United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

ForestService

WashingtonOffice

14th & Independence SWP.O. Box 96090Washington, DC 20090-6090

File Code: 1410/2350Route To :

Date: December 19, 1995

Subject: National Off-Highway Vehicle Activity Review

To: Regional Foresters

REPLY DUE MAY 1, 1996

The enclosed repor~ is the National Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) ActivityReview. It was conducted by visiting sites in Region 5 duringApril 11-17, 1994, Region 8 during July 10-17, 1995, and Region 2 duringAugust 21-26, 1995. The regions represent a cross-section of the national OHVsituation. The report is in~ended for implementation service-wide.

Concurrently, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) compiled areport on the use and impact of off-highway vehicles based on observationsfrom the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource areas and the Forest Service(FS) ranger districts (4 resource areas and 4 ranger districts) in 5 westernStates. A copy of the GAO report is enclosed. The findings in the GAO reportsubstantiated the national magnitude of the issues identified by previous FSreviews and this report.

Five issues form the focus of the review:

1. Quality of OHV Trail/Area Design.

2. Quality of OHV Trail/Area Operation and Maintenance.

3. Forest Plan Direction.

4. Employee OHV Knowledge and Competency.

5. Quality of Private Sector and Other Government Cooperation inManagement and Maintenance of OHV Activities.

Upon completion of each regional visit, findings were shared in an exitconference and a report relating specifically to that region. Common findingsfrom the 3 regional reports where incorporated into this national report.Issues and action items address only findings common to all 3 regions that areconsidered to have national significance.

I would like to express sincere appreciation to the employees who took time toopenly and honestly share with the teams the issues, strengths, and prioritiesthat face their region or district. This dialog exhibits a commitment toimproving OHV management and customer service.

Caring for the Land and Serving People

Regional Foresters 2

The enclosed report identifies actions to address the national findings. Iask that each region prepare a response to Section III, Action Plan Direction,with the word "Region" in bold by May 1, 1996. For additional information onany of these issues, please contact Brent Botts of the Recreation, Heritage,and Wilderness Resources Staff at (202) 205-1313 or via DG B.BOTTS:W01C.

lsi Sterling J. Wilcox (for)

JACK WARD THOMASChief

Enclosures

FINAL REPORT

NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) ACTIVITY REVIEW

1996

I. ACTIVITY REVIEW OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the National OHV and Travel Management Activity Review wasto examine how a representative sample of regions adhere to OHV related policyand procedures, as well as how the national program can be improved. Issuesidentified to be reviewed were based on issues from the 1986 OHV NationalReview, the Travel Management Study completed in 1992, and the 1995 GovernmentAccounting Office (GAO) Review of Use and Impacts of OHV's.

The objectives were:

1. Quality of OHV Trail/Area Design.

a. How is engineering support for trail design, conversion of roads toOHV use, and maintenance being accomplished?

b. How is customer service, ecosystem management, mixed traffic, andsummer/winter use being considered in the design of OHV facilities?

c. How has accessibility been designed into facility construction andreconstruction projects? Are persons with disabilities being utilizedin the design process?

d. Is the recreation capital investment program process coordinated withengineering's ability to fund road access needs?

e. Do signs and maps communicate authorized OHV opportunities to thepublic?

f. Are safety and health concerns addressed in brochures, maps, andsigning?

g. Are vehicle control facilities (fences, gates, etc.) effectivelydesigned and used?

2. Quality of OHV Trail/Area Operation Maintenance.

a. Is customer satisfaction a guiding principle in operating andmaintaining Forest Service trail facilities?

b. What is being done to portray a quality Forest Service image in OHVsigning, bulletin boards, and safety messages.

2

c. Is monitoring of OHV activities and its effects being accomplished?

d. How is enforcement of Federal and State standards and regulations foroperation of vehicles being accomplished and funded?

3. Forest Plan Direction.

a. Are forest land management plans, biological evaluations, and NEPAdocumentation for projects adequately addressing the OHV managementand impacts occurring on the forest?

b. Do forest plans address State-wide OHV planning? Do forests workclosely with States in carrying out programs financed by user fees?

c. Is travel management planning being coordinated with on-roadactivities and other resource objectivies?

d. Do OHV road and trail inventories correspond to what is located on theground?

