipartisan bill
that also establishes consistent law enforcement authority for all
federal land agencies including BLM, the Forest Service and the Park
Service.
And, in recognition of the need for increased active management on
many of our national forests, the AMA and other motorized recreation
groups supported the Forest Service's new Travel Management Rule. We
did so however with a number of caveats, not the least of which was our
opposition to unfunded mandates and artificial deadlines that would
sacrifice accuracy for expediency. Now those very issues threaten to
undermine any genuine efforts by the Forest Service to fully inventory
their trail systems.
Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the state of
Colorado. There off highway enthusiasts from the Colorado Off-Highway
Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) have formed Trail Inventory Gap Resolution
(TIGeR) teams to systematically collect route information using state
of the art Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) information to share with
the Forest Service in the White River, Gunnison, Pike and San Juan
National Forests. Unfortunately, the personnel in those forests have
refused to accept much of the information provided by COHVCO and the
Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA) citing the agency's inability to
stay on schedule.
This is an example of hard deadlines and unfunded mandates
preventing a truly comprehensive list of trails for consideration in
the final plans for those forests. While the Forest Service asserts
that this is simply the start of the process and that all of the trail
information could still be considered prior to the final rule, many
remain concerned that if these trails are not documented now, they may
be lost forever to a process that refused to even review user provided
input.
I share this information with you today as a cautionary tale for
what we are seeing in many Forests around the county. An inventory
system that fails to provide adequate time and funding to do the job
right is destined to fail. We urge the Committee to be cautious as you
consider similar planning for other land management agencies.
While it remains incumbent upon the agencies to provide a managed
setting for recreation, the users to engage in the debate and help
provide resources, education and expertise, it is the responsibility of
Congress to ensure that the agencies have sufficient resources to
accomplish their mission.
Active management can not simply be defined as reducing the costs
of management. We've seen what simply cutting the budget can do. We've
now seen what whole sale elimination of trail systems can do. In both
cases everybody loses. What we have yet to see is the adoption of full
scale active management, a truly collaborative approach and the budgets
and people to accomplish a truly multiple use mission.
The motorized recreation community has a long history of
volunteerism and stands ready to help public land managers by
maintaining trails, promoting ethical use and advocating for
appropriate funding levels.
The AMA is confident that with the continued commitment of the
recreation community, a renewed commitment from the agencies to active
management and adequate funding from Congress the challenges facing our
public lands can be overcome.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mumm.
STATEMENT OF GREG MUMM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLUERIBBON
COALITION, RAPID CITY, SD
Mr. Mumm. Good morning. My name is Greg Mumm. I'm the
Executive Director of the BlueRibbon Coalition and I'd like to
thank you for this opportunity to be here today and to provide
testimony. The BlueRibbon Coalition serves as a leading
national advocate for responsible OHV recreation and
management. We have 10,000 individual, business, and
organizational members collectively representing approximately
600,000 enthusiasts nationwide. We are grassroots, we are user-
supported, and we promote a strong trail ethic.
BlueRibbon Coalition recognizes the marked growth in the
popularity of OHV recreation over the last several decades.
Most recent information shows that there's 43 million Americans
who enjoy this type of recreation. Additionally, motorized off-
highway vehicles are also used to reach those remote areas when
taking part in other forms of recreation on our public lands,
such as hunting, fishing, dispersed camping, mountain biking,
and even hiking. The point is that virtually everyone is
motorized at some point in their visits to our public lands.
It's simply a question of where they depart from their vehicle.
The economic benefits of OHV use are substantial. A recent
California study demonstrated $9 billion for that State's
economy. A similar study in Arizona, $3 billion. Colorado, $500
million. The list goes on. You have Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Maine, and many others.
Through State registration programs, the OHV community
uniquely contributes substantial funds to implement OHV
management programs and we volunteer literally hundreds of
thousands of man-hours a year to accomplish those volunteer
work projects.
We understand the popularity of OHV recreation presents
challenges to land managers and we point to active management
for OHV recreation as the key to solving those challenges.
Simply put, if you tell those 43 million Americans who enjoy
off-road vehicle recreation what they can do instead of what
they can't, if you provide them with a quality opportunity and
give them ownership through cooperative involvement and
management, you can produce sustainable, successful, compliant
trail systems.
From the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West Virginia to
the Payute Trail System in Utah to the San Bernadino National
Forest in California, all across this country there are shining
examples of how well active management can and does work.
The current regulation and policies that identify OHV
recreation as a legitimate use of public lands and national
forests are important benchmarks that have been a long time in
coming. Requiring that motorized vehicles be limited to
designated roads, trails and areas has been a significant step
toward making managed recreation a top priority of both
agencies.
The BlueRibbon Coalition is supportive. The OHV community
is currently participating in travel management planning across
this Nation. We do so knowing that such a policy means
inevitably some areas will no longer be available for OHV use
because it is our hope that the agencies will formulate
management plans that provide for recreational opportunity
while minimizing environmental impact and user conflict.
Still, we have some concerns. Just as the agencies are
finally putting years of awareness and study into action
through their directives, it appears that there's an underlying
drive from certain anti-access groups to eliminate OHV
recreation on most public lands, and you cannot continue to try
and stuff increasing numbers of people into smaller and smaller
amounts of real estate without further complicating the issues.
We're only halfway. Folks, we're only halfway into
implementing these active management solutions that are proven
to work. We need the time and we need the cooperation to finish
the job.
We are also justifably concerned with the agencies'
commitments to implement their own policies. Good management
will not flow strictly from the whisk of a pen in Washington,
DC, alone. Successful policy implementation must be accompanied
by adequate budget and staffing and, above all, it must be
accompanied by management's priority to achieve critical on-
the-ground goals like fostering compliant systems, adequate law
enforcement, collaboration with recreationists and local
communities, and obviously long-term sustainability.
So the BlueRibbon Coalition urges this committee to support
agency efforts to actively manage for OHV recreation, and we
also urge you to support fiscal appropriations and other
funding mechanisms to help the Federal agencies meet their
recreation management objectives.
Again, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to be
here this morning and I'm also happy to answer any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mumm follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Mumm, Executive Director, Blueribbon
Coalition, Rapid City, SD
Thank you for the invitation to present personal testimony and for
the opportunity to submit written comments regarding off-highway
vehicle management on public lands.
The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a national recreational access
advocacy organization with over 10,000 individual, business and
organizational members representing approximately 600,000 individuals
nationwide. BlueRibbon Coalition members use motorized and non-
motorized means, including Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), snowmobiles,
equestrian, mountain bikes, and hiking to access and enjoy recreating
upon state and federally-managed lands throughout the United States,
including those of the National Forest System and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
BlueRibbon Coalition serves as a leading advocate for responsible
management of recreation on public lands. This role has included
partnering with academia, conservations groups, and the agencies in
scientific research and supporting educational projects to address
excessively loud OHV exhaust noise, wildlife research, and other
issues. We promote a strong trail ethic and work with groups such as
Treadlightly! and the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council
(NOHVCC). BlueRibbon is a grassroots, user-supported nonprofit
organization and has achieved a surprising prominence in the public
land management arena.
BRC recognizes that over the past several decades there has been a
marked growth in the popularity of motorized wheeled-vehicle based
recreational pursuits with many contributing factors to that increase
in popularity.
According to the most recent information in an ongoing OHV
recreation study by the Southern Research Station of the Forest
Service, there are 43 million Americans who enjoy off-highway vehicle
recreation. Based on the most recent data from the study, 19.2 percent
of the population 16 years of age and older participated in OHV
recreation in the past year. Restated, that is nearly one in five
Americans. Notably, the study also demonstrates that enthusiasts enjoy
this type of recreational activity on the average of 27.9 days a year;
or approximately 2 to 3 days per month.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its
Regions and States: An Update National Report from Nation Survey on
Recreation and the environment (NSRE) February, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, motorized off-highway vehicles are also used to reach
remote areas when taking part in other forms of recreational activity
such as hunting, fishing, mountain-biking, and hiking. These
enthusiasts benefit from using the very same roads, trails, and areas
as those who enjoy OHV recreation by itself. This ``shared use''
activity takes place regularly. Virtually every public land user is
motorized at some point in their visits to federal lands and it is
simply a question of where they depart from their vehicle.
The economic benefits of OHV use deserve equal consideration. A
compilation of several documented state studies indicates the economic
benefits are substantial and a source of meaningful support to both
rural and urban counties. For example, in 2007 the California State
Parks' Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division published a report
describing the economic impact of OHV recreation in California as ``an
important element to the state's economy'' which contributes an
estimated $9 billion annually.\2\ A similar report in Arizona estimated
that OHV use generated nearly $3 billion in retail sales during
2002.\3\ A 2001 Colorado study estimated OHV use yielded a $500 million
in revenue within the state.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ California State Parks Quick Facts 1/23/2007 California State
Parks' Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division
\3\ The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Study
Prepared by Jonathan Silberman, PhD School of Management Arizona State
University West
\4\ Hazen, S. (2001) Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle
Use in Colorado, Colorado Off-Highway Coalition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Iowa, a state one wouldn't normally think of in terms of OHV
use, the estimated value of OHVs and related assets exceeds $266
million. In 2007, the expenditures on new assets were over $41.2
million and Iowa OHV users spent an estimated $86.4 million per year on
OHV equipment and activities; $80.1 million is spent in Iowa, $6.3
million is spent on trips out of state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 The Economic Impact of Off-Highway Vehicles in Iowa Prepared
for the Iowa Off-Highway Vehicle Association, Strategic Economics
Group, Des Moines, Iowa, Daniel Otto and Harvey Siegelman, January,
2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An economic impact study in Minnesota focused only on All Terrain
Vehicles (ATV) in 2006. The study found that resident direct
expenditures for the average enthusiast household were $172 per riding
experience. This spending is equivalent to $43 per person per day. The
combination of these dollars with the number of riding experiences and
other household factors results in $641.9 million in consumer
expenditures related strictly to ATV riding. Indeed, the Minnesota
study indicates the total average impact of ATV related activity
translates into an average of 14,449 jobs generating $429 million in
salaries and a total gross state product, or value-added from the ATV
recreation industry, of $920 million dollars and $86 million in local
and state tax revenues.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 6 All-terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic impact and
consumer profile, Prepared by Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D., Tony
Schoenecker, Graduate Research Assistant, With the analytical
assistance of: Analysis & Evaluation at the Department of Employment &
Economic Development, March 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the OHV community uniquely contributes substantial funds
to implement OHV management and volunteers hundreds of thousands of man
hours in volunteer work projects. Much of these funds are made
available to federal, state, and local land managers via state OHV
programs. These programs exist today because years ago, motorized
recreationists voluntarily ``taxed themselves'' via state OHV
registration programs. Some of these funds are used to supplement OHV
law enforcement, conservation, restoration, and safety programs.
BRC understands this marked growth in OHV activity presents
significant challenges for land managers across this nation. BRC fully
encourages and supports reasonable and responsible management
prescriptions for this type of recreational activity. The OHV community
also generally supports the various route designation processes, as
well as, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the OHV infrastructure.
The amount of state and locally provided opportunities for OHV
recreation may range from none to ample, depending on the region of the
country. In western states especially, federal agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service (USFS)
provide the majority of opportunities for OHV use. Demand for such use
is growing rapidly in those areas faced with limited opportunities.
There are solutions to these challenges through appropriate
planning, maintenance, and monitoring. Active management for OHV
recreation activities is the key and there are many working examples.
The Paiute Trail System in Utah is one such example. Established in
1990, this system consists of 871 miles of trails that interconnect
with the Great Western Trail System, the Fremont Trail System and
various other trails and networks for a total of over 1500 miles of
successful application of active management for OHV recreation. With
nearly 80,000 riders on the system in 2006 alone, the impact to the
local economy was $8.5 million. Small communities that were once dying
economically are realizing growth and prosperity. As just one example,
the little town of Marysvale in Paiute County, Utah, had once dwindled
to only 7 businesses with more on the way out. Today, this rural
community is thriving with over 27 businesses, most of which are
directly or indirectly related to the Paiute Trail. According to a
report by Max Reid of the Fishlake National Forest, ``One campground
along the Paiute Trail in Marysvale is an 80 unit campground
established by Ron Bushman as a small side business. Today if you want
to reserve a campsite space in Ron's campground during the summer, you
will have to hope for a cancellation because he is booked solid with
over 90% of that booking from trail riders.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ PAIUTE ATV TRAIL ECONOMIC OUTCOMES, prepared by: Max Reid,
Public Service Staff, Fishlake National Forest (Updated Feb. 2007 to
reflect the 2006 trail use figures)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another working example of active management for OHV is the
Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West Virginia. This system was first
established in 1996 in what was considered an economically challenged
area. Since the first trails were opened in 2000, it has proven to be a
mutually beneficial public-private partnership. Today it is comprised
of 5 trail systems, spanning 4 counties, and provides over 500 miles of
trails, with plans to eventually exceed 2000 miles of trail. Since
opening, the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System has received a great deal of
national recognition for its standard of excellence and has been a
major factor in improving the economic conditions of the area. The 2006
Economic Impact Study of the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West
Virginia cites that, ``For the state of West Virginia the total
economic impact of the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System was an increase in
output of $7,776,116, an increase in income of $2,789,036 and the
generation of 146 new jobs.'' The tax return of $622,752 alone
represents a 125% return on the state government's annual investment of
$500,000 to the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System. The report further cites
that, ``When the returns to the state for additional output and income
are considered the pay-off to public investment is 1,037 and 373.1
percent respectively.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Economic Impact of the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West
Virginia, October 31, 2006, Prepared for: The Hatfield-McCoy Regional
Recreation Authority, Prepared by: Center for Business and Economic
Research, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hatfield-McCoy Trail System and the Paiute Trail System have
proven their socioeconomic value and they have also demonstrated
environmental sustainability throughout their respective 12 and 18 year
histories. They are shining examples of how well active management
works. Similar examples of successful active management for OHV
recreation are demonstrated in the San Bernardino National Forest in
California, the East Fort Rock Trail System in Oregon, the Land Between
the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky, and many other trail
systems in Idaho, Montana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, and
other states.
Properly managed motorized recreation presents both a service to
citizens and a source of revenue. Such revenue is vital to rural
counties who welcome recreation in lieu of other activities that no
longer provide predictable or meaningful revenue, particularly for
counties with significant federal public lands. A managed system of
roads, trails and areas designated for motor vehicle use will better
protect natural and cultural resources, address use conflicts, and
secure sustainable opportunities for public enjoyment of public lands
and National Forests. Properly-managed OHV systems provide an
appropriate volume and diversity of road and trail opportunities for
experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent
with the policy of land management agencies.
BlueRibbon Coalition urges that the agencies' allocation of budget,
staff, and management effort reflect the growth of outdoor recreation.
BRC believes the time has come to make managed recreation the BLM and
Forest Service's top priority as they comply with their multiple-use
mandate.
In the early 1980s, the Forest Service and BLM recognized that the
increase in popularity of OHV use required updated management. In 1986,
the Forest Service conducted a service-wide review and outlined
strategies that would update management plans to address the increase
in OHV use.\9\ For whatever reason, the agency largely failed to
complete their action plan. Ten years later, in 1996, a second agency-
wide review was performed.\10\ Similar issues were identified and a
similar action plan was outlined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY REVIEW OCT. 15-
18 AND NOV. 2-7, 1986, Recommended by: Thomas P. Lennon, Team Leader,
Aug. 10, 1987, Robert Spivey Act. Director, Recreation, Aug. 13, 1987,
Recommended by Sterling J. Wilcox, Aug. 13, 1987, Director,
Engineering, Approved by Larry Henson, Oct. 16, 1987, for J. LAMAR
BEASLEY, Deputy Chief, NFS
\10\ FINAL REPORT, NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) ACTIVITY
REVIEW, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two Forest Service OHV reviews are instructive. The reports
acknowledged that many successful and environmentally sustainable OHV
trail systems existed across the agency, and that ``unmanaged'' OHV use
was becoming a concern. But the agency had difficulty implementing its
own recommendations. Prior to the promulgation of the Travel Management
Rule in 2005, roughly one half of Forest Service units still had not
updated their management plans. Indeed, the agency then estimated it
had approximately 64 million acres of lands without any restrictions on
motor vehicle use.
Even when considering the glacial nature of federal agency planning
and implementation, it is worthwhile to ask why the agency failed to
act upon its own recommendations. The reality is that environmental
laws and agency regulations have become one-way gates that largely
constrain active management of the forests. They often provide fodder
for preservationist agendas designed to stop such active management
through embroiling the agency in a war of procedural attrition.
By the late 1990s, the pace of litigation and pressure from both
preservationist groups and the motorized community reached a critical
stage. An anti-OHV lawsuit making its way to the Supreme Court
apparently spurred both agencies into taking concrete action. The BLM
updated its Land Use Planning directives to require all recreational
trail use--including OHV use--to be limited to designated roads, trails
and areas. In 2005, the Forest Service revised its travel management
regulations, finally implementing some of the recommendations made
twenty years earlier.
The development of regulations and policies that identify OHV
recreation as a legitimate use of public lands and National Forests are
important benchmarks. Requiring that motorized vehicles to be limited
to designated roads, trails and ``off-road areas'' has been a
significant step toward making managed recreation a top priority of
both BLM and USFS. These are active management solutions that work
socially and economically (as previously demonstrated), while
simultaneously minimizing impacts to natural resources and enhancing
the quality of other recreational pursuits.
For these reasons, the BlueRibbon Coalition, and the wider
organized OHV community, generally support the ``travel limited to
designated roads, trails, and areas'' paradigm as outlined in the
Forest Service travel management regulations and BLM's planning
directives.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USFS: 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Similar to the
Forest Service, the BLM now restricts all OHV use to roads, trails and
areas via their Land Use Planning directives: Land Use Planning
Handbook H-1601-1 appendix C. Specific route designation criteria are
specified in 43 CFR Part 8342.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OHV community is currently participating in travel management
planning and implementation efforts across the country. We do so
knowing that such a policy means that some areas will no longer be
available for OHV use. We have already taxed ourselves to provide
supplemental funds for management, and we are willing to accept
reasonable restrictions. As we actively participate in this planning,
it is our hope that the agencies will formulate management plans that
provide recreational opportunity while minimizing environmental impacts
and user conflict.
However, the BlueRibbon Coalition is very concerned that as
agencies are finally putting years of awareness and study into action
through these directives, it appears there is an underlying drive from
certain anti-access groups to eliminate OHV recreation on most public
lands. We are only half-way into implementing these solutions. We need
the time and cooperation to finish the job. As managing agencies and
enthusiasts work together to find solutions on the ground, we ask said
groups for their support. We believe our collective energies would be
better spent providing information to the agencies and working toward
real management solutions that can allow more Americans to visit our
public lands while preserving the natural beauty that makes these lands
special.
The OHV community is also justifiably concerned about the agencies'
commitment to effective implementation of the ``restricted or limited
to designated roads, trails, and areas'' policy. The policy is
supposedly motivated by a need to address ``unmanaged recreation,'' but
good management will not flow from the whisk of a pen in Washington,
D.C. Successful policy implementation must be accompanied by adequate
budget and staffing. Above all, implementation must be accompanied by
management's priority to achieve critical on-the-ground goals.
Certainly, these on-the-ground goals need to include the concepts
of fostering compliance; adequate law enforcement; collaboration with
recreationists and local communities; and long-term sustainability.
Compliance and enforcement go hand in hand. A well designed,
successful system meets the needs and desires of the user. This, in
turn, results in compliance and requires a reduced level of
enforcement. Conversely, in the absence of these active management
elements, enforcement becomes a bigger issue.
Successful trail systems can and should be designed by applying the
elements of Education, Engineering, Enforcement, and Evaluation, or the
four ``Es'', as promoted by the NOHVCC. NOHVCC states, ``Proper
implementation of the four ``Es'' produces trails that riders want to
stay on, not just trails they have to stay on. Well-managed systems are
not only environmentally sustainable, they also provide more fun for
the riders and increased economic and social benefits to the
surrounding communities.'' (Note: emphasis added)\12\ Simply put, if
you tell those 43 million Americans who enjoy OHV recreation what they
CAN do and provide them with quality opportunities and ownership
through cooperative involvement and management, it will produce
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Remarks to House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public lands, Hearing on ``Impacts of
Unmanaged Off-Road Vehicles on Federal Lands'', Russ Ehnes, Executive
Director, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, March 12,
2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To that end, through the similar strategies of active management
and designated route systems federal land managers are making
significant progress. BRC urges this committee to support agency
efforts to actively manage for OHV recreation. BRC also urges this
committee to support fiscal appropriations to help the federal agencies
meet their recreation management objectives.
Again, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony and written comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Culver, thank you for being here.
Statement of Nada Culver, Senior Counsel, The Wilderness Society,
Denver CO
Ms. Culver. Good morning and thank you for holding the
hearing and for allowing me to testify, and of course for
guessing the pronunciation of my name on the first try. I am a
Senior Counsel in the Public Lands Campaign of the Wilderness
Society. I work in the BLM Action Center, where we track land
use planning across the West. Basically, we read a lot of
plans, including travel management plans, and we look closely
at the ecological, economic, scientific, and even legal issues
raised in these documents, as well as those raised by other
commenters. We make these analyses available to the public and
engage in the processes in order to try to help the agencies
arrive at management plans that are legally compliant,
scientifically justified, and publicly supported in the best
case scenario.
Now, we've already heard two things from the Federal
agencies today that are generally accepted. The first is that
the current volume and intensity of off-road vehicle use were
both not anticipated by these agencies; and the second is that
off-road vehicles do cause ecological damage and conflicts with
other users.
There was a question early on by the chairman if agencies
can keep up, and I think we've heard right now that they can't.
We've seen these concerns emphasized in statements from chiefs
of the Forest Service and Secretary of Interior Kempthorne and
we do see these concerns reflected in the executive orders
issued more than 30 years ago.
Right now the agencies are engaging in travel planning as a
way to fulfill the executive order directives to protect
natural resources and avoid conflict with other users.
Unfortunately, right now the plans we're seeing--and we are
seeing a lot of plans--are essentially unsustainable based on
three major areas of failures: ecological, where we are seeing
extremely large route systems that don't consider protection of
wildlife habitat, wilderness character, watersheds, and don't
even protect places that are specifically designated for their
conservation values, like national monuments. In the Utah
planning effort going on right now, we have miles of routes
that would equal driving from Los Angeles to New York City five
times. Yet, despite information on the impacts of habitat
fragmentation to wildlife and the benefits from reducing
routes, those decisions are not being made.
In the Steens Cooperative Management Area in Oregon, we are
seeing the BLM designating so-called ``obscure routes'' in
wilderness study areas that no one can even find on the ground,
and the Interior Board of Land Appeals has stayed that travel
plan in order to try to prevent damage to wilderness. In fact,
most BLM land use plans are actually not making route decisions
right now. They're just deferring indefinitely and allowing
ongoing use of whatever might be on the ground or might be
added.
A second major area of concern is fiscal. We're seeing
large route systems designated without the resources to manage
them. The Forest Service has been actually doing the math and,
for instance, in the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico, the
Forest Service concluded it had enough resources to manage 9
percent of the route system. Nonetheless, they're proposing to
maintain that system.
The BLM doesn't consistently make this kind of analysis,
but the agencies should be doing this and they should be
considering what they can manage, and not just in the context
of enforcement, but also in the context of education and
monitoring and possible restoration. We have heard about some
of these cooperative agreements and self-policing, but I think
that's not the best way for the agencies to be asked to manage
their lands, is to depend on the kindness of others.
The third area where we're seeing a lot of concern is in
the recreation area. In the planning process everyone gets to
comment if they want to read the plan or comment. But
unfortunately, right now not all commenters are created equal.
We've heard a lot about quiet recreationists and right now
they're being a little too quiet. That's happening because both
the BLM and the Forest Service are creating extra special steps
in these processes, for instance where the motorized community
can come in and propose additional routes, additional motorized
routes. That process doesn't address the interests of other
parties and the rest of the public. In fact, they have no place
in it, and they've been told this by the agencies.
We've also seen this comment from the Idaho Fish and Game
Department in commenting on the Sawtooth National Forest Plan,
stating how regrettable it was that the district chose to
develop their plan based on exclusive input from motorized user
groups. This does exclude a substantial portion of people from
the process. The BLM's Moab field office participated in a
survey, a national visitor use survey, which showed that the
top activities in this area were hiking and biking. But the
special recreation emphasis in this plan is almost exclusively
motorized. This percentage of users that we're seeing in the
Moab survey is consistent with surveys across the country and
with the surveys conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Outdoor Industry Association, which show that hundreds of
billions of dollars that are contributed to the national
economy by non-motorized users.
I do want to point out that we are seeing responsible
planning in some places. In the travel management plan for the
Wilson Creek subregion in the Owyhee field office of the BLM in
Idaho, we have seen priority to manage the area for wildlife.
There has been prioritization of implementation in areas where
routes might be affecting sage grouse.
In the BLM's plan for the Arizona Strip and in the Arizona
State office in general, we have guidance on how to manage
areas to protect wilderness characteristics, to provide the
outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined
recreation that define them. In the Little Snake field office
in Colorado and the Jarbridge field office in Idaho, we're
seeing consideration of special recreation management to
protect back country hunting experiences.
But for the most part right now, the agencies are
essentially making decisions with about half the information
they need and about half the people involved. Now, of course,
given what I do for a living, reading plans, I'm a believer. I
believe that travel planning can and will allow us all to keep
using and enjoying our public lands. But it has to be done
right or we will end up with unacceptable ecological damage
while we drain the agency budget for restoration and
enforcement and alienate a large part of the population that
should also have their voices heard.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Culver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nada Culver, Senior Counsel, The Wilderness
Society, Denver CO
Chairman Bingaman, members of the Committee and members of the
Senate, my name is Nada Culver. I am Senior Counsel in the Public Lands
Campaign of The Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society's mission is
to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild
places. I work in the BLM Action Center, which tracks land use planning
around the West and is dedicated to helping the public effectively
engage and participate in the processes that determine how our public
lands are managed. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
about the management of off-road vehicles on the public lands. This
written statement is submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society and
our partners, who care deeply about the natural wonders and recreation
opportunities on our public lands.
Travel planning is the cornerstone for achieving workable
management of dirt bike, all-terrain vehicles and other off-road
vehicles (ORVs) on our public lands. Planning provides a framework for
agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to take
a hard look at the lands they manage, plan to manage uses of those
lands, including by ORVs, enforce uses based on plan, and then monitor
the effects of plans to determine if changes are needed to protect the
resources, uses and values of these lands.
Recognizing the damage that ORVs can inflict on both natural
resources, such as water, wildlife and wilderness, and other users of
the public land, Presidents Nixon and Carter issued Executive Orders to
guide their management by federal agencies, including the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS). These Executive Orders
(EO No. 11644 (1972)) as amended by Executive Order No. 11989 (1977)),
which are also incorporated into the BLM's regulations (43 C.F.R. Sec.
8342.1), require the agencies to ensure that areas and trails for off-
road vehicle use are located:
to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or
other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment
of wilderness suitability;
to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption
of wildlife habitats, and especially for protection of
endangered or threatened species and their habitats;
to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other
existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or
neighboring public lands; and
outside officially designated wilderness areas or primitive
areas and in natural areas only if the agency determines that
off-road vehicle use will not adversely affect their natural,
aesthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are
established.
These Executive Orders essentially put the burden of proof on the
agencies to make sure that natural resources, including sensitive and
lands specifically identified for their conservation values are not
harmed by ORV use, while other users can enjoy the scenery and non-
motorized recreation opportunities on public lands, and ORV use is only
permitted in areas or on routes where these criteria are met.
Although there are some BLM or FS planning efforts that are based
on these fundamental principles, the majority are not. My testimony
today will address our grave concerns with the ongoing damage to the
public lands and the need for action to correct these trends while
there is still time.
The key elements of sustainable plans to manage ORVs, as well as
the key failures in the travel planning that the BLM and FS are
conducting (or not conducting), can be described in three categories:
1. Ecological--The Executive Orders, as well as established
management priorities for specific conservation areas or
resources, such as wilderness study areas or wildlife habitat,
dictate protection from ORVs.
2. Fiscal--The agencies must have sufficient resources to
inventory resources and conditions on the public lands, create
management plans, enforce decisions, and monitor plans to
ensure they are adequately protecting other resources and
users.
3. Recreational--Motorized vehicles prevent other users from
experiencing the naturalness, solitude and scenery of the
public lands. Sustainable plans provide for a variety of users
to fully enjoy recreational opportunities on the public lands.
A review of the ways in which the current travel planning
initiatives do not address these important considerations highlights
the actions needed to fix them.
1. Ecological Sustainability
As set out above, the Executive Orders direct the BLM and FS to
manage ORV use by prioritizing protection of natural resources, such as
wilderness suitability, soil, water, and wildlife habitat, as well as
avoiding conflicts with other recreationists. These priorities are also
consistent with the statutes governing the agencies. The Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the BLM to manage the public
lands ``in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,
water resource, and archeological values.'' 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701(a)(8).
FLPMA requires the BLM to accomplish this through management plans,
which are based on an inventory of the public lands and their resource
and values, ``including outdoor recreation and scenic values.''. 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1711(a). Similarly, the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA) requires that the Forest Service manage the Forests in an
ecologically sustainable manner that ``protects soil and water
resources, streams, streambanks, shorelines, wetlands, fish, wildlife,
and the diversity of plant and animal communities.'' 36 CFR
219.27(a)(4) (implementing 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604).
Travel planning is an important aspect of achieving these
management goals. The regulations of both the BLM and FS that address
management of ORVs also incorporate the priorities established by the
Executive Orders. See, 43 C.F.R. Sec. 8342.1; 36 C.F.R.Sec.
212.55(a). Unfortunately, the agencies are proceeding with travel
planning in a manner that will not fulfill these mandates.
(a) Maintaining oversized road and motorized trail systems--
Both agencies have stated their intent to move away from
permitting unmanaged cross-country use. However, the networks
that they are designating or simply leaving in place
indefinitely are too large and, as a result, will continue to
damage natural resources.
BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook. H-1601, Appendix C, Section II.D
(Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management) states that the BLM should
``[c]omplete a defined travel management network (system of areas,
roads and/or trails) during the development of the land use plan, to
the extent practical.'' If designation is not possible, then the BLM is
to designate the network within five years. See, Instruction Memorandum
(IM) 2004-005. Individual state offices, such as Utah and Colorado,
have issued their own guidance to more strongly require designation of
a travel management network in resource management plans. See, IM CO-
2007-020. However, in many plans, the BLM is continuing to delay
designation and, instead, simply labeling multi-million acre planning
areas as ``limited to existing'' roads and trails. Instead of selecting
routes and avoiding ecological damage, the resulting travel networks do
not actively manage ORVs and do not prevent damage to natural resources
or the recreational experiences of other users of the public lands.
Although the FS is proceeding under a mandate to designate routes,
the process to date has not included consideration of how to minimize
impacts on other natural resources. Instead, the FS has provided
opportunities for interested parties to identify additional motorized
routes to be added to the travel network without similar opportunities
or consideration of the need to protect natural resources.
