Transcript Updating the 1979 Michigan ORV Plan

Michigan Draft ORV Plan:
2005
Dr. Chuck
Nelson
Dept. Community,
Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies
MI State University
ORV Plan is Under the
DNR’s Umbrella Mission
Conserve, protect and provide for
public use and enjoyment Michigan’s
natural resources for present and
future citizens and visitors.
 Stewardship is paramount


Err on the side of maintaining the
productive capability of the
environment
What is an Off-Road Vehicle
(ORV)?

Motor driven vehicle capable of cross
country travel without the benefit of a
road or trail
• Motorcycle (24” wide at handlebars)
• All-terrain vehicle (48” wide at handlebars)
• Recently larger crossover vehicles (54-56” wide e.g.
John Deere Gator, Kawasaki Mule, Polaris Ranger,
etc.)
• Large 4 wheel drive truck, SUV, specialty vehicle like
dune buggy

Not a single, homogeneous market
• ORVs don’t include snowmobiles, airplanes, boats


In 1998: 104,000 MI licensed ORVs
In 2004: 171,000 MI licensed ORVs (64%
increase)
MI’s First and Only ORV
Plan



Mandated by PA 319 of 1975
Approved by NRC in 1978
Part of the 1979 State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan

Sought to separate ORV activity and other uses where
conflict occurred
• ORV riding allowed on
• Designated ORV trails, routes and areas
• Forest road system open to ORVs
• Forest road defined as a way capable of travel by a 4
wheeled vehicle
• Develop designated riding opportunities in S. MI
• Protect the resources of the state from pollution or
impairment

Two main types ORVs
• Motorcycles and large 4 wheel drive vehicles, no ATVs
Evolution Since 1979

1980 DNR promulgates administrative rules
• Close state forest land to ORV use except for forest roads
and designated trails, routes and areas
• Need 1,500 miles designated trail on the ground


DNR unsuccessful in creating S MI ORV areas
1989 statewide ORV study (Nelson 1989)
• ORV has risen dramatically from the 1976 study
• Less than 1 million ORV days to 4 million ORV days
• ATVs are the most common ORV
• Nelson presentation to 1989 MI SAF meeting that open
unless posted closed isn’t working
• First cross country rider illegal, second is following a way
capable of travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle



1990 DNR finishes 1,500 miles/rules effective
ORV Trail Improvement Fund authorized
1991 NRC approves the system of ORV trails, routes,
areas
Evolution Continued

1991 Public Act 17
• On Lower Peninsula state forest lands
• Closed unless posted open
• Huron-Manistee National Forests adopted same rules
• UP state forests stay open for use on forest roads and designated
trails/areas/routes unless posted closed
• Task force of citizens/DNR key in making this decision
• 1992 ORV season rules in effect for first time
• Eliminates MI registration
• Money to DNR, not Secretary of State
• ORV Trail Improvement Fund distribution authorized
• Grants to non-profits, units of government to maintain trails, enforce
rules, restore environmental damage

Forest Recreation 2000 (NRC approval 1995)

Drafted by State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee
• Strategic Plan for MI state forest recreation system
• Goal is a high quality forest recreation program as part of a working,
multiple use state forest system
• Campgrounds, trails (motorized and non-motorized) and areas
with forest recreation as the key value
Evolution Continued

Public Act 58 of 1995

Use annual licensing to provide ORV program
funding
• Residents and non-residents pay $16.25/year/ORV
• Re-Create ORV Trail Improvement Fund, rigid
distribution formula
• Restricted fund with carry-over authority
• Grants to governmental agencies, non-profits for:
• > 50% revenues for trail, area, route construction,
maintenance, acquisition
• >31.125% for trail, route and area enforcement
• > 12.125% for ORV damage restoration on public lands
• < 3.125% for administration
Evolution Continued

1997 ORV Trail/Route Assessment (Lynch
and Nelson 1997)

System of 2,531 miles (not including MCCCT)
• 86% on MI state forest land
• 14% on National forest land

DNR System condition (not including some
segments of MCCCT)
• Of 2,097 miles rated by DNR
• 61% good (trail/route in compliance with trail
standards > 95% of trail mileage)
• 27% fair (trail/route in compliance with trail standards
75%-95% of trail mileage)
• 11% poor (trail/route in compliance with trail standards
for <75% of trail mileage)
Evolution Continued

1997 Trail Maintenance Costs/Reimbursement
Rates

Workshop with cooperators
• Out of pocket costs (gasoline, equipment, etc.)/mile
• $29.04 ORV trails
• $21.69 ORV routes
• If labor is considered a reimbursable cost/mile labor costs
(@ $6/hour)
• $104.05 for ORV trails
• $ 55.05 for ORV routes

DNR used the following rates, providing little $ for labor
• In 1998 Trails @ $45/mile, raised to $54 in 2002
• In 1998 Routes @ $34/mile, raised to $40 in 2002
Evolution Continued