4. Employee OHV Knowledge and Competency.

a. Are employees and volunteers knowledgeable and competent in OHVplanning, design, management, and monitoring?

b. Is technology and development information reaching district employeesand volunteers?

c. Do line officers and recreation field personnel know about and arethey committed to OHV management.

d. Are OHV field personnel working in a safe environment? Are job hazardanalysis, safety training, and equipment operations being completed?

e. How does the attitude of line officers, field personnel, and supportspecialists contribute to the effectiveness of OHV program management?

f. Are suitable uniform components available and are they being worn in away that reflects on a professional recreation managementorganization?

S. Quality of Private Sector and Other Government Cooperation inManagement and Maintenance of OHV Activities.

a. Are special-use permits issued for special OHV and similar groupactivities?

b. Are forests following appropriate procedures and complying withnational policies in authorizing outfitting guide services on nationalforest lands?

3

c. Are contacts with outside interest groups and other governmentagencies (U.S. Fish and Hildlife Service, BLM, etc.) being developedand maintained?

d. Are volunteers and non-profit organizations being used to accomplishOHV management in a manner consistent with forest plans?

e. How are partnerships and coop programs utilized within the region toimprove OHV opportunities, restoration, and management?

FINDINGS

1. General Background.

The use of off-highway vehicles such as 4X4 vehicles, dirt bikes, allterrain vehicles (ATVs), and snowmobiles has been occurring on nationalforest land since the 1920s. In many cases, the use predated the nationalforest's acquisition of that land. Initially, these vehicles did notrepresent a major recreation use or industry. OHV trails/areas generallywere not planned or designed, but developed through use.

The increased popularity and widespread use of OHVs on Federal lands inthe 1960s and 1970s prompted the development of a unified Federal policyfor such use. Executive Order 11644 was issued in February 1972 toestablish policies and provide for procedures to control and direct theuse of OHVs on Federal lands so as to (1) protect the resources of thoselands, (2) promote the safety of all users of those lands, and (3)minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The executiveorder also closed wilderness and primitive areas to OHV use.

Executive Order 1189 was issued in May 1977. It strengthened protectionof the lands by authorizing Agency heads to (1) close areas or trails toOHVs causing considerable adverse effects and (2) designate zones of useto identify specific areas and trails in which the use of OHVs mayor maynot occur.

2. Strengths.

In all cases, the degree of successfully managed OHV areas/trails appearsto be associated with the amount of line officer involvement, an employee"champion," the presence/involvement of a local organizedclub/organization, and ample riding opportunity and challenge.

Environmental documentation and biological evaluations were beingcompleted and were on record.

Employee safety standards and job hazard analysis were being utilized andenforced.

Cooperators such as States, organizations, and volunteers are beingaggressively pursued and utilized. Such outside involvement accounts forapproximately 70 percent of most OHV management programs.

4

3. Areas Needing Improvement.

a. Planning and Monitoring - Some early forest land management plans(LMPs) did not address OHV use and were later "retrofitted" to acknowledgeOHV use as an issue. OHV use was not commonly evaluated as part of travelaccess management. Most LMPs that did address OHV use and did not fullyrecognize or anticipated the demand and resulting conflicts.

Existing trails/areas were generally not planned, designed, norconstructed for OHV activities. Many areas that provided for trails/areasdid not incorporate enough miles or enough challenge to adequatelyaccommodate the OHV user. This has contributed to OHV management problemsby not dispersing the use and not providing the full spectrum of challengelevels (easy through most difficult). This practice often resulted inresource damage as a result of over use and development of new trails thatdo not exist on inventory records.

Off-highway vehicle use was not adequately incorporated into standards andguidelines or monitoring plans. As a result, most forests are working tocatch-up with planning by closing or relocating trails/areas whereunacceptable damage or excessive conflict exists. Few plans provided foradequate trail/area identification or construction to make up fortrails/areas being closed to traditional OHV use. Monitoring is notsystematic in its application and generally not documented or reported.

b. Knowledge and Competency - Experts in various facets of OHV managementwere found to exist in each region. Their knowledge and expertise was notbeing adequately shared between districts, forests, and regions. Manyline officers, specialists, and employees never had the experience ortraining in managing an OHV trail/area program and did not know what couldbe done to prevent or mitigate related problems.

