michigan draft orv plan: 2005
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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% used non-profits• 35% used for-profit contractors• 58% states did some/all maintenance• 62% had federal maintenance • 23% 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 Access to designated system Access to goods/services
DNR annually monitor the condition of the designated system 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 non-profit 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
Locate events at sites of proposed timber harvest (1-2 years out)
Program Administration 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
Six iterations since that time with FMFM 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
30 day public comment period Final Draft to NRC for action February 2006