United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Bruce F. Vento, House of

Representatives

August 1995 FEDERAL LANDS

Information on the Use

and Impact of

Off-Highway Vehicles

GAO/RCED-95-209

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-261498 

August 18, 1995

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Vento:

Executive Orders 11644 and 119891

 were issued in the 1970s to establish

policies and procedures for regulating the use of off-highway vehicles

(OHV) on federal lands. The need for such action arose from the increased

use of motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATV), four-wheel drive vehicles,

and other types of OHVs for recreation on federal lands. Sometimes, these

vehicles damaged natural or cultural resources, or their use clashed with

other forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, picnicking, and

horseback riding. More than 20 years later, OHVs remain popular for

recreation on federal lands, but concerns about the effects of their use

persist.

Responding to these concerns, you asked us to review the implementation

of the executive orders on OHVs by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Service. Because neither of these agencies maintains nationwide data on

its OHV activities, we agreed with your office to review the OHV programs at

eight locations with high OHV use—four BLM resource areas and four Forest

Service ranger districts.2

 For these eight case-study locations, we obtained

data on OHV program funding and staffing and examined the agencies’

compliance with the executive orders’ requirements that they

(1) designate federal lands for OHV use, (2) monitor OHV use to identify

adverse effects and any needed corrective actions and to determine

compliance with regulations, and (3) address or correct adverse effects

caused by OHV use. We also gathered some information at an additional

location in Utah where a coalition of federal, state, and local interests has

joined forces in managing a nationally recognized OHV trail.

Appendix I more fully discusses our scope and methodology. Appendixes

II through IX present detailed information on each of the locations we

reviewed.

1

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands (Feb. 8, 1972), and Executive

Order 11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (May 24, 1977).

2

The four BLM resource areas were Barstow, California; Stateline, Nevada; Cascade, Idaho; and San

Rafael, Utah. The four Forest Service ranger districts were Mt. Pinos and Upper Lake, California; Mesa,

Arizona; and Salt Lake, Utah.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Results in Brief At the eight locations we reviewed, BLM and the Forest Service generally

gave lower priority to off-highway vehicle activities than to other

programs. Both agencies devoted limited funding and staffing to these

activities, relying heavily on the states for financial support. In fiscal year

1993, for example, approximately two-thirds of the estimated total funding

($1.8 million) for off-highway vehicle activities at the eight locations came

from the states, which obtained most of their funds from licensing fees

and gasoline taxes. The federal government provided most of the

remaining funds. About 64 percent of the staff assigned to these activities

were also working on other activities at the time of our review; only about

36 percent were working full-time on off-highway vehicle activities.

Additional support for off-highway vehicle activities came from local

communities and organizations, which contributed funds at some

locations and volunteered services and materials at all locations; the total

value of this support was not readily available. Also, at some locations,

coalitions of federal and state governments, local communities, and

private organizations supplemented the resources available for

off-highway vehicle programs.

Compliance with the executive orders’ requirements was mixed at the

eight locations we studied. At the time of our review, lands had been

designated and conditions had been prescribed for the use of off-highway

vehicles at all locations, but at five locations maps had not been completed

and signs had not been posted frequently or prominently enough to show

the public clearly where and under what conditions off-highway vehicles

could be used. At all locations, off-highway vehicle use was being

monitored casually rather than systematically, adverse effects were

seldom being documented, and needed corrective actions remained to be

prioritized. Although citations were being written for violations at all

locations, enforcement was hampered by confusion over where and when

restrictions applied. At all locations, some steps had been taken to correct

adverse effects, but other needed actions were not being performed.

According to off-highway vehicle program managers and staff at the eight

locations, the higher priority assigned to other activities and the limited

funding and staffing allocated for off-highway vehicle activities have

prevented full implementation of the executive orders’ requirements.

Background The increased popularity and widespread use of OHVs on federal lands in

the 1960s and early 1970s prompted the development of a unified federal

policy for such use. Executive Order 11644 was issued in February 1972 to

establish policies and provide for procedures to control and direct the use

Page 2 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

of OHVs on federal lands so as to (1) protect the resources of those lands,

(2) promote the safety of all users of those lands, and (3) minimize

conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The order directs the

agency heads responsible for managing the federal lands to issue

regulations governing the designation of areas where OHVs may and may

not be used. Under the order, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to

minimize (1) damage to the soil, watersheds, vegetation, or other

resources of the federal lands; (2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; and

(3) conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. The

order closes wilderness and primitive areas to OHV use. It also requires the

federal agencies to issue OHV use regulations, inform the public of the

lands’ designation for OHV use through signs and maps, enforce OHV use

regulations, and monitor the effects of OHV use on the land.

Executive Order 11989 was issued in May 1977 and contained three

amendments to the previous order. While these amendments lifted

restrictions on the use of military and emergency vehicles on public lands

during emergencies, they otherwise strengthened protection of the lands

by authorizing agency heads to (1) close areas or trails to OHVs causing

considerable adverse effects and (2) designate lands as closed to OHVs

unless the lands are specifically designated as open to them.