BLM EXAMPLES
Yuma, Arizona, Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP): The
proposed plan limits ORV travel to existing routes in
``limited'' areas based on the existing inventory of routes,
deferring designation to a later process even though these
initial routes have not been subjected to analysis of their
compliance with applicable legal standards. The Proposed RMP
also commits to an interim step of permitting interested
parties to designate additional routes, without requiring
rigorous assessment and evidence that these routes were in
existence legally and proof of why they are needed. Proposed
RMP, p. 2-98. The travel planning process set out in the
Proposed RMP does not provide for an assessment of whether
inventoried routes, as well as any additional routes proposed,
were created legally or for interested parties to recommend
routes for closure based on a full disclosure of the manner in
which these routes impact other values in the planning area,
which is likely more important in light of the substantial
mileage and acreage already identified for use by ORVs.
Tri-County RMP revision and amendment in New Mexico: The
process began in 2005 to update RMPs that were finalized in
1986 and 1994, governing close to 3 million acres of public
land in three counties. Although the draft plan is still in
progress, the BLM has confirmed that it will not be designating
route systems for the vast majority of the planning area.
Similarly, in Colorado, both the Little Snake and Uncompahgre
RMP revisions currently in preparation have stated that
designation of a travel network will not be included in either
of these plans.
Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Price, Vernal, and Richfield RMPs:
The BLM is preparing six plans covering 11 million acres of
land including areas with wilderness character and potential
wild and scenic rivers. Rather than protecting wild areas and
cultural sites, the BLM is proposing to designate more than
15,000 miles of off-road vehicle routes--essentially blanketing
southern Utah's canyon country with roads and motorized routes,
while declining to acknowledge the potentially irreparable harm
to other resources.
California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), travel plan for
the Western Mojave (WEMO): This bioregion of the CDCA is the
most heavily impacted by ORV use. The WEMO includes 4 units of
designated critical habitat--Superior-Cronese (766,900 acres),
Ord-Rodman (253,200 acres), Fremont-Kramer (518,000 acres), and
Pinto Mountains (171,700 acres). WBO AR 14834. Although the
WEMO plan also included designation of Desert Wildlife
Management Areas (``DWMAs'') to manage critical habitat, the
DWMAs excluded thousands of acres of designated critical
habitat. The BLM's 2003 WEMO Route Designation and the 2006
WEMO Plan amendment authorized an ORV route network including
over 5,444 miles of open routes and over 30 miles of
``limited'' routes within desert tortoise habitat, of these,
over 2,230 miles of routes are in designated critical habitat.
fs examples
Plumas National Forest travel plan (California): Currently,
the agency manages approximately 4,150 miles of roads and 102
miles of motorized trails. Its latest proposal adds 375 miles
of existing unauthorized routes to the current system of
motorized trails.
Cassia Division on the Minidoka District of Sawtooth
National Forest travel plan (Idaho): The district finalized an
unmanageable 802-mile route system where the large amount of
short ``in and out'' routes will be impossible to enforce.
Additionally, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and
Environmental Protection Agency commented to the agency
regarding potential problems managing wildlife habitat and
water quality, respectively, with the high density of routes.
(b) Not fulfilling special management requirements--There are
certain areas where natural resources and values must be given
special consideration in travel planning, including heightened
protection from the impacts of off-road vehicles. Agencies have
a duty to protect cultural sites, rivers and streams, wildlife
migration corridors, and other sensitive lands and should
consider designating these areas for walking trails and other
lower-impact uses only. Management of wilderness study areas
(WSAs), national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and
cultural resources is governed by specific priorities to
protect their conservation values. See, e.g., Interim
Management Policy (IMP) for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM
Manual H-8550-1) (requiring that WSAs are managed to protect
their suitability for wilderness designation); Antiquities Act
of 1906, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 431--433 (requiring management to
protect objects of interest); Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16
U.S.C. ' 1271--1287 (requiring management to protect
outstanding river values); National Historic Preservation Act,
16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 470f, 470h (requiring federal agencies to
consider effects on historic properties and seek to avoid
damage).
Inventoried roadless areas on FS lands are governed by the 2001
Roadless Rule. The Rule acknowledges defines the characteristics of
roadless areas as:
(1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
(2) Sources of public drinking water;
(3) Diversity of plant and animal communities;
(4) Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate,
and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large,
undisturbed areas of land;
(5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-
primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
(6) Reference landscapes;
(7) Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
(8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
(9) Other locally identified unique characteristics.
36 C.F.R. Sec. 294.11. The recognized ecological values of
inventoried roadless areas are the reason that new road construction
and road re-construction are prohibited by the Roadless Rule. These
values also merit special consideration for protection when planning
for management of ORVs. Instead, Forests in the Southwest are proposing
travel management plans that will actively open and degrade inventoried
roadless areas.
The BLM manages the National Landscape Conservation System
(Conservation System), which is comprised of lands created by both
presidential and congressional directive, is managed based on a mission
of stewardship to: ``conserve, protect, and restore these nationally
significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and
scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.''
Wilderness, wilderness study areas, national monuments, national
conservation areas, and wild and scenic rivers are all included in the
Conservation System. Failure to manage ORVs in these areas, where not
only the Executive Orders but also additional authorities direct the
BLM and FS to prioritize conservation and/or highlight their ecological
values, is especially indicative of the problems in the agencies'
travel planning processes.
EXAMPLES
Utah RMPs.--These six plans govern more than 5 million acres
of proposed Wilderness, including 1.8 million acres of WSAs.
The plans propose to designate motorized vehicle routes
throughout the WSAs and 92% of lands outside WSAs that the BLM
has recognized as having wilderness characteristics.
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and Vermillion
Cliffs National Monument RMPs, Arizona.--The proposed plan for
each of these monuments designates two-tracks and barely
noticeable routes for vehicle use even though the Monument
Proclamations prohibit ``all motorized and mechanized vehicle
use off-road.'' In this case, the BLM is expanding the
definition of a road to accommodate more off-road vehicle use
in the monuments rather than protecting the natural and
cultural resources for which these national monuments were
created.
Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Area Comprehensive
Travel Plan, Oregon.--The BLM's travel plan designates so-
called ``obscure routes'' in Wilderness Study Areas as
available for motorized vehicles, even though nobody, not even
the BLM, can find these routes on the ground. Off-roaders will
be sent out to search for them, inevitably damaging wilderness
qualities. In addition, the Steens Act prohibits use of
motorized vehicles ``off road,'' which is also bound to occur
in light of this designation. The Interior Board of Land
Appeals has recently stayed the implementation of this plan
because of the blatant disregard for protection of wilderness
qualities in sending motorized vehicles out to search for
obscure routes in areas that the BLM is supposed to be
protecting for their wilderness suitability.
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP,
Montana.--espite a detailed analysis and substantial scientific
literature documenting the risks to sensitive wildlife
highlighted in the Monument Proclamation from the high road
density in the Monument, and numerous recommendations to reduce
the road network from biologists and the State of Montana, the
BLM has chosen to increase the miles of road for motorized use
between the draft and proposed plans. The designated road
network is likely to damage wildlife habitat, as well as the
remote character and cultural resources that led to the
designation of the Monument.
Western Oregon RMP Revisions--This revision addresses more
than 2.5 million acres of public lands in six RMPs for the
Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Coos Bay Districts and the
Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. In
addressing travel management for designated conservation areas,
including areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), WSAs
and wild and scenic rivers, the Draft RMPs propose less
protection in all management alternatives--reducing or even
eliminating closures to ORVs for these areas, which include the
Elk Creek ACEC in the Salem District, the Camas Swale ACEC/
Research Natural Area A in the Roseburg District, and the Rogue
Wild and Scenic River Corridor and the Soda Mountain WSA in the
Medford District.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona.--This Forest is
proposing to open roads in inventoried roadless areas that are
currently identified as closed (maintenance level 1) in the
transportation inventory. Instead of protecting the ecological
values of these roadless areas, the Forest is actively
increasing their use--arguably violating the Roadless Rule's
prohibition on road reconstruction and certainly promoting
damage of acknowledged natural resources.
2. Fiscal Sustainability
The BLM and Forest Service are designating road and trail systems
that are fiscally unrealistic based on available and projected funding
for construction, maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement. Roads and
trails are expensive to construct and maintain whether they are
asphalt, gravel, or dirt. There are substantial costs to construct and
maintain culverts, bridges and other structures to prevent erosion and
ensure visitor safety. The Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the
Forest Service, in particular, currently has a $10 billion road
maintenance backlog (http://www.taxpayer.net/forest/roadless/
index.htm).
Even where minimal construction or maintenance is required (as is
the case for some routes on BLM lands), more routes require more
enforcement to ensure compliance with travel plans and also require
more monitoring to ensure that they are not causing unacceptable damage
to natural resources.
The FS regulations specifically require that, as part of
designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use, the agency consider
``the availability of resources for that maintenance and
administration.'' 36 C.F.R. Sec. 212.55(a). Unfortunately, the
agencies rarely, if ever, include an assessment of funding and
resources required to implement proposed travel plans. As a result,
travel planning decisions are not based on the practical realities
associated with the designations. In many of the following examples,
the agencies acknowledge that a lack of funding is foreseeable, yet do
not adjust their travel plans, effectively abandoning their obligation
to protect the public lands.
examples
The Cibola National Forest, New Mexico, includes the Sandia
Mountains, a popular place to visit just east of Albuquerque.
The travel analysis prepared included the following statement:
``But based on road maintenance funding received over the
previous five years the Cibola N.F. can afford to fully
maintain only about 31% of the existing system.''
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona reached a
similar conclusion. Their assessment concluded that the Forest
can only afford 33% of its road system.
The Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico, presented a more
distressing picture of road maintenance funding, stating that
the forest receives about $500,000 for road maintenance and
construction, but needs about $5.7 million to maintain its
2337-mile road system. The Forest reported that, ``The Forest
budget can only support 9% of the road system.''
The Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota, actually
references its obligation to designate a minimum road system
that is:
needed for safe and efficient travel and for
administration, utilization, and protection of NFS land
. . . strikes a balance between the benefits of public
access to NFS lands and the costs of road-associated
effects on ecosystem values, taking into account public
safety, affordability, and management efficiency.
The Forest's analysis concluded that ``annual road maintenance
funding is approximately 25 percent of what is needed based on [its
known road system according to its database].'' Nonetheless, the report
recommends maintaining all roads, such that, despite only having \1/4\
of the necessary funding to maintain the existing road network, most
routes will remain open for public and private use. Not surprisingly,
the Forest also concludes that, ``without new resources, the long term
condition of NFS roads is expected to deteriorate.''
The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP,
Montana, received repeated comments, including those of the
federal district court in the Montana Wilderness Association v.
Fry case, that emphasized the need for the BLM to assess the
costs of its management approach. However, the plan does not
analyze and compare the costs of mitigating the potential
damage to the Monument objects from management decisions, such
as keeping a high density of roads open in the vast acreage of
the Monument, or take into account whether sufficient funding
will be available to cover those costs. It seems unlikely that
the BLM will be able to meet its obligations to protect the
Monument from the foreseeable damage from ORVs.
3. Recreation sustainability
The Executive Orders require the BLM and FS to ensure that
conflicts with other recreationists, not using ORVs, are avoided. The
BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook also specifically directs the agency
to consider designation of special recreation management areas to
provide a primitive recreation experience. H-1601-1, Appendix C,
Section II.C. The majority of Americans who visit National Forests and
BLM lands do so to experience wild lands and natural scenery, view
wildlife, hike, hunt, or fish. The Outdoor Industry Association studied
``active outdoor recreation,'' which was defined as only non-motorized
activities: bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow
sports, wildlife viewing, trail-running, hiking, and climbing. The
report found that active outdoor recreation contributes an estimated
$730 billion to the US economy (Outdoor Industry Association, http://
www.outdoorindustry.org/research.new.php?action=detail&research_id=26
). According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in 2006 Americans
spent $76.7 billion on wildlife-related recreation. (USFWS 2006,
National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-associated
Recreation--http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf ).
Contending with dust, pollution and noise from off-road vehicles
disrupts these experiences.
Unfortunately, the travel planning efforts to date do not provide
sufficient opportunities and areas for quiet, non-motorized recreation
experiences.
EXAMPLES
Utah RMPs.--Despite the acknowledged opportunities for
primitive recreation and solitude in the nearly 3 million acres
with wilderness characteristics outside existing WSAs, the RMPs
do not include protection for these experiences, either through
designation of special recreation management areas or
management prescriptions. The Draft Monticello RMP would
designate more than 500,000 acres as special recreation
management areas, but only eight percent of this acreage
(43,507 acres) is proposed for backcountry use--ORV use is
identified as a primary activity in all other special
recreation management areas. Although the Draft Moab RMP
identifies about 25% of their special recreation management
areas as having a non-motorized focus, none of them incorporate
areas that are actually exclusively non-motorized. These RMPs
also do not take the opportunity to close motorized ways in the
1.8 million acres of WSAs, which would not only improve
wilderness values but also heighten the quiet recreation
experience.
Bangs Canyon Travel Management Plan, Colorado--The BLM
agreed with Colorado citizens that large portions of this area
had wilderness characteristics. However, the travel management
plan designated a motorized trail through this area.
Western Oregon RMP Revisions.--The recreation section of
these RMPs focuses on proposals to designate new ORV emphasis
areas, but fails to even consider comparable designations for
traditional, non-motorized recreational uses, such as hunting,
angling, hiking, horseback riding, or bird watching. For
example, for the 865,800 acres managed by the Medford District,
the RMP proposes 13 ORV Emphasis Areas, comprising 100,751
acres. While there are 3 proposed special recreation management
areas, only one, for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail,
and a portion of another, the Rogue National Wild and Scenic
River where it is managed for its ``wild'' values, is really
focused on providing primitive recreation opportunities--for a
total of less than 15,000 acres.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.--The proposed management
for the inventoried roadless areas in this Forest would open
roads currently designated as closed, removing opportunities
for primitive recreation, such as enjoyment of wildlife, that
will no longer be available with increased motorized use.
Legal challenges.--The glaring inconsistencies of the travel plans
issued to date with the mandates of the Executive Orders, other
applicable laws, and agency guidance, as well as responsible management
of our public lands, has led to formal legal challenges. The travel
plan for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Area has been
appealed twice: first because the BLM failed to complete a
comprehensive travel management plan altogether and then again because
the plan tried to designate ``obscure routes'' that plainly violated
the agency's obligation to protect the values identified in the Steens
Act. The travel plans for the California Desert Conservation Area have
also been subject to a number of challenges: the BLM has been directed
by courts to close portions of the Algodones Dunes to ORVs to protect
threatened and endangered plans and a current lawsuit challenges plans
for other bioregions, including the WEMO, based on designations made
without any reference to or use of the regulatory requirements, as well
as ongoing failures to protect critical habitat. Unless firm and
comprehensive corrections are implemented in the travel planning
underway, there are likely to be more such challenges.
Status.--The FS is in the process of creating travel plans system-
wide, with 108 currently underway. Of these, the majority are in the
earliest stages of scoping or have not yet released a draft
environmental document. The BLM is not subject to a specific rule
requiring completion of travel plans, but is in the process of revising
all of its governing land use plans, which inevitably addresses travel
management decisions, and estimates 50 of these are currently in
revision. (See, BLM Land Use Planning webpage: http://www.blm.gov/wo/
st/en/prog/planning.1.html ). The agency does not track completion of
all travel planning efforts, especially where those plans are included
in RMPs, although it highlights completion of nine. (See, BLM webpage
showing completed travel plans: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/
Recreation/recreation_national/travel_management/
travel_mgt_planning.html). The Wilderness Society performed its own
informal survey in 2006, which indicated that approximately 80
comprehensive travel management plans have been completed or are close
to completion. However, other than plans for units of the Conservation
System, most of these travel plans are for small portions of different
planning areas, such as individual areas of critical environmental
concern or special recreation management areas. As a result, while many
travel management plans have been completed, many more are still needed
to address the vast acreage managed by the BLM.
Based on the agencies' respective commitments to completing travel
planning and the magnitude of acreage at issue, it is critical that
these efforts be conducted correctly. Because the agencies have not
completed plans for most of the lands they manage, there is still an
opportunity for them to comply with direction to manage ORVs in a
sustainable manner. The agencies should be directed to ensure that:
Travel plans must prioritize protection of the ecological
values of our public lands, including wildlife habitat,
wilderness values, soil, and water, as well as historic and
cultural resources. Use of ORVs cannot compromise these
irreplaceable resources. Units of the BLM's Conservation
System, cultural resources and other places with recognized
conservation values should receive special consideration for
management that will fulfill the purposes for which they have
been identified.
Travel networks should be defined by the agencies' available
budgets for construction, maintenance, monitoring and
enforcement.
Natural quiet and beauty of the public lands are without
question what most people seek when visiting public lands.
Interior Secretary Kempthorne and Forest Service Chiefs have
acknowledged impacts to visitor experiences from motorized off-
road vehicle use. The agencies cannot overlook the importance
of providing visitor experiences that are not compromised by
destroyed scenic views and noisy interruption, which scares
away wildlife.
The Wilderness Society and our partners appreciate the interest of
the Committee in addressing the management of ORVs on public lands.
Responsible management of ORVs is crucial to the health of our public
lands and on our opportunities to enjoy them. We hope that the BLM and
FS will embrace their responsibilities as stewards of these lands and
use travel planning as a way to protect them. Thank you.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society and
the following: Colorado Mountain Club, Center for Biological Diversity,
American Hiking Society, Wild Connections, Central Colorado Wilderness
Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Wildlands CPR, High Country Citizens' Alliance, Wilderness Workshop and
Winter Wildlands Alliance.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY POWELL, WESTERN ENERGY AND ORV
COORDINATOR, TROUT UNLIMITED, PAYSON, AZ
Mr. Powell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today and provide the views of Trout Unlimited and many other
sportsmen and women that depend on public lands. I've provided
a written testimony and will briefly summarize my remarks,
followed by my recommendations.
My name is Brad Powell. I live in Payson, Arizona. I work
for Trout Unlimited, a national organization with nearly
150,000 members, dedicated to the conservation, protection, and
restoration of North America's cold water fisheries and their
watersheds. I also am a retired manager with the U.S. Forest
Service, serving as a regional forester, forest supervisor,
district ranger, national monument manager. In addition, I
serve on the board of directors for the Arizona Wildlife
Federation. I'm an avid sportsman, enjoying the rivers, trails,
and public lands of the West. I'm intimately familiar with the
use of off-highway vehicles on public lands as a recreational
user and as an agency administrator for many years.
My purpose today is to convey to you the critical need to
implement and develop these travel management plans on Federal
public lands. I'm not here to speak to you in opposition to the
use of OHVs on public lands, but to ensure that their use is
compatible with the land's capability, in particular fish and
wildlife habitats.
I began my work on public lands 40 years ago on the Tonto
National Forest in Arizona. In my estimation, no use during
that period of time has had the potential to cause the level
and scale of long-term damage that unregulated OHV use has.
Beginning in the 1980s and continuing until today, OHV use
levels have exploded on public lands and with it the damage.
While many ride responsibly, a growing number of
irresponsible users are causing severe impacts by traveling off
roads and trails, creating unauthorized routes. Unmanaged OHV
use is destroying wetlands, impacting wildlife habitats,
causing soil erosion, damaging important cultural resource
sites, and spreading noxious weeds.
I personally have observed many examples of damage by OHVs.
In New Mexico on the Santa Fe National Forest, I vividly
remember deep ruts and bog holes in prime elk habitat. On the
Tonto National Forest in Arizona, there are areas that look
like heavy equipment has cut deep incisions in the land. I've
provided you some pictures to the committee that you can see
some of that use in Arizona.
I've witnessed OHVs chasing elk and deer in Montana. I've
encountered OHVs in closed areas, including federally
designated wildernesses. While working in Kentucky, Arizona,
and New Mexico, I saw significant damage to some of the
national forests' most sensitive riparian areas, damaging
watersheds and valuable fisheries. These are some of my
examples, but as I talk to other users of the public lands
almost everyone has similar OHV horror stories to tell of their
own.
The budgets of the agencies responsible for the management
of our public lands continue to tighten. More and more, the
budgets are spent on wildfire suppression and oil and gas
development and other needs; less and less is spent on
protection of fish and wildlife habitat and managing the
recreational opportunities.
I firmly believe that our public land natural resources--
soils, watersheds, fish and wildlife habitat--cannot sustain
the damage of unmanaged OHVs that is occurring today. In
summary, I have great hope that the new travel management plans
on the U. S. Forest Service lands will lay the foundation for
greatly reduced natural resource damage from unregulated OHV
uses. But these plans must be implemented effectively, not just
be a plan.
Looking ahead, I offer the following recommendations for
your committee's consideration: No. 1, public cross-country OHV
travel should be prohibited on all national forests and other
Federal public lands, except for special OHV management areas.
No. 2, a visible license plate or other form of
identification should be used to identify every rider on public
lands.
No. 3, the United States Forest Service needs to develop an
accurate cost estimate that it will take to implement travel
management plans on their lands and have some plans to
implement that.
No. 4, a Federal funding mechanism should be implemented to
fund increased law enforcement, user education, signage, and
rehabilitation of damaged areas.
No. 5, a standardized motor vehicle use map should be
developed for each national forest in a consistent manner that
provides adequate detail to inform the user of the open areas
and serves as the legal notification for enforcement purposes.
Finally, the Bureau of Land Management has no consistent
national approach to travel management planning. They should
adopt a similar approach as the U.S. Forest Service.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I sincerely
thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today on this
increasingly critical public land management issue which, left
unmanaged, will continue to severely impact Federal public
lands in this country. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bradley Powell, Western Energy and ORV
Coordinator, Trout Unlimited, Payson, AZ
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the views of Trout
Unlimited and many other sportsmen/women concerned about the
appropriate uses of public lands.
My name is Brad Powell. I live in Payson, Arizona, which is located
in the north-central portion of the state, within the Tonto National
Forest. I work for Trout Unlimited, a national organization with nearly
150,000 members dedicated to the conservation, protection and
restoration of North America's coldwater fisheries and their
watersheds. I also am a retired manager with the U.S. Forest Service,
serving as a Regional Forester in two Regions, a Forest Supervisor, a
National Monument Manager and a District Ranger. In addition, I serve
on the Board of Directors for the Arizona Wildlife Federation. I am an
avid sportsman enjoying the rivers, trails and public lands of the
West. I am intimately familiar with the use of Off Highway Vehicles
(OHV's) on public lands both as a recreational user and as an agency
administrator for many years.
I appreciate the privilege to speak to you. My purpose today is to
convey to you the critical need to develop and implement travel
management plans on our federal public lands. I am not here to speak in
opposition to the use of OHV's on public lands, but to ensure that
their use is compatible with the land's capability (particularly fish
and wildlife habitats) and the needs of sportsmen/women, recreational
users and others who rely on America's public lands for their
enjoyment.
I began my work on public lands 40 years ago, on the Tonto National
Forest in Arizona. Since that time there have been numerous issues
(including timber sales, grazing and endangered species) concerning the
appropriate uses of our public lands. In my estimation none of those
issues has had the potential to cause the level and scale of long term
damage that unregulated OHV use has. Agency employees at the time I
started my work with the U.S. Forest Service, and for many years
thereafter, were proud that our lands were open for recreational use.
Hunters, fishermen, campers, firewood cutters and other users could
drive where they wanted, mainly with 4-wheel-drive trucks. The use of
OHV's was minimal, mainly for administrative use. We sincerely believed
that the relatively low amounts of use would cause little damage and
were compatible with the natural resources we were charged with
managing. To the contrary, beginning in the 1980s and continuing until
today, OHV use levels on National Forests have exploded and with it the
damage.
The number of off-highway vehicle (OHV) users in the U.S. has
climbed tenfold in the past 32 years, from approximately 5 million in
1972 to over 51 million in 2004. The Forest Service manages more than
300,000 miles of roads and 35,000 miles of trails for motor vehicle
use. More than 11 million people using OHV's visited National Forests
and Grasslands in 2004. In Arizona, the number of registered OHV's has
grown from approximately 51,000 in 1998, to 230,000 in 2006. It is
estimated there are now more than 350,000 OHV's in the state, and that
number continues to grow at a tremendous rate. There are similar growth
rates occurring across much of the country.
While many ride responsibly, a growing number of irresponsible
users are causing severe impacts by traveling off roads and trails,
creating unauthorized routes. Unmanaged OHV use is destroying wetlands,
severely impacting wildlife habitats, causing soil erosion, damaging
important cultural resources and spreading noxious weeds. Former Chief
of the U.S. Forest Service Dale Bosworth speaking at the All Terrain
Vehicle (ATV) industry expo in Louisville Kentucky on October 14, 2004
had this to say concerning OHV damage:
You don't have to go far to see it. I could show you slide
after slide--tire tracks running through wetlands; riparian
areas churned into mud; banks collapsed and bleeding into
streams; ruts in trails so deep you can literally fall in; and
sensitive meadows turned into dustbowls. Water quality
deteriorates, soil erodes, and native plant communities
decline, partly because invasive weeds are spread by tires
going where they shouldn't be going.
I have observed numerous examples of damaging uses by OHV's. In New
Mexico, on the Santa Fe National Forest, I vividly remember the deep
ruts and bog holes created in prime elk habitat. On the Tonto National
Forest in Arizona there are areas that look like heavy equipment has
cut deep incisions into the land. On a typical weekend day in the
spring there is a dust cloud over the area that can be seen for miles.
When you enter the site there is an amazing array of OHV's tearing up
the hills and denuding the landscape of its desert vegetation. There
are hills with cuts in them up to 10 feet deep that have been caused by
the destructive riding. I have witnessed OHV's chasing elk and deer in
Montana. I have encountered OHV's in closed sensitive areas, including
federally designated Wilderness areas. While working in Kentucky,
Arizona and New Mexico, I saw significant damage to some of the
National Forests' most sensitive riparian areas, damaging valuable
watersheds and important fisheries. These are some of my first-hand
examples, as I talk to sportsmen/women and other recreational users of
Federal public lands, almost everyone have similar ``OHV horror
stories'' of their own.
Another major concern is that the budgets of the agencies
responsible for the management of our public lands continue to tighten.
More and more of the budget are being allocated to suppress wildfires
or manage oil and gas development at the expense of fish and wildlife
habitats and hunting and angling opportunities.
These concerns and others from across the country led to the
development of a Travel Management Planning Rule for the Forest
Service, finalized in November of 2005. The rule requires each National
Forest to designate roads, trails and areas that are open for motorized
use including decisions on where OHV use may occur. Each National
Forest is required to publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) indicating
those decisions. After the MVUM is published, any use of OHV's on
routes or areas not identified on the map will be illegal. While there
was no deadline for Forests to publish an MVUM in the rule, the Forest
Service Chief directed each National Forest to complete their work on
travel management by September, 2009. Virtually all of the National
Forests are currently engaged in the development of these Travel
Management Plans.
I firmly believe that our public land natural resources (soils,
vegetation, watersheds, and fish/wildlife habitats) cannot sustain the
damage of unmanaged OHV use that is occurring today. It is my hope that
the results of this process will be a well thought out, sustainable,
managed system of roads, trails and areas that are approved for
motorized and non-motorized uses including OHV's. This system should be
balanced with the needs of other recreation users and within the
capacity of the ecosystem. The identification and designation of the
open roads, trails and areas is only the first step in developing a
sustainable system. In the long-term, a significant increase in
education, enforcement and rehabilitation of damaged areas is essential
for the success of the Travel Management plans.
In summary, I have great hope that the new Travel Management plans
on U.S. Forest Service lands will lay the foundation for greatly
reduced natural resource damage from unregulated OHV uses. My primary
concerns are based on the diminished agencies' budgets, lack of
personnel and commitment of the agencies to adequately implement these
plans. The increased levels of enforcement, education and
rehabilitation that will be needed are significant. I don't believe
that the agencies are prepared for this implementation workload.
Looking ahead, TU offers the following recommendations for your
consideration:
1. Public cross-country OHV travel should be prohibited on
all National Forests and other federal public lands except for
special OHV management areas and for special needs. In the
future, all illegally created user trails should be closed to
any public use.
2. A visible license plate that can be used to identify the
rider needs to be mandatory for all OHV's used on public lands.
These visible license plates would greatly help in reporting
and deterring illegal activities, as illegal riders are now
essentially invisible. This may prove to be the single most
effective deterrent to illegal activities.
3. The US Forest Service should develop an estimate of total
of total the costs to implement their Travel Management plans,
including necessary monitoring. The agencies need to develop a
funding strategy (including the use of partners) to implement
these plans.
4. A federal funding mechanism should be implemented to fund
increased law enforcement, user education, signage and
rehabilitation of damaged areas.
5. A standardized motor vehicle use map should be developed
by each National Forest in a consistent manner that provides
adequate detail to inform the user of the National Forest as to
what areas, roads and trails are open and closed. This map
should be developed in a way that insures that it is the legal
notification of open and closed routes.
6. Finally, the Bureau of Land Management has no consistent
national approach to travel management planning. They should
adopt a similar process as the U.S. Forest Service to ensure
that these public lands have well thought-out-plans balancing
protection of their ecosystems with recreational uses.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I sincerely thank you
for this opportunity to talk with you today on this increasingly
critical public land management issue, which, left unmanaged, will
continue to severely impact our National Forest and other federal
public lands in this country.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Adams, you're our final witness. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEVADA SHERIFFS'
& CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION, MESQUITE, NV
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for extending the invitation for me to
address you here today.
Besides my professional experience, I'm also a native
Nevadan. I grew up hunting and fishing and enjoying my great
outdoors there in Nevada, and I've owned and operated off-
highway vehicles all of my life. It is my privilege to testify
to you today about the increased burden on local law
enforcement that a growing minority of reckless off- highway
vehicle riders and the need for effective management of these
riders. We're seeing a tremendous impact in local issues.
Approximately 96,000 of the 110,000 square miles of Nevada
is held in trust by the Federal Government. BLM is responsible
for over 48 million square acres and they police that with just
28 uniformed officers and 5 special agents. The other Federal
agencies in Nevada have similar jurisdictions and similar
staffing problems. As you could imagine, this makes any kind of
public lands law enforcement challenging, but particularly when
given OHV technology today, their ability to cover vastnesses
and remote areas over very short periods of time. It's tough to
chase them.
My fellow officers in the western States are facing similar
type of problems. 14 of our 17 counties are considered rural.
We have counties with 10 to 19,000 square miles of territory
and very sparse populations. Many of those agencies only have
between 15 and 60 officers to cover the entire area. Besides
providing law enforcement services to these public lands, the
sheriff is also required by law to conduct search and rescue
missions throughout these counties. Search and rescue missions
and the search and rescue responsibilities is commonly the duty
of local sheriffs throughout the West, so we all experience
these same issues. That request for search and rescue missions
are going up every year. We see more and more requests for
those assistance.
In my conversations with the counterparts in the other
western States, I find that the issues of large jurisdictions
and small agencies prevail throughout our region. It's not an
individual problem to Nevada. With such large land masses and
so few law enforcement officers, it doesn't take a large group
of individuals disobeying the law to cause us a problem.