Successful programs had active line officer involvement, a "champion," andan active OHV club or organization. Poorly managed programs lacked one orall of these components. People interviewed indicated that the lack ofOHV knowledge by line officers and specialists significantly contributedto management problems and lack of support for finding solutions.

c. Suitable Uniform Component Availability - Dirt bike and ATV ridingrequires specialized safety equipment to protect operators from theinherent risks of the activity. Use of riding boots, protective pads,helmets, gloves, eye protection, and specialized riding clothes iscommonly worn by the dirt bike and ATV using public. Most employeesriding dirt bikes and ATVs are providing their own safety equipmentbecause it is not available through the FS. A lack of FS identificationon specialized safety equipment and OHVs prevent the law enforcementofficers (LEOs) and the forest protection officers (FPOs) from beingeasily identified as FS employees.

d. Enforcement of Standards and Regulations - Resource protectionregulations and closure orders for OHVs are not adequately enforced.Enforcement will continue to be a problem with downsizing effects on theLEOs program and restrictions on the FPOs enforcement of OHV relatedregulations.

5

The federal protection officer is restricted from enforcement of most OHVlaws due to a recent interpretation that OHV enforcement is a vehiclestop. The LEO is seldom available to enforce OHV regulations relating toresource protection due to priority work in other areas. As a result,enforcement of closure orders that restrict users to trails/areas andsignificantly discourages the development of unauthorized trails/areas isnot being adequately enforced.

Generally, few LEOs are trained or equipped to patrol OHV trails. As aresult, LEOs seldom patrol past the trailhead and tend to deal withviolations such as operating an unlicensed piece of equipment on a road.

III. ACTION PLAN DIRECTION

1. Planning and Monitoring.

a) Regions need to respond to how they plan to incorporate OHVs as partof travel access management and how this will be incorporated into .landmanagement planning. Also, what actions are being taken to incorporatestandards and guidelines that relate to OHVs management issues.

b) Regions need to develop a plan to inventory trails that currentlyexist on the ground, even if not shown as part of the existing trailsinventory. As trail managers establish OHV trails/areas throughhistorically used trails/areas, consider providing enough opportunity areato provide ample miles of challenge levels from easy to difficult.

c) Regions need to develop strategy for sharing cost effective monitoringexamples that have been successfully used to monitor OHV use and itseffects (use counts, soil movement, and effects of mitigation measures) .

2. Knowledge and Competency.

a. Each region should submit to the Washington Office (WO) a list oftheir OHV champions and the individual expertise they would be willing tooffer. From this list, a national core team of 12 OHV experts will beestablished. This team will become the board responsible for:

b. Developing a "Center Of Excellence in OHV Management" and "MasterPerformers." This program will establish teams of OHV experts that willbe scattered across the country and available to assist forests inplanning, developing, managing, or monitoring OHV programs.

c. Establish OHV training courses for line managers and resourcespecialists that provide an introduction to tools and resources availablefor managing OHV and travel management.

3. Suitable Uniform Component Availability.

a. The WO will work with the Safety and Health Branch to develop policythat better clarifies riding gear safety equipment for ATVs and dirt bikeuse. All forests using ATVs or dirt bike equipment should reevaluate jobhazard analysis. Analysis should include boots, protective pads, helmets,gloves, eye protection, and specialized riding clothes for dirt bikes.Helmets, boots, gloves, and eye protection should be used when operatingATVs.

b. Regions need to provide feedbackspecialized components of the ForestService patrol personnel can be more

6

to the WO in developing and providingService uniform, so that Forestreadily recognized.

4. Enforcement of Standards and Regulations.

a. The WO Law Enforcement and Investigations and Recreation, Heritage,and Wilderness Resources Staffs will jointly review FSM 5304.6 (authorityof forest protection officers) and other FSM restrictions. Whereappropriate, sections of the FSM will be amended to allow FPOs moreenforcement flexibility.

b. The WO will work with law enforcement and report on what can be doneto increase availability of the LEO for resource protection relatedenforcement.

c. The WO Law Enforcement and Investigations and Recreation, Heritage,and Wilderness Resources Staffs will work together and explore ways toprovide more qualified FPOs and standardize and training nationally. Moreemphasis will be placed on training the FPO in recognition and avoidanceof hazardous situation. Also, ways to incorporate OHV training into theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center and regional training programs.

d. Regions will establish a uniform policy for mapping and posting OHVroutes using current travel management posters and symbols for the type ofuse so not to leave any doubt to users as to what is or is not permitted.

·". , NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY REVIEW

This national off-highway and travel management review is to be conducted byvisiting Regions 5, 2, and 8 during FY 94-95 .. As each region is visited, thefive issues identified will form the basis of the review. Upon compl'et{on ofthe review in each region, the findings will be addressed and recommendationsfor the primary findings will be givea. After all three regions have been .vist~d, the results will be summarized and a national recommendation will bemade.

Off-Highway and Travel ManagementActivity Review

Region 5April 11-17,1994

ISSUE NO. l~ Quality of OHV trail/area design

A range of coordination be::ween Engineering and the OHV program was observed.The OHV program management seemed to follow a rather functional 'RecreationStaff/Trails Program approach. Considerable opportunity for EngineeringProfessional/Technical support and assistance was noted: trail location, trail

. surface·· stabilization, surfac.edrainage, .surface maintenance, constructiondocuments (drawings and specifications), contract preparation," constructionadministration (force account and contract), and application of systematicmaintenance management practices. Access to and within OHV areas generallyinvolved both Public Roads and Forest Development Roads (FDR) and weregenerally appropriate. Frequently, Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance) FDR's\.Jere designated OHV "trails or routes"" In some cases, roads had beenconverted from FDR' s to OH'J Trails or Four Whee.l Driveways.' Wi thin OHV areas, ,Program Managers seemed to be doing a good job of integrating existingfacilities into the desired trails and routes. In a number of instances, theFDR's within an OHV area that served as both OHV trail or route and accessbetween stagiJ;1g areas an'd use areas were not adequately maintained to preventimpacts to adjoining resource values. Once inside an OHVarea, theFDR'sseemed to function less as roads and more as an OHV facility thus viewed as anOHV maintenance responsibility. "

Instances were noted where recent improvements did not necessarily meet theneeds or obj ectives -of the OHV use such as the design for parking area at aWinter U~e area did not include space for snow storage during and after snowplowing; recently construc::ed toilets that included maintenance supply storageareas that containe~no storage space and were essentially useless; andnumerous toilets that were intended to be SST (sweet sfuelling toilet)installations where some installation recommendatioris had not been utilizedrendering the facility less than user friendly .

.. .~

Positive customer service attitude was present to varying degrees at each unitor .site visited, .especially in· the OHV program managers, ·site staff (OHVtechnicians ,. and others). However, others who are essential to the OHV programsuch as planners" ID Teams, II specialists corps ", law enforcement personnel ,functional'staff and in some cases·members of the management team did notnecessarily embrace OHV as an appropriate use. Such instances often resultedin significant delays and major intrusions into customer service and highlevels of controversy with user and other members of the public. .

Planning and OHV area design had considered 'mixed users' and summer/winter use.opportunities appropriately. While the term Ecosystem Management wasfrequently mentioned, it frequently seemed to be used· in a context that did notinclude or recognized the Human Dimension as an appropriate part of EcosystemManagement.

OHVcapital investments (of all types) have been generally supported by grantsfrom the'State's'OHV (Green Sticker) program including access roads and othersroad investments. A number of instances were observed where existing accessand road conditions were unacceptable and improvements continue to be needed.As both the Forest Service's road program and the State's OHV programexperience dramatic program reductions, management may find it increasinglydifficult to coordinate OHV site development with appropriate access and roadimprovements.OHV maps were available on most units but were often poor in quality andlacking inconsistency. Use of map symbols, trail difficulty~ designation ofdifferent types OHV use, were not consistent from one unit to: another. Mostunits recognized the need for quality maps and supported the idea of a regionalstandard for OHV maps ..

Accessibility has been incorporated into the facilities at OHV staging areas.All the restrooms visited meet accessibility standards. Wheelchair tables werepresent in newly constructed facilities. Parking area and staging areas,because of,the nature of the OHV sport, often ha.ve rough surfaces. These rough·surfaces may cause an excessive challenge to the physically impared person whoparticipates in OHV activi~ies.

Vehicle controls were being effectively used. Many styles of barriers andfences are being used, all of which appeared to result in the desired usercontrol. Users have generally honored these 2:ontrols and the size or strengthof the area controls does not s~em to be a factor in their effectiveness.Orange fabric fence can be as effective as a welded pipe ba.rrier or a 5 strandwire fence. Forest Service presence and enforc~ment by the users through peerpressure help to make most rehabilitation effort suctessful when there areother good trails to experience. Barbed wire fences were noted in one area andare viewed as most unaccep::able

ISSUE NO.2: Quality of OHV trail/area operation and maintenance

The public perception of the Forst Service is based on a number of factors. Oneof these is'thethe quality of information and regulatory signing. While someunits have developed informative and clear signs for OHV areas and have

... , ~

developed ,good visitor con::act sites, in several instances signs were missing,not adequately maintaine'd, or contained duplicate and confusing messages.

