Transcript Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan

Progress Updating the
1979 Michigan ORV Plan
Dr. Chuck Nelson
Dept. Community,
Agriculture,
Recreation and
Resource Studies
MI State University
DNR’s Mission
Conserve, protect and provide for
public use and enjoyment Michigan’s
natural resources for present and
future generations of citizens and
visitors.
 Stewardship mission is paramount

An Updated Plan for
Tomorrow

Key issues for updated plan







Meet legal mandates
Provide adequate riding opportunity
Minimize social conflict
Maintain environmental integrity
Maximize rider safety and enjoyment
Make most efficient use of ORV funds
Recent new wrinkle – New FS rules
• “Closed unless posted open” on all NF
• Not just the Huron-Manistee

Forest certification
ORV Plan Requirements



Inventory state forests
Assess their suitability for ORV use
Designate ORV system


Done between 1979 - today
Resource management to maintain system and restore ORV
damage


On-going
This effort involves
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partners
Law enforcement
Maintenance
Education
ORV events
ORV technology
Conflicts and other uses of public and nearby private lands
Rider enjoyment
Funding
Safety
Environmental integrity
Maintenance and Restoration
Grant Workshop Input

Maintenance
• Support for improved signage
• Yellow backers from AuSable Pilot Project
• Sign plan removing discretion for sponsors
• Significant concern about liability associated with
maintenance activities
• Growing trail use = more trail maintenance
• Costs higher than reimbursement for most
• Support gas sales tax money to ORV program

Restoration
• Engineering requirements are challenging
• Need better ID of ORV damage sites off trails
• Need more restoration interests involved
Public Information Meetings
• S. Michigan (Lansing 10/12/04)
• 92 signed attendance sheet
• Three distinct user groups represented
• Motorcycles, ATV, full size truck/dune buggy
• Non-trail oriented users not well represented
• Want separate trails to meet differing user needs
• More trails in total
• Parallel trails,“play” areas for large trucks
• Many want NLP forest roads open to MC/ATV
• Stated need for trail restoration, relocation
• Want direct access from trails to goods/services
• Support using gas sales tax $ from ORV for ORV
• Support hands on & written youth ORV safety ed.
Grayling Meeting
• 63 signed attendance sheet (10/13/04)
• Again three distinct groups plus 56” width ATV
• Gator, Mule, etc.
• Non-trail oriented users not well represented
• Want separate trails to meet differing user needs
• More trails in total
• Parallel trails,“play” areas for large trucks
• Many want NLP forest roads open to MC/ATV
• Stated need for trail restoration, relocation
• Want direct access from trails to goods/services
• Support using gas sales tax $ from ORV for ORV
• Support hands on & written youth ORV safety ed
Marquette Meeting
• 100 signed attendance sheet (10/14/04)
• Different character than previous meetings
• Three ORV vehicle types represented
• Also had vocal non-ORV riders concerned
about trespass, property and environmental
damage, cross-country use & beach riding
• Also had hunt/fish/pick non-trail riders
• Keep state/national forest roads open to ORV
• Support county road shoulders open to ORV
• ORV riders seen as major component of tourism
• Want more designated trails for tourists
• Support for ORV education focused on written to
reach more youth, work through sheriffs
• Want sign compatibility with snowmobile prog.
MI County Sheriff Survey

60 (72%) of 83 responded

Participate in teaching ORV safety using a model similar to
marine safety education
• 38 (63%) wanted to teach ORV safety education, 2 (4%) maybe,
15 (25%) not interested, 4 (7%) no response to question

16 participated in ORV enforcement grant program in 2003
• 77% enforcement time on trails
• 23% at trail heads

Key violations targeted
•
•
•
•
•

operation under the influence of drugs/alcohol,
operation by a non-certified youth without adult supervision,
trespass on private lands,
operation on public lands/roadways where prohibited
lack of an approved helmet/safety equipment
Participated in enforcement because
• Public safety need, citizen concerns about trespass, increasing
ORV use, illegal ORV use on roadways, enforcement need
Sheriff Survey Results

Of the 16 in ORV enforcement:
•
•
•
•

7 (44%) of the 16 also conduct ORV safety education
16 (100%) do marine safety education
9 (56%) do snowmobile safety education
6 (38%) do hunter safety education
More counties interested in ORV enforcement if barriers
overcome
• Need additional money
• ORV equipment
• Enforcement personnel
• If designated trails were in county
• Other barrier may be qualifications of enforcement personnel
• Do they need to be a certified police officer?