One of the things I think that really contributes to the
reckless behavior is the feeling of anonymity that these riders
have. There is no way of identifying the riders or the vehicles
that they have under the current systems we have today. We have
seen our pristine areas disturbed by off-highway vehicle riders
for the thrill of an exciting ride. We have seen them use their
off-highway vehicles to chase elk and deer through the trees in
hopes that they knock their antlers off, to be collected and
sold. We have seen water in streams and in ponds diverted into
meadows and lowlands to run their vehicles through as mud bogs
for the weekend.
How do we solve these problems? How do we approach solving
these problems? Joint cooperation in the enforcement of Federal
regulations I think is a key to that, at the local level and
the State and the Federal level. It'll take a joint effort to
do this. This issue has been on my association's agenda and the
Association of Western Sheriffs for a number of years, and it's
got to be a joint effort. A good example is Colorado that was
spoken about earlier. They passed a law making Federal
regulations of closed roads a State issue.
Some specific issues that I would like to talk about with
regards to possibly mitigating the circumstances and the
problems out there is that, one, we could expand the
cooperation between local and Federal law enforcement. That has
to be done. There needs to be a continual training and
additional resources provided to local law enforcement
officers.
We also need to take a look at the education of the public
to the seriousness of the problem and the consequences of their
reckless behavior. As mentioned earlier, I think we need to
have a standard identification and licensing and tagging of
vehicles. There's not a way to do that. Many of the people that
come into Nevada and to the other States come in as out-of-
State residents to recreate and there's no way to identify
those vehicles.
The other issue that was brought up by one of my sheriffs
is to encourage or even require basic safety equipment on these
off-highway vehicles, methods of locating and identifying those
people in need of help when we have to respond with our search
and rescue units.
Attempts have been made in Nevada to regulate off- highway
vehicles in the past, but the one thing that's always been
missing is that the law enforcement component has not been
included. It's got to be part of the problem's solution. I fear
that that may be the situation when we talk about Federal
regulations, but I am encouraged by what I've heard here this
morning, that there will be a law enforcement component.
I'd like to applaud the committee for its leadership in
looking into the issues of grave importance to us on public
lands and realizing that that's a heritage that we need to
preserve for all Americans to use and to enjoy. We don't want
to see a small minority of people ruin it for all of us. So by
focusing on enforcement and education we can solve this
problem. But it's not just a Federal problem, it's not just a
State problem, it's not just a local problem; it's all of our
problems to solve. If we don't do something about it now, the
problem is just going to continue to increase and we're going
to see much more damage to our lands and more people injured
and perhaps a situation where we can't afford to correct it.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Adams, Executive Director, Nevada Sheriff's
& Chiefs' Association, Mesquite, NV
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for extending the invitation to me to address the committee today.
My name is Frank Adams, the Executive Director of the Nevada
Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association. Through this association, I
represent the 17 elected Sheriffs, 13 municipal Police Chiefs and most
other local, state and federal law enforcement chief executives
officers in Nevada. I am a 38 year veteran of Nevada law enforcement,
having worked at the local, state and federal level. Besides my
professional experience, I am also a native Nevadan who grew up
hunting, fishing and just enjoying the great outdoors of our State. I
have owned and used a number of off highway vehicles (OHV) for all of
my adult life. My wife and I enjoy using our four wheel drive truck and
our ATV to travel the back roads of Nevada. So I speak to you today as
a representative of local law enforcement from Nevada and as a long
time user of our public lands.
On behalf of the Nevada's Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, it is my
privilege to testify before you today about the growing burden on local
law enforcement caused by a growing minority of reckless OHV riders and
the need for effective management.
When Nevada was admitted to the Union in 1864, one of the
prerequisites for State Hood was all non-deeded land was to become
property of the federal government. Today that situation still remains
with approximately 87% of the land in our State being held in trust by
the Federal Government. That is 87% of 110,540 square miles or about
96,000 square miles. As you know, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Forest Service and the National Park Service are charged with
protecting and managing this land for the good of all Americans. This
is a vast amount of land to try to protect and manage. BLM is
responsible for 48,000,000 square acres and they police that land with
just 28 uniformed officers and 5 special agents. Of those 28 uniformed
officers, 16 are assigned to Southern Nevada. The Ely District which is
in Northeast Nevada has two officers patrolling 6,000,000 acres of
land. The U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have even few
officers. As you can imagine this makes any kind of public lands law
enforcement challenging, but particularly with OHVs given the
technology that allows users to cover vast distances in remote areas
over a short period of time. My fellow officers in other Western states
face a similar dynamic.
Fourteen of our 17 counties are considered rural counties and they
make up a greater portion of the State. Our local law enforcement
agencies outside the urban areas have similar staffing problems as the
federal agencies for the area they have jurisdiction over. A good
example of this is Elko County located in the northeastern part of our
State. Elko County is one of the more populated of our rural counties
but it has 17,000 square miles of land. The Sheriffs' Office has just
55 officers available to provide for law enforcement services outside
the city limits of three incorporated cities in the county. This number
also includes officers required to run the county jail. Another example
of our rural counties is Lincoln County with a population of
approximately 4,500 people and 10,637 square miles of land. The
Sheriff's Office which is the only local law enforcement in the county
has just 15 officers which also include officers to run the county
jail.
Besides providing law enforcement services throughout their county,
the Sheriffs are also required by Nevada law to be responsible for any
Search and Rescue calls within their jurisdictions. In Northern Nevada,
there are three or four Search and Rescue missions per month dealing
with OHVs. In 2007 in Clark County where Las Vegas is located the
Sheriffs' Search and Rescue teams responded to 98 missions involving
OHVs. So far this year they have responded to 24 Search and Rescue
missions. Although Clark County (i.e. Las Vegas) is considered an urban
county, there is still a total of 8,091 square miles of land in the
county. Search and Rescue responsibility is commonly the duty of the
local Sheriffs thorough out the west. In my conversations with my
counter parts in the other western states, I find that the issues of
large jurisdictions and small agencies prevail through out our region.
With such great land masses and so few enforcement officers, it
does not take a large group of individuals disobeying federal and local
laws to cause a problem. We have determined that a small number of
individuals riding OHVs that use our outdoors for recreation are
causing the problems. They are reckless in the operation of their
vehicles; they disregard instructions to stay off of sensitive lands
and are destructive to the facilities that are provided for their use.
This is evident by the increase in the number of injuries that are
being reported and the increase in the number of search and rescue
mission that occur. We see blatant disregard for areas that are posted
as ``do not travel'' as they have been designated sensitive areas. Part
of the problem that encourages this reckless behavior stems from the
feeling of anonymity that many of the OHV riders have because there is
no way of identifying them or their vehicles. Most States do not
require a license plate for such vehicles. Those States that do require
tagging, the tags are not large enough to be seen with out being in
almost on top of the vehicle. If you are able to determine that there
is a tag on the OHV, determining the tag number is almost impossible.
When I was an activity duty officer, I have worked a number of
cases where irresponsible individuals have disturbed streams and
springs to plant marijuana gardens. (Yes, marijuana will grow in the
desert with enough water). Or have dumped by-products of drug labs in
our deserts, on our watersheds and in our lakes. We have seen pristine
areas disturbed by OHV riders for the thrill of an exciting ride. Elk
and deer horn hunters have used their OHVs to chase the animals through
the trees in hopes of knocking their antlers off so they could be
collect for sale. Our Division of Wildlife has confiscated a number of
OHVs that have been used in poaching operations and harassing of
animals. We have even seen incidents where individuals have used
dynamite to blow up restrooms built by the Forrest Service. The reason
that they gave for committing such an act was they thought it would be
fun and they didn't think they would get caught.
Wyoming officers have reported to me that they have had OHV riders
taking to the high ridges off the marked trails to harass and chase the
Elk herds. This has caused them to leave their natural habitats and
disturbed the herd's normal activities. Colorado has reported that they
have had problems with OHV riders diverting water into meadows and low
areas to make a mud bog to ride their vehicles through. This does
irreparable damage to some of these very sensitive lands.
The topic of joint cooperation in the enforcement of federal
regulations on public lands has been on the working agenda of my
association and that of the Western States Sheriffs' Association for a
number of years. In order to try to get a handle on these problems, it
will take a joint effort by all of the law enforcement resources
available. In Colorado, they just passed a State law the makes the
violation of federal road closure rules a State violation. The adoption
of federal regulations as State law is an approach that will help the
problem, but it always comes down to a matter of resources. Speaking
for Nevada, many of the local and state agencies are working on or have
memorandums of agreement between themselves and the federal agencies
such as BLM, US. Forest Service and National Park Service. More work
needs to be done in this area to insure all our resources can be
applied to the successful management of OHV on public lands. As you
conduct oversight over Federal Agency plans for managing OHV use on
public lands, I would encourage you to ensure there is a law
enforcement component in that planning process. Specific actions that
can help mitigate this problem before it spins out of control include:
1. Continued and expanded cooperation between federal and
local law enforcement
2. Training for local officials and law enforcement officers
on the joint protection of our public lands
3. Resources for our law enforcement agencies to complete
their mission on public lands
4. Education of the public regarding the seriousness of the
problem and the consequence of such reckless behavior
5. Consideration of some type of identification system for
those OHV that are not licensed highway vehicles.
6. Federal incentives to States to implement plating of the
vehicles and perhaps inclusion of points against drivers
licenses for reckless operation of OHVs
7. Encourage the use of basic safety equipment such as
signaling devices, ground location panels, and with new
technologies. i.e. GPS locators
The Nevada Legislature considered a law last session regarding the
licensing and titling of OHV. The big problem that we saw with this
bill was that it left out a law enforcement component. The funds that
were to be raised by this system would have gone to developing trails
which is a admirable thing, but no consideration was given to providing
resources to the law enforcement agencies that have to enforce this new
law. I fear that there will be a similar absence of enforcement
components in the BLM and Forest Service travel planning. If this bill
is presented again in the legislature, we will be there again trying to
make sure that law enforcement has the resources to provide the
enforcement required to protect our public lands and the safety
services that our OHV users need while using those lands.
Thank you again for the opportunity of addressing this committee
and allowing me to share with you some of the issues that are facing us
in the Western States. I would like to applaud the committee's
leadership in looking into this issue of grave importance. Public lands
are a heritage that we need to preserve for all Americans to use and
enjoy. We do not want to see a small minority of irresponsible
individuals ruin that for those of us that love the outdoors and all
that benefits it provides. By focusing on enforcement and education we
can solve this problem and improve the quality recreation for everyone,
but if we continue to operate as we are now, the problems we are
experiencing will only increase.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you all for your good
testimony.
Let me ask a couple of questions about this issue of
licensing and having some standard identification on these
vehicles. I think, Mr. Adams, you were referring to the problem
of anonymity, where people are going into the public lands and
doing damage and violating rules of various kinds, but it's
impossible to tell who they are in any reasonable way without
catching up to them.
What is the status on this? Are there some States that are
requiring license plates on these off-highway vehicles and
others that are not? Is that the current status? Is there any
thought about having a uniform rule for if you're going on the
national forest land or you're going on the BLM land you've got
to have identification of the following kind? Any kind of rule
like that being contemplated anywhere?
Let me ask Mr. Adams first, then Mr. Powell and anybody
else who wants to comment.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's a State
by State situation. It's my understanding that Wyoming has a
licensing law where they actually put license plates on them
similar to a motorcycle license plate. In Nevada we have
absolutely nothing. I have an ATV that's registered in Utah--I
have a little tiny sticker that goes on the back of it, and I
almost need a magnifying glass to read the number off of it in
order to tell who that sticker belongs to.
So I think that there needs to be some standardized policy,
just like you have to have a license plate on your vehicle on
the highway. We all have pretty well standardized that
throughout the Nation, and that would be my recommendation, to
look at some standardized licensing and tagging system where
those people lose that anonymity and it will reduce the number
of problems we have out there.
The Chairman. Mr. Powell, did you have a thought about
this?
Mr. Powell. I would just support what Frank said. It is
State by State. Many States have no requirement at this point
in time. You run from sticker systems in some States to
licensing in some States. I think we need some mandated system
that at least as a minimum carries some level of
identification. I know when it gets to licensing that's often a
State issue, but from a Federal standpoint it looks to me like
that we could require some type of a designation, whether it's
a large sticker, not these little two-inch stickers that they
currently use in some States.
But people are invisible today and as they do things that,
particularly if we're going to look at volunteers and other
groups other than law enforcement, there's no way for those
folks to turn in someone that's doing illegal activities today.
They can only say it's a blue motorcycle. They don't have any
idea----
The Chairman. It does seem like, even though licensing is
historically and traditionally and appropriately a State
function in our country, we do have certain requirements that
State licenses--if you want to drive a vehicle on the public
highways, you've got to have a license that is visible, that
can be traced back to that vehicle. Having some kind of
requirement, if you want to bring an off-highway vehicle into a
national forest you've got to do the same thing, you've got to
have enough identification that people can tell who you are in
case they need to run that down.
Is this a radical idea? It doesn't seem that radical to me.
Mr. Moreland?
Mr. Moreland. Thank you. One of the concerns that riders
have is a system that overly burdens law-abiding citizens. For
example, in Ohio owners of off-highway motorcycles already are
required by the State to title and register the vehicle. That's
one fee and one opportunity to interact with our government.
The second one is a State fee and a decal, which has a number
and identification that's tied back to the riders, with a
separate fee and a separate interaction.
The third one is if you travel on Federal lands you have to
get another permit, with another fee and another decal that
allows you to travel on Federal lands. Three opportunities for
identifying the vehicle, the vehicle owner, and paying fees.
The idea that a plate would somehow allow law enforcement
or other volunteers to identify law-breakers strikes me as a
good intention, but might be overly burdensome to people who
have already gone through three opportunities to identify their
vehicle. It also in a wooded situation or on vast tracts of
land where it's likely that you're going to have few
opportunities to actually identify a plate as it's riding away
from you through the woods, it may just be an opportunity to
overly burden people who otherwise would obey the law. Those
people who are willing to ride where they're not supposed to be
and break that law are probably just as likely not to obey the
law to put a plate on their bike.
The Chairman. Of course if they didn't put a plate on their
bike then you'd be able to keep them off the national forest. I
mean, presumably you wouldn't have to find any other violation.
You'd say this vehicle is not properly identified, not properly
plated, and accordingly you can't use it here; it doesn't
matter whether you use it properly or don't use it properly, I
would think.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sitting here listening to this dialog thinking: Oh, a
new license; oh, a new fee. We have license plates for our RVs,
our off-road vehicles in Idaho, and I know the frustration that
the public has in our effort to try to shape response. It seems
like we're only proposing an identifiable tool for somebody who
rides a vehicle versus somebody who hikes, fishes, hunts, does
other things. I guess they're on their feet and so you can run
them down faster, so you don't worry about them getting away,
so they don't need a visible tag on their body.
Now, that's carrying it to the extreme, but it is another
one of those restrictions or shaping of controls that I know
frustrate people. They are certainly going to frustrate my
citizens of Idaho a good deal who think they are law-abiding,
although I'll agree with you, Frank, there are some who are
not, and they are the ones who frustrate us.
But let us not dramatize those totally, because 99 percent
are effective and with educational programs maybe we can make
it 99.9. But you're still going to have the bad actor out
there.
Brad, it's good to see you again. I remember when you were
in region 1 and thank you for your service there. You talk
about or you have dramatized certain situations that you saw
that were obviously environment or habitat destructive. Was
there any law enforcement effort at that time to block or stop
that from happening?
Mr. Powell. There was, Senator Craig. In some of those
instances there were actually citations issued as a result of
that. Some of them we actually encountered and were not able to
do anything about it.
Senator Craig. The reason was the inability to identify the
perpetrator or you got there after the fact?
Mr. Powell. Some of it was we got there after the fact,
some of it was we couldn't identify them. We were horseback and
they were ATV-back and they won that race.
Senator Craig. You couldn't get that Forest Service mule to
move fast enough, is that it?
Mr. Powell. We could not.
One comment just to your earlier thought, though, and I'd
use Arizona as an example. There's legislation at the State
level in Arizona today that has brought a broad coalition all
the way from the Sierra Club to the four wheel drive groups to
the NRA to virtually every group in the State that has agreed
with some type of vehicle registration. Now, it's taken a lot
of negotiation and discussion, but it was a one-time fee, it
wasn't three or four fees. It would be used on the public
lands. It would work anywhere throughout the State.
So I believe that can be done.
Senator Craig. I believe it can be done, too, because we do
it in Idaho, and for a variety of reasons. First of all because
a four-wheeler or a two-wheeler is a licensed vehicle and needs
to display that they are licensed. A small sticker on a bumper
or on a fender sometimes doesn't get us there.
It also is a way of collecting a fee to be used for a
variety of reasons, whether it's a snowmobile--then you use it
for trail maintenance and do those types of things. You may
work cooperatively with a local recreational group or a local
off-road vehicle group or with the feds, BLM or Forest Service,
in cooperative trail maintenance, management, signage, and all
those kinds of things. So it is a way of collecting a resource.
I thank you for that.
Ms. Culver, I find it interesting that you would single out
the Sawtooth. I just sat down for a couple hours with the
supervisor of the Sawtooth National about a month ago, to go
through their travel management plan. I was struck at the time
with the thoroughness by which they had approached it. I'm
certainly not criticizing your observation or the observation
you quoted of the Idaho Fish and Game. But it was my
observation at the time, after having poured over all of the
maps, looked at their schedule of public hearings, public
input, response, that they had done a very thorough job and
that there were some reacting. They were reactions of
personalities more than they were reactions of substance,
because somebody didn't quite get their way as we balanced this
out.
I looked very closely at the South Hills, which is an
important area potentially for mountain and some domestic sheep
and it's probably the more accessible part of the Sawtooth as
it relates to off-road vehicle access. So I have taken a very
critical eye at that, both in process and in detail, and I'm
not always as affirmative of Forest Service action as I ought
to be. However, in this case, I thought they did their job
well.
Now, I've also been over on the Jarbridge and in the
Owyhees looking at those travel plans and I think you've given
them credit as you should. They have done some good homework
there. They've tried to balance these resources. But I'm one of
those people who goes out and looks at the detail. I go to all
of my forests and my forest supervisors' offices. I sit down
with them, and I spend hours with them, because I know of no
other thing in my State at this moment, other than a wildfire
that's burning the place up, that is more intensely observed by
local citizens than travel plans.
But I thank you for your observations.
Cooperative relationships with all of the stakeholders is
what will make this thing work. Of course, Greg, I grew with
the BlueRibbon Coalition being a very small little group
starting to organize in Pocatello and Idaho Falls, and I've
watched them grow today to a sizable influence. I thank you for
your effort.
But you've said it well. It's when everybody comes to the
table and doesn't approach it in a negative manner, but
approaches it, in a manner that says how do we fix this
problem, how do we educate, an train, so we can protect our
resources while assuring access recreationally.
Ed, thank you for your testimony. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank the panelists today.
The first question, I'd just like a simple yes or no, and I
want to start with Ed and we'll go to Frank, right down the
line. Do you feel that you've been adequately involved in
travel management plans and forest plans? Do you feel you've
had the opportunity to be adequately involved? Yes or no would
work.
Mr. Moreland. Not in all case.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Adams. Yes.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Culver. Not in all cases.
Senator Tester. All right.
Mr. Mumm. Yes.
Mr. Powell. Yes, I believe we have.
Senator Tester. OK, good. This is for the motorized users,
although I would like the other conservation folks to answer it
too. Are you involved in any collaborative partnerships with
people that you traditionally are struggling with to find
common ground? For instance, are the motorized users working
with conservationists, and vice versa? Are you working with--
we're talking about partnerships. Are you working with those
folks to try to find common ground, and vice versa? Are the
conservationists working with any of the motorized groups?
Go ahead, Ed.
Mr. Moreland. We certainly look for every opportunity to
partner with anyone who's interested in collaborating. We work
with a lot of organizations in southern California and across
the West.
Senator Tester. That would be considered conservation
groups?
Mr. Moreland. We've had conservation groups at the table
with us--
Senator Tester. Good.
Mr. Moreland [continuing]. In some of those efforts.
Senator Tester. I think that's healthy.
Greg.
Mr. Mumm. Again, we make every good effort that we possibly
can to do that as well. I could cite you several examples.
Senator Tester. Good, I applaud that.
Nada.
Mr. Mumm. Pardon me?
Senator Tester. I applaud that. Thanks.
Ms. Culver. Yes, I think we do make every effort when we
get the opportunity as well.
Senator Tester. Good.
Brad.
Mr. Powell. Yes, we are.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Adams. We're starting to. It's a slow process.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
If there were--and this goes to--I think the others have
answered this. But if there were no fees--and this goes to Greg
and Ed, if there were no fees with a license or a decal that
was big enough for people to see, people like Frank, would you
be opposed to it?
Mr. Mumm. We'd have to discuss it, specifically what the
process would be.
Senator Tester. Let's just take for example, if we were to
say to Ohio, because that's the example you brought up--I have
no knowledge of it. If we were to say to Ohio that the numbers
have to be big enough so you could see them from 100 feet away,
by a normal person, would you be opposed to that if there was
no additional fee involved?
Mr. Moreland. I still don't believe it's needed, whether or
not there is a fee required. In Ohio specifically, on the
opening day of their national forest system, when they have the
greatest impact and attendance to their forest lands, they were
able to adequately enforce their rules on their property with
the existing sticker program, without the need of a license
plate system.
Senator Tester. OK. How about you, Ed--Greg?
Mr. Mumm. You know, it's a bit of a struggle to answer that
yes or no, simply because obviously we're open to looking at
whatever solutions are necessary. But I got to tell you, I kind
of agree with Ed that it appears on the surface to be a level
of bureaucracy that creates a lot more questions than it does
answers or solutions.
Senator Tester. Although I will tell you, anonymity is kind
of neat. You know, I live in Montana and I like to be
anonymous, and I lose it when I come back here. It's always
good to get back on the farm and you're away from everybody. So
I get it.
But if there was no added bureaucracy, is what I'm saying.
If we mandated that county governments--and they'll love me for
this--would have to eat these costs, just to put a little decal
that was a little bigger, that's all I'm talking about. But
that's fine. That's OK. That's your perspective, and it's a
good one, by the way.
The books that you showed, Ed, is there anything in there
on chasing wildlife, chasing game?
Mr. Moreland. Certainly that's not something I don't
believe that the books cover, chasing wildlife. All of the
educational materials circulated by AMA or BRC or NOHVC or our
other partners, that is something we would absolutely----
Senator Tester. I would assume that you would be very, very
opposed to something like that.
Mr. Moreland. Absolutely. Not only would we discourage
that, we would encourage law enforcement to prosecute anyone
who is caught doing something like that.
Senator Tester. Let's talk about that for a second, because
I had asked the previous panel about it. I relate it back to
elementary school. If you go out on the playground and you get
in a fight during recess, pretty soon they take your recess
away from you. Would you be opposed to multiple offenders to
have their right to go on public lands be taken away?
Mr. Moreland. The bill that we support in the House
provides for substantial increased penalties for those who
willfully and wrongfully violate public land use.
Senator Tester. Are we talking money?
Mr. Moreland. We're talking money, misdemeanors. Yes, it's
more, much more substantial than it is now. It also unifies the
rules between BLM, Park Service, and Forest Service.
Senator Tester. Do you know off the top of your head what a
person would get penalized for, say, the second time if they
left an area where motorized off-road vehicles were supposed to
be?
Mr. Moreland. Senator, I don't know off the top of my head,
but I'm more than happy to provide that to you.
Senator Tester. That would be good. If you have it, what
the current penalty would be, because I really don't know. I
just don't know.
Mr. Moreland. That varies from forest to forest, from
public land to public land.
Senator Tester. OK. I want to thank you guys for taking the
time to be here today. I really appreciate each and every one
of your testimonies, and hopefully we can find common ground
and make this thing work. Obviously we need a few more bucks.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow up a little bit with Senator Tester's line
of questioning. Mr. Moreland, Mr. Mumm, you've indicated that
you don't think that licensing necessarily is the way to go. I
think it was you, Mr. Adams, who said, you know, you've got
some bad actors out there and they are the minority, we
recognize that. But when these bad actors do what they're not
supposed to be doing, it puts additional pressure from others
to say, enough already, we're going to cutoff access, we're
going to limit, we're going to further restrict.
So in your opinion, how do we deal with the irresponsible
users? Is it just a matter of sufficient funding for law
enforcement? Is it ensuring that we have adequate resources for
the education so that they're not irresponsible because they
don't know, they've been educated?
You're not sure that licensing is the way to go. Is there
some other way, any other mechanism, that we keep the few that
are causing the problem, that ultimately will be the ones that
you're having to fight with when you're trying to keep further
restrictions from coming at you? Any other suggestions?
Mr. Mumm. I'd like to approach that just a little bit,
because I think that it's important to point out here that we
typically--the groups that are proponents of the heavier law
enforcement and the concerns that we have with there's no
amount of money you can throw at this law enforcement to solve
the issue, we're looking at apples to oranges here. The
directions that we're moving now, it's different than what the
historic management prescription has been.
I would agree that under the historic management
prescription or lack of management it is a huge problem. But as
you move toward designated route systems, as you move toward
management that is active, what you have is that's the orange
compared to the apple. You've literally--because now you've
introduced things like control points instead of trailheads,
because you introduce designated routes where the officers know
where, know how, know when to patrol, whereas when you had the
historic where it wasn't managed you don't even know where to
start, and it's going to pop up here to there to everywhere.
So the thing that I think it's important to stress here is
that you need to take a look at law enforcement from the
concept of an active management system. Those systems that are
out there that are proven to work, some of which we mentioned
here today, do not experience the same issues that historically
everybody keeps pushing on.
Enforcement's only one element of the mix. You need to
design those systems around compliance, more so than around
enforcement, because what you're doing by providing those
systems where people want to be on those trails, because they
want to be because it provides them with a quality of
experience, not because they have to be, and when those folks
are given ownership in the process to get there you introduce a
whole completely different element than what everybody keeps
pushing on, this law enforcement thing.
Senator Murkowski. So it really comes down to active,
active management. Many of you have----
Mr. Mumm. In short, if it's gotten to the point that you've
got to hang a big old sign around their neck that says they're
an offender, you already lost.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask one question of you, Ms.
Culver. Your testimony seems to suggest that our current
Federal land use practices favor the motorized recreationalist
over the non-motorized or the quiet recreationalist, as I had
suggested. When I asked Mr. Bisson about that he seemed to
indicate that there's plenty of public lands out there to
accommodate both. We've got wilderness that is specifically set
aside, where there is no motorized access.
Do you believe that we have room in our public lands for
both?
Ms. Culver. I do believe we have room for both. The fact of
the matter is, just for instance looking at the BLM lands right
now, 4 percent of those 258 million acres are actually closed
to off-road vehicles. We're not talking about a vast
overwhelming effort going on to take, to keep land away from
other users. We are talking about a need to accommodate the
quiet recreation user and to make sure that those people have
an opportunity to experience naturalness and quiet and
solitude. There is ultimately room, but only if the travel
plans that are created take all that into account, which of
course requires full participation from everybody, and also I
think requires that we do look at the ecological health of the
land, because one of the things everybody likes to enjoy on our
public lands is the water and air and wildlife and wilderness
that Dr. Belnap already talked about was being impacted by just
the current systems existing on the ground right now.
Senator Murkowski. I'm glad we agree that there is room for
both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me thank all the witnesses again for being here. I
think it's been useful testimony. We will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Bingaman
In March 2007, the Forest Service issued a series of draft
directives to help provide its land managers with more specific
guidance regarding implementation of the new travel management rule.
Forest Service units are scheduled to complete plans for nearly half of
the Forest Service acreage in the next four months and the rule
recognized that units need to begin travel planning 1-3 years before
they are able to complete the motor vehicle use map.
Question 1. When will the Forest Service finalize the directives?
Answer. The directives should be finalized in the near future. In
the meantime, however, the Travel Management Rule provides adequate
direction for its implementation. The rule specifically identifies
designation and public participation requirements; the requirement for
coordination with federal, state, and local governmental entities and
tribal governments; and the criteria which must be considered when
making designation decisions. In addition, a Motor Vehicle Route and
Area Designation Guide was issued in 2005 to provide guidance pending
promulgation of directives. To enhance consistency in implementation of
the rule, training sessions were conducted for each region of the
Forest Service.
Question 2. We have seen a number of travel management proposals to
completely maintain or expand road and trail systems that are
admittedly far beyond the Forest Service's fiscal capacity to maintain.
We also know from experience that a fiscally unsustainable trail system
will not be environmentally or socially sustainable.
Does the Forest Service support designating OHV travel systems that
it does not believe are fiscally sustainable?
Answer. The Forest Service supports the concept of a sustainable
system of routes and areas for motor vehicle use. The availability of
resources is a consideration in designating routes and areas for motor
vehicle use. Section 212.55(a) of the Travel Management Rule includes
as a criterion for designation ``the need for maintenance and
administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses
under consideration are designated, and the availability of resources
for that maintenance and administration.'' This determination involves
the exercise of judgment on the part of the local forest supervisor or
district ranger. At times, resources are scarce, but a lack of
resources does not result in blanket closures of National Forest System
(NFS) lands to recreational users. Volunteers and cooperators can
supplement agency resources for maintenance and administration, and
their contributions should be considered in the designation process.
Further, consistent with federal accounting standards, the Forest
Service improved its classification of information for its financial
reports on heritage assets and stewardship land that will provide more
accurate assessments of capitalization and costing.
Question 3. In developing a travel management plan under the 2005
rule, is each unit required to develop a travel analysis report and
make that report available to the public (and, if not, why not)?
Answer. There is no specific policy requiring preparation and
publication of a travel analysis report. However, where a national
forest or grassland has conducted travel analysis, this document is
part of the planning record and is available upon request.
Travel analysis is a pre-National Environmental Policy Act process
explained in the 2005 Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide
and in regional training sessions. Proposed directives published in the
Federal Register on March 9, 2007, also included direction regarding
travel analysis. We expect final directives to be published some time
this summer. Currently, some national forests and national grasslands
are conducting travel analysis as a part of travel management planning
Question 4. Is each unit required to estimate how much additional
money will be required to enforce new travel management plans?
Answer. The Travel Management Rule does not require each unit to
estimate how much additional money will be required to enforce that
unit's designated system, and no additional money will be required to
enforce travel management plan. As with all agency programs, money will
be requested through the appropriations process to manage and monitor
the designated routes and areas and whatever appropriated funds are
available will be allocated on the basis of national and regional
priorities and other factors. In designating roads, trails, and areas
for motor vehicle use, the need for administration, including law
enforcement, must be considered.
Question 5. Please provide a breakdown of how many law enforcement
officers currently patrol each National Forest in New Mexico. Is this
number adequate to enforce current and proposed OHV recreation (and, if
not, please provide an analysis estimating the need for each National
Forest)?
Answer. The Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations
(LE&I) Staff in the Southwestern Region has 12 law enforcement officers
(LEDs) assigned to patrol the six national forests and two national
grasslands in the State of New Mexico. Also reporting to the Special
Agent in Charge are two special agents and two patrol captains for the
LEOs assigned to each national forest and national grassland in New
Mexico.