The recent changes in the Law Enforcement organization structure has createdconfusion and barriers to enf'orcement of Federal and State OHV regulations. Inmany cases, the relationship between Law Enforcement and OHV lIlanagement is notclearly understpod by Line Officers, Resource Managers, OHV Managers, LawEnforcement Officers, and users. Nearly all units feel the strong need tomaintaincapabilities'of Level II officers to enforce many OHV requlationsincluding spark arrestor, registration, sound, and other trail relatedregulations. They all recognize the importance of adequate training for LevelII officers to ensure that they can recognize threatening situations. Thelevel IV officers need to be available to deal with difficult individuals,large groups, and situations where record'-checks need to be made. The State hasdetermined that OHV grant funding. for ? portion of the OHV. en'forcementactivities is appropriate. Line officers felt strongly that funding should,continue to corne through the Forest 'Grant Process,. They lel t that this wouldserve to facilitate the coordination that is critical to a successfulenforcement program.

~here enforcement or patrol personnel regularly are involved in the managementof OHV activities, they need to posess the skills, ,abilities and equipmentnecessary to interact with the enthusiasts on the trail. This includes theability to 'ride either motorcycle of ATV, a basic ,knowledge of the machines andadequate uniform and, safety equipment.

I

Successful programs had se'Jeralthings in common. Meeting customersatisfaction by providing range of challenging oppnrtunities, providingsufficient miles of trails to give users an satisfing experience and insuringForest ServiceOHV management 'presence.

Some areas were observed where user satisfaction is not being met. Sufficientmiles of trails and roads do not exist. Critics have 'resticted OHVopportunities. Internally, some specialist have established unrealisticconstraints limiting OHV opporturiites. Two examples ar~: areas which haveadopted a poli~y where routes are closed unless a sign exists showing that itis open, and then did not have, the resources or commitment to erec t the signs.The second was soil moisture. restrictions which eliminate OHV use when ,thetrails are wet. Trail conditions, following a rain, when trails are firm anddust free,are experiences which most'users desire. Negative effects fromerosion can often be mitigated with proper trail design and special featuressuch as trail hardening. Dry weather use when trails are dusty is user limitedbecause of the amount of hot safety gear and dust.

On the ground maintenance ::0 mitigate off trail sediment transfer (or thevisual appearance of rutting and sediment movement and complaints from critics)was not being accomplished in several situations on southern Calif forests.

Monitoring of OHV impacts ,vas being accomplished on some national forests.While studies themselves have not resulted in additional OHV oppo'rtunities,there have been limited studies which have focused on possible impacts from OHVrecreation. These studies have not demonstrated the need for additional OHVrestrictions.

.. .\

Specialist have documented trail soil loss after both motorized and equestrianevents. Dust moninoring during dry weather M/C enduroshas been documentedboth on site and in off !?it:e downwind communities. Effects in winter deerrange has been documented for motorized and hiker impacts While the resultsare subj ect to individual intetpertati~n, they generally support OHV as a validuse of the National Forest whenproperallyadminister~d.

ISSUE #3: Forest Plan Direction

There are significant ~ifferences in the 1evel and effectiveness of OHVplanning on the various units. OHV planning was not in general wellcoordinated within the current Forest Plans. OHV use is treated differently onadjacent Forests and in some cases on adjoining Ranger Districts on the sameForest. Considerable 'opportunity exists to create appropriate consistencyrelated to OHV management between and within Forests. Such appropriateconsistencies would greatly simplify OHV management, implementation and likelyresult in noticeable increases in customer satisfaction., In some cases, wheremanagement Or staff have reservations about the legi timacy of OHV use on theNational Forest there isa tendency to study problems to excess or a reluctanceto complete planning effor::s. In one case it appears that the Forest hasadopted a policy or management strategy that is difficult, if not impossible,to impl~ment. It appears that line officers adopted a closure order withoutadequately involving law enforcement in the development of the order, As areSUlt, the order may not be enforceable. There is a strong reluctance tochange the policy even though the problems have been recognized. This has leadto a loss of, public 'Confidence in'the ability of the Forest to manage OHV useIn several cases, OHV area opening/closing criteria were difficult to explainand administer. Most'criter:ia addressed rainfall as the criteria creating theneed for 'area closure and I hours since rainfall 'as the criteria allowingreopening. Other important·crlteria, notably dust, were not reflected in OHVopening/closing criteria. For current QHV proj ects and permits, the NEPA I

documentation an,d Biological Evaluations are being completed as required.Criteria that more closely model concerns related to OHV use can be identified

