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