The LE&I staff is assisted by Forest Service employees who serve as
Forest Protection Officers. Each national forest and grassland has a
Forest Protection Officer Program to assist the Forest Service Law
Enforcement and Investigations Staff assigned to each National Forest
System unit. Forest Protection Officers enforce a variety of
regulations and laws connected with resource protection for the
national forests and grasslands including those regulations that
address off highway vehicle use. Forest Protection Officers augment the
LEOs and expand the enforcement reach for resource protection. There
are 41 Forest Protection Officers (FPOs) practicing in New Mexico's
national forests and grasslands.
In addition, the Forest Service has developed cooperative and
mutual assistance agreements for law enforcement with state game and
fish conservation officers, state police agencies, county sheriffs and
with the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.
The Carson National Forest in northern New Mexico includes
approximately 1.5 million acres of NFS lands in four counties. There
are two LEOs and 8 FPOs assigned to patrol approximately 750,000 acres
in Questa, New Mexico, and Penasco, New Mexico, respectively. For
perspective, the state of Rhode Island is approximately 776,957 acres
in size.
The Santa Fe National Forest in north central New Mexico includes
approximately 1.6 million acres of NFS lands in five counties. Three
LEOs and 13 FPOs are assigned to patrol this unit and the Valles
Caldera National Preserve. The LEOs are stationed at Pecos, New Mexico,
Jemez, New Mexico, and Espanola, New Mexico, respectively. In August, a
fourth LEO will be added to the force and assigned to Cuba, New Mexico.
Each is assigned to patrol approximately 400,000 acres.
Three LEOs and 10 FPOs patrol the Cibola National Forest, Kiowa
National Grassland, Black Kettle National Grassland, and Rita Blanca
National Grassland, located in central New Mexico and the western
Oklahoma Panhandle, Northern Texas Panhandle, and central Oklahoma,
which encompass approximately 1.6 million acres. The Cibola is also
administratively responsible for the Rita Blanca and Black Kettle
National Grassland in Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle. The Cibola
extends across New Mexico from its eastern to its western boundary.
Each officer is assigned to patrol approximately 533,000 acres in 11
counties. The Sandia Ranger District, adjacent to Albuquerque, New
Mexico's largest city, has high visitation and public use and is the
only New Mexico Ranger District patrolled by two LEOs. There is also a
LEO stationed at Mount Taylor in Grants, New Mexico.
Two LEOs and 3 FPOs patrol the Gila National Forest, which includes
approximately 3.3 million acres and approximately 650,000 of Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest lands in three southwestern New Mexico
counties. Each officer is assigned to patrol approximately 1.8 million
acres. The LEOs are stationed at Mimbres, New Mexico, and Reserve, New
Mexico.
The Lincoln National Forest covers approximately 1.1 million acres
of NFS lands in four counties. The LEOs for that forest are stationed
at Ruidoso, New Mexico, and Cloudcroft, New Mexico. Each officer is
assigned to patrol approximately 550,000 acres and is assisted by seven
POs.
Question 6. Can you provide an estimate of the amount of additional
funding the Forest Service as a whole will need to effectively enforce
its new travel management plans?
Answer. No additional funds are needed. The Forest Service is
making a commitment to fund designation of routes and areas on each
national forest and national grassland as a priority within available
funding levels. As the route and area designation process is completed
for each national forest and national grassland, the focus of available
funding will shift from planning to implementation of route and area
designations. This work will include the four ``Es'' of engineering,
education, enforcement and evaluation.
The cost for implementing route and area designations will vary
among forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule, some forests and
grasslands had already eliminated cross-country motorized travel. For
these forests and grasslands implementation costs will be less than for
administrative units that are transitioning from cross-country travel
to a designated system of routes and areas.
The Travel Management Rule enhances and simplifies enforcement by
replacing forest or grassland orders with a motor vehicle use map and a
regulatory prohibition against motor vehicle use off the designated
system. A nationally consistent approach will improve public
understanding of where a motor vehicle may be operated on any national
forest or national grassland and will enhance the agency's ability to
gain compliance.
Question 7. Some units recently have proposed designating user
created routes in areas that have long been specifically closed to 011V
use, generating concerns that such proposals effectively sanction
illegal activities. What direction has the Forest Service provided to
its decision-makers regarding this issue?
Answer. The Travel Management Rule provides a national framework
for planning and decision-making for route and area designations.
Decisions are made by district rangers and forest and grassland
supervisors. Elimination or addition of routes, including user-created
routes, may be considered in the designation process, pursuant to the
public involvement requirements and evaluation criteria in the travel
management rule. The proposed travel management directives address
addition of user-created routes to the forest transportation system.
The directives make no distinction between user-created routes in areas
open to motor vehicle use versus user-created routes in areas closed to
motor vehicle use. User-created routes that are proposed for inclusion
in the designated system must be in the best interest of overall
management of the national forest or national grassland. In addition,
the evaluation criteria in the rule, including effects on natural and
cultural resources, must be considered.
User-created routes proposed for inclusion in the forest
transportation system are subject to environmental analysis. The
analysis identifies and considers potential impacts to the environment,
which may include impacts from having a designated route in an area
previously closed to motor vehicle use. Any designations of routes for
motor vehicle use must be consistent with the applicable land
management plan (forest plan). If allowing motor vehicle use in a
particular area is inconsistent with the forest plan, current policy at
FSH 1909.12, section 25.4 identifies three options: modify the proposal
to make it consistent with the plan, reject the proposal, or amend the
forest plan to make it consistent with the proposal.
Question 8. It is my understanding that at least some units of the
Forest Service only are permitting a formal public review of its travel
management proposal before any environmental analysis has begun. Does
the Forest Service believe that it is appropriate for units to only
provide a formal comment period on its travel management proposal
before the agency and the public has considered the information and
analyses in its environmental review (and, if so, please explain why)?
Answer. Forest Service units have been encouraged to involve the
public in the development of proposals for route and area designations.
By engaging the public at this early stage, the Forest Service is able
to consider public preferences for route and area designations. Once
the proposal is developed, it undergoes environmental analysis,
resulting in either an environmental assessment and accompanying
finding of no significant impact and a decision notice or an
environmental impact statement with its accompanying record of
decision. Both of these environmental analysis processes require public
involvement. At a minimum, the public must be involved early, at the
scoping stage, to identify public concerns and prior to a decision,
once the analysis is at a stage that permits meaningful comment. Many
administrative units are comprehensively engaging the public prior to
development of the proposal and throughout the analysis process.
Public notice of availability of the motor vehicle use map is
sufficient if a national forest or national grassland has made previous
administrative decisions which restrict motor vehicle use over the
entire national forest or national grassland to designated routes and
areas and no change is proposed.
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Wyden
During the June 5, 2008, off-highway vehicle (OHV) hearing in the
Senate's Energy and Natural Resources committee we discussed the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service's actions to nationally
partner with private groups to supplement federal efforts to manage OHV
use and impacts; similar to the partnership taking place in my state of
Oregon with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council.
Question 9a. As follow-up to that discussion, please ensure that
you provide the data I requested--information and examples of how you
are partnering with private associations in Oregon and across the
United States.
Answer. The National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council
(NOHVCC) has assisted the Forest Service not only in Oregon, but in
many states across the country. NOHVCC consists of OHV enthusiasts who
promote responsible riding. They developed and conducted route
designation workshops across the country, with a target audience of
Forest Service employees and OHV enthusiasts. They recently began a new
series of workshop's on improving volunteer effectiveness in assisting
the Forest Service with OHV route and area operation and maintenance.
A number of partnerships exist at the forest or grassland level in
Oregon, with efforts focusing on maintenance of existing motorized
trails. The most active efforts are on the Rogue RiverSiskiyou and
Deschutes National Forests. Partnerships are typically between a forest
and a local club or statewide organization that volunteers its time and
energy in maintaining motorized trails and providing informational and
educational contacts with other enthusiasts using the trail system.
A portion of state fuel taxes in Oregon provides funding for a
variety of OHV related activities. The Oregon State Department of Parks
and Recreation sponsors an OHV funds distribution committee, composed
of OHV organizations and individuals who are OHV enthusiasts. The
committee provides grants for development, maintenance, and operation
of OHV routes and related facilities. The committee has also provided
grants to county sheriff's departments to support enforcement
activities.
Tread Lightly! is a national nonprofit organization whose mission
is to preserve recreational access and opportunities through education
and stewardship. Tread Lightly! works with the Forest Service and other
land management agencies, as well as OHV manufacturers, industry
groups, and motorized recreation organizations to promote responsible
riding.
The Off-Highway Vehicle Program of the San Bernardino National
Forest Association is a collaborative effort for conservation,
recreation, and education among the National Forest Association, San
Bernardino National Forest, State of California, and OHV user groups
and industry. The program involves 300 volunteers who contribute over
25,000 hours each year. An example of their efforts is engaging other
OHV enthusiasts in the field as peers, encouraging them to ride on
designated routes to minimize impacts on native species and habitats.
The Bear River Watershed Council in Utah assists land management
agencies with protecting, restoring, and sustaining ecosystem health
and biological diversity in the Bear River Watershed. A notable aspect
of this group is their cooperation with varied interests. A recent
project obliterating 7 miles of unauthorized routes on the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest involved over 100 people representing the Utah
Backcountry Volunteers, Bridgerland Audubon Society, Back Country
Horsemen of America, Utah 4-Wheel Drive Association, Bridgerland Trail
Riders Association, Wasatch Outlaw Wheelers, Utah Division of Wildlife
Resource's Dedicated Hunters Program, and Boy Scouts of America.
The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) represents
approximately fifteen statewide OHV user groups and works cooperative
with seven National Forests and BLM in Colorado. COHVCO promotes
responsible motorized use, enhances quality recreational use, and
encourages conservation of federal lands for future generations. Two
nationally recognized achievements COHVCO has initiated include the
TIGER Volunteer Project, through which local OHV clubs assist Forest
Service field units with route inventory, and the Stay the Trail
Program, which encourages responsible motorized recreation through
educational outreach at motorized events and trade shows and
advertising campaigns.
Question 9b. Also, as discussed please provide your plan regarding
the prospects to increase these public /private partnerships.
Answer. For decades, the Forest Service has been working with
volunteers and cooperators to enhance its ability to manage
recreational use. Our directives governing trail management; encourage
field units to work with cooperators. Also, the Washington Office is
beginning work on a guide for OHV management, which will include a
chapter on developing and maintaining cooperative relationships and
volunteer programs.
In recognition of the important role of cooperators in helping the
Forest Service accomplish its mission, the Forest Service created the
National Partnership Office in 2003. The role of this office is to
increase the agency's effectiveness in collaboration with individuals,
communities, nongovernmental organizations, and others. The Partnership
Resource Center, which is a partnership between the National Forest
Foundation and the Forest Service, provides a wide variety of
information on how to develop and maintain cooperator and volunteer
programs. The link to the Partnership Resource Center's website is
http://www.partnershipresourcecenter.org/.
Question 10. We also discussed during that hearing that OHV user
laws and rules vary on private, county, state, and federally-owned
lands and how this can be confusing to many trail riders.
How are BLM and the Forest Service working to better coordinate and
standardize cross-boundary OHV laws and rules to eliminate confusion
for OHV riders in Oregon and on the national level?
Answer. The program staffs in the Forest Service and BLM
collaborate on many common issues, including interagency road and trail
management, fire suppression, and law enforcement.
The Travel Management Rule requires the local responsible official
(forest or grassland supervisor or district ranger) to coordinate with
federal, state, county, and other local governmental entities and
tribal governments. Training provided to each Forest Service region for
implementation of the Travel Management Rule emphasized the need to
coordinate closely with these other parties. The training recommended
close coordination on roads and trails that cross boundaries, so as to
provide continuity of routes. The need for coordination is also
addressed in the proposed directives for implementation of the Travel
Management Rule and in the 2005 Motor Vehicle Route and Area
Designation Guide.
Question 11a. Roads and motorized trails are expensive to construct
and maintain whether they are asphalt, gravel, or dirt. The Taxpayers
for Common Sense estimates the Forest Service currently has a $10
billion road maintenance backlog. Even where minimal construction or
maintenance is required (as is the case for some routes on BLM lands),
more routes mean more monitoring to ensure that they are not causing
unacceptable damage and enforcement problems.
Is $10 billion an accurate estimate for the Forest Service's road
maintenance backlog?
Answer. No, in 2007 deferred maintenance on National Forest System
roads was estimated at $4.157 billion.
Question 11b. Are the Forest Service and BLM capable of assessing
the funding and resources required to implement proposed travel plans?
Answer. Yes, the availability of resources is a consideration in
designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use. Section 212.55(a)
of the Travel Management Rule includes as a criterion for designation
``the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and
areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated;
and the availability of resources for that maintenance and
administration.''
Question 11c. If so, are your agencies proposing and designating
road and motorized trail systems that are fiscally realistic based on
available and projected funding for construction, maintenance,
monitoring, and enforcement?
Answer. The Forest Service supports the concept of a sustainable
system of routes and areas designated for motor vehicle use. This
determination involves the exercise of judgment on the part of district
rangers and forest and grassland supervisors. At times, resources are
scarce, but a lack of resources does not result in blanket closures of
NFS lands to recreational users. Volunteers and cooperators can
supplement agency resources for maintenance and administration, and
their contributions should be considered in this evaluation. Further,
consistent with federal accounting standards, the Forest Service
improved its classification of information for its financial reports on
heritage assets and stewardship land that will provide more accurate
assessments of capitalization and costing of roads.
The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails in accordance
with their management objectives, design standards, quantity and type
of traffic, and the availability of funds. Volunteers and cooperators
maintain many trails. The agency collects fees for use of some
developed recreational facilities, most of which are retained and spent
at the site where they are collected. All roads and trails require
maintenance However, since resources are still limited, improvements in
classification of information will lead to more accurate assessments of
capitalization and costing, which in turn can inform investments that
reduce the Forest Service's maintenance backlog. Coupled with the
Travel Management Rule's contemplation of the elimination or addition
of routes, including user-created routes, in the designation process,
the agency can more effectively align roads and trails with available
budgetary resources. The Forest Service also actively tries to avoid
unwanted closures by encouraging volunteer agreements and cooperative
relationships with user groups.
Question 12. While many OHV users ride responsibly on designated
trails, increased OHV activity is affecting hunting, fishing and hiking
experiences for others that are trying to enjoy the tranquility of our
Nation's public lands. Increased off-road use of all terrain vehicles,
trucks, motorcycles and other motor vehicles is resulting in harm to
wildlife habitat and other natural resources on both public and private
lands throughout Oregon, placing further strain on law enforcement and
impacting quiet users. According to the Forest Service and BLM, between
2005 and 2007 there were more than 5,000 OHV-related law enforcement
incidents in Oregon and Washington states alone.
At the hearing, there was some discussion of this issue and inquiry
into the consideration for quiet users given in travel management
planning. Mr. Bisson, in the hearing you indicated that Wilderness
exists for quiet activities. However, Wilderness is a uniquely rugged
backcountry experience that not all hikers, campers, hunters or fishers
are seeking. Mr. Bisson and Mr. Holtrop, do you not believe that it is
important to have non-Wilderness areas on our public lands that quiet
recreationists can enjoy without motorized impacts?
Answer. Opportunities to enhance the full spectrum of motorized and
non-motorized recreation should be considered when designating roads,
trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Management opportunities may
include designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, as
well as managing trails for a variety of non-motorized uses (such as
hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling). The forest transportation
system should provide access to NFS lands for both motorized and non-
motorized uses in a manner that is socially, environmentally, and
economically sustainable over the long term, enhances public enjoyment
of NFS lands, and maintains other important values and uses.
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Cantwell
The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest has, in some Ranger
Districts, considered increasing trail and road miles available to off-
road-vehicles (ORVs).
Question 13. How will USFS deal with maintenance of new motorized
trails in light of its already thin budget?
Answer. The Forest Service is committed to using available funds to
accomplish the purposes of the Travel Management Rule in a targeted,
efficient manner. The agency makes appropriate use of all sources of
available funding and has a number of successful cooperative
relationships with state governments. Volunteer agreements with user
groups and others have proven successful in extending agency resources
for trail construction, maintenance, monitoring, and mitigation.
Regardless of the level of funding available, the Forest Service
believes that the Travel Management Rule provides a better framework
for management of motor vehicle use on national forests and national
grasslands than the Forest Service's previous regulations.
Question 14. I believe that the goal of banning cross-country use
of ORVs is laudable. However, the Forest Service is increasing trail
and road miles open to ORVs. This will only serve to spread motorized
users around system lands, inviting illegal cross-country use.
Please explain why the Forest Service is increasing trail and road
miles open to ORVs given the limited enforcement resources available to
the agency to prevent cross-country use.
Answer. The availability of resources for route maintenance is a
consideration in designating routes for motor vehicle use. Section
212.55(a) of the Travel Management Rule includes as a criterion for
designation ``the need for maintenance and administration of roads,
trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are
designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and
administration.'' District rangers and forest and grassland supervisors
decide which roads and trails to designate for motor vehicle use. Since
most national forests and national grasslands have not yet made their
designation decision, we do not have an estimate of how many miles of
routes designated for motor vehicle use may be added to or removed from
the forest transportation system.
Question 15. Non-motorized recreationists are by far the majority
of National Forest users in Washington state and nationally. While the
sale of ORVs has flattened over the last two years, quiet recreation
uses such as hiking, snowshoeing and camping have risen.
Why is the Forest Service considering increasing the system of
routes available to ORVs when those very vehicles displace non-
motorized trail users?
Answer. Consistent with its multiple-use mission, the Forest
Service believes that national forests and national grasslands should
provide opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized users in a
manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The
national forests and national grasslands are not reserved for the
exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use be accommodated on
every acre. It is appropriate for different areas of the national
forests and national grasslands to provide different opportunities for
recreation. The Forest Service believes that decisions regarding use of
NFS lands are best made at the local level, with full involvement of
federal, state, and local governmental entities, tribal governments,
motorized and non-motorized users, and other interested parties.
Question 16a. In many Ranger Districts in Washington and
nationally, the Forest Service is proposing to add unauthorized, user-
created routes to the system of motorized trails.
What is the legal and policy basis for adding unauthorized, user-
created roads to the Forest Service road system when such routes have
not been analyzed for their impacts on the environment and other Forest
visitors?
Answer. The preamble to the Travel Management Rule addresses the
intent regarding addition of user-created routes to the forest
transportation system. The preamble states that ``user-created roads
and trails may be identified through public involvement and considered
in the designation process. After public consideration and appropriate
site-specific environmental analysis, some user-created routes may be
designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to ' 212.51 of the final
rule.
If the Forest Service decides to propose adding user-created routes
to the forest transportation system, that proposal is subject to
appropriate analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Additionally, the Travel Management Rule requires that certain criteria
be considered when designating routes or areas. Conflicts among uses of
NFS lands are one of the criteria which must be considered and involve
potential impacts on other Forest visitors.
Some user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent
opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized
users alike, and involve less environmental impact than unrestricted
cross-country motor vehicle use and would enhance the system of
designated routes and areas. The Forest Service believes that
evaluation of which routes to designate for motor vehicle use,
including user-created routes, is best handled at the local level by
officials with firsthand knowledge of the particular circumstances,
uses, and environmental impacts involved, working closely with tribal
and local governments, forest users, and other members of the public.
Question 16b. How does adding such unauthorized user-created roads
to the system not create an incentive for unauthorized ORV use to
proliferate and 'create more user-created roads?
Answer. Many of these routes were created in areas that were (and
often still are) open to cross-country motor vehicle use. By
designating a system of routes for motor vehicle use that meet users'
needs, compliance will be enhanced, and visitors will be more likely to
stay on designated routes.
Question 17. We have heard about alarming rates of both ORV
trespass on private lands and illicit cross-country use on public
lands. This administration has cut the Forest Service budget
drastically, sc the enforcement belt is tightened, while counties and
local jurisdictions are strapped for cash and thus have few officers on
patrol. In a recent incident in Washington State, a single night's
rampage of illegal cross-country ORV use destroyed a pristine meadow at
the headwaters of Orr Creek on the Wenatchee National Forest.
With declining enforcement capacity in our rural areas and
backcountry, what is the Forest Service's plan to keep irresponsible
and illegal use in check?
Answer. The Travel Management Rule enhances and simplifies
enforcement by replacing forest orders with issuance of a motor vehicle
use map. This map is posted on the World Wide Web and is available at
the forest or grassland supervisor's and district ranger's office. The
motor vehicle use map identifies routes and areas designated for motor
vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year on
each national forest or national grassland. This nationally consistent
approach will augment public understanding of where a motor vehicle may
be operated on any national forest or national grassland across the
country and will enhance the agency's ability to gain compliance with
motor vehicle prohibitions and restrictions. This approach will also
make it easier for OHV users who want to do the right thing to be able
to do so.
During this Administration, appropriations for Forest Service law
enforcement increased from $74 million in FY 2001 to $132 million this
fiscal year. Building on this 78 percent increase, the Forest Service
will promote compliance with route and area designations, the Forest
Service will emphasize education, engineering, enforcement, and
evaluation, known as the ``Four Es.'' The first ``E'' stands for
education: informing the public about where and when they can use
various classes of motor vehicles. The second ``E'' stands for
engineering: the proper location and design of routes and areas. Proper
route location can help protect resources, reduce use conflicts,
address safety, and provide quality recreational opportunities. Proper
route design also enhances recreational opportunities, resulting in
improved visitor satisfaction and a higher likelihood that visitors
will remain on designated routes. The third ``E'' stands for
enforcement: addressing compliance with motor vehicle prohibitions and
restrictions. Most OHV users want to do the right thing. With effective
public education, signing, and route location and design, the Forest
Service can focus law enforcement resources on those few users who do
not heed the law. The fourth ``E'' stands for evaluation: monitoring
designated routes and areas for effects on natural and cultural
resources, public safety, and conflicts among uses. Monitoring may also
focus on the level of compliance and route conditions. Revisions to
designations may be made based on the results of monitoring.
The Forest Service's enforcement capacity is also supplemented by
state and local law enforcement agencies. For example, in Oregon, state
fuel tax funds have been used to fund grants to county sheriff's
departments to support enforcement of OHV restrictions. Another example
is legislation recently passed in the State of Colorado. The new law
allows state peace officers to enforce route and area designations.
Arizona is considering similar legislation. The Forest Service also
maintains cooperative law enforcement agreements with state and local
law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across
jurisdictional boundaries.
Question 18a. I understand that travel planning can involve
intensive public input and is comprehensive in its reach and evaluation
of impacts. Yet, travel planning seems to be handled separately,
outside of the overall forest planning process. I understand that on
the Colville National Forest, an exceptional level of collaboration is
occurring on land management issues simultaneous to comprehensive
forest planning. However, I understand the Forest Service is preparing
to issue a separate draft travel plan, including re-designation of
nearly 1,000 miles of existing roads to allow ORV use, without rigorous
environmental analysis or meaningful collaboration towards a proposal
that all stakeholders could live with. Further, this plan is seemingly
without relationship to the larger forest planning effort. Combined
with local county ordinances that open public highways to ORV use, I'm
concerned there is a risk for vastly expanded ORV use and misuse.
Will you commit to combining all Forest Service forest planning and
travel planning processes to ensure a comprehensive analysis and
understanding of their related environmental impacts?
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and corresponding Forest
Service Planning Regulations dictate how often and to what
specifications national forests and national grasslands conduct
comprehensive forest planning. NFMA directs national forests and
national grasslands to establish a forest plan and revise it every 10
to 15 years. The forest plan establishes the strategy managing national
forests and national grasslands for the next 10 to 15 years. Given the
variation in the date they were established, forest plans are subject
to different time frames for revision. The Travel Management Rule
requires each administrative unit or ranger district to designate those
roads, trails, and areas under Forest Service jurisdiction for motor
vehicle use and identify them on a motor vehicle use map. The Chief of
the Forest Service has established a time frame for completion of motor
vehicle use maps by the end of 2009. The time frames for development of
motor vehicle use maps and revision of forest plans sometimes overlap
and sometimes are very distant from one another.
Consistent with current law, Forest plans are subject to different
time frames for revision and are strategic in nature, and designadon
decisions are site-specific, The two processes have different
requirements. Some district rangers and forest and grassland
supervisors are choosing to conduct public involvement for forest plan
revision concurrently with route and area designation under the Travel
Management Rule.
Question 18b. Specifically, will you commit to combining the forest
planning and travel planning processes on the Colville National Forest
to ensure a comprehensive analysis and understanding of their related
environmental: impacts?
Answer. As mentioned in the response to the previous question, the
two processes have different requirements, since the Travel Management
Rule contemplates a decision made by the local manager of whether to
combine forest plan revision with route and area designation is best,
while consistent with current law, Forest plans are subject to
different time frames for revision. The Colville National Forest has
been conducting intensive public involvement for both forest plan
revision and route and area designation. Due to overlap in timing,
these two processes have occurred simultaneously. Where appropriate,
information obtained is being shared between the two efforts.
The Colville National Forest plans to issue a 2008 motor vehicle
use map re-designating approximately 600 miles of roads that are
currently open to OHV use. These roads were originally designated in
2005 as a result of an intensive collaborative effort with many
parties. Any additional designations will be the result of further
collaboration and appropriate environmental analysis. The 2008 motor
vehicle use map will also implement Amendment #31 to the 1988 Colville
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This amendment
restricts motor vehicle use to designated roads, trails, and areas,
thereby limiting cross-country motor vehicle use.
Question 19. The Forest Service Travel Management Rule '212.52
states that for new designations of roads and trails, public
involvement ``shall be consistent with agency procedures under the
National Environmental Policy Act.'' (NEPA) I believe that NEPA
analysis is required because that is the only means by which the
``public involvement'' requirements would be realized. The Forest
Service is currently proposing to amend their Travel Planning Handbook
(FSH 7709.55) to, among other things, include the following statement:
``The report provides the basis for developing proposed actions to
implement the minimum road system and to change existing travel
management decisions. These proposals must be subject to appropriate
public involvement and environmental analysis under NEPA before travel
management decisions are made.''
Will the USFS commit to adopt this proposed language to clarify the
intent of Sec. 212.52?
Answer. The statement quoted from FSH 7709.55 was included in
proposed directives to implement the Travel Management Rule that were
published in the Federal Register for public notice and comment on
March 9, 2007. The public comment period for the proposed directives
has closed, and the Forest Service is addressing those comments in
development of final directives. The Forest Service hopes to publish
the final directives in the near future.
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 20. Can you tell us how much money has been expended to
conduct the Travel Management Rule and the plans that it called for?
Answer. Over the past two years the agency has spent an estimated
$200,000 for national training on route and area designation, issuance
of Forest Service manual and handbook direction, and implementation
support. During the four-year period scheduled for designating routes
and areas for motor vehicle use, the Forest Service estimates that the
cost of the full range of travel planning activities will be
approximately $25 million per year. The Forest Service is committed to
using available funds to accomplish the purposes of the Travel
Management Rule in a targeted, efficient manner. These costs, which
will be incurred as priorities within existing budgets, are not clearly
distinguishable from other program management costs and vary widely
from unit to unit, depending on the lo;a1 situation and local issues.
Funding provided for travel management planning is used (1) to assemble
and review existing travel management information; (2) to conduct
travel analysis, scoping, and the requisite environmental analysis for
route and area designation; (3) to publish motor vehicle use maps; and
(4) to monitor designated routes and areas.
Question 21. Might that money have been better spent doing off-
highway use compliance work?
Answer. It is very important to complete the route and area
designation process. A system of designated routes and areas will
result in improved land stewardship, since cross-country motor vehicle
use generally will be prohibited. In addition, as discussed above,
enforcement will be enhanced through reliance on the prohibition of
motor vehicle use that is inconsistent with route and area
designations. Thus, designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle
use and the corresponding prohibition establish a better framework for
efficient and effective management of motor vehicle use, including
enforcement of motor vehicle restrictions.
Question 22. Can you give me an estimate of the funds expended on
travel management compliance annually?
Answer. The cost for educational and forest protection officer
personnel is approximately $9 to $16 million per year, or approximately
$50,000 to $100,000 per national forest or national grassland. LEOs
spend approximately 3 percent of their time directly involved in
enforcement of motor vehicle restrictions on national forests and
national grasslands. To promote compliance with route and area
designations, the Forest Service will focus on education, engineering,
enforcement, and evaluation.
Question 23. Given the written testimony we have already received,
it appears that some of the recreation groups and many of the fish and
wildlife groups are ready to try and throw the all-terrain vehicle and
off-highway vehicle users off federal lands.
Why should we single out one user group for their negative impacts
while overlooking the negative impacts of the other user groups?
Answer. The Forest Service manages multiple uses in a sustainable
manner, with full consideration of the relative impacts of each use. As
stated above, this approach is codified in the evaluation criteria for
designation decisions in the Travel Management Rule.
Question 24. Are there any recreational uses of Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service lands that have no impact on those lands?
Answer. All uses of federal lands, including recreational uses,
have some impact, to a greater or lesser degree, on the land. One of
the recreational uses that has least impact and also enjoys great
popularity is scenic viewing. The Forest Service endeavors to manage
all recreational uses in a sustainable manner.
Question 25. If we do what some want and eliminate the use of off-
highway vehicles and/or all-terrain vehicles from federal land because
of resource damage, how should we respond to other recreational uses
that damages the resource?
Answer. Every legitimate use of NFS lands, including OHV use,
should be managed with the sustainability of the land as a guiding
principle.
Question 26. When a Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management
employee observes unauthorized recreational use, or someone damaging
the resources through an unauthorized use what is that employee's
responsibility?
Answer. Forest Service employees report unauthorized recreational
use and damaging activities occurring on national forests and national
grasslands. Damage is documented and reported to LEOs for further
action.
Forest Service employees may make contact with those engaged in
these activities, if the employees can do so without jeopardizing their
personal safety. If Forest Service law enforcement personnel are
unavailable, the local law enforcement personnel are contacted.
Often members of the public will report resource damage and
unauthorized recreational use to Forest Service employees.
Question 27. Am I correct in my belief that local law enforcement
agencies that work on federal lands do so through Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) and could request monetary support to respond to
medical emergencies on federal lands as part of those MOUs?
Answer. The Forest Service enters into cooperative law enforcement
agreements with state and local agencies. Under these cooperative
agreements, the Forest Service most often provides reimbursement to
cooperating agencies for law enforcement patrol activities on national
forests and national grasslands lands related to the protection of
persons and property.
When a medical emergency arises, state or local law enforcement
officers and emergency management services (EMSs) may respond.
Cooperative law enforcement agreements do not provide for reimbursement
for the cost of medical emergency response. State and local EMS
agencies are primarily responsible for responding to medical
emergencies, regardless of whether they occur on or off NFS lands.
Question 28. Am I correct that county government can be reimbursed
for search and rescue on federal land through Title III of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?
Answer. Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
determination Act provides for reimbursement to local governments for
search and rescue activities on federal lands.
Question 29. Mr. Holtrop, many of the witnesses in this hearing
list a litany of examples of all-terrain vehicle and off-highway
vehicle abuses on federal lands in their testimony. Can you tell us
what specific steps the Forest Service has taken to manage OHV and ATV
use on the national forest lands?
Answer. First, every national forest and national grassland
conducts travel planning and manages all types of uses, including motor
vehicle use, on that unit.