Current regional law enforcement· planning effort to transition to the neworganization has recognized the need for consultation with resource managers.However, a number of line officers and district recreation personnel did notknow of the effort and were not involved. 'Draft OHV enforcement procedures arebeing developed a resources and law e,nforcement group and was provided to theReview Team

On-going OHV planning efforts are addressing the current state~wide planningissues, which include the need for long distance touring opportunities, and theneed to connect riding areas ina coordinated state~wide trail system, In someunits the corridors have been identified and completed and in others planningis just beginning. There needs to be continued regional involvement in theprocess.

No instances were found where road'and trail inventories are coordinated in thesame inventory process In some instances, OHV program managers haveinventoried facilities tha:: are available for OHV use including both roads andtrails Such inventories \\Tere generally not automated. No instances of

inventories of trails or roads that have been rehabilitate were noted.However, at every area visited, numerous areas that had been rehabilitated 'werej)roudly pointed out. Inventories of such areas my be very important as wedisplay effect of OHV use and management over time.

In each OHV area visited, there were instances where users had created trailsor roads in addition to those 'designated'. In several instances, indicationswere that such facilities were not inventoried and were considered ,to be"non-system" facilities. Efforts had been undertaken to eliminate such use andrehabilitate the sites. However, such undesired facilities were notinventoried and were not necessarily the target of management andrehabi;Litation. Inventoring such facilities may assure that management andrehabilitation will be focused,oD correcting these "non-system" and undesiredfacilities.

ISSUE #4:· Employee OHV Knowl.edge and Competency

The team found there were OHV champions' associated with the success of anyprogram. These were predominately technician level employees that have apersonal interest in OHV activity. They have developed a high skill level inmanagement practices for OHV activities but are reluctant to draw upon otheroutside skilled individuals. Plann~ng, de'sign, management, and moni toringwerenoted' as,; areas where individual units had excelled. However, individual unitsseemed to only excel atone or two of these and'not all of ~hem.

OHV champions ,on each forest were very committed to the program. Where theywere empowered to implement the program we saw some great success. Because thechampions were technicians, these success were limited to their technicalexpertise ie : law enforcement, restoration, t.rail design. Many line officersdid not seem to champion this type of recreation and appeared to distancethemselves fromOHV use. The result was a lack of commitment to the overallOHV program.

The review team noted the thrE;e types of management at,titudes identified in the1986 activity review: A) OHV managemen't is appr8priate in certain places andefforts are made to provide opportunities for meeting those needs. B) A biasexists against OHV use. C) OHV use is recognized as an appropriate use but onlygiven passive attention. This Review recognized the same attitudes. In.addition, the ·team noted a successful OHV program is a function of commitmentand active management. We noted examples where a very successful program waseroding due to management decisions to. pull away OHV champions to accomplishother work or assign individuals that have no OHV expertise to manage theprogram.

Forest~nd district specialist (hydrologist,wildlife biologist, botanist,etc.) often work independently of each other and with different goals. Many ofour own personel who do not accept OHV as a ligitimate use of National Forestland, become barriers to managing an effective OHV program.

Patrol and enforcement personnel have identified the need for riding equipmentthat can be recognized by che pu61ic, durable enough ,for motorcycle riding andthat provides the satisfactory level of protection for the rider. In addition,

... ,

it has been found th~tOHV enthusiasts give more credibility to, patrolpersonnel and managers who are dressed in appropriate attire. Existing ForesService uniform components are not suitable for routing OHV patrol activities.The effort, required and the ability to acquire suitable riding components canvary depending on interpretations of existing regulations and can be a completebarrier. to acquiring necessary safety equipment. Purchasing appropriate ridingequipment in small lots frorn.different vendors can significantly increase. costsand leads to variations in. quality and potentially inconsistent appearance.