Potential for year-round recreation officers at local level
• ORV, snowmobile and marine enforcement as well as safety
education for all three

Strong support for having ORV safety training materials
on the internet
County Road Commission
Manager Survey

33(59%) of 56 counties north of Bay City
to Muskegon line responded
• 17 (52%) no ORVs on county road shoulder
• Concerns about safety, liability, increased road
maintenance costs
• 6 (18%) some county shoulders open to ORVs to
connect trails
• Maintain balance, connect trails, promote tourism,
cooperate with ORV clubs
• 10 (30%) all county road shoulders open to ORV
• Treat ORVs like snowmobiles, benefits agriculture and
tourism, requested by residents/riders, high demand

15% are reconsidering existing policy
• Lots of flux
• Looking both at opening and closing
Road Commission Managers

Where illegal, citizen comments heard
• Causes damage to roads/shoulders
• ORVs travel at excessive speed, fleeing law
• ORV fatalities occurred on county road
• Leads to trespass

Where legal, citizen comments heard
• Reduced speeding, not trying to flee law
• Benefits service businesses
• Leads to trespass
• More road/shoulder damage
• ORV traffic confuses motorists, safety
concern
Road Commission Managers

Three noted total of 4 ORV fatalities on roads
• Tend to lack data on ORV accidents on roads
• Similar lack of knowledge about citations for illegal
ORV operation
• When asked about MCCCT connectors on county
roads for DNR licensed ORVs
• 27% support, 39% oppose, 34% unsure/not
applicable situation to them
• Much more supportive of DNR/FS acquiring or
designating trails/routes on public lands
• 70% support, 3% oppose, 27% unsure/not applicable
situation to them
State Trail Coordinator
Survey


State Trail Coordinators
26 (52%) of 50 states respond


6 (23%) have current state ORV plan
25 (96%) of 26 reported some public land riding
opportunity
• 77% had federal land opportunities
• 73% had state land opportunities
• 46% had local public land opportunities
• 52% “closed unless posted open”, 48% “open unless
posted closed”
• Survey was pre-Forest Service policy announcement

80,658 trail miles reported
•
•
•
•

79% open to all types ORV
17% ATV/cycle only
4% cycle only
<1% truck only
42% states had one or more designated scramble areas
Trail Maintenance/Damage
Restoration for other States

Trail maintenance done by many
• 69%
• 35%
• 58%
• 62%
• 23%

used non-profits
used for-profit contractors
states did some/all maintenance
had federal maintenance
had some local gov. maintenance
Trail restoration done by fewer
• 27% states had damage restoration prog.
• Used all the above sources to implement
Law Enforcement and
Fatalities

Few states track ORV citations


Only 15% of states provided numbers of ORV citations
Few provided data on fatalities


40% of states provided data on ORV fatalities, 60%
stated they had no info
US Consumers Product Safety Commission (2003)
reports that 1982-2002
• 224 people died in ATV accidents in Michigan
• 5,239 people died nationwide
• 33% of deaths nationwide were to persons <16

Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety Planning
(2004) reported that during 1994-2003
• 2,528 ORV/ATV accidents on Michigan roadways
• Resulted in 77 fatalities

Data available not comparable in quality to snowmobile
fatality data which DNR LED investigates and compiles
2005 National OHV Program
Managers Data – Thanks to Chair
Bob Walker (MT) for compiling

Education requirement for ORV use

17 (35%) of states require for some
• Typically youth


32 (65%) have no educational
requirement
26 (53%) have minimum age
requirement to operate ORV
• 23 (47%) no minimum age requirement
• All states without a minimum age
requirement also lack an educational
requirement
Michigan Trail Assessment
2004

Fall 2004 DNR and FS personnel
assessed Michigan’s ORV system

Special thanks to three MI DNR trail
analysts
• Wayne Wheeler (UP)
• Paige Perry (E NLP)
• Katie Campbell (W NLP)

Also, good participation by FS ranger
districts in the Huron-Manistee NF
Condition of the Designated
System – Fall 2004

2,639 miles evaluated
• 1,777 (68%) rated good (meets standards >95%)
• 854 (32%) rated fair (meets standards 75-95%)
• 8 (<1%) rated poor (meets standards <75%)


Key goal is bring all up to good
7 cycle trails, 11 ORV trails, 3 routes need
significant improvement
• Improved brushing, signage, re-routes or
boardwalks for wet areas

Comparison to 1996 system assessment
where 2,097 miles were reviewed
• 61% good, 27% fair, 13% poor
Illegal Uses

44 (54%) of trails/routes have reported
illegal use

Main problems are non-designated spur trails
• Access hunt, fish, private lands, hill climbs

Other concerns include
•
•
•
•
Illegal hill climbs
Illegal scramble areas
Riding in wetlands or on lake/river shorelines
Road riding on roads open to SOS vehicles only
Conflicts

20 (25%) of 81 trails/routes had reported
conflicts

Conflicts reported include
• Between ORV users and others using trail/route
system
• Non-motorized uses
• Logging vehicles
• Cycle and ATV users on the same trail
• ORV users and neighbors to system
• Dust, noise, trespass
• Conflict with oil/gas service personnel
ORV Damage to Public
Lands

Considerable amount away from designated
system


Many photos submitted with GIS info from DNR field
staff
Serious concern of forest certification evaluators during
MI visit
• Want to see best management practices fully
implemented

Current Operations Inventory not well suited to ID such
damage
• Much done during snow cover

Many land managers believe damage away from the
designated system exacerbated by some LP counties
opening all county road shoulders to DNR licensed
ORVs
• Provides access to illegal, environmentally sensitive sites
Plan Action Steps, Rationale
and Fiscal Implications

First set submitted to DNR 12/21/04




DNR now reviewing 5th draft
Internal review process through FMFM
Then by DNR wide team
Then out to the public


Full review takes time, longer than I planned
Still compiling supporting material on trends,
etc. during internal review