1998 Public Act 418 Forest Recreation Act

Based on Forest Recreation 2000 Plan
• Mandates DNR to “develop, operate, maintain and
promote an integrated system that provides opportunities
for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, snowmobiling, ORV
use,…w/in each state forest”

2000 ORV licensee use and user study (Nelson
et al. 2000)

First study to use ORV license info
• Key trends 1975-2000 (Nelson and Lynch 2001)
• ORV use has shifted northward
• Proportional and absolute use of the designated system has
increased
• Minority of ORV use is on designated, public trail system
• Trail system has been created, grown, matured
Key 2000 Findings
• 57% licenses ATV, 23% MC, 19% SUV
• 21% from UP, 21% from NLP, 58% from SLP
• 4.2 million ORV days per year
• 44% private land ride, 31% public land ride, 25%
hunt/ice fish
• In average ORV household 2/3 family members ride
• 71% of 12-15 aged kids operate ORV, only 1/3 riders
completed mandated ORV safety course
• 57% of 10-11 aged kids operate ORV, only 1/6 riders
completed mandated ORV safety course
• 54% of licensees used the designated trail system
• 46% did not use the designated system
• 29% of licensees used a designated ORV scramble area
• Silver Lake SP, Bull Gap, St. Helens, Mounds
• Key changes desired in response to open-end questions
• More riding opportunities, better signage, legal on road
shoulders, reduce fee for non-trail users
AuSable Pilot Project
(Nelson and Lynch 2002)

Does more law enforcement and
more visible signage lead to
improved ORV rule compliance
• Clare, Gladwin, Roscommon and Ogemaw Cos.
• Improved signage appreciated by riders
• Area with improved signage and additional
enforcement had a 30% decline in ORV violations
per contact by DNR enforcement personnel
• Signage had relatively few apparent vandalism
problems
• Strong support for linking MCCCT loops with
designated ORV trail/route connectors
• Anecdotal evidence the outlaws moved north
Now, an Updated Plan for
2005

Key issues for updated plan


Meet legal mandates
Provide adequate riding opportunity
• Different vehicle user segments seek different riding
situations




Minimize social conflict
Maintain environmental integrity
Maximize rider safety and enjoyment
Make most efficient use of ORV funds
• Currently $4 million + fund balance in ORV Trail Fund

Recent new wrinkle – New FS rules
• “Closed unless posted open” on all NF
• Not just the Huron-Manistee

Forest certification
• Visible implementation of Best Management Practices
throughout state forest system
• Unrestored ORV damage consistently noted as a problem
ORV Plan Legal
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
Citizen and manager need for ORV trend data




Use
Users
Licenses
Grants
Public Input Sessions with
ORV Grant Recipients

Maintenance (9/21/04)
• Support for more visible signage
• Want DNRsign 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

Restoration (9/15/04)
• Engineering requirements are
challenging/onerous
• Need better ID of ORV damage sites off trails
• Need more restoration interests involved
• Restoration job not getting done
Public Information Meetings
• Lansing, Grayling, Marquette (10/12-14/04)
• About 300 attended
• Four distinct ORV user groups represented
• Motorcycles, ATV, large ATV-like vehicles (Gator,
Ranger, etc.), full size truck/dune buggy
• Non-users (typically private landowners)
• Users 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 hands on & written youth ORV safety ed.
• Non-users stories about trespass, environmental
damage to public and private lands and facilities
• Message is get rid of bad actors
MI County Sheriff Survey:
Fall 2004

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: Fall 2004

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
State Trail Coordinator
Survey: Fall 2004


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
Environmental damage restoration by
fewer
• 27% states had damage restoration
program
• Used all the above sources to implement
Law Enforcement and
Fatalities for other States

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
Condition of the Designated
System: Fall 2004


Trail analysts provided majority of data/work
2,705 miles evaluated (inc. Huron-Man. NF des.
trails)
• 1,815 (67%) rated good (meets standards >95%)
• 844 (32%) rated fair (meets standards 75-95%)
• 46 (2%) rated poor (meets standards <75%)


Key goal is bring all up to good
7 cycle trails, 12 ATV trails, 3 routes need significant
improvement
• Improved brushing, signage, re-routes or boardwalks for
wet areas

Comparison to 1997 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 vs. ATV users on the same trail
• ORV users vs. 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 visits
• Want to see best management practices fully
implemented

Current Operations Inventory not well suited to ID such
damage
• Much done during snow cover

DNR land managers connect damage away from
designated system with some counties opening all
county road shoulders to DNR licensed ORVs
• Provides access to illegal, environmentally sensitive riding
locations
Action Recommendations
Designated System
 System Maintenance
 ORV Damage Restoration
 ORV Safety Education
 ORV Enforcement
 ORV Events, Licensing and
Administration