EachOHV site visited represented a "Center Of Excellence" in one area oranother. A loose coordination exists between Forest OHV Program Managers. TheRegional OHV Program Manager passes considerable OHV technical and userassiciation information to the Forest'OHV Program Managers. Inspite'of all ofthe above coordination, effective Technology Transfer continues,to elude thisas well as many other Forest Service programs .. ,Forest OHV Program Managers .

'were aware of Technology Transfer efforts such as EiJgineering Field Notes, TechTips, DG Technology Transfer Networks but were not participating in suchefforts. It could be that an increased emphasis of existing TechnologyTransfer opportunities is ,varranted.

A "safety" attutudeby Forl~st and District personnel was observed throughoutthe review. Personnal protective equipment was evident and safe practices wer,enoted. Job Hazard Analses 'vere not reviewed but were discussed by several ofthe OHV Program Managers.

Several Forests haverecen::ly purchased Sweco,450 (trai buldozer) This asmall crawler tractor designed specifically for trail cOI}struction andmaintenance Some will no doubt .view this as a. toy or hobbyhorse machine.That'is·a>verydangerousperception. It is avery serious ,piece of heavyequipment. All Forest Service policy concerning use and operation of heavyequipment must be applied ,to. insuresafe.c5peration of this equipment As withodler heavy equipment,' i:tcan -be very hazardous' if not carefully operated byfully skilled ope'rators within safe operating paramenters. Currently,operators may not be meeting all of the requirements to operate heavyequipment.

ISSUE #5: Quality of Private Sector and Other GovernmentCooperation In Management and Maintenance of OHV Activities

Volunteers and non-profit OHV organizations are active users on all NationalForests that were visited. There is a great deal of inconsistency in the waythey are utilized. Some units had adopt-a-trail programs, OHV user groupworkdays and volunteer patrols while other units only utilized volunteers to dotrail maintenance qnd construction projects. OHV volunteers bring a specialkno~~edge that can greatly enhance our rnanagementof an OHV program.Increasing the cooperation and support of the user group was seen as 9- k"ey to asuccessful program.

Contacts with other government and state agencies wer,e being maintained.Cooperation with law enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, State HistoricPreservation Office, State OHV program administrators and others was verygood. Most users are unaware of jurisdictional changes as they mov;e from one

• f \

OHV area to another. Regulations on OHV use have been closely coordinated withother agencies. Failure to achieve appropriate consistency in signing,implementation of regulations, manager attitudes and operating plans, hasresulted in user confusion.

The Region has developed a high level of dependa~ce on State OHV funding. Inmany cases,the district OHV programs .;ire 75% to 90% funded. by State OHVGrants, This has resulted in several problems. There is a general assumptionthat it is a State responsibility to fundOHV management on the NationalForest. When in fact; OHV management,including funding, is a Forest Serviceresponsibility. The amount: of Forest Service funds committed to the OHVprogram has been reduced because State funds are available. This is notconsistent with State policy regarding the use of State funds to supplement OHVcosts rather than supplanting FScosts. The high level of State funding alsogives some users the perception that since they are paying for most of theprogram that they should have control of the program. This leads to someusers/maI;Jager conflicts. Reliance on'this high level of external fundingplaces the 'OHVprogram at a risk of collapse if State funding declines.

In the past, the State funds have supported OHV planning, development of newfacilities and opportunities, land acquisition, restoration of damaged areas,enforcement, maintenance and other management activities. With the crisis inthe state budget funding in the last few years has been at reduced levels andhas been generally limited to enforcement, maintenance and other managementactivities. The State and the users are itill committed to fund develqpmen~,acquisition and restoration proj ects when the budget problems ease . The S.tatehas opted not to pay forfut0re project planning efforts but will rely on theForest Service to f,und the planning and will then consider funding proj ectimplementation.

SUMMARY OR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REGION 5

The Activity Review Team found three primary areas of concern:

1) Management Commitment To The OHV program

Successful management of cif the OHV program is highly dep.endent upon a strongcommitment by line officers and program ,managers. Without exception, in thoseareas where we saw this commitment we also say a successful program,. lessresource dam.age, more user enjoyment, and less public controversy. Wheres~fficient range of experience and challenge are provided, there was lessindiscriminate cross-country travel and enforcement problems.

Recommendations:

Regional Line Officers lead by example, demonstrating OHV use can beresponsibly managed on National Forest lands.

Clearly instill in forest managers that OHV use is an appropriate use ofN~tional Forest land, where it has been determined to be compatible with other

.' f \

uses and resource values and that OHV use will beertcouraged throughresponsible management.