Second, in 2005, pursuant to public notice and comment, the Forest
Service promulgated a rule requiring each national forest and national
grassland to designate those routes and areas under Forest Service
jurisdiction for motor vehicle use, by vehicle class and, if
appropriate, by time of year. Upon publication of a motor vehicle use
map reflecting these designations, motor vehicle use that is
inconsistent with the designations, including cross-country motor
vehicle use will be prohibited. Thus, upon publication of a motor
vehicle use map, routes and areas covered by the map will be closed to
motor vehicle use, unless they are designated for that purpose. Before
the Travel Management Rule, routes and areas in national forests and
national grasslands were open to motor vehicle use, unless they were
posted as closed in a forest order.
Third and most important, national forest and national grasslands
will manage designated routes and areas through education, engineering,
enforcement, and evaluation.
Question 30. In a recent article in the Property and Environment
Research Center (PERC) Report (volume 26--issue 1) former Forest
Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas said the following:
The primary supporters for national forests were the timber
industiy and states and counties that profited from increased
employment, payments, and tax revenues--which collapsed with
the dramatic decline of the timber program. Potential
constituencies related to recreation, fish and wildlife, and
water, in large part, chose to remain adversaries rather than
morph into supporters. They won the conflict over management
focus of the national forests but have yet to come to grips
with the consequences of their victory. Many wander the old
battlefields bayoneting the wounded. As a result national
forests have become an even heavier economic and political
albatross in the eyes of many.
Given Chief Thomas's analysis, in your estimation, is it in the
best interest of the Forest Service or the public to have some
recreationists fighting to throw other recreationists off federal
lands?
Answer. The Forest Service manages national forests and national
grasslands consistent with its multiple-use mission. Conflicts can
arise when there are multiple uses of federal land. On every national
forest and national grassland, the Forest Service strives to minimize
use conflicts. In minimizing use conflicts, the agency endeavors to
achieve consensus among individuals and entities representing a variety
of interests and uses. Through standardized procedures and the
requirements for public involvement and participation of other
governmental entities, the Travel Management Rule provides an effective
framework for enhancing consensus on travel planning decisions.
______
Response of Brad Powell to Question From Senator Domenici
Mr. Powell I appreciate your testimony and your appreciation for
the valid right of public land access that the off-road community
enjoys.
I note that you call for a visible license for all OHV users on
federal land.
Question 1. I am wondering how you would feel about requiring a
similarly sized identification that we would make all hikers, hunters,
fishermen, and other recreationists wear while they are on federal
lands?
Answer. I would strongly support the use of a license or
identification sticker on all forms of vehicular access equipment that
are used by all recreational users of the public lands.
______
Response of Nada Culver to Question From Senator Domenici
I get the sense that you would be happy to see OHV use ended on
federal land.
Question 1. Given the number of ATV and OHV users, can you project
what the non-federal land impacts might be if these users are kept off
federal lands?
Answer. As discussed in my written and verbal testimony, and also
highlighted by many of the witnesses at the hearing on June 5, 2008, we
need ``active management'' of off-road vehicles on the public lands.
The agency witnesses, including Dr. Jayne Belnap, concurred that the
current routes systems and use levels are more than were anticipated
and are unsustainable, both in terms of ecological impacts and
accommodating the many users of these lands.
The Wilderness Society believes that land management agencies must
adequately plan to determine where off-road vehicle use is acceptable
on public lands. Allowing ecological damage caused by off-road vehicles
to persist unchecked does not serve the public and does not comply with
the laws and policies governing federal public lands. To reiterate my
response to a question from Senator Murkowski, there is sufficient
``room'' for motorized and non-motorized users on federal lands, but
minimizing and mitigating damage caused by off-road vehicles to natural
resources and the experience of other users requires thoughtful
planning and management. Since this is the focus of our work, we have
not made specific projections related to non-federal lands.
______
Responses of Greg Mumm to Questions From Senator Domenici
BlueRibbon Coalition,
Pocatello, ID, June 18, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to address the
additional questions from Senator Pete Domenici in detail for the
record of the hearing by the Committee regarding Off Highway Vehicle
Management on Public Lands held on Thursday, June 5, 2008.
Question 1. While licensing is a state responsibility, I am
wondering how your organization would react to an administrative
requirement for OHVs that use federal land to have a readily visible
identification number to aid with enforcement of the Forest Service
travel management requirements?
Answer. BRC would be opposed to any federal ``administrative
requirement'' for motorized vehicle access to public lands. Licensing
should remain a state responsibility precisely because the federal land
managers rely on state, local and user group partnerships to
effectively manage recreational uses. Such a requirement would be
highly controversial in rural areas and may well be vigorously opposed
by many Local and County governments.
Additional discussion
``Visible identification,'' whether required by federal or state
programs, is not the key to effective enforcement of travel management
regulations. There are several reasons why this is so.
The supposed benefit of a more visible ``number'' is minimal. After
experimentation with larger registration numbers, the Utah OHV Program
found that when trying to identify numbers on a moving vehicle, the
larger numbers provide little improvement. When asked to comment on the
benefit to OHV enforcement of Utah's larger number requirement, Fred
Hays, Utah's OHV Program Coordinator said; ``Been there. Done that.
Didn't work.''
The ``large number'' proponents seem motivated by the mistaken
belief that ``enforcement'' is related to, if not synonymous with,
``compliance.'' The proper relation between compliance and enforcement
is central to any proper understanding of recreation management.
Compliance with travel management regulations is the goal, not
enforcement. Compliance is achieved via balanced application of a
variety of management actions, including, but not limited to, common
sense rules, quality user information (maps and signage), active peer
group involvement and enforcement.
In many areas compliance is high even though enforcement efforts
are low. Conversely, there are areas where compliance with regulations
is low even though enforcement efforts are vigorous. Compliance and
enforcement are thus not necessarily even positively correlated, let
alone causally related.
Finally, we believe there is a risk that necessary law enforcement
on federal lands will be improperly diverted by those with an overly
zealous anti-recreation agenda. A review of the information provided to
the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility via a Freedom of
Information Act shows that very serious crimes are taking place on
federal lands, including commercial marijuana growing operations,
illegal drug trafficking, illegal immigrant trafficking, and assaults,
rapes and homicides. A preservationist group's campaign against OHV use
should not be moving resources away from needed law enforcement
efforts.
Question 2. Given your experiences in the Forest Service travel
management process what would be the three most important lessons you
would pass on to the BLM if they were to undertake such a process?
Answer. Lesson 1: The Travel Management Planning process must not
be used as a convenient excuse for elimination or drastic reductions of
OHV use. The policy is supposedly motivated by a need to address
``unmanaged recreation,'' but some units of the U.S. Forest Service are
overreacting and using the policy to make landscape level changes.
Indeed, the Eldorado National Forest has issued a decision closing over
1000 miles of existing roads and trails across the Forest. These
closures include not just the so-called ``user created'' routes, but
approximately 400 miles of ``system'' roads and trails that had long
been depicted as open to travel in previous Forest Service travel maps.
Decisions of this nature create unnecessary tension between all user
groups and may actually increase environmental ``impact'' through the
inadequate opportunities to meet user demand and the likelihood of poor
compliance.
Lesson 2: The agencies must be committed to effective
implementation of the ``restricted or limited to designated roads,
trails, and areas'' policy. However, good management will not flow from
the whisk of a pen in Washington; D.C. Successful policy implementation
must be accompanied by adequate budget and staffing. Above all,
implementation must be accompanied by management's priority to achieve
critical on-the-ground goals.
Lesson 3: A key lesson from the U.S. Forest Service travel
management planning process is that the users are the key to getting it
right.
The Travel Management Rule is properly viewed as an opportunity to
provide for current and future recreational demands, mitigate impacts
and leverage existing partnerships and programs for management and
monitoring. Former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth directed and
predicted that ``[l]and Managers will use the new rule to continue to
work with motorized sports enthusiasts, conservations, state and local
officials and others to provide responsible motorized recreational
experiences in national forests and grasslands for the long run.'' ``A
managed system of roads, trails and areas designated for motor vehicle
use will better protect natural and cultural resources, address use
conflicts, and secure sustainable opportunities for public enjoyment of
national forests and grasslands.'' In fact, ``it is Forest Service
Policy to provide for a diversity of road and trail opportunities for
experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent
with the National Forest recreation role and land capability.''
The Forest Service should be planning for a managed system, and
working with all groups, especially OHV enthusiasts, in order to comply
with not only the agency's directives and the Travel Management Rule,
but the policies behind the Rule. Close coordination with all
stakeholders, but especially the users themselves, should be emphasized
across all federal land managing agencies.
Important note regarding Question 2
We understand the purpose of question 2 and attempted to answer it
fully. However, the question incorrectly implies BLM lassitude in
managing recreation. Many BLM units have long been addressing
recreation management challenges, and all are stepping up their
efforts. A significant portion of BLM-managed lands have been closed to
motorized vehicles in the last 20 years. In other areas, including
states such as California, Colorado and Arizona, significant
percentages of BLM managed lands have moved into the ``vehicle limited
to designated roads, trails and areas'' category. In other areas such
as Utah, multi-year planning processes are in the final stages and will
generate detailed travel management plans including specific road/
trail/area prescriptions. In Utah alone such plans will cover
approximately nine million acres, or more than two-thirds of BLM lands
in that state.
It is certainly important that BLM learn from the unprecedented
Forest Service travel planning effort that is underway. However,
Congress should be careful to properly evaluate past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future planning so as to give appropriate weight
to the predictable efforts of special interests to exert political
influence over administrative planning processes.
Question 3. From your experience recreating on federal lands, and
what you've learned during the travel management planning process, what
would be the best and most user-friendly way to designate the routes
that will be open to OHV use?
Answer. The most ``user-friendly'' way to designate routes open for
OHV use is for the federal agencies to fully commit to an active and
long-term management vision and to ``see the process through.''
Unfortunately, environmental laws and agency regulations have often
become one-way gates that largely constrain active management of the
Forests and provide fodder for preservationist agendas designed to stop
such active management through embroiling the agency in a war of
procedural attrition.
Therefore we reiterate that successful recreation management policy
must be accompanied by adequate budget, staffing, and above all,
management's priority to achieve critical on-the-ground goals.
Importantly, BRC notes that the agency's allocation of budget, staff,
and management effort should reflect the developing reality that
outdoor recreation provides a greater good for more Americans than any
other aspect of its multiple-use mandate. The time has come to make
managed recreation the BLM and Forest Service's top priority. The time
is long overdue for allocations of agency resources to reflect
Recreation's position as the dominant multiple use of public lands.
In conclusion, I again would like to thank you for this opportunity
to answer these questions in detail for the record.
Sincerely,
Greg Mumm,
Executive Director.
______
Response of Frank Adams to Question From Senator Domenici
Mr. Adams, let me start by thanking you for your 40 years of public
service and law enforcement work.
I noted your concern about reimbursement to counties for the search
and rescue and emergency medical work they have to do on federal lands.
I suspect that you may not be aware that Congress passed a law in
2000 that would allow counties to utilize a portion of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-determination Act payments to repay the
search and rescue work a county carries out on federal lands.
I also note that over the years only one county in Nevada (Nye
County) has utilized this opportunity.
I also note that counties in Nevada received over $13 million of
payment in lieu of taxes from the federal government and that those
payments can be used for any purpose the county chooses.
Question 1. Can you help the Committee understand if any of the
counties in your State use either of these sources of funding to help
pay for search and rescue or emergency medical response that they
undertake on the federal land?
Answer. Thank you and the committee for the opportunity to testify
on the matter of local law enforcement impact on federal land
regulations. I did poll the sheriffs regarding the use of both funds
for the payment of search and rescue missions conducted on federal
lands. The vase majority of them related that all the ``in-lieu'' taxes
were used by the counties in their general funds, All but on Sheriff
was unaware of the second funding source, the Secure Rural Schools
Funds.
I told them that I would do some research on the second funding
source and provide them with a method of tapping this fund.
______
Responses of Ed Moreland to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. While licensing is a state responsibility, I am
wondering how your organization would react to an administrative
requirement for OHVs that use federal land to have a readily visible
identification number to aid with enforcement of the Forest Service
travel management requirements?
Answer. The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) would oppose
any additional federal regulatory requirement for licensing,
registration or permitting. Law abiding Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV)
enthusiasts are already sufficiently burdened by government mandated
titling, registration and permitting requirements.
The AMA previously supported a number of state OHV titling and
registration programs. We have also been supportive of the federal
Recreation Fee program. All three of these types of programs provide a
way to link an OHV to its owner, registration holder or permit holder.
For example, to ride on the Wayne National Forest's OHV trail
system in Ohio, a rider must title the vehicle with his or her home
state, have a valid state OHV registration and buy and display a
federal Recreation Fee program trail pass decal which shows the rider's
full name.
A valid state OHV registration in the State of Ohio consists of a
permanent decal with a unique registration identification number from
Ohio's All-Purpose Vehicle (APV) registration program. The sticker must
be displayed with the Recreation Fee program trail pass decal on the
OHV in order to operate the vehicle in the National Forest. Thus a
variety of identification tools already exist for the enforcement of
public land OHV regulations.
Furthermore, when public land managers exercise initiative and
creativity they can provide effective enforcement. For example, in
early 2008 the Wayne National Forest organized a targeted enforcement
campaign. With the existing identification tools Rangers were able to
write all applicable citations, as note in the attached press release
from the Wayne National Forest. We are unaware of any case in which
their enforcement personnel were unable to serve a citation because of
the lack of a license plate or larger registration numerals.
While we oppose the creation of any new and additional mandates, we
would be willing to work with state and federal agencies to redesign
existing registration and permit decals to enhance vehicle
identification, as long as such modifications are practical.
Question 2. Can you tell us what has worked and what has not worked
in that process? How would you improve it to gain a better, more easily
implemented plan.
Answer. The experience of our members with this process has varied
greatly from one federal forest to the next. Most of the negative
experiences are the result of the Forest Service either rejecting or
failing to evaluate enthusiast provided trail inventory data. In these
cases the Forest Service often cities a lack of time or funding to do a
more thorough inventory and analysis of the existing trail system.
The AMA and other motorized recreation groups supported the Forest
Service's new Travel Management Rule. We did so, however, with a number
of caveats, not the least of which was our opposition to unfunded
mandates and artificial deadlines that would sacrifice accuracy for
expediency. Now those very issues threaten to undermine any genuine
efforts by the Forest Service to fully inventory their trail systems.
Nowhere is a creation groups' support more clearly demonstrated
than in the state of Colorado. There, off-highway enthusiasts from the
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO) have formed Trail
Inventory Gap Resolution (TIGeR) teams to systematically collect route
information using state of the art Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
information to share with the Forest Service. This information is made
available to officials in the White River, Gunnison, Pike and San Juan
national Forests.
Unfortunately, the personnel in those forests have refused to
accept much of the information provided by COHVCO and the Trails
Preservation Alliance (TPA), citing their inability to stay on
schedule. This is an example of hard deadlines and unfunded mandates
preventing a truly comprehensive list of trails for consideration in
the final plans for those forests.
While the Forest Service asserts that this is simply the start of
the process and that all of the trail information could still be
considered prior to the final rule, many remain concerned that if these
trails are not documented now, they may be lost forever to a process
that refused to even review user provided input.
As other agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
move toward designated trail systems, inadequate funding and artificial
timelines should not be allowed to diminish the quality of the final
product. An inventory system that fails to provide adequate time and
funding to do the job right is destined to fail.
Question 3. From your experience recreating on federal lands, and
what you've learned during the Travel Management planning process, what
would be the best and most user-friendly way to designate the routes
that will be open to OHV use?
Answer. A user-friendly OHV use map would be the best way to inform
riders of the designated routes following the Travel Management
process. However, an effective enthusiast map will need far more detail
than the minimal requirements set out for the Forest Service's Motor
Vehicle Use Map in the route planning regulations.
At a minimum an enthusiast map should include the topography
information generally available on a topographic map, designated OHV
trails, trail head locations and legal access routes, emergency
services access points (if available) and sufficient information to
estimate distances and difficulty. Maps must also be of sufficient
scale to be useful. We have seen federal agencies provide 8.5 by 11
inch Xerox ``maps'' to the public of extensive trail systems. Clearly,
a map of this scale has little value.
A good map is only a starting point. The land management agencies
must still provide informational kiosks at trailheads, confidence
markers on the trail system and sufficient trail maintenance and
signage to assist riders in identifying the designated trail system.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Henri Bisson From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. The Forest Service's regulations specifically require
the official responsible for designating roads and trails ``to consider
. . . the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails,
and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are
designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and
administration.'' 36 CFR Sec. 212.55(a).
Question 2. Does the BLM have direction to analyze, publish, and
consider the availability of resources when developing and adopting its
travel management plans?
Question 3. Your testimony identified the Hackberry Lake OHV Area
in New Mexico as an example of an open area with minimal resource
conflicts. Please provide a complete list of other areas in New Mexico
that are open to cross-country travel and have minimal resource
conflicts.
Question 4. Please provide an analysis of the implementation costs
(including maintenance, monitoring, enforcement, and education) for the
motorized travel systems proposed in each of the six resource
management plans under consideration in Utah.
Question 5. There is a picture in your testimony of some
restoration work in Southern California. How much money did that
restoration project cost?
Question 6. Please provide a description of the status of each
action item outlined in the 2001 National Management Strategy for
Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (including an
explanation of whether the action was carried out as called for (and,
if not, why not and, if so, a description of any lessons learned from
carrying out the action)).
Question 7. At the hearing, you mentioned that quiet recreation
needs were satisfied by such areas as Wilderness and Wilderness Study
Areas. However, in many cases, the BLM is proposing to specifically
designate OHV routes through WSAs. Can you explain the apparent
inconsistency? In addition, can you please explain what direction the
BLM has on designating OHV routes through WSAs and other areas
identified for wilderness consideration?
Question 8. How many of the BLM's Resource Management Plans that
have been complete in the previous five years or are scheduled to be
completed in the next five years do not include or are not expected to
include comprehensive travel plans? For each, how many acres remain or
are expected to remain open to undesignated OHV travel routes?
Questions for Henri Bisson From Senator Wyden
During the June 5, 2008 off-highway vehicle (OHV) hearing in the
Senate's Energy and Natural Resources committee we discussed the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service's actions to nationally
partner with private groups to supplement federal efforts to manage OHV
use and impacts; similar to the partnership taking place in my state of
Oregon with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council.
Question 9a. As follow-up to that discussion, please ensure that
you provide the data I requested-information and examples of how you
are partnering with private associations in Oregon and across the
United States.
Question 9b. Also, as discussed please provide your plan regarding
the prospects to increase these public/private partnerships.
Question 10. We also discussed during that hearing that OHV user
laws and rules vary on private, county, state, and federally-owned
lands and how this can be confusing to many trail riders. How are BLM
and the Forest Service working to better coordinate and standardize
cross-boundary OHV laws and rules to eliminate confusion for OHV riders
in Oregon and on the national level?
Question 11a. Roads and motorized trails are expensive to construct
and maintain whether they are asphalt, gravel, or dirt. The Taxpayers
for Common Sense estimates the Forest Service currently has a $10
billion road maintenance backlog. Even where minimal construction or
maintenance is required (as is the case for some routes on BLM lands),
more routes mean more monitoring to ensure that they are not causing
unacceptable damage and enforcement problems.
Is $10 billion an accurate estimate for the Forest Service's road
maintenance backlog?
Question 11b. Are the Forest Service and BLM capable of assessing
the funding and resources required to implement proposed travel plans?
Question 11c. If so, are your agencies proposing and designating
road and motorized trail systems that are fiscally realistic based on
available and projected funding for construction, maintenance,
monitoring, and enforcement?
Question 12a. While many OHV users ride responsibly on designated
trails, increased OHV activity is affecting hunting, fishing and hiking
experiences for others that are trying to enjoy the tranquility of our
Nation's public lands. Increased off-road use of all terrain vehicles,
trucks, motorcycles and other motor vehicles is resulting in harm to
wildlife habitat and other natural resources on both public and private
lands throughout Oregon, placing further strain on law enforcement and
impacting quiet users. According to the Forest Service and BLM, between
2005 and 2007 there were more than 5,000 OHV-related law enforcement
incidents in Oregon and Washington states alone.
At the hearing, there was some discussion of this issue and inquiry
into the consideration for quiet users given in travel management
planning. Mr. Bisson, in the hearing you indicated that Wilderness
exists for quiet activities. However, Wilderness is a uniquely rugged
backcountry experience that not all hikers, campers, hunters or fishers
are seeking. Mr. Bisson and Mr. Holtrop, do you not believe that it is
important to have non-Wilderness areas on our public lands that quiet
recreationists can enjoy without motorized impacts?
Questions for Henri Bisson From Senator Domenici
Question 13. Can you tell us how much money has been expended to
conduct the Travel Management Rule and the plans that it called for?
Question 14. Might that money have been better spent doing off-
highway use compliance work?
Question 15. Can you give me an estimate of the funds expended on
travel management compliance annually?
Given the written testimony we have already received, it appears
that some of the recreation groups and many of the fish and wildlife
groups are ready to try and throw the all-terrain vehicle and off-
highway vehicle users off federal lands.
Question 16. Why should we single out one user group for their
negative impacts while overlooking the negative impacts of the other
user groups?
Question 17. Are there any recreational uses of Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service lands that have no impact on those lands?
Question 18. If we do what some want and eliminate the use of off-
highway vehicles and/or all-terrain vehicles from federal land because
of resource damage, how should we respond to other recreational uses
that damages the resource?
Question 19. When a Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management
employee observes unauthorized recreational use, or someone damaging
the resources through an unauthorized use what is that employee's
responsibility?
Question 20. Am I correct in my belief that local law enforcement
agencies that work on federal lands do so through Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) and could request monetary support to respond to
medical emergencies on federal lands as part of those MOUs?
Question 21. Am I correct that county government can be reimbursed
for search and rescue on federal land through Title III of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?
Mr. Bisson, you are going to hear several witnesses today
suggesting that your agency undertake single resource planning, in the
same manner that the Forest Service has.
Question 22. Would it be possible for the Bureau of Land Management
to do that type of Travel Management planning work in the next five
years?
Question 23. Can you estimate the potential cost of that work?
Question 24. To your knowledge, have any of the counties in Nevada
taken advantage of the opportunity to get Title III funds from the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000?
Question 25. Are there any other mechanisms that would allow the
Bureau of Land Management to provide any financial aid to counties to
help them provide search and rescue and law enforcement help on BLM
lands?
______
Questions for Jayne Belnap From Senator Bingaman
The literature synthesis cited in the Department's testimony
emphasized the need for further research on the cumulative and indirect
environmental effects of off-highway vehicles. Specifically, it states:
Whereas the results of past OHV-effects research have been
reasonably consistent in demonstrating the nature of OHV
effects in the immediate vicinity of single trails and OHV
sites, there is a need for stronger emphasis on the cumulative
effects-both spatial and temporal-of OHV use.
The concept of cumulative impacts as they relate to OHV
activity, therefore, must be applied in a landscape context, as
these impacts are not site-specific and may affect adjacent or
even more remote habitats and landscapes. For example, dust
created from OHV activities can be dispersed to areas far away
from habitats directly impacted by OHV activities. Likewise,
erosion of soils during heavy rain events may increase
sedimentation far downstream of areas directly subjected to OHV
activities, and edge or corridor effects of OHV routes may
promote widespread dispersal of non-native and invasive
species. Thus, there is a need for greater monitoring and
research emphasis on the effects of OHV activities not only in
the areas directly subjected to those activities, but across
impacted habitat types, watersheds, and landscapes.
Question 1. Can you describe the state of the science and what
current research is underway to improve our understanding of the
cumulative and indirect environmental effects of OHV use-particularly
those at large spatial scales?
Question 2. Can the kind of research that is called for by the
synthesis be reasonably carried out? If so, please specifically
describe how.
Question 3. In his hearing testimony, Mr. Mumm cited a long list of
studies estimating the apparent economic benefits of OHV use. The
synthesis points out that, ``by the same token, economic analyses of
OHV use are needed to account for not only the immediate and apparent
economic benefits, but also the long-term, large-scale, and ongoing
costs associated with OHV use. Without factoring these variables into
models of economic impacts, true cost : benefit ratios of OHV use will
remain unknown.''
What specific factors should be considered in a full-cost
accounting of OHV use on public lands, and is such a study something
that USGS is capable of conducting?
Question 4. The synthesis discusses the impacts of OHV use on
invasive species, but it does not discuss the indirect or cumulative
effects of those impacts. Can you summarize your understanding of the
indirect and cumulative effects of the impacts of OHV use on invasive
species?
Question 5. The synthesis states that once certain soils are
disturbed by OHV use, ``it may take 300-500 years per inch for soil
stabilizers to recover or return to their original state.'' Can you
expand on this statement and its relevance to OHV management?
Question 6. During the hearing, we briefly discussed the impacts of
OHV use on dust production. Can you summarize the existing research on
the subject, including the implications of dust production, and what
further research is necessary?
Question 7. What other activities on public lands have significant
impacts on dust production?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Twentynine Palms, CA, June 1, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Washington, DC.
Re: Off-Road Vehicle Abuse on Private and Public Lands
Dear Senator Bingaman: My name is Christine Carraher, and I have
been a full-time resident of the east Morongo Basin in the Mojave
Desert of California for 16 years. I am a homeowner on 5 acres. I work
as a medical transcriptionist, telecommuting from home. I thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the issue of off-road vehicle (``ORV'')
abuse in the desert area.
Population pressures, increasing proliferation of off-road
vehicles, a sense of rider entitlement, and an utterly inadequate
system of regulation have led to direct conflict between ORV riders and
rural landowners such as myself and my neighbors. It is my position
that until off-road vehicles are regulated along the same lines as
street vehicles, with visible identifying plates, licensing of drivers,
meaningful penalties for infractions, and mandated liability insurance,
we will make no real progress towards a solution to the conflict.
I live in a rural high-desert area where the exposure to ORV use is
frequent. Please understand that I value the rights of Americans to
enjoy their public lands in nondestructive pursuits and acknowledge and
appreciate that many citizens enjoy off-roading as recreation. However,
the inhabitants of my area witness the misuse of public and private
lands by ORV riders on an almost daily basis. Those of us on property
adjoining or near public lands are routinely subject to the noise,
dust, and destructiveness of ORV users who do not recognize law or
limits. The problem is particularly intense in the outlying areas like
where I live because homestead-based settlement here created a quasi-
checkerboard pattern of property ownership, with private residences
scattered amount parcels of federal land.
I have experienced first-hand the destruction that an off-road
vehicle causes the moment it leaves the road or trail. I see the
collapsed burrows, the crushed and uprooted vegetation, the eroded
wash-banks and hillsides. I witness the changes in rain run-off
patterns and the increased dust from formerly living areas that have
been turned into barren dirt lots. I also watch ORV tracks slowly turn
into trails as one user follows another, until the desert is just a
criss-cross of routes--routes that ORV users may subsequently attempt
to defend as historic roads that must remain open to vehicle traffic.
I have been threatened by riders who resented any obstacle to their
free use of lands---public OR private. I have been subjected to
unprovoked hostility and verbal assault and left in the dust as riders
speed off laughing in complete disregard of the law or my rights. I
have had motorcycles buzz right by my door or around barriers on my own
property as though I lived in an open-riding area, utterly disregarding
any attempt on my part to stop or redirect them.
I have seen my neighbors and colleagues who protested and took
action against these illegal behaviors subjected to the most
extraordinary and vicious vilification and defamation in on-line
attacks by people who do not even live here but want to be able to ride
essentially in our yards, including such threatening practices as
posting directions to our homes.
Let us be clear what we're talking about here: The modern off-road
vehicle is a powerful, potentially very dangerous machine. It can turn
from a tool of recreation into a weapon of menace and destruction in an
instant, with no mechanical modification necessary, depending only on
the intent of the rider. It is at the same time a perfect means of
escape from accountability. The ORV outlaw may, at will, use their
vehicle as a weapon to destroy land, vegetation, and wildlife and also
as a weapon to intimidate, menace, or even injure members of the
public, and once the injury is done use the very same instrument to
flee the scene, knowing the likelihood of their being caught is
extremely remote.
It is unacceptable that tax-paying, law-abiding residents should be
so menaced, injured, and deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their
homes. It is also unacceptable that public lands be destroyed without
compensation to the public.
So what is to be done to correct this injustice? We must tie the
action to the actor.
It is my belief that we will not make real progress toward a
solution until we reconceive fundamentally our regulatory structure
governing off-road vehicles and begin to treat ORVs similar to the way
we treat street vehicles, building personal accountability into the
system.
Education and proper enforcement can help measurably, as has been
demonstrated in the Morongo Basin where I live through the vigorous
activism of Community ORV Watch. But for real progress we must address
the fundamental and overarching problem: That the non-accountability of
the ORV user renders education and enforcement attempts permanently
insufficient and, in the end, effectively meaningless.
The problem is inherent in the activity itself, and this point is
crucial: The ORV user rides with, to all intents and purposes, absolute
impunity, as they are almost impossible to catch and almost impossible
to identify. Until we can reliably tie the action to the actor, legally
and financially, we will not solve this problem. Period.
Remember, the ORV races across a land that is essentially not
patrolled. It is a rare day that a ranger or deputy would be in the
vicinity to respond to a complaint; considering the immense area these
officers cover, timely assistance from law enforcement is simply too
much to expect. And citizens cannot catch them--unless they perhaps
jump on an ORV and, in their pursuit, become part of the problem
themselves. And, in the process, seriously risk their personal safety
as confrontation with riders can be extremely dangerous.
Nor can the citizen meaningfully identify the illegal rider.
Covered head to toe in gear and dust and moving at high speed, the ORV
user rides under a cover of anonymity. Whether they be weekend warriors
from the city or local juveniles, there is effectively no way of
knowing for sure who they are. The tiny ``green sticker'' that is
required in California is meaningless unless one is in the immediate
proximity of a halted vehicle whose driver is allowing inspection--not
a situation that happens frequently in the field.
And, on the rare occasion when a lawbreaker is confronted by law
enforcement, the penalties imposed are so minor as to be little more
than a nuisance, and no real deterrent.
What would change this discouraging equation? Bringing off-road
vehicle use under the same type of regulatory system covering street
vehicles. It is difficult to understand why powerful vehicles with such
destructive capacity are not already required to meet the same
registration, identification, and liability requirements that street
vehicles do.
An updated, realistic system that would meet the purpose of
bringing accountability to the ORV rider would include:
Identifying plates that are visible from some distance, at
least equivalent to those required on street vehicles. This
could help the public participate in enforcement, as it would
enable them to convey to rangers and deputies more usable
information than ``a guy with a red helmet on a quad.'' It
would also make immediately apparent outlaw vehicles that were
not registered. It would also bring an element of awareness to
the ORV rider that they are identifiable and will be held
accountable for their actions and therefore would be well
advised to mind the law. The pernicious cover of anonymity
would be removed.
Registration of vehicles with an agency that would keep
records of infractions, so that bad actors could be tracked.
Registration would need to be produced upon demand of law
enforcement.
Licensing of drivers, with qualifying testing to demonstrate
that the driver has the knowledge and skills to ride within the
law. This requirement would make strides towards removing lack
of education as an excuse for illegal action.