Action Recommendations:
Designated System

Upgrade system to all trails/routes to “good”
maintenance rating
• More than 95% of a trail’s mileage meets
maintenance standards
• Implement 2004 assessment trail-by-trail
recommendations

Develop additional cycle and ATV trail and
ORV route and scramble area with partner
land managers to meet increasing demand
• Destination point-to-point and loop routes
• Parallel ATV or cycle trails in existing trail corridors
of influence
• Fully implement St. Helen’s Motorsport Area
development plan
• Develop one or more new scramble areas
Action Recommendations:
Designated System




DNR use nationally recognized Forest
Service standards for motorized trail
signage
Have no net loss of ORV trail quality and
quantity from timber management
DNR maintain current “closed unless
posted open” approach in Lower
Peninsula
DNR maintain current forest roads open
to ORV use without posting in the UP
Action Recommendations:
Designated System

Encourage local units to target ORV use
only to selected county road shoulders



DNR annually monitor the condition of the
designated system


Access to designated system
Access to goods/services
Use 2004 assessment instrument
DNR conduct assessment of ORV use and
users every 5 years

Include economic impact study
Action Recommendations:
System Maintenance

Increase the maximum rate of
reimbursement based on 1997 estimated
costs including labor + inflation

$154 per mile for cycle and ATV trails
maintenance
• Up from current $54 per mile

$89 per mile for ORV routes
• Up from current $40 mile



Strictly enforce maintenance standards
Explore multi-year and competitive bid
options for trail maintenance
Open eligibility for trail maintenance
grants to for-profit entities
Action Recommendations:
System Maintenance

DNR to complete regulatory sign plan for
each trail



Follow Forest Service motorized trail signing
standards
Limit maintenance cooperator discretion
DNR to provide ORV trailhead
maintenance throughout snow free
months

May be contracted, may be internal
Action Recommendations:
ORV Damage Restoration

Better and more systematically identify ORV
damage on public lands
• Broaden operations inventory to focus on full land
stewardship mission
• Seek partners and provide information conduits for
reporting and locating ORV damage
• Immediate needs, long term systematic approach

More efficiently and effectively restore identified
environmental damage
• Use known techniques e.g. agricultural erosion control and
wildlife habitat restoration
• Use timber sale/contract process
• Administer at the FMFM district level through recreation
specialists
• All have soil and sedimentation control certification
• All located closer to problem locations than staff
• Part of district land management team
Action Recommendations:
ORV Safety Education

Use model similar to marine safety education





County sheriffs are lead provider, educational and nonprofit organizations can also provide
Classroom education mandatory with a focus on ORV
safety and laws
Written, proctored exam mandatory
“Hands-on” training/test optional but encouraged
County sheriffs, educational and non-profit
organizations eligible to apply to and receive
ORV Safety Education Fund grants

Maximum of $20 per student reimbursement
• Reimbursement for costs
• Both classroom and hands-on eligible for reimbursement
Action Recommendations:
ORV Safety Education



ORV Safety Education certification
required of all born on or after December
31, 1988 to ride an ORV on public lands
or waters of Michigan
DNR Law Enforcement Division to design
and implement a system to track ORV
fatalities patterned after current
snowmobile fatality tracking system
DNR comprehensive ORV safety education
and training materials available on the
internet at the DNR’s website
Action Recommendations:
ORV Enforcement

Strengthen ORV enforcement by:






Fund additional MI Cons. Off. patrol at straight time
Fund additional sheriff patrol hours and reinstate ORV
patrol equipment grants for eligible sheriffs
Forest Service becoming eligible to receive ORV
enforcement grants for patrol
DNR State Parks (Silver Lake SP) becoming eligible to
receive ORV enforcement grants for patrol
Involve Forest officers in ORV patrol at ORV trailheads
to educate riders pre-ride and to provide safety checks
Enforce ORV youth certification requirements

After ORV safety education classes available in a
majority (42) of Michigan counties
Action Recommendations:
Events, Admin. & Licensing

Enduro Motorcycle Events


Program Administration



Locate events at sites of proposed timber harvest (1-2
years out)
Clarify responsibilities and strengthen working
relationships among DNR personnel/divisions involved
in ORV program delivery
Investigate streamlining grant processes to gain
efficiency and cooperators
Licensing


All ORV licensing should be done through the electronic
license system
All ORV license dealers shall provide a copy of the ORV
rules and safety information to each licensee annually
on their purchase of their ORV license
Plan Process Forward

First set recommendations submitted to DNR
12/21/04




Internal DNR-wide review July-August 2005
Public review begins 8/10/05 with ORV Advisory
Board presentation
Draft plan posted on DNR web site 8/11/05




30 day public comment period beginning 8/11/05
Revise draft plan based on public, ORV Advisory
Board and DNR review after September 12, 2005
Final Draft presented to ORV Advisory Board for
endorsement November 9, 2005
Final Draft to NRC for information January 2006


Six iterations since that time with FMFM
30 day public comment period
Final Draft to NRC for action February 2006