Strengthen OHV monitoring requirements.

Showcase Forest Service OHV areas which are centers of excellence.

2) Involvement Of Qual{ty. Trained Personnel In The Field.

A quality OHVprogram is not solely dependent upon management commitment butalso upon those who implement the program. One of the key ingredients forsuccess is the availability of highly trained and experienced OHV managers thatunderstand and appreciate ~he users needs and can work with them.

Recommendations:

OHV managers, technicians and enforcement person~el need to make contacts inthe field and on the trail. They need appropriate personnel protection. ridinggea~ and Forest Service OWl uniform that identifies them as a creditablemanager.

OHV field personnel need to be trained to ride, design, locate and maintain OHVtrails. This can be accomplished by Regional workshops and establishing aRegional OHV team that may be called upon to provide'technical assistance forspecific OHV proJects.

Organizational readjustmen::, should not result in unskilled individuals in OHVpositions. Where skilled individuals are available, they should be utilized.

Integrate appropriate professional and technical skills into OHV trails layout,maintenance, and construction.

3) Forest Service Law Enforcement. Coordination With The ·OHVProgram.

Law Enforcement is essential to managing a successful OHV program.Historically OHV use has been managed as open, but as use increases it becomesnecessary to restrict the USe to designated trails. This shift of managementinitially requires more dependence on law enforcement. After the change hasbeen implemented and accep~ed by users, law enforcement needs decrease.

With the restructuring of -::he Forest Service law. enforcement organization it isessential that coordination between law enforcement· and' .OHV managers bemaintained.

Recommendations:

Train and equip law enforcement personnel in OHVmanagement including ridinggear.

Develop OHV priorities tha:: are embraced by both the Line Officer and LawEnforcement Officer.

..~

•.Ensure that the Regional Law Enforcement Plan is being developed with theconsultation of resource managers.

Develop appropriate roles and responsiblilities of Forest Protection OfficersinOHV management.

COMMENDATIONS:

Tahoe National Forest

The Foresthill Ranger. District personnel show an outstanding dedication toproviding quality customer service. This is reflected in the committmenttoprovide a diversity of trail difficulty levels including construction of a mostdifficult trail requested by the users.

Torn Madrigal is' to be commended for his abilities to combine OHV management andLaw Enforcement activities. His skills have lead to a high level of usersupport and has allowed the District to make significant prograss in improving­the quality of the riding ares.

The compl~te and detailed efforts the Forest puts into record keeping is to becommended. The Daily Work Log and Lew Enforcement records allow Districtpersonnel tq proc,iuce accurate and timely accomplishment reports;

Eldorado National Forest

The monitoring efforts by Chuck Mitchell, Andrea.Holland,and other resourctspecialists is outstanding. The monitoring has been professionally done andwell documented.

The working relationship between di~trict managers and res.ource specialists onthe Eldorado National Forest reflects a spirit 6f teamwork and cooperation.This, has allowed the districts to effectively utilize the skills of theresource specialists.

'Mendocino National Forest

The Stonyford Districts' efforts to establish, invol,,;e and <;ooperatewith anad-hoc committee which includes local agency "representatives, OHV enthusiasts,and Law enforcement personnel istommendable. This has result in managementdecisions that are broadly supported.

Jeff Applegate is to b~ commended for his dedicat~on to developing andmaintaining a high quality OHV program .on the Stonyford District.

The inovative trail hardening approaches that the Stonyford District has usedand the cooperation with the San Dimas Technology and Development Genter showsa committment to providing quality riding opportunities while protecting thetrail r~sources.

Los Padres National Forest

.. ~

The review team was impressed by the high level of cooperation and coordinationbetween the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area and the Mt., Pinos~i;lngerDistrict.

)W~;' . 'fThe establishment 'of the Southern California OHV Managers Workgroup involvingthe four Southern California Forests, State, and BLM areas is commendable. Thecooperative, working relationships facilitated by this group enhanses OHVmanagement throughout the region.

Considerable evidence of past rehabilitation efforts is visible in BallengerCanyon. This coupled with the on-going enforcement efforts has resulted in areduction of use in inappropriate areas.

Angeles National Forest

There is. a large committment by field personnel at Rower Flat to providing ahigh level of customer service.

Cam Lockwood's efforts to work with the manufacturer to help de~elop a trailtractor that meets FS trail maintenance needs is commendable .

.. .~