Mandatory liability insurance, with proof to be surrendered
to law enforcement upon demand as is required with street
vehicles. This provision is KEY. Riders must be held
financially responsible for the damage they do. If it's found
that their actions are so dangerous as to be uninsurable, then
we must question why we are allowing them to perform these
actions publicly and put others' lives and property at risk.
Riders and their insurers need to be made appropriately subject
to civil action.
Reevaluation of our standards for minors. These machines are
potentially very dangerous for both rider and public, and it is
prudent to question whether juveniles have the judgment to
appropriately handle the privilege of riding. Additionally,
despite the law juveniles frequently ride with no oversight.
This is inexcusable. The actions of juveniles on off-road
vehicles must be tied to their parents or guardians with full
civil and criminal liability.
Penalties must be increased to a level sufficient to provide
real deterrence. Education followed by a warning may be fine to
start, but after that penalties must be increased
precipitously, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle.
Weekend warriors from urban areas have come to regard small
fines as simply part of the cost of riding wherever they want
in the desert. That is not acceptable. The penalty must be
sufficient to deter abuse.
I recognize that this is not a program that the Federal government
can create alone and that interagency cooperation would be required.
Nevertheless, it must be done. Nothing less will fix the problem.
Funding can be provided by the users of off-road vehicles.
However we proceed, until we tie the actor to the actions there
will be no real progress in the growing crisis of off-road vehicle
abuse and no real relief for property owners. This abuse of peaceful
citizens and their property must stop!
I thank the Senators for allowing me to testify on the issue of
off-road vehicle misuse and appreciate the efforts of the Committee to
study the problem. It is my sincere hope that you will vigorously
pursue this matter and bring justice and needed relief to the law-
abiding rural resident, as we have no way to stop these abusers except
through the actions of our elected officials and the problem is getting
dangerously out of control.
Respectfully,
Christine Carraher.
______
Twentynine Palms, CA.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: It is with a great deal of appreciation that I write this
letter to you. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to express my
concern and dismay over off-road vehicle trespass on private property
in my neighborhood. This letter includes a short introduction to my
situation, a detailed account of the problems I face as a private
property owner under siege by riders of off-road vehicles, and finally
some considered solutions to the problems.
By way of introduction, I am a professional who retired after a
spinal disease crippled me. I am a parent of three contributing
citizens. I have a long history of community involvement. I am not a
member of any anti-ORV riding group, but I have worked cooperatively
with one such group on a few occasions.
I retired to Wonder Valley, a quiet corner of the Mojave Desert and
a Special Service District within San Bernardino County that covers 130
square miles and has a land-to-dwelling ratio of four homes to every
square mile. I am currently an appointee to the Road and Park
Commission that makes recommendations to the County for the Wonder
Valley area and although I am not writing to you in my capacity as
Commissioner, it is worth mentioning that the problems that accompany
off-road vehicle riding are well known to the Commission and the County
Board of Supervisors.
Wonder Valley is situated about two and a half (2.5) hours from Los
Angeles, San Diego and Orange County and about an hour and a half (1.5)
from Riverside and San Bernardino. My home sits on a five-acre Small
Tract Homestead parcel. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land abuts my
property on three sides.
Since I moved to Wonder Valley, I have been plagued by riders
attracted to a sand pit a thousand or so feet from my home that was
created by the action of flash-flood water where two dry washes meet.
The land is managed by the BLM and is theoretically closed to off-road
vehicles. The riders soon get bored with playing in the pit and leave
to explore the dry washes. One of those washes crosses my property, and
the trespass is non-stop. If it is a weekend there is someone on an
off-road vehicle roaring across my property past my back door, through
my garden, to get out of or into the wash.
In the three years I have lived here, through constant work and
expense, I have managed to reduce the trespass to three or four
trespasses a month, but is has been a Herculean task that should not be
the work of a simple property owner trying to enjoy a little peace and
quite and recuperate from a series of surgical spinal reconstructions.
I have often feared for my personal physical safety. The reduction in
trespass has required the combined work of the San Bernardino County
Sheriff, San Bernardino County Code Enforcement, the District Attorneys
of San Bernardino and San Luis Obispo Counties, and the Superior Court
of San Bernardino County. The struggle has required me to be strong,
articulate, tenacious, resilient, well-funded, and creative. It has
taken several hundred hours of my time as well as the time of neighbors
and friends who have helped and supported me through the fight.
My neighborhood like others in Wonder Valley has become a volatile
hotbed of contention with private and BLM no-trespassing signs cut
down, swastikas and other hate images appearing in sensitive and
significant locations, and neighbors on high alert. The off-road
community waves the flag trying to justify their practices by declaring
that President Grant went on ``wild buggy rides in the streets of
Washington, DC'' and demanding their ``[constitutional] right to ride''
while residents fight for their right to peace and quiet in their
homes.
I have personally been menaced by a man who charged me at fifty
miles per hour with his off-road vehicle while he was trespassing on my
land. I had to go back to court a second time to ask for a restraining
order against him. I have been harassed in my home and on the street.
The directions to my home have been published on line in several
locations over a period of several years by members of the off-road
community with exhortation to their buddies to ride their ORVs by my
home and voice their opinions. Early on the Sheriff was an unwitting
victim in this, sent on bogus calls to my home by ``anonymous''
tipsters.
There are so many things wrong with this situation that it is
difficult to address them all, but let me try to do so. Let me do so
for all of those beleaguered neighbors of mine who may not be as
strong, tenacious, resilient, articulate, well-funded, and creative and
who may not have the hundreds of hours of time or the support of
friends and family as has been my good luck.
First and foremost, as an American citizen and a homeowner, I am
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of my home. I should be safe in my
home. My property should be under my control as long as I am acting in
a lawful way. I should be free from trespassers. I believe I am
entitled to this as a citizen of San Bernardino County, the State of
California, and the United States of America.
Second, trespass reduces the value of my land. Every wheel rut
results in constant erosion by wind and seasonal erosion by water. The
vehicles damage the existing plant and animal populations by altering
the terrain and habitat and by killing them outright. My property is a
nursery for many creatures on the protected species including the
Kangaroo Rat, the Smoke Tree, and the Cat's Claw Acacia. Much aesthetic
and biological value lies in these creatures. A four-foot Smoke Tree
costs about $250 in local nurseries.
Third, every ride across my property changes the drainage and ruins
the levees, called berms, that divert water during flashfloods. Since
only a small break in the levees that hold back the flash floods will
cause them to fail, every trespass potentially endangers the structure
of my home if at any time I cannot get someone to come and repair the
berms before a storm.
Fourth, the dust the vehicles raise is a health hazard as well as a
nuisance. The dust problem persists long after the vehicle is gone as
each gust of desert wind raises dust where an ORV breaks the hard
desert crust. Dust is filled with microscopic particles of clay and
silica, and sometimes contains other organic and inorganic debris, like
the fungus that causes Valley Fever and asbestos fibers, all known to
cause life-threatening illness when inhaled. I will skip a discussion
of the effects of an illegal 100+ decibel engine shattering the
stillness outside one's door.
Fifth, protecting myself against outlaws on off-road vehicles has
cost me thousands of dollars in materials and labor. The expenditures
fall into two categories, damage prevention and damage mitigation.
Prevention includes building fences and barricades. Mitigation includes
restoration of disturbed drainage, damaged levees and berms, erasing
tracks so other off-road vehicles don't follow them, and restoring the
desert crust. As you may imagine, because I am no longer able to do any
of this work myself, the bill has been considerable.
Sixth, protecting my property against off-road vehicle trespass has
diverted my precious resources. The actual cost of defending my
perimeter is matched by an equally onerous and significant opportunity
cost. As a disabled person, you can imagine how frustrating it is to
have to spend my limited physical and financial resources on fighting
trespass, instead of improving my quality of life. I fail to see why as
an American citizen, my disposable income must be spent on protecting
my perimeter against outside aggressors. I thought peace in our homes
was what my father fought for at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge.
Land owners carry a heavy economic, physical, and psychological
burden imposed on us by outlaw ORV riders. The source of this problem
is not so much that people want to ride off-road vehicles. It is still
a legal activity in some specific locations in America. The problem
lies largely in three facts that are, in my mind, the key to a workable
solution. First, most riders come onto my property from BLM land.
Second, most riders are unidentifiable and untrackable. Third, there
are few real penalties for the transgressions, few consequences for
illegal behavior, and no restitution for the property owner.
The argument is sometimes made by the ORV community that not all
riders are outlaws, and I am sure that is true, but it is an immaterial
argument. It is like saying that since most people do not murder and
rob other people, there should be no laws regulating robbery and
murder. If ALL people were ONLY riding legally, I would never see a
rider on my property. Although I see fewer riders on my property, this
spring alone there have been at least a dozen high-speed trespassers
and I see people riding illegally on other land on a regular and
continuing basis, except at the hottest time of the summer, when
activity is rare.
So the problem becomes what to do about the outlaws. Because it is
so cheap and easy to be an ORV outlaw, many riders choose to step over
the line. Until the riding community pays for the full cost of their
fun, including damage to private property, the problem will continue
unabated. When the only punishment one gets for stealing cookies from
the cookie jar is the cookie itself, it is likely that the cookie
stealing will continue. This is the situation with ORV outlaws. The
only consequence ORV outlaws currently suffer is doing whatever they
want, whenever they want, with impunity. They are as unidentifiable and
unapprehendable as the banditos of the Old West, and they cause as much
upset in our communities. The problem of ORV outlaws is pervasive and
it will take a combination of civil and criminal justice solutions to
return peace to our neighborhoods and end what is tantamount to
motorized terrorism in some locations.
I hope you will consider the following list of suggestions in
framing the best solution to the problem.
First, rider anonymity needs to be ended. I was able to get the
Sheriff and DA involved in my situation because I was able to track a
perpetrator to a nearby home. But understand what a rarity this is--of
the hundreds (100s) of trespasses in the last three and a half years, I
have been able to identify only one (1) rider. Riders are
unidentifiable because they are covered in protective gear and they are
not required to have registered license plates that can be read as they
flee the scene.
Second, the BLM needs to be given adequate resources to
successfully steward the land under their care. We need rangers and we
need maintained signage. Most of the trespass on my land comes from the
BLM land that surrounds my property. Calls to the BLM are not returned.
Although Ranger Kevin MacLean is assigned locally, he is called a
``Ranger Trainer'' and so he is mostly out training other BLM
employees, not rangering our neighborhoods. When our neighborhood watch
volunteered to install and maintain signs on BLM land in our
neighborhood we were told there were no signs available.
Third, law enforcement needs additional funds to purchase the
specialized equipment and special training required for off-road
vehicle enforcement. I fail to understand why the funds for this very
expensive, specialized enforcement should not come, in large part, from
the pockets of the community that offends. Law enforcements efforts
will be improved by tighter regulation and better rider education as
outlined below.
Fourth, riding needs to be more tightly regulated. ORVs are high-
powered vehicles and their drivers need to be issued licenses after
rigorous testing that includes items about the laws regarding public
and private property. Minimum age limits and other requirements that
are in line with those for a regular driver's license need to be
established. Riders should be required to carry proof of medical,
property damage, and personal liability insurance on their vehicle when
they ride--with the provision that this information be surrendered to
the injured party and any law officer upon injury or damage to another
person or their property.
Fifth, rider education needs to be required for all riders. Riders
need easy to access, readable information about where they may legally
ride.
Sixth, the penalties for illegal riding need to be stiffened,
particularly for repeat offenders, who should have their vehicles
seized.
Seventh, ORV routes in areas that suffer from frequent incursions
should be closed until adequate law enforcement, clean up, and
restoration can be guaranteed.
And finally, I am tired of paying the bill for the freewheeling
destruction of outlaw riders. A fund needs to be established through
user fees to pay for the damage done by riders to private property
through illegal trespass.
I would like to thank this august body for the opportunity to
testify on this critical issue affecting the future of American land
and resources. It is clear that there is a huge problem, that
homeowners are being arbitrarily deprived of their right to the
enjoyment of their homes by modern-day outlaws. It is also clear that a
solution is possible, one that respects the rights of riders who ride
legally and the rights of property owners who want nothing more than to
remain unmolested in their homes.
We must act now if we want to reduce the tension in our
communities, the devastation of pristine environments, the aggravation
and loss of homeowners, and the drain down of public and private
resources. We cannot wait if we want to improve the air quality, the
quality of life for residents, and the biological diversity of our
American Home.
Again thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Respectfully,
D. S. Dozier.
______
Statement of Victoria Fuller, Joshua Tree, CA
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about a very serious
problem that is getting worse as more and more off-road vehicle riders
come out to our communities causing widespread damage and nuisance.
I live in a small town in the California desert. My neighbors and I
are just like other rural Americans who seek a friendly community to
live-in surrounded by wide open public land.
We have reached a point of desperation as we witness our rural
communities taken over by off-roaders who have no respect for our
private property rights. Many of our calls for help are ignored because
there is insufficient funding and support for law enforcement who are
often overwhelmed by the problem. In our communities, ORV trespass and
nuisance is a major complaint to law enforcement both local and
federal. Every holiday weekend, and often in between, people from urban
areas haul their vehicles out to our neighborhoods and act in a way
they would never act in their own neighborhoods--they treat our
communities like off-road vehicle playgrounds: riding cross-country and
trespassing on both private and public lands.
Large staging of 10, 20, 30, 50 ORVs assemble on someone's five
acre weekend getaway and ride day and night creating noise and dust--
degrading the quality of life in our communities. Every weekend we
suffer from helmeted riders who act as though they are invincible by
trespassing on our lands and disappearing into the distance before law
enforcement can respond. They are nearly impossible to identify because
they do not have license plates. And due to the lack of local as well
as federal law enforcement, residents have been forced out of their
homes while the riders continue to break the law with impunity.
Our public lands are lacking adequate route designations to inform
riders where they can and cannot go in addition to information like
maps and signage. Because off-road vehicles are going anywhere and
there is no information to contradict this notion, we see Real Estate
ads promoting irresponsible behavior by implying that people can ride
anywhere they want.
Can you imagine what it's like to be a prisoner in your own home,
or the feeling of helplessness as dirt bikes, quads and sand rails ride
past your ``no trespassing'' signs right onto your private property?
Don't I have a right to peace and quiet? to the safety of my home? to
the full value of my property?
One especially egregious circumstance was told to me last week
involving a private residence bordering on BLM land that includes a
wash adjoining the private property. With the coming of spring weather,
groups of riders numbering 8 to 10 at a time are beginning their annual
treks along the wash as if it were a Disneyland ride. According to
County code enforcement officers, the BLM office has informed them that
the wash is now an ``established route'' because of its ``common use''.
BLM personnel have also said that ``washes are generally allowed
routes''. Our understanding has always been that vehicles are allowed
only on routes specifically designated on official maps. No exceptions
have ever been given, not to mention how so-called common use might be
established. Is this like Tombstone justice where if anyone wants to
open up their own ORV trail on BLM land they only have to use it three
times or so? What is the BLM thinking and why is no one-not even
Congress--holding them accountable?
The ``checkerboard'' pattern of private, public and BLM lands can
create misunderstandings and ambiguities in the interpretation of the
law. It can also lead to encroachment onto the outer boundaries of
Joshua Tree National Park, where it has been made clear that no off-
road traffic is ever allowed. The BLM's lack of clear rules and
specific areas for off-road vehicles leads to riders carrying over
their lawless behavior onto all lands--both private property and
National Parks.
You need to know that we also suffer from retaliation by riders who
engage in harassment of their neighbors who call for help. Some riders
use their vehicles to intimidate and try to deny us due process of the
law. There are horror stories of residents who have received threats,
have been physically attacked, brushed past closely by vehicles, their
pets killed, and their property destroyed. There have even been
shootings over this conflict.
We need to find effective ways to deal with this problem before it
gets even more out of hand.
I live in Joshua Tree, California, located in the Morongo Basin in
San Bernardino County, the largest county in the nation, where you can
find the largest designated off-road vehicle open area in the United
States, but riders do not stay in designated areas and we have been
suffering from the onslaught of abuse.
Three years ago, a group of residents and business owners could not
take it any more and got together to find solutions to this problem. We
organized meetings, conferences and public education campaigns and have
asked our local law enforcement for relief. As a result:
We assisted the local Sheriff's department obtain more than
$250,000 in state ORV law enforcement grants.
We coordinated a series of stakeholder meetings with
residents, conservation groups, off road vehicle vendors and
state, local and federal law enforcement agencies to create an
informational brochure encouraging safe and responsible riding,
informing the public about the law and providing a map showing
clearly where it is legal to ride. Thousands of these brochures
have been distributed to riders throughout our area. (Brochures
for distribution).
We participated in a stakeholder process to create a county
ordinance that is helping to fairly and effectively protect
private property. The ordinance was passed unanimously by the
San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, and according to the
Sheriff's department, code enforcement and residents, the law
is working. ( Copies of the ordinance for distribution).
We have formed volunteer groups to serve as stewards of our
public lands since the BLM has not been able to protect our
cultural and natural resources. Adobe ruins, stagecoach sites,
mining districts and other historic treasures are routinely
damaged by uncaring riders. We need help from the BLM and other
federal land management agencies to protect these places that
are part of our national heritage.
Rural communities all over our country are suffering from the
reckless, unchecked motorized sport and it is very important that we
take a national approach to this growing problem.
We ask that our Congress craft legislation to give relief to rural
American communities and would like to suggest the following:
1. We need stricter laws, greater fines, confiscation of
vehicles and jail time for repeat offenders. We must have zero
tolerance for harassment and intimidation.
2. We need a national campaign to educate riders about where
to ride legally, to respect private property and public lands,
and advice on how to ride safely and responsibly.
3. Every vehicle should have a visible license plate so that
property owners and law enforcement can identify offenders. The
presently used small sticker on the back of the vehicle is
impossible to see when it is moving.
4. ORV vendors must finally take responsibility to promote
responsible riding through their advertising campaigns and at
the dealerships.
5. Our federal law enforcement agencies must begin to respond
to this huge problem with a concentrated effort, special task
forces, and cooperation with local authorities and law
enforcement agencies.
6. Parents must be financially responsible for the actions of
their children who ride dangerously and damage private property
and public lands.
7. We must find less dangerous and less destructive
recreation for our youth.
8. State and county law enforcement should not have to
compete with federal law agencies for state-funded grants for
ORV enforcement. It's time for the BLM to take their mandate
seriously and protect our public lands, many of which have
become illegal, de facto off-road vehicle open areas.
9. Riders should be required to cover the cost of the impact
of their sport through fees and fines.
10. Rider should pass a driver's test that educates them on
their responsibilities and the impact of trespass.
It has been a privilege to be able to testify before this committee
and I hope you will take these comments to heart and provide the
leadership we need to address this serious problem.
Attachment.--Follow up to Senate testimony
ORV users are not informed about where they can and cannot legally
ride. We live in rural communities and everyone cannot afford to fence
in their 5+ acre lots. Local riders congregate in large stagings in our
communities and then leave their property and ride cross-country
trespassing on private lands. Riders remove ``No Trespassing'' signs
from our properties and then claim they did not know they were
trespassing. The BLM does not respond to calls in a timely fashion, are
under-staffed and have essentially abandoned the public lands in our
area as they concentrate on the huge stagings at other areas. The
Sheriff's department is understaffed and cannot respond to complaints
in time to catch perpetrators who cannot be identified since they do
not have visible license plates. County code enforcement personnel
cannot apprehend trespassers and do not have the mandate or proper
vehicles to pursue violators.
Sheriff's department dispatchers are often ill-informed about the
laws and commonly de-prioritize calls about ORV trespass or send these
calls to the California Highway Patrol, which has stated that it will
not respond to these complaints. The public is stuck in the middle of
the lack of response and coordination between these different law
enforcement agencies. We need large format signage, electronic message
boards, better law enforcement response and public education to help
stem the large-scale trespass and nuisance on most holiday weekends.
We have had a number of meetings in the past with the local Barstow
BLM with little result and it has become more difficult to communicate
with the local office. We are told that they are understaffed and
unable to patrol sufficiently in our area. Barstow Field Manager Roxie
Trost, after much public advocacy and our support of state ORV law
enforcement grants for the BLM, informed us that she had hired a
``Resident Ranger'' for the Morongo Basin. But in subsequent
conversations with the ``resident ranger'' Kevin MacLean, we were
informed that he is not our resident ranger but a ``Ranger Trainer''
and is most often out of the area training other rangers.
When we asked Field Manager Trost to inform us if we could have a
ranger patrol the area on busy holiday weekends, we were informed that
she would not provide us with information about coverage ``for security
reasons.'' This is both confusing and troubling.
We recently held a public meeting and conference about ORV
problems in our area (please see enclosed flyer) and requested
that local law enforcement officials attend to report on their
activities and hear from the public. We invited Field Manager
Roxie Trost to attend but she sent instead a ranger who had
been on the job for only two months and who did not have
knowledge of the problems, or any authority to establish
policy.
The BLM is unable to respond to our requests for law enforcement
when incidents occur and our calls and emails to the Barstow office are
often ignored. This is not only frustrating for the public, but allows
for ORV trespass and destruction to occur with impunity. The public has
essentially given up on even trying to obtain relief from the BLM.
Unlike our cooperative and constructive relationship with the local
Sheriff's department and county Code Enforcement officers, we feel as
though we have been abandoned by the Barstow BLM office. In the last
three years, we have assisted the local Sheriff's department obtain
over $250,000 in state ORV enforcement grants. ORV destruction of BLM
lands in the area, including two designated wilderness areas and
important cultural and natural resources continues unabated in the
Morongo Basin.
Since 2007, Barstow BLM Field Manager Roxie Trost and CDD Manager
Steven Borchard have refused to meet with concerned citizens and
resident groups regarding the lack of enforcement and extensive illegal
activity on public lands, while meetings with pro-ORV groups continue
on a regular basis.
The BLM's response is completely unsatisfactory in curbing illegal
off-road use and they act as though ORV abuse of public lands in our
communities is a low priority. The BLM provides little or no patrol
coverage in our area at identified areas and on holiday weekends and
does not communicate sufficiently with the community. We have
identified particular ``hot spots'' and have asked with no success that
the BLM conduct special operations in these areas to stop widespread
destruction of our public lands. Since there is a checkerboard land use
pattern where public and private lands are mixed, the BLM's lack of
coordination with the local Sheriff's department and county Code
Enforcement makes enforcement very difficult.
We have received more cooperation from the local US Marine Corps
Base in the prevention of ORV abuse of our lands than from the local
office of the BLM.
There is an area in the Morongo Basin (Post Homestead) under the
jurisdiction of the BLM that has important cultural resources including
100 year old adobe ruins and sensitive sand dune plant communities that
is currently used as a de facto open ORV area. A spider's web of
illegal routes are destroying these resources. At times, ORVs have used
the adobe ruins, once part of an historical stage coach system, as a
``jump.'' The area also suffers from illegal trash dumping.
We teamed up with the local historical society, conservation groups
and local residents to protect this important cultural and natural
resource we consider part of our American historical heritage. We have
organized community clean-ups of the area, provided historical and
ecological interpretation and continue to provide volunteer stewardship
of the area. We have repeatedly asked the BLM to patrol this area with
stepped-up enforcement, additional signage and special protection
including an informational kiosk to inform users of its historical
value and ecological sensitivity. We have asked the BLM to close the
illegal routes. The photograph of the shot-up and damaged ``Closed
Route'' sign we have sent you shows the kind of disregard ORV riders
have for attempts to protect this land. The BLM has yet to respond to
our request for increased signage and an informational kiosk for the
area, despite our offer to pay for all the materials and provide local
volunteers for labor. Other local communities throughout the California
Desert Conservation Area have similar issues with the BLM.
Another important concern is that we seem to be in a ``Catch-22''
situation regarding the signed designation of ORV routes. According to
the recent Western Mojave (WEMO) BLM Plan, ORVs can only ride on
designated routes, yet we have been informed by Barstow BLM Ranger
Kevin Maclean that off--route travel violations in the Morongo Basin
will not be cited even if witnessed by a BLM Ranger due to the BLM's
failure to post designated routes. A close look at the WEMO plan shows
that the BLM designated ORV routes that appear to stop at the boundary
of private land then continue on the other side inviting trespass. It
is obvious that the BLM failed to conduct ``ground-truthing'' exercises
in the designation of these routes. There are numerous examples of BLM
designated routes leading to the homes of local residents who
experience constant trespass by ORVs.
Depending on the area and weekend, we can have dozens of
trespass incidents including the destruction of private
property, use of washes as illegal ORV routes, illegal riding
on county service roads and the destruction of flood control
infrastructure and berms. Illegal stagings of ORVs on private
property can reach as many as 50 ORVs riding day and night and
onto adjacent private and public lands.
Of particular concern are the many disturbing incidents of
harassment and intimidation by ORV riders against residents who contact
law enforcement for relief. This retaliation has come in the form of
threats of physical violence, threats to burn down complainants homes,
threats against pets (in one case, ORV riders are believed to have
poisoned a complainant's dogs), destruction of private property and
security fences, and stolen and/or damaged ``no trespassing'' signs. We
view this is an attempt to deny law-abiding residents access to due
process of the law. In addition, residents who speak out in the local
newspapers and public meetings continue to be victims of internet
stalking including the posting of libelous accusations and racist
attacks. There has recently appeared what seems to be an effort to
track enforcement calls and to advertise these on the ORV internet
sites.
It has all gotten very ugly at times and this has had a chilling
effect on residents taking action and reporting illegal activities to
local officials.
In 2005, a stakeholder group of ORV enthusiasts, vendor's
groups, ORV lobby groups, local homeowners and residents and
conservation organizations working closely with the San
Bernardino County Department of Code Enforcement presented a
fair and effective county ordinance to the San Bernardino
County Board of Supervisors who passed the law unanimously. For
the complete text of the ordinance please visit our web site:
www.orvwatch.com . The county ordinance contains a number of
important provisions protecting private property including:
a. limits on noise from ORV tailpipes consistent with
state noise regulations
b. ORV riders must have written permission on their
person to ride on private land other than their own
c. recourse for residents to document and seek
judicial relief for excessive noise and dust and
trespass of private lands
d. responding to the problem of large scale stagings
of ORVs in rural neighborhoods. ORV stagings of 10 or
more people must obtain a permit from the local county
code enforcement.
Since its passage in 2005, there have been numerous attempts by ORV
users (including the state's largest ORV lobby organization--CORVA) to
repeal or weaken the ordinance, and therefore protection of our lands
can only be accomplished with continual vigilance. The county
ordinance, created through a stakeholder process, is viewed as a model
for other counties in California.
Maps and educational material will not stop the problems and
impact we are facing from illegal off-road vehicle use. There
must also be increased fines and law enforcement and
stakeholder cooperation as part of a comprehensive plan. We
participated in a stakeholder process with the Bureau of Land
Management, county Sheriff's department, California Highway
Patrol and National Park Service to produce an informational
brochure (enclosed) and then assisted the local Sheriff's
department obtain California State Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation grant funding to produce thousands of these
brochures for distribution.
The problem has reached crisis proportions. The Morongo Basin
is a short 30 minute drive to Johnson Valley, the largest
designated ORV open area in the entire county, yet riders
continue to trespass on public lands closed to ORV use and
private property. Throughout the California Desert Conservation
Area, new illegal ORV routes appear constantly.
What is needed is large format signage on major highways in the
areas indicating that grant funds are at work and that the area is
patrolled by law enforcement, and that riders must know the law before
riding in our area.
Other recommendations
1. Age limit of 16 years for riders--ORV are just too
dangerous for children, please refer to the testimony by the
American Association of Pediatricians.
2. Increased fees and dramatically increased penalties for
ORV violations leading to confiscation and jail time. Some
penalties are so low that riders consider them the cost of
recreation (ORV sponsored internet sites regularly talk about
that).
3. Visible license plates so that residents and law
enforcement can identify violators, and so that riders do not
feel anonymous and feel they can disobey the law with impunity.
4. Mandated riding tests such as those required to operate a
motor vehicle.
5. Large format signage and informational kiosks with maps to
inform riders of the law and to indicate where they can legally
ride.
6. Installation of a BLM ``resident ranger'' in our area who
will concentrate on enforcement, be available to the public,
and who will coordinate with the Sheriff's department and
county code enforcement. We need a full time BLM resident
ranger whose primary position description and responsibility
would be to routinely patrol BLM land in the Morongo Basin. The
Ranger filling this position should spend not less than 60 % of
his/her time patrolling in the field, with a special emphasis
on protecting BLM resources, preventing user conflict,
educating off-road recreation users, and enforcing applicable
off-road law.
7. Education in the schools to engender a respect for private
property and the environment. Information about the
environmental impacts of ORVs on wildlife and vegetation.
Alternative recreational opportunities for young people.
8. Vender responsibility--ORV vendors continue to advertise
their vehicles clearly riding off-route, cross-country and
destroying virgin landscapes. Vendors should be required to
provide information about safe and responsible riding.
9. ORV routes in areas that suffer from frequent incursions
should be closed until adequate law enforcement can be
guaranteed.
10. The BLM designated California Desert Conservation Areas
should be clearly marked since these areas contain critical
habitat for endangered species and areas of critical
environmental concern (ACEC) vulnerable to ORV damage.
In closing, we would like to work with your office and with a group
of stakeholders to develop federal legislation to address widespread
ORV abuse of our public lands so that we may preserve these lands for
future generations. We work with a coalition of grass roots groups
called the Alliance for Responsible Recreation, an all-volunteer effort
to protect our precious cultural and natural resources.
______
Statement of Philip M. Klasky, Wonder Valley, CA
I am a teacher and resident of Wonder Valley, California, a small
rural community in the eastern Mojave desert. My home and peace and
quiet is constantly invaded by off-road vehicles (ORV)s resulting in
damage to my property and impacting my quality of life. Every holiday
weekend we have to suffer the illegal activities of hundreds of ORVs
acting illegally and creating a nuisance with excessive dust and noise
and trespass on private and public lands.
This hearing is a good first step, but we need action. I am writing
to ask that the U.S. Senate take specific measures to deal with the
crisis of illegal off-road vehicle destruction and trespass on our
private and public lands and to finally reign in a huge problem that is
causing millions of dollars of property damage, creating additional
costs to rural communities for impacts on law enforcement and emergency
services and is resulting in violent conflicts between illegal riders
and law-abiding citizens.
I cannot exaggerate the impact of hoards of ORVs, trailered out
from urban areas to our rural communities, and wreaking havoc on our
neighborhoods, property, businesses, roads and flood control
infrastructure. Something must be done now to stop this attack on our
communities.
My neighbors and I formed a Neighborhood Watch Program to
coordinate the defense of our lands and to work cooperatively with
local law enforcement and code enforcement to catch the perpetrators.
We have created an all-volunteer organization of homeowners and
businesses in the Morongo Basin to help law enforcement obtain ORV
enforcement grant funds, to educate the public on how they can defend
themselves and to pass local ordinances to address the problem. Our web
site is www.orvwatch.com.
Despite our best efforts, the fines are so low, resources for
enforcement so limited and the ability to apprehend the perpetrators so
difficult that some riders act as though there are no consequences for
their activities. There is something terribly wrong with this picture.
My neighbors and I have been physically and verbally assaulted by
riders trespassing on our lands. As I stood in my backyard to take
photograph of one trespasser, he tried to run me over. Local code
enforcement officers, attempting to stop illegal stagings of dozens of
ORV have been physically attacked. You don't really understand the
problem unless you have experienced it personally.
Our federal, state, county and local laws have not caught up with
the explosion of vehicles destroying our private and public lands. Our
politicians seem reluctant to deal with the big ORV vendors who promote
illegal activity with their ad campaigns and do little to educate the
public about responsible riding.
Our public lands in the Western Mojave desert region have been
abandoned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--the federal agency
tasked to protect them. Our local BLM office in Barstow does not
respond to our requests for assistance, cooperation, communication, or
law enforcement. The lands in the Morongo basin are a checker-board
pattern of private and public holdings and the lack of cooperation
between the BLM and local law enforcement allows for widespread and
unchecked violations. These are public lands set aside for everyone,
not illegal riders destroying important habitat and natural landscapes.
I understand that the same kinds of problems with ORVs can be found
across the country and therefore I would like to suggest federal
legislation. I would like to suggest the following: responsible
advertising by vendors and an added tax for law enforcement and
restoration; a significant effort at public education through the
schools and in the media; large format signage and informational kiosks
in problem areas; higher fines, jail time and confiscation of vehicles
for repeat offenders; age limit for riders; AND MORE FUNDS FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit this letter to the
Committee on Natural Resources and would appreciate a reply to my
concerns.
______
Statement of Mary L. Riggs-Cuyno, Joshua Tree, CA
My name is Mary Riggs Cuyno. I live in Joshua Tree California, next
to the Joshua Tree National Park and several BLM and wilderness areas
in the Morongo Basin. I have been a resident and a teacher for our
local school district for the last 18 years.
I began my involvement in issues regarding off road vehicle abuse
on public and private lands as we began to see a drastic increase in
neighborhood and public land abuses in 2003 by Off Road Vehicles.
Though some abuses occured before this time, neighborhoods began
experiencing significant increases in trespass, noise and even
harassment as local real estate agents began to advertise this place as
having ``lots of room to bring your toys'' at the start of the housing
boom. Even if homes were on 1/4 acre lots, the open areas surrounding
developments were seen as ``just a bunch of trails'' by newcomers and
newly affluent alike. In addition, the Joshua Tree National Park began
seeing an increase in incursions onto park territory adjacent to
unsupervised and unmanaged BLM lands in our area.
Enforcement in this area was virtually non-existent, existing laws
were vague or fell under the jurisdiction of various agencies to the
point that not one agency could tackle the scope and sequence of ORV
abuses on public and private lands. I had neighbors who would invite
friends over to ride on our neighborhood dirt roads at high speeds on
quads and dirt bikes. However, they wouldn't stay on the roads, they
would ride up washes and onto my private property. I had instances
where they would ride through open desert not caring whose property
they were on. We had others in our neighborhood who would allow their
children to ride unsupervised on paved streets around the neighborhood
and even one instance where they were using an elementary school bus
stop as a jump where they would land in a street where cars regularly
travel between 45-60 MPH.
When I tried to talk to my neighbors who trespassed or the parents
of these unsupervised children, though some responded well, we had many
others who felt if they didn't get caught, it didn't matter what they
did. One family in would ride daily all over our once quiet
neighborhood. They would drag race, spit up dirt plumes that could
literally be seen over a mile away and trespass with regularity. We
would call the sheriff, who only dealt with trespass and nuisance
issues. If we mentioned the riders were on the streets, we were told to
call the highway patrol, who never showed up. When and if deputies
arrived, often hours later, we were frequently told there was nothing
they could do because they didn't observe them in the act, even though
evidence of tracks leading to and from the perpetrators' residences
were clear and bikes were parked in plain sight. Sometimes they would
go ``talk'' to the families responsible. When these riders found who
was calling on them, myself and others were often targeted with
deliberate trespass where riders would ignore private property signs
and run over barriers, an act of deliberate harassment. With little
relief, several families chose to move out rather than deal with the
constant and daily problems of ORV abuse for almost 3 years.
I decided to stand my ground and I got active. I started
documenting evidence and working with a local organized group who
regularly met with law enforcement and public officials. Because of
public outcry and protest against ORV abuse, in 2006, San Bernardino
County passed Ordinance 3973. This ordinance simply outlines the rules
of ORV use and consequences of ORV misuse in an enforceable format
under one jurisdiction. Rules are clear about trespass and puts the
responsibility on the rider, not the property owner. Repeat offenders
are met with stiffer fines with a fourth offense leading to jail time.
Since the passage of this ordinance, law enforcement and riders alike
now have a set of clear rules to follow. Though the law is not perfect,
as a homeowner I now have the tools to deal with ORV abuse in my
neighborhood and the number of offenses have dropped significantly.
Unfortunately, this is just one county and our officers have had
their work cut out for them. Funding at the state OHV level is highly
competitive and since the advisory commission has been disbanded due to
pressure from the powerful OHV industry lobby, we risk losing the
funding we fight for every year to pay for enforcement, and we are one
of the better off communities. What about those communities that have
no clear laws? No education programs? No funding at the state level?
What about abuses of our public lands? Why is the BLM chronically under
funded when this is a growing national problem?
The solution is simple. Just like in a classroom, clear rules and
consequences for breaking them ensure a well-run class. Abusive riders
stay away from areas where enforcement maintains a presence and stiff
penalties for repeat offenders are put into effect. Methods of
identification such as mandated license plates and training
certificates with a photo ID help officers do their job. On the other
hand, abusive riders flock to areas where enforcement is nonexistent
which often leads to other crimes such as drunken riding, property
damage, trespass and harassment. American citizens should not have to
live with this disregard for our quality of life.
In conclusion, I would like to thank this committee for
investigating this national issue of Off Road Vehicle Abuse. Please
continue to represent the majority of American citizens who deserve to
enjoy their neighborhoods and public lands free from ORV destruction,
abuse and trespass. This requires active involvement by the public and
most importantly, by our elected representatives.
______
Statement of Mark E. Heuston, Twentynine Palms, CA
My name is Mark Heuston, and I live in the unincorporated community
of Wonder Valley near Twentynine Palms, where I have resided for 25
years. I am an artist by profession, with an established presence in
the local art and commercial community. I am a local property owner,
drawn to this area by it's intrinsic natural beauty and rural
lifestyle.
BACKGROUND
Off-road recreationists have come to this area for many years, but
conflict and trespass was rare up until about five years ago when off-
road vehicle (ORV) use in the area began to soar. Increasingly, weekend
recreationists assembled in large groups at vacation cabins in the area
with dune buggies, dirt bikes,and quad runners and proceeded to run
roughshod over local tax payer maintained roads, private property, and
public lands. Inadequate laws, funding, and staffing contributed to a
failure by both local and federal (BLM) law enforcement to address the
growing problem. Emboldened by the apparent lack of enforcement, some
local ORV enthusiasts began to engage in increasingly abusive riding
behavior as well.
Successful enforcement and user conflict resolution is further
exacerbated by a local land use pattern of interspersed federal (BLM)
and private land parcels that make jurisdiction determination by law
enforcement field personnel problematic. Inadequate cooperation and
coordination between BLM and local county law enforcement managers has
also contributed to the problem. To make matters worse, a BLM
management plan (WEMO) has designated riding routes threaded though the
Wonder Valley community that invite trespass and promote conflict
between residents and users. Ranger presence is virtually non--existent
on these new routes, and law enforcement personnel with the BLM Barstow
office has advised that they will not enforce on these routes even if
violations are observed.
All of these factors have combined to reduce residential quality of
life to the point of hardship. Trespass, vandalism, dust, noise at all
hours, violence, threats of violence, and harassment have become a grim
reality for many rural area residents who ask no more than to be left
in peace and have their property rights respected. Deeply concerned
about the future of their homes and properties, local residents banded
together to form Community ORV Watch www.orvwatch.com to better seek a
resolution to the problem. We quickly discovered that many other
regional (Morongo Basin) residents were experiencing similar problems,
and invited their participation and assistance.
In cooperation with other county residents and the Alliance for
Responsible Recreation, (ARR) Community ORV Watch urged the San
Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to pass Ordinance 3973 in 2006.
This ordinance established new enforcement tools for use by the
county's code enforcement and law enforcement branches alike in
providing relief to residents affected by illegal or abusive ORV use.
Ordinance 3973 has helped, but cannot address ORV abuse on federal
lands. Some defiant pro ORV activists continue to ride irresponsibly,
and work actively to weaken or overturn ordinance 3973 as well as
targeting and harassing any resident they can identify who supports
ordinance 3973 or publicly advocates for responsible riding. Much
remains to be done if the rights and well being of area homeowners are
to be assured.
MY OWN EXPERIENCES WITH ORV IMPACTS
My experiences relating to ORVs over the last few years have been
educational to say the least. I have learned much about ORV politics
and how to participate to some degree in local political process. I
would gladly have forgone this education to focus instead upon the day
to day matters of family, friends, and work if I'd had the choice; I am
a reluctant activist.
I've never been happy with the growing damage to the desert
landscape I've observed over the last 25 years, but like many folks I
was too engaged in matters of my own day to day life to get involved
until the problem (literally) came to me. It wasn't a particular
seminal moment of awareness so much as a growing realization that I was
having to deal with trespass more and more often, and with increasing
frequency having my sleep and other normal life activities disrupted by
the howl of revving engines tearing across my land or nearby BLM land.
A nearby cabin owner had long been coming out on weekends to ride
ORV's with friends and family, but what was previously a minor
irritation took on new dimensions when he began to show up with
increasing frequency with larger and larger groups of riders, and
staying for longer durations. As many as 60 participants would show up
for as long as five days straight of riding on local roads, private
lands, and public lands, at all hours with quad runners, dirtbikes, and
sand rails so powerful that when I took refuge at a friend's home three
miles away the din was still clearly audible at that distance. I was to
learn later that the growing ORV staging activity I was observing was
being repeated all over Wonder Valley and the rest of the Morongo
Basin.
I was raised to respect law enforcement as a friend and ally, and
turned to the local Sheriff for help. My calls for assistance were
greeted time and again by officers responding hours after the call, and
usually after the activity had temporarily subsided. Some tried to be
helpful, some were indifferent, and some openly sympathized with the
riders. ``There's nothing we can do'' was a common refrain. When later
I began to contact the local Barstow BLM Office for help, the response
was much the same with the exception that rangers were not available
and no response could be expected.
The riders at the nearby cabin were not pleased by the presence or
occasional visit of a deputy, and expressed their displeasure with a
systematic pattern of retaliation: One Deputy appearance equalled one
(or more) harassing visits, often late at night. Retaliation variously
took the form of ``donuts'' cut into my driveway or land, a rider
tearing across my land, late night drive--bys in extremely loud
vehicles on consecutive nights to assure sleep deprivation, and hostile
riders parking at my residential or studio (place of work) driveway
staring, watching, and revving engines. A visit by a county code
enforcement officer to the staging location precipitated a visit to my
studio of a group of riders on quad runners who parked nearby and
treated me to curses, threats and epithets for nearly 10 minutes.
I've cited the incidents above in some detail as examples, but time
and space will not permit a detailed narrative of all the examples of
intimidation or abusive off-road activity my neighbors and I have been
subjected over the last three years. Suffice to say that threats of
violence and harassment by off-road advocates have become an unwelcome
part of my life. As my neighbors and I became more publicly active
through Community ORV Watch, the harassment has shifted to more public
arenas such as internet message boards, blog sites, and local papers
with character assassination and slander of a vile nature an
increasingly common tool currently being used against us.
All of this has served to create a climate of fear. Some of my
neighbors are reluctant to speak out or even to call in a complaint to
the authorities out of fear of retaliation. Many are elderly, and some
have disabilities such as asthma, neurological conditions, or COPD that
are aggravated by the excess dust, noise, or stress abusive riding
subjects them to. One neighbor is a military veteran with cancer who
moved here to spend his final years in a peaceful rural setting. He
also suffers from Post Traumatic Stress, and routinely leaves his home
for days at a time during ``ORV holidays'' such as Thanksgiving and
President's Day to escape from the stress and noise.
Although some progress has been made on a local County level, The
apparent lack of concern and disregard for the hardship imposed on area
residents exposed to trespass and disturbance from adjoining BLM lands
by the BLM Barstow office has been disappointing. Worse than the lack
of concern has been the active and open deference displayed by the BLM
Barstow office in favor ORV recreation ``opportunities'' at the expense
of area residents.
I participated in a BLM sponsored stakeholder process facilitated
by BLM employee Russell Scofield three years ago along with other
community representatives and members of the local Sheriff's Office to
design an off-road brochure as a public education tool. During that
process, Scofield severely limited the number of participants from
Community ORV Watch while inviting a large number of ORV advocates and
representatives of the ORV business community. Pro--ORV interests
easily outnumbered all other participants combined.
Mr. Scofield turned a blind eye to heckling and harassing behavior
directed repeatedly at me by at least one pro ORV stakeholder, and
stalled the brochure process for months by variously claiming computer
glitches, lost documents, and other mishaps that added up to a clear
pattern of obstruction. This went on for so many months that Sheriff's
Captain Jim Williams (a stakeholder) finally took matters into his own
hands to push though the completion and final publishing of the
brochure without BLM assistance.
When Roxie Trost came on board as manager for the Barstow BLM
office she greeted members of Community ORV Watch and other concerned
residents cordially, and even attended a tour of the local area to view
and discuss ORV problem spots in Wonder Valley. While initially
encouraging, her subsequent behavior towards the community has proved
to be disappointing. Trost indicated to Community ORV Watch and other
concerned residents both in writing and though oral communication that
she would work to refill the vacant local district Ranger position,
which would once again put a ranger presence in the Morongo Basin thus
restoring regular patrol and a local ranger response. The position was
filled by Ranger Maclean, but it was not until he had been on duty for
a number of months that I learned from him that he had not been hired
as the district ranger, was not expected to patrol our district on a
regular basis, and was in fact actually hired by Barstow BLM as a
training officer. I was present at this conversation with Ranger
Maclean during a meeting with area residents at the Post Homestead.
Given the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that Trost's
misinformation regarding the district ranger position was
unintentional.
Under Roxie Trost's administration, Barstow BLM has largely failed
to address community concerns about continuing ORV damage to the BLM
Cleghorn Wilderness and ongoing ORV damage to cultural and natural
resources at the historic Post Homestead. With the exception of brief
ranger appearances during some ORV Holidays, BLM Barstow has failed to
effectively address user conflict and trespass from BLM lands and
designated routes. While some of this might be excusable due to funding
and staffing limitations, the pattern of misinformation, poor
communication and poor cooperation with concerned area residents is
not. For most of us this is our home, and there is too much at stake to
simply give up and walk away from admittedly uncomfortable issues.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Having lived close to the problem of ORV abuse for several years,
it may come as no surprise that I've had the time and opportunity to
think about the issue at length, and I'm happy for the opportunity to
share a few ideas that I feel might reduce user conflict and protect
private property and residential neighborhoods.
BLM: Better cooperation and communication between Barstow BLM and
local county law enforcement to resolve local jurisdictional
enforcement issues.
BLM: Better cooperation and communication between Barstow BLM and
area residents adversely affected by ORV activity on BLM managed lands.
This should include improved communications with ARR and Community ORV
Watch, both of which represent area residents and advocate for
responsible ORV use.
BLM: Cooperate with local residents, ARR, and Community ORV Watch
to better protect, restore, and interpret local BLM holdings such as
the Post Homestead and the Cleghorn Wilderness. Local residents
including Community ORV Watch have expressed willingness to donate
volunteer hours to assist in directed projects, and Community ORV Watch
has expressed a willingness to fund projects such as interpretive
kiosks or picnic tables where BLM budgeting is inadequate.
BLM: Closure of problematic WEMO routes that go through populated
rural areas, especially where those routes invite trespass on private
lands or local taxpayer maintained roads. Future designated route
considerations should favor siting such routes in Federal land holdings
remote from residential areas, with preference given to areas already
impacted by historic activity such as mining. BLM designated routes in
the old Gold Crown Mining District East of Twentynine Palms are a good
example of this.
BLM: Staffing of the former district ranger's position in the
Morongo basin with a candidate who's primary responsibility will be to
respond to incidents in district, routinely patrol BLM land holdings in
the Morongo Basin, enforce federal ORV regulations, and conduct
educational outreach to ORV recreationists using BLM lands and routes.
GENERAL: Grant programs to assist local law enforcement with ORV
enforcement in locations where Riding opportunities on federal lands
are adversely affecting local communities. Grants should be targeted to
assure better field coverage by law enforcement as well as educational
materials to minimize user conflict.
CONCLUSION
A particular recreational activity should not be at the expense of
private property rights or the rule of law. Federal land managers must
consider the effects of ORV management decisions on adjoining private
lands, and be accountable for them. The gratuitous destruction of
undesignated public lands for mindless entertainment must end. The
abuse of private lands and subsequent harassment of residents who
object can no longer be tolerated. To these ends, I humbly request the
assistance and consideration of this august and distinguished
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony, and
thank you for your leadership in considering the important issue of ORV
abuse.
______
Statement of Mark Menlove, Winter Wildlands Alliance
I am Mark Menlove. I live in Boise, Idaho and I serve as the
Executive Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance.
I submit this statement for the committee record on behalf of
Winter Wildlands Alliance, a national nonprofit organization with the
mission of promoting and protecting winter wildlands and a quality
human-powered snowsports experience on public lands. Winter Wildlands
Alliance represents the interests of the 18 million Americans who
Nordic and backcountry ski, snowboard and snowshoe on our nation's
public lands. We have members in 45 states and a network of 28 local or
regional grassroots clubs and advocacy groups.
My concern with off-road vehicle (ORV) management, particularly
with respect to winter use, is both personal and professional. I grew
up skiing, hiking and camping in Utah's Wasatch Mountains. My childhood
time in the outdoors profoundly influenced my life and, indeed, served
as the basis for my pursuing a career in the outdoor and winter
recreation industry. Among other recreation jobs, I worked for the U.S.
Ski Team and served as President of the Utah Ski Association. I've also
worked as a backcountry ski guide and am a certified avalanche and snow
safety professional. I was involved, through my role at Ski Utah, in
the Salt Lake Olympic bid efforts and later had the honor of working
for the Salt Lake Olympic Committee by running the press operation for
all of the Olympic events held at Park City Resort.
Much of my time these days is spent passing on my love of the
outdoors to my children. Winter weekends find us at our local ski hill,
Bogus Basin, located on the Boise National Forest, or backcountry
skiing or snowshoeing into the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. This
winter, as we do every winter, we made a family trek into one of
Idaho's backcountry yurts for an overnight stay. I put my five-year-
old-son, Asa, on cross-country skis for the first time and to see the
sense of accomplishment and sheer joy he got from skiing all the way in
to the yurt and back out by himself was one of the most rewarding
parenting experiences of my life.
I also want to point out I have logged my share of miles on a
snowmobile. Growing up, my family owned snowmobiles (though those
machines in the early 1970s bore little resemblance in power and reach
to today's snowmobiles) and I have fond memories of family outings on
snowmobiles. Before moving to Boise for my position with Winter
Wildlands Alliance, my wife and I and our two young children lived for
three years in a remote cabin at 9200 feet in the Wasatch Mountains. In
winter we were five miles and several thousand vertical feet from the
nearest plowed road and so we commuted for six months of each year on
snowmobile.
I am well acquainted with snowmobiles both as recreational and
utilitarian vehicles. My concern is not with the legitimacy of
snowmobiles, but with the gross imbalance in the current management of
national forest lands with respect to winter ORV use. While millions of
Americans turn to national forests for peace and quiet during winter
months, noisy and polluting snowmobile traffic monopolizes a lion's
share of forest lands.
As documented in the attached Winter Wildlands Alliance report*
analyzing Forest Service data on winter recreation patterns,
snowmobiles are a minority of those who use national forests in winter,
yet they dominate 70 percent of the winter forest and 90 percent of
winter trails. There are many winter trails and slopes where I would
love to take my family to cross-country ski or snowshoe but to do so
would put them in the path of machines that weigh up to 600 pounds and
travel in excess of 100 miles per hour, a speed at which it takes more
than 200 feet to stop on snow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Report has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't need to be this way. The report also highlights
successful resolution to winter conflict such as the Wood River Valley
Winter Use Plan on Idaho's Sawtooth National Forest where local skiers
and snowmobilers sat down and worked out an agreement about which areas
were best suited for snowmobiles and which were best suited for
traditional, quiet recreation. After eight years that agreement is
proving both successful and durable.
The problem is, since snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles
(OSVs) are excluded from the current Travel Management Rule, Forest
Service regulations actually discourage this kind of citizen
involvement and collaboration. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, because
of its exemption of OSVs, represents a missed opportunity to correct
the imbalance on national forest lands in winter.
background on over-snow vehicles and the travel management rule
Since 1972 when President Nixon issued Executive Order 11644, the
U.S. Forest Service has regulated the use of all ORVs, including
snowmobiles, on national forest lands on the basis of a uniform set of
standards. However, in December 2005, the USFS repealed the regulations
(former 36 CFR Part 295) that, based on EO 11644, provided for this
uniform system of regulation (70 FR 68264).
The Department of Agriculture on December 9, 2005 published final
rulemaking (70 FR 682684) to promulgate revised regulations governing
travel management on National Forest System lands, specifically to
clarify policy related to motor vehicle use on Forest Service lands.
The final Rule requires the Forest Service to designate those roads,
trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use (36 CFR Part
212.51), and prohibits the use of motor vehicles off the designated
roads, trails, and areas (36 CFR Part 261.13).
Although the Secretary states that the Rule is ``consistent with
provisions of Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 regarding
off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands,'' Winter Wildlands
Alliance and our 28 grassroots groups believe the Rule is deeply flawed
insofar as it exempts snowmobiles and other OSVs from the mandatory
designation scheme provided under Part 212.51.
The 2005 Rule requires Forest Service managers to adhere to a
number of requirements in designating lands as either open or closed to
motor vehicle use. These include mandatory public involvement, periodic
revision of designations and, perhaps most importantly, application of
specific substantive criteria in making designations (e.g., the
responsible official must act to minimize ``damage to forest resources,
harassment of wildlife [and] conflicts between motor vehicle use and
existing or proposed recreational uses''). The Rule does preserve a
Forest Service manager's ability to allow, restrict or prohibit over-
snow vehicle use (36 CFR Sec. 212.81). However, because snowmobiles are
exempt from the Rule's designation scheme, none of these otherwise
mandatory requirements apply to a manager's decision to designate lands
as open to snowmobiling. The decision is wholly within the discretion
of the responsible official.
Even more objectionable, the Rule does require the application of
the mandatory standards when a land manager desires to close an area
for snowmobiling. Thus, under the new regulations, opening lands to
snowmobile use requires no public involvement, no analysis of potential
damage to soil and other forest resources, and no consideration of
conflicts between snowmobile use and other recreational uses such as
skiers and snowshoers. Yet an action to close those same lands to
snowmobiles would first require a public comment period and all other
procedural elements of the Rule. Importantly, the Rule contains no
standards to guide land managers in their decision whether to allow
snowmobiling. In other words, the regulation contains within it a clear
preference or bias in favor of unrestricted snowmobile use.
In addition, the Rule introduces an entirely new definition of
``over snow vehicle.'' The rule-writers, ``[I]n order to improve
clarity and ensure equitable treatment of over snow vehicle use,''
define over-snow vehicles to include not only snowmobiles but also
snow-cats, snow groomers and treaded ATVs. While such clarity is
warranted, the fact remains that these additional vehicles are now also
excluded from the mandatory regulatory framework of the Rule.
This exclusion of OSV use from the requirements imposed on other
motorized uses of national forest lands is in direct contradiction to
the Executive Orders upon which the Rule is based.
WHY ARE SNOWMOBILES EXCLUDED FROM THE RULE?
The Rule provides little insight into why the Department decided to
exempt snowmobiles and other OSVs. First, the rule-writers agree that
snowmobiles are ``off-road vehicles'' under Executive Order 11644 and
thus are subject to ``administrative designation of the specific areas
and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may be
permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be
permitted.'' This would appear to require the regulation of OSVs, but
instead, the Department ``believes that cross-country use of
snowmobiles presents a different set of management issues and
environmental impacts than cross-country use of other types of
motorized vehicles.''(70 FR 68273). As evidence, the agency offers that
unlike ATVs, ``over-snow vehicles traveling cross-country generally do
not create a permanent trail or have a direct impact on soil and ground
vegetation,'' an assessment that first, ignores the instruction given
in the Executive Orders to minimize user conflict and second,
disregards the growing evidence of snowmobile damage to alpine tundra,
reforested areas (tree-top damage), and stream banks and riverbeds at
water crossings.
The rule-writers reach the conclusion that ``the Department expects
that management of winter recreational use will continue to be an
important issue on many National Forests.'' But instead of following
its own logic and folding snowmobiles into the just-introduced
regulatory framework, the rule-writers decide, ``[T]herefore, the final
rule exempts snowmobiles from the mandatory designation scheme'' (70 FR
68273).
WHY TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING SHOULD INCLUDE WINTER USE
While the Travel Management Rule simply ``writes out'' snowmobiles
from its mandatory designation scheme, Executive Order 11644 provides a
framework that would seem to compel forest managers to include winter
travel in their forests' travel planning, under certain circumstances.
Section 3(a) of the Executive Order requires that regulations be
based on protection of the resource, promotion of the safety of all
users, and minimization of conflicts among the various users.
Specifically, the regulations require that the location of areas and
trails minimize----
Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources;
Harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife
habitats; and
Conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or
proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public
lands.
The presence of any one or more of these issues occurring during
winter should compel forest managers to undertake winter travel
planning. Because of the noise and noxious exhaust fumes they emit, as
well as their potential to inflict serious injury in the event of a
collision, snowmobiles are indistinguishable from other ORVs in terms
of their adverse impacts on non-motorized users of national forest
lands. The fact that snowmobile tracks are not ``permanent'' (because
snow melts) is irrelevant if while they exist they have adverse impacts
in the form of scarring the visual landscape and creating hazardous
ruts and ridges when the snow melts and refreezes. Similarly,
snowmobiles have adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat that
are no less severe than those caused by other ORVs. And when
snowmobiles are used in areas with inadequate snow cover--a common
practice--they do have a ``direct impact on soil and ground
vegetation.'' In short, the similarities and parallels between
snowmobiles and other ORVs in terms of their impacts on the natural
resource values far outweigh the differences between them.
The social conflict dimension is well documented. The most telling
characteristic of the conflict between motorized and non-motorized
recreationists is that the impacts experienced fall disproportionately
on one type of forest user. That is, the presence of a few skiers or
snowshoers does not diminish the recreational experience of
snowmobilers, while the noise, exhaust, tracks and speed of just one
snowmobiler may significantly degrade the experience of many quiet
recreationists.
THE DEREGULATION OF OSV USE ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS NEEDS TO BE
REMEDIED
Winter Wildlands Alliance and our grassroots groups believe this
effective deregulation of an entire class of motor vehicles on national
forest lands, the result of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, must be
remedied by putting in place a set of standards for motorized use that
treats OSV use no differently from the standpoint of resource damage
and user conflict than other motorized uses. This could be accomplished
by removal of the exception for OSV use in the 2005 Rule or by
promulgating a new rule specifically for OSV use on national forest
lands.
______
Statement of Pat Flanagan, Program Coordinator, the Mojave Desert Land
Trust, Joshua Tree, CA
Thank you and the committee for taking the time to listen and
consider our experiences with illegal Off-Road Vehicle abuse.
The Mojave Desert Land Trust is a non-profit land trust whose
mission is to preserve in perpetuity the Mojave Desert ecosystem and
its cultural and scenic resources through land acquisition and
stewardship. The land trust acquires private land through purchase,
easement or gift. Under land trust ownership, the land is private until
transferred to a government agency.
We raise funds through private donations, foundation grants,
government programs, and membership. Many donations are the modest sums
that could have filled the tank or purchased groceries but instead feed
hopes for continuing dark skies, clear air, profound quiet, free
roaming desert tortoise and miles and miles of open desert land.
Land Trusts are responsible to their mission, their members and
funders, the state Franchise Tax Board and the Internal Revenue Service
to maintain the acquired land or easements for conservation purposes.
These are responsibilities which drive all trust activities. Failure
can bring severe consequences including loss of public support, fines,
and loss of non-profit status.
The Mojave Desert Land Trust was founded in 2005 and has since
purchased, with private foundation funds, over 6,000 acres of
inholdings within the California desert national parks. These
inholdings will be given to the National Park Service under an
agreement that they will be maintained for the conservation purposes
they were acquired. The Land Trust will steward the agreements in
perpetuity and have trained 40 volunteer stewards for this purpose. We
are painfully aware that a major threat to our activities is the
behavior of ORV riders and their belief that they have the ``right to
ride'' whenever and wherever they choose.
In 2006, our first capital campaign required us to raise nearly a
million dollars from all sources to preserve a section of land (640
acres) providing habitat for big horn sheep, mule deer, multiple bird
and animal species, and ancient stands of Perry Nolina and Pinyon Pine.
The section is within the Wildlands-Urban Interface and a high fire
zone. Although this land will eventually become part of Joshua Tree
National Park, to date it has always been private land. From the moment
escrow papers were signed it was essential to invest in a heavy steel
gate and signage to protect the area from illegal ORV traffic and
trails. The trails promoted erosion and provided access for illegal
riding, hunting, target practice and logging of ancient Pinyon Pine
trees. Currently we have spent nearly $6,000 and many volunteer hours
to restore the area, maintain the gate, and discourage vandalism. It
appears our efforts provoke illegal trespass rather than promote
respect for private property. The land trust is accused of ``closing
out the public'' but this land has always been private; never open to
ORV riders or loggers. It has been and remains open to hikers, horse
riders, and cross country bike riding. Many of these recreational users
supported the purchase with their dollars and volunteer time.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment in the belief that
national awareness of the overwhelming magnitude of illegal OHV
destruction of private and public lands will promote new control
efforts at all government levels and increase essential restoration
programs. Currently, laws which should protect private property rights
are ineffectual and encourage illegal OHV riding. This lawlessness
hampers land conservation groups, like the Mojave Desert Land Trust,
from meeting their mission, honoring their supporters, and complying
with state and federal tax laws.
______
Statement of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
We wish to thank you for the holding this oversight hearing on such
an important and relevant issue as off-road vehicle (ORV) management
and planning, which impacts millions of acres of public lands across
the nation. The damage and impacts caused by ORV use on public lands
throughout the West, particularly in Utah, has led to a great amount of
recent attention focused on ORV management and the ORV travel plans
that government agencies are currently drafting. The Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), a membership based citizens' group
dedicated to preserving the wilderness quality public lands of Utah,
has made ORV travel plans and management a priority in preserving the
health and quality of Utah's public lands.
Off-road vehicles have long been acknowledged as the number one
threat to wilderness quality lands in Utah. The Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) management of public lands in Utah, which currently
allows cross-country travel, in conjunction with skyrocketing ORV use
has left permanent scars on Utah's fragile desert landscape, and has
led to increased vandalism and looting of ancient archaeological
resources. Recently, in conjunction with BLM's revision of its outdated
Resource Management Plans (RMPs), the agency has drafted ORV travel
plans for some 11 million acres of public lands that are managed by six
BLM field offices in Utah--all on the Colorado Plateau. Conservation
and quiet-use advocates for the public lands in Utah have seen this
process as a great opportunity for the BLM to effectively address and
balance various resource issues and needs including: wilderness,
cultural resource protection, scenic values, traditional recreation and
access. Despite having taken seven years and spending tens of millions
of dollars in the process, the Utah BLM has failed to meet its legal
obligations to produce reasonable, enforceable and protective ORV
travel plans. Yet the agency is rushing to finalize these inadequate
travel plans before the final days of the current administration.
One of the greatest oversights in the agency's proposed ORV travel
plans is the disregard for lands that BLM, itself, has identified as
``having wilderness character.'' These BLM Roadless Areas,
approximately 2.8 million acres, are made up of some of Utah's most
wild unprotected public lands. Although the agency has officially
identified and mapped these BLM Roadless Areas, it is proposing to
designate approximately 1000 miles of ORV routes in these roadless
areas. Rather than manage for the protection of this special roadless
resource, the BLM has chosen to disregard its own findings by
designating official ORV routes in nearly every identified Roadless
Area. The BLM has the opportunity to protect these roadless areas by
choosing not to designate a mere 1,000 miles of the nearly 18,000 miles
of route proposed for ORV use across the 11 million acre planning area.
This constitutes a relatively small percentage (6%) of proposed route
mileage and will provide wide-ranging benefits by protecting not only
wilderness lands, but also cultural and natural resources.
Preserving the remaining roadless areas will allow BLM to comply
with federal mandates that apply to public lands management. Federal
law and regulations require BLM to manage public lands for multiple
use, but certainly not every use on every acre. In addition, BLM is
required to protect cultural resources and artifacts as well as the
natural resources, including wildlife, riparian areas, vegetation, and
soils, and minimizing impacts of ORV use to other users. (Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C Sec. 1701 et seq. and 43 C.F.R.
Sec. 8342.1). Preserving the remaining roadless areas is consistent
with FLPMA's multiple-use mandate as well as the federal regulations
governing ORV use on public lands.
Utah's public lands contain vast amounts of historically
significant cultural resources, but the vast majority (nearly 95%) are
unsurveyed and unrecorded. Although BLM does not know the location and
extent of these irreplaceable resources, BLM's ORV travel plans will
put these treasures at increased risk of vandalism, looting, and
inadvertent damage as the agency is proposing ORV use in areas that are
known to contain prehistoric artifacts. Although the National Historic
Preservation Act requires that BLM conduct meaningful consultation with
Native American Tribes before taking actions that could effect these
cultural resources, absent comprehensive surveys, such consultation are
not complete. Professional archaeologists as well as agency specialists
agree that allowing ORV use in areas with cultural resources increases
damages and risks to these important links to the past. Cultural sites
in close proximity to or within eyesight of ORV routes are at a
significantly increased risk of vandalism, looting, and other damage.
We also harbor grave concerns about the future of natural resources
such as scarce desert streams and wetlands, flora and fauna--all
heavily impacted by ORV use. Water is the lifeblood of the Colorado
Plateau including the high arid deserts in Utah. Although riparian
areas make up only 1-2% of our public lands, they host 75-80% of all
wildlife. Inexplicably, Utah BLM proposes to designate ORV routes in
most (if not all) of the riparian areas in the 11 million acres under
review. There is little disagreement among the scientific community
that ORV use in riparian areas should be stringently avoided, as such
use results in significant, long-term impacts to the riparian areas and
associated ecosystem such as erosion, flooding, flora and fauna loss
and diminished water quality. In addition, BLM's proposed ORV travel
plans ignore conflicts with threatened, endangered and sensitive
species, including both wildlife and plant species.
User conflict is an important component of the BLM's ORV management
mandate that the Utah BLM has failed to address. Utah BLM's proposed
ORV travel plans make available to ORV use 84 percent of public lands
in eastern and southern Utah (specifically, between 77 and 96 percent
of public lands depending on BLM Field Office), blanketing the Colorado
Plateau with a dense, unplanned, and unmanageable network of ORV
routes. BLM's proposed ORV travel plans essentially adopt local county
route proposals, fail to state a purpose and need for each route, and
fail to analyze potential resource impacts for these thousands of miles
of route. BLM's wholesale acceptance of the counties' proposal of
``existing'' routes is little, if any, improvement over the status quo,
which is allowing natural and cultural resources to be irreparably
damaged, and provides few places for traditional, non-motorized
recreationists to escape the sites and sounds of motor vehicles. For
example, in the heart of canyon country near Moab, 84% of the public
lands will be within 5 city blocks of a motorized route, leaving few
places where visitors can find a quiet, remote place away from the
noise, pollution, and other impacts caused by off-road vehicle use.
BLM's plan to blanket public lands with official off-road vehicle
routes is at odds with the agency's own visitor survey that revealed
that only 7% of visitors to Moab's public lands said their main
activity on public lands was using off-road vehicles.
With the recent clamor surrounding ORV enforcement nightmares, it
would be remiss not to address the enforceability of BLM's proposed ORV
travel plans. However, Utah BLM's draft ORV travel plans are largely
silent on how the agency intends to manage and enforce ORV use on a
sprawling network containing approximately 18,000 miles of route. This
is even more critical, given that 50% of dirt bike riders report that
they prefer to ride ``off trail, and over 50% of ATV riders report that
they did, in fact, ride ``off trail'' on their most recent outing.\1\
Even with designated, signed and mapped route plans, it is difficult to
imagine that BLM will be able to enforce the thousands of miles of ORV
routes and to prevent cross-country travel. Simply stated, fewer
designated routes and more non-ORV use areas would help ensure
enforcement of Utah BLM's ORV travel plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah
(Revised), 2002, Utah Division of Natural Resources, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Professional Report IORT PR2001-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, October and again this past March--nearly 100 Members of
Congress signed letters addressed to Interior Secretary Kempthorne,
requesting that he personally review these plans for Utah with
consideration of the concerns raised above. Secretary Kempthorne has
repeatedly assured Congress that natural resources are being adequately
protected under these plans and that the process under which the plans
were produced is in compliance with the law. It is distressing to us
that BLM continues to ignore and gloss over federal law and regulations
and is solely focused on finalizing these inadequate plans before the
current administration departs. The American people are being
shortchanged by the BLM's failure to protect natural and cultural
resources and its politically motivated tilt to prevent future
wilderness designation in Utah.
There is an easy fix for these plans. By not designating ORV routes
in Utah's roadless areas that have been identified by BLM, itself,
until comprehensive surveys and analysis are completed, our natural and
cultural heritage can be preserved, while motorized recreationists
continue to have thousands of miles of routes to access public lands in
Utah's canyon country.
______
Safe Kids Worldwide,
Washington, DC, May 30, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of Safe Kids USA, a member of
Safe Kids Worldwide, I want to call your attention to the dangerous
practice of children riding all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). In light of
your Committee's hearing on June 5th concerning off-highway vehicle
management on public lands, please know that Safe Kids USA recommends
that children under the age of 16 never operate all-terrain vehicles of
any size, including youth-sized ATVs.
As you know, ATVs are motorized vehicles designed for recreation
and farm, ranch and industrial work. Each year, an estimated 130
children under age 16 die and approximately 40,000 are seriously
injured in ATV-related incidents. ATVs are inherently difficult to
operate, and children under 16 do not have the cognitive and physical
capabilities to operate these vehicles safely. In addition, ATV-related
injuries tend to be serious and, while wearing a helmet can reduce the
risk of head injuries, there are no safety devices to protect against
other injuries commonly sustained while riding ATVs. We urge the
Committee to consider a policy, if not an outright ban, on the use of
ATVs for children under age 16 on our country's public lands.
Sincerely,
Alan Korn,
Director of Public Policy & General Counsel.
______
Statement of Jack Duggan, Jacksonville, OR
I have learned that your Committee is holding a hearing on the
issue of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV). I would most like to come to the
hearing and testify in person, but lack both the time and finances to
do so. Please accept this letter as one citizen's testimony.
I was thrilled, as a young Vietnam veteran, recently settled on the
family homestead (at the head of Forest Creek, in Jackson County,
Oregon), to purchase a Honda 90 Trailbike. It got me around the
backcountry between Timber Mountain and Mount Isabelle more often than
I could ever do on foot. I was not so thrilled, however, to cross the
saddle between those two mountains and see the hillside ripped and
torn, bleeding mud downstream. Four roads join on that saddle and the
four-wheel drive crowd just loved that hill.
I never considered the impact my little trail bike was having on
the land. But the evidence of what four-wheel drive recreational
vehicles could do to a decomposed granite hillside that, left
undisturbed, had grown trees . . . that evidence was overwhelming.
That happened on what was then Boise Cascade land. The hillside is
still a mess today. A lot of the same kind of activity was happening
then, and is still happening now, on public land.
For myself, it was a game of cat and mouse along the mile-long road
that runs the length of our lower parcel. The dirt bikes that came a
few years after the four-wheelers had chewed up Boise's hillside
ignored Private Property and No Trespassing signs. While the four-
wheelers had sometimes been a noisy bunch, the roar of the 2-cycle two-
wheelers bounced off every ridge and hillside in every direction. As a
recent Vietnam veteran, I had more than a few dark times when the
machine noise overwhelmed the natural sounds that comforted me. Back
then, though, they were few in number. Eventually, with signs and gates
and stopping enough of them, very few came through the property.
In 1983 I left the land to pursue my career in Seattle. I returned
to the land in 1999.
The big issue in the Seattle area was jet skis, of which I know
little. I know little also about snowmobiles or any number of other
machine recreation tools. But in my frequent visits to the property
while living in Seattle, I continued to learn about four-wheeler
recreation and the two-wheelers most frequently called dirt bikes.
During this time the All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) was introduced as a
three-wheeler, which quickly proved to be a fundamentally unstable
design. Within a few years the market had converted to four-wheel ATVs
and that market continues to grow.
On my visits from Seattle I encountered continuous incursions as
new machine recreationists purchased four-wheel drive toys, dirt bikes
and ATVs. By far the largest number were the dirt bikes.
The growth in activity in our area, however, really began to climb
in 1996, following the listing of the John's Peak/Timber Mountain OHV
Area by the BLM in their 1995 Resource Management Plan. By the time of
my return to Forest Creek in 1999, the John's Peak/Timber Mountain OHV
Area had a boundary around it, maps at the Medford BLM office, and was
listed in the Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation ``ATV Oregon,
The Official Guide to Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation.'' Though
the listing in the 1995 RMP was by name and acreage only, it had become
a de facto destination for dirt bikes, quads and recreational four-
wheelers. None of the other 290 landowners within those boundaries, my
family included, had been consulted about making their land a target
playground for the off-road crowd.
Today the western drainage of Forest Creek from Mount Isabelle
contains more than 17 miles of road on public land across a six mile
area. A user-created staging area on public land, where Forest Creek
enters the Applegate Valley, has become a popular gathering spot for
dirt bikers and ATVers. The sound of them echoes up and down the
drainage nearly every day during spring and summer. Once they become
familiar with the main roads and trails, they become bored with them.
Then they start cutting across corners and making new trails. The dirt
bikers are the worst. They can go anywhere, so they will go anywhere.
The frequent, brazen and sometimes combative nature of those who
tried to ride across our land prompted us to completely close our road
in 2000 after hearing automatic weapon fire there. Still, in the past
seven years I had a dirt biker try to run me down when I signaled him
to stop, I've been shot at and often threatened. My sister was
threatened with a wrench pulled from beneath the seat of an ATV. Within
sight of my house a dirt biker told me he was on public land. Those who
do stop plead ignorance to trespass, despite two hardware store's worth
of signage and gates at both ends of the road. I will treasure forever,
though, the four-wheel toy driver who argued, ``I can't be trespassing;
I'm not walking!''
The off-road crowd, however, have not been idle in establishing
organizations to further their interests. In 2000 the local Motorcycle
Riders Association (MRA) sought a five-year permit from the BLM to hold
three events of up to 500 riders each in the Timber Mountain/John's
Peak area. While responding to BLM's Environmental Assessment of the
request, I learned that the MRA had submitted route maps that included
nearly two miles of Forest Creek Road, a county road, while Jackson
County remained ignorant of their plans. Route maps also showed trails
crossing our property. The MRA did not acquire their permit, but they
have steadily lobbied BLM as well as state and local governments to
further their use of public land. As the ridership increases, the noise
and trespass increase as well.
Machine recreation on public land is increasingly controversial
because of the damage from erosion, wildlife disturbance, spreading of
noxious weeds and the presence of machine recreationists driving off
other recreational uses of public land. But machine recreation on
public land also directly impacts those of us who are neighboring
landowners. Through the government's invitation, active or implied, we
must fight off trespass, noise and the same kinds of negative impacts
(erosion, etc.) that occur on the public land. The government is
failing miserably to protect all of its citizens.
The machine recreation industry has numerous lobbyists who will
tell you how much money is spent pursuing their activities. I am sure
that people who bowl for enjoyment could tell you how much money they
spend, people who hunt or hike could tell you about their investments.
The government, however, makes no special accommodations for bowlers
and strongly regulates both hunters and hikers. Why should machine
recreation be any different?
We are talking about huge impacts from an optional activity that is
for play. Even the machine recreationists describe the trailers they
use to haul their machines as ``toy haulers.'' I ask the government,
``Should you be making special accommodations for people who play with
toys?''
Many will tell you of the destructive nature of this activity. Many
others, like myself, will tell you the invasive nature of this
activity. And all will tell you the government, mostly the BLM and
Forest Service, are woefully behind in addressing the issues.
Your committee has the authority and the responsibility to take
action. Right now most public lands are open to motorized recreation
unless marked closed. That means that two-wheel dirt bikes can tear up
any part of the public land they wish, unimpeded and without
consequence . . . at least without consequence to them. Protect our
public lands and close all lands until the government agencies who
manage them can make the case for opening them to machine recreation.
Our forefathers did not fight for their freedom to destroy the very
resources that give this country its greatness. I did not fight in
Vietnam to watch the heritage of my citizenship washed away by ruts
from expensive toys.
I urge you to close public lands to machine recreation and begin
addressing the very difficult problem of controlling the impacts.
Americans should enjoy the freedom to recreate as they wish, provided
they do it without injuring others. As it now stands, dirt bikers and
quad riders can injure all of us as they recreate. Please put a stop to
it.
______
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation,
Albuquerque, NM, June 16, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Suite 130, 625 Silver Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, NM.
Dear Senator: Thank you for providing the public the opportunity to
discuss OffHighway Vehicle (``OHV'') use on Bureau of Land Management
(``BLM''), Forest Service, and other public lands. This is certainly an
issue-relevant to the work of the Albuquerque Wildlife Federation.
The Albuquerque Wildlife Federation is a hundreds--strong, non-
partisan, all-volunteer group that works to improve conditions for
wildlife in New Mexico. We are proud to have been founded by
conservation pioneer Aldo Leopold in 1914. Our membership includes
biologists, federal land agency employees, state wildlife agency
personnel, hunters, anglers, bird-watchers, wildlife enthusiasts, and
outdoor recreationists--as well as Democrats and Republicans.
The bulk of our organization's work is spent on outdoor projects to
improve wildlife habitat on public lands across New Mexico. We
coordinate closely with state and federal wildlife and land agencies on
these projects. Over decades, our membership has donated thousands of
hours of sweat-equity every year to improve habitat for New Mexico's
unique game and fish. We are extremely proud of this service to the
people of New Mexico and its wildlife.
Recently our group, like many others around the West, has witnessed
with growing concern the exponential proliferation of OHVs on public
lands. Indeed, several of our own completed projects have been damaged
by OHVs, and have also worked to restore areas where irresponsible OHV
use has damaged wildlife habitat.
We have also participated in BLM and Forest Service OHV management
plan processes. For example, the Forest closest to us, the Cibola
National Forest, is undergoing such a review now.
Yet having engaged in these processes we are concerned they are not
up to the task of reining in OHV damage. We are even more convinced
that enforcement of whatever OHV rules come out of these planning
processes will not be adequate.
We are well-aware of and support the multiple-use aspects of our
public lands. However, the time has come for us to scale back OHV use,
as it now significantly disrupts multiple other uses. Given OHV users
represent only 5% of those who use our BLM, National Forests, and state
public lands, it is only rational for their impact to be more
accurately reflected on the land.
As such, we as consitituents strongly encourage you to use your
influences as Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to achieve four goals:
1. Ensure federal and state agencies consider the impacts to
natural resources, analysis the cost of developing and
maintaining ORV routes and identify the reclamation cost during
the process of designating OHV use and non-use areas.
2. Provide increased protections for important wildlife,
water, timber, range, and cultural resources from OHV use.
3. Provide greater funding and resources for enforcement of
OHV management.
4. Provide appropriations for remediation and damage
resulting from OHV use.
We hope you receive these comments in the spirit they have been
offered, with respect for New Mexico's beautiful and unique lands and
wildlife. In considering our recommendations, we offer the guidance of
our nation's greatest conservation President, Republican Theodore
Roosevelt:
There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in
this country.
We again thank you for bringing attention to this issue, and hope
to be able to contribute to a constructive solution.
Sincerely,
Gene Tatum,
President.
______
Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony for the record of this oversight
hearing by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
regarding the management of off-highway vehicles on public lands. The
American Academy ofPediatrics is a non-profit professional organization
of 63,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-
specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the
health, safety, and wellbeing of infants, children, adolescents, and
young adults.
As the Resources Committee examines the enforcement of laws and
rules on the use of off-highway vehicles on public lands, the American
Academy of Pediatrics urges you to consider not only recreational and
environmental issues, but also health and safety issues for our
children. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs), minibikes, personal watercraft
(PWC), snowmobiles, and other off-road vehicles pose unique dangers to
children who ride or operate them.\1\ In fact, from the perspective of
injuryprevention, this situation creates the perfect recipe for tragedy
due to the confluence of multiple high risk factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\
Person Factors:--Children lack the physical and
developmental maturity to operate an off-roadvehicle safely,
especially in terms of judgement.
Environment Factors:--Public lands are often difficult to
access for rescue crews due to distance and challenging
terrain.
``Agent'' Factors:--ATVs, snowmobiles and other off-road
vehicles allow high rates of speed, weigh a great deal and
completely expose the driver. Some, like ATVs, have a tendency
toroll if not used properly. PWC operation is different from
other motorized vehicles and can confuse operators, especially
in crisis circumstances.
ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES
The statistics regarding children and ATVs are grim:
Between 1982 and 2006, over 2,300 children were killed in
ATV crashes. This is the equivalent of five 747 jets full of
children, or 35 fully loaded schoolbuses.
In 2006 alone, at least 111 children perished due to
injuries sustained when riding an ATV.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2006 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries, February 2008, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 39,300 children were treated in emergency
departments for ATV-related injuries in 2006. Serious injuries
among children have ranged from over 32,000 to over 44,000
every year since 2000.\3\ Since 1990, over 485,000 children
have been treated in hospitals for ATV-related injuries-
equivalent to the entire population of Atlanta, Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2006 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries, February 2008, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injuries sustained by children riding an adult-sized ATV are
often very serious, including severe brain, spinal, abdominal,
and complicated orthopedic injuries. ATV riding involves almost
twice the risk of injury serious enough to require
hospitalization than any other activity studied. This is true
even for activities generally considered to be high risk,
including football (62% higher risk for ATV riding),
snowboarding (110% higher risk for ATV riding) and paintball
(320% higher risk for ATV riding).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children lack the strength, coordination, and judgement to
operate ATVs safely. In a Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) study, the primary causes of children's deaths on an ATV
were overturning, collision with a stationary object, and other
collisions.\5\ Each of these implies the inability to control
the vehicle properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\
Despite the alarming increases in ATV deaths and injuries,
government regulation continues to be all but absent. No ongoing review
has ever been undertaken regarding possible additional or revised
regulations, in spite of changes in the patterns of ATV design and use.
In 2000, the Academy's Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention
reviewed the evidence regarding children and ATVs and reaffirmed its
long-standing recommendation that no child under the age of 16 should
operate orride an ATV.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has the power to
reduce ATV-related deaths and injuries among our nation's children. If
the federal government adopted limitations on ATV use by children on
public lands, this would serve as both a powerful message and a model
for states and localities. The attention and publicity generated would
educate parents, who are often unaware of the safety risks of these
vehicles. Moreover, this committee could have a significant impact on a
key issue regarding ATV injuries. When an ATV crash occurs on public
land in a remote, unpaved, or inaccessible area, precious hours can be
wasted in locating, reaching, and transporting the victim to medical
care. Trauma surgeons refer to the ``golden hour'' after injury as the
critical window for initiating medical treatment. By placing meaningful
restrictions on the use of ATVs by children on public lands, this
committee could reduce the likelihood that children would die of
preventable and treatable injuries.
Today, the operation of ATVs on federal lands is governed largely
by the laws of the state in which the land is located. If a park or
parcel covers portions of more than one state, the laws may
differdepending upon one's location in the park. For example,
Yellowstone National Park is set mostly in Wyoming, but also overlaps
into Montana and Idaho. Idaho requires all ATV riders under the age of
18 to wear a helmet; Wyoming requires helmets for those under age 18 on
an ``enrolled road;'' and Montana has no helmet law at all.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The American Academy of Pediatrics calls upon the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources to direct the Department of the Interior
and the Department of Agriculture to adopt a uniform set of laws and
guidelines for the operation of ATVs on all federal lands. Rules for
riding ATVs should not vary depending upon whether one is riding in a
national park, a national forest, or land controlled by any other
federal agency. Uniform laws and guidelines would assist rangers in
their
Children under 16 should not operate ATVs. An ATV can weigh in
excess of 500 pounds and travel at speeds of over 60 miles per hour.
Children do not possess the physical strength, coordination, or
judgment necessary to pilot these vehicles safely.\7\ When a child
crashes on one ofthese large machines, it often rolls over them or
traps them beneath it. The result is devastating injuries, including
crushed internal organs and multiple broken bones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A driver's license should be required to operate an ATV on public
lands. The federal government does not allow children to drive cars in
national forests or parks. Yet an unlicensed child is permitted to
drive an ATV at high speeds, without a helmet, on unpaved surfaces in
those same areas. This situation defies all logic. The safe use of ATVs
requires the same or greater skill, judgment, and experience as needed
to operate an automobile. A driver's license should be requiredto
operate any motorized vehicle on public lands.
Alcohol use by operators of ATVs should be prohibited, with zero
tolerance among 16- to 20-year old operators. Just as alcohol- or drug-
impaired operation of automobiles threatens the lives of drivers,
passengers, and bystanders and is prohibited, operation of any
motorized vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be
forbidden. Young drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs are
particularly dangerous because of their relative inexperience and
poorer judgment. Alcohol use by those under the age of 21 is already
banned by federal and state laws, and zero tolerance policies for
underage ATV operators on public lands would strengthen the prohibition
and send a strong message to parents and adolescents.
ATV use should be banned on paved roads in public lands. All-
terrain vehicles lack the features necessary to operate safely on roads
and highways. Most have few or no lights, mirrors, signals orsafety
features. A significant number of crashes occur on paved roads where
cars or trucks cannot see the ATV, or where ATV operators make
unexpected maneuvers. In the CPSC survey on ATV crashes mentioned
earlier, the highest number of fatalities occurred on paved
surfaces.\8\ Use of ATVs should be allowed only on designated, well-
maintained trails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate protective gear should be required to operate an ATV on
public lands. Research regarding motorcycles and bicycles tells us that
helmets save lives and that helmet laws result in greater helmet
use.\9\ \10\ \11\ The federal government should take a leadership role
and require ATV riders on public lands to wear a helmet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kraus JF, Peek C, McArthur DL, Williams A. The effect of the
1992 California motorcycle helmet use law on motorcycle crash
fatalities and injuries. JAMA. 1994;272:1506-1511.
\10\
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The popularity of all forms of motorized recreational vehicles
raises serious questions about safety, particularly on public lands.
The vast majority of concerns elucidated about ATVs also apply toother
off-road vehicles. It is difficult to overemphasize the risk involved
in allowing immature children to operate these dangerous machines in
remote, unsupervised, and potentially hazardous circumstances.
Carrying passengers on an ATV should be prohibited. The vast
majority of ATVs are not designed to carry passengers. An ATV's large
seat is meant to allow a rider to shift his or her weight and maneuver
adequately. Children can easily be thrown from these vehicles at high
speeds. The Academy is even aware of cases where parents drive ATVs
with children strapped onto the rear in a car seat, in the tragically
mistaken perception that this is somehow safe. In a recent CPSC
analysis of 184 child deaths involving ATVs, the agency concluded that,
``CPSC has long recommended against the carrying of passengers on ATVs,
and yet 24 percent of the deceased children were riding as passengers,
and 45 percent of the fatalities occurred in multiple rider situations.
Certainly, if CPSC's recommendations had been followed, the deaths of
at least 45 child passengers would not have occurred.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATVs should not be operated before sunrise or after sunset. ATVs
are challenging to operate safely even under ideal conditions. Darkness
adds an unacceptable degree of additional risk, due to both unseen
hazards and the difficulty of being seen by other vehicles. The use of
ATVs in lowlight or darkness should be prohibited.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges the
Committee to support meaningful restrictions on children riding or
operating ATVs and other off-road vehicles on public lands. Clearly,
ATVs pose a significant hazard to children who ride them. This fact is
indisputable. The cost to society is also high, not only in regard to
loss of life and health but in actual dollars. In 2005, the journal
Pediatrics published a study which estimated that total hospital
charges for children's ATV injuries over a two-year period exceeded $74
million.\13\ If no further action occurs this year, we can expect over
100 children to die and over 35,000 to be treated in the emergency room
again next year due to ATV-related incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our current regulatory systems and educational programs are not
protecting children from tragic ATV deaths and injuries. The Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources should take a leadership role on this
issue and ensure the safety of children on public lands by supporting
thecommon-sense measures recommended by the American Academy of
Pediatrics. We appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony for the
hearing record.
______
Statement of Mike Beagle, Chairman, Back Country Hunters and Anglers,
Eagle Point, OR
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a national organization of outdoor
enthusiasts who prize the tradition, challenge and solitude of
America's backcountry. Founded around an Oregon campfire, we now have
members in 43 states. BHA is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that works
to conserve big, natural habitat and healthy rivers and streams. We
work so our kids and grandkids are free to enjoy the high-quality
hunting and fishing we cherish.
We believe in access for all, yet understand that healthy wildlife
habitat, rivers and streams are the foundation supporting the American
pastimes of hunting and fishing. We believe there is a place for off-
highway vehicle routes on public lands, but that greater controls and
better enforcement are necessary in the face of growing humanpopulation
and ever-more-powerful machines. In order to protect the future of
hunting and fishing traditions we treasure, we want to protect large
areas of public land completely separate from the noise, disturbance
and pollution that comes with off-highway vehicles.
Our members--and many other Americans--are seriously impacted
byirresponsible and excessive use of off road vehicles. Agency
statistics show that motorized users are very much in the minority on
public lands, yet they impact areas orders of magnitude larger than
folks on foot or horse.
The latest National Forest Visitor Monitoring Report shows that
only 5.6 % of visitors to National Forests go there to use an OHV. BLM
reports they estimate only 9% of their visitors are there primarily to
use an OHV.
The irony is that OHV users spoil hunting opportunity for
themselves as well as for any quiet user within a mile or more of their
noise. Extensive research over decades has established beyond dispute
that OHVs impact a wide variety of wildlife and displace game animals.
In addition, the use of motor vehicles shatters the quiet sense of
solitudethat traditional sportsmen seek.
Recent studies in the Madison Range in Montana show that hunters on
OHVs drive elk from public land and onto private land, while hunters
accessing similar areas on foot did not displace elk. The end result
was public game driven off public land and onto private ranch land
where average hunters are locked out.
All of our members tell a familiar story - working hard and playing
by the rules, only to have illegal or inappropriate riders on OHVs
shatter their experience, scare away the wildlife and damage the
habitat. It's happening all across the country, over and over again.
Several of our members are retired federal land managers. They feel
strongly that irresponsible use of OHVs is out of control largely
because of lack of agency direction, resolve and fortitude. Too many
units of the BLM and Forest Service are hand wringing instead of
acting. The Forest Service is working slowly to complete travel
management planning but is neglecting authorities they already have
(such as the Executive Orders) to implement emergency closures against
off-route travel now.
We support reasonable controls to protect the water, forests and
rangelands that are owned by all Americans. We support swift and
effective enforcement of lawbreakers. We support meaningful penalties,
such as confiscating machines and taking away huntingand fishing
privileges of lawbreakers. Specifically we ask Congress to:
direct the Agencies to aggressively accelerate controls,
within the rules and resources they now have, of Off Highway
Vehicles.
secure necessary funding of OHV controls and enforcement on
all public lands.
investigate opening the Recreation Trail Program funds to
for OHV management and Law enforcement.
direct the Forest Service and BLM to declare large portions
of America's forests, canyons and public land as completely off
limits to the noise, disturbance and pollution of off-road
vehicles, while providing some designated OHV routes where they
will notharm public resources or damage the experience of
others.
______
Statement of Eric Hamburg, Los Angeles, CA
I am a property owner and part time resident of Wonder Valley,
California who is greatly concerned and personally affected by the
impact of abusive and illegal Off Road Vehicle (ORV) use. I have
visited the Morongo Basin in San Bernardino, California frequently over
the past thirty five years and have been fortunate enough to own my
home, where I plan to retire, in Wonder Valley since 2002. By
profession I have been engaged in computer technology as a Chief
Information Officer in a large law firm and most currently as a
technology consultant.
Illegal and abusive ORV use is a on-going and persistent problem
for me and my neighbors. While many ORV riders are respectful of
property rights, and of the law, there unfortunately are a significant
number of riders who feel they can ride with impunity. Despite posting
``no trespassing'' signs on our land and working to pass effective
legislation (particularly San Bernardino County Ordinance 3973, enacted
in 2006 and unanimously reaffirmed by the County Board of Supervisors
in August 2007) we still experience willful illegal riding. We also
experience continual harassment from some members of the ORV riding
community including personal attacks on their websites. Such harassment
includes what amount to stalking of individuals and our private
property.
Illegal ORV riding and riders cause 1) damage to the fragile desert
ecosystem, 2) trespassing, noise and dust and 3) harassment of citizens
who are only trying to protect their rights to live in peace and enjoy
the beauty of the desert
In my opinion, the solution to this problem lies in enforcing and
strengthening existing laws as well as providing more resources to
local law enforcement to implement laws in the vast area that they need
to cover. The penalties for infractions should be increased,
particularly for repeat offenders. Law enforcement personnel also need
to be trained on the importance of enforcing these laws and their
performance must be assessed based on the effectiveness of their
enforcement efforts.
Additionally manufactures and sellers of ORVs should be obligated
through legislation to assure people purchasing their products are
educated on safe and responsible riding. Local retailers should be
obligated to inform their customers where riding is legal and where it
is not.
Thank you for inviting the public to testify on these important
issues. It is encouraging to see that your committee is taking
leadership to look into these problems. I hope that you will take my
comments and proposed solutions into account and translate them into
effective legislation that can be effectively enforced not only in
mylocal area but in the many areas across the country that are
adversely affected by illegal and abusive ORV use.