Both BLM and the Forest Service have developed regulations in response to

the executive orders. These regulations require the agencies to designate

areas where OHVs may be used and to manage the use of OHVs on public

lands through each agency’s resource management planning process,

which allows for public participation. The regulations also require the

agencies to monitor the use of OHVs, identify any adverse effects of their

use, and take appropriate steps to counteract such effects.

Both BLM and the Forest Service follow the principles of multiple use and

sustained yield3

 in managing their lands. BLM transfers most of its authority

and responsibility for day-to-day operations through its state and district

offices to its over 140 resource area offices. The Forest Service manages

its lands through staff assigned to its regions, forest supervisor offices

(forests), and over 600 ranger districts. Both BLM and the Forest Service

prepare comprehensive land and resource management plans for their

public lands. BLM develops plans for its resource areas that describe the

standards, guidelines, and goals for each use on the land—including

3

Multiple-use management means the management of public lands and their various resources in an

effort to best meet the present and future needs of the American people. Sustained yield means the

achievement and maintenance, in perpetuity, of high-level outputs of the various renewable public

lands resources consistent with multiple-use.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

recreation. The section on recreation usually designates the areas within

the resource area that are open, open with restrictions,4

 or closed to OHV

use. The Forest Service prepares plans for its forests that contain goals

and objectives for using and protecting the resources within a forest’s

ranger districts. These plans provide for a mix of activities, including the

use of OHVs.

Both BLM and the Forest Service supplement their comprehensive

management plans with more detailed activity plans describing the

on-the-ground actions needed to implement the management plans. These

activity plans generally identify specific areas or roads and trails as open,

open with restrictions, or closed to OHVs; stipulate conditions for using

OHVs; emphasize the use of OHVs in suitable areas; prescribe management

actions; and prescribe monitoring for adverse effects.

External and internal reviews have identified weaknesses in BLM’s and the

Forest Service’s implementation of the executive orders on OHVs. In 1979,

the Council on Environmental Quality concluded, in a report entitled

Off-road Vehicles on Public Land, that both BLM and the Forest Service

have been slow to address damage from OHVs to soils, vegetation, wildlife,

and watershed resources. Similarly, the Department of the Interior’s

Inspector General, in a 1991 report on BLM’s activities, and the Forest

Service, in a 1986 review of its OHV program and in an ongoing review,

disclosed various deficiencies, such as incomplete inventories of routes

open and closed to OHV use, inadequate mapping and posting of OHV routes,

untimely resolution of conflicts between OHV users and other users of the

lands, and limited monitoring of the effects of OHV use on natural and

cultural resources. According to the Forest Service, the current review is

focusing on (1) the quality of its OHV trails’ design, (2) the quality of its

trails’/areas’ maintenance, (3) the direction of its forest plans, (4) its

employees’ knowledge and competency, and (5) the quality of its

cooperation with the private sector and other government entities. The

Forest Service plans to incorporate the results of the review into an action

plan to improve the OHV program.

OHV Programs

Receive Limited

Funding and Staffing

At the eight locations we reviewed, OHV programs generally received

limited federal funding, and relatively few staff devoted either all or part of

their time to OHV activities. According to BLM and the Forest Service, the

limited federal funding available for their recreation programs, including

4

BLM predominately uses the term “open with limitations,” although the term “restrictions” is also

used. The Forest Service uses the term “restricted.” For simplicity and consistency, we have used the

terms “open with restrictions” or “restricted use” in this report.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

their OHV programs, has generally been less than requested and does not

reflect their management needs. Within the appropriated dollar

allocations, OHV activities were given lower funding and staffing priorities

than other competing programs at the eight locations we reviewed,

and—according to agency officials—this ranking is typical for other BLM

and the Forest Service locations with OHV activities. State governments,

local communities, and private organizations, however, were contributing

funds and volunteering services to supplement the federal efforts.

OHV Programs Rely

Heavily on State Funding

In fiscal year 1993, the OHV programs at the eight locations we reviewed

received an estimated $1.8 million in federal and state funding.5

 (See table

1.) In the aggregate, two-thirds of this funding came from the states. Four

of the five states in which the eight case studies were located had state OHV

programs that allocated funds through grants and other means to support

OHV activities throughout the states, including those on federal lands. The

states obtain most of their funds for the programs from OHV licensing fees

and state gasoline taxes. Almost all of the remainder of the funding for OHV

activities at the eight locations came from the federal government. Local

communities and private organizations contributed funds at some

locations and services and materials at all locations; the total value of

these contributions, however, was not readily available.

5

Federal funding figures are estimated because neither BLM nor the Forest Service accounts for OHV

programs separately from other recreation programs. State funding for OHV programs is reported

separately.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 1993 OHV

Program Funding at Eight BLM and

Forest Service Locations

Location

Estimated

federal

funding Percent

State

funding Percent

Total

funding

BLM resource area

Barstow,

California $100,000 12 $705,000 88 $805,000

Stateline,

Nevada 102,000 100 0 0 102,000

Cascade,

Idaho 54,000 68 25,000 32 79,000

San Rafael,

Utah 50,000 83 10,000 17 60,000

Subtotal $306,000 29 $740,000 71 $1,046,000

Forest Service

ranger district

Mt. Pinos,

California 98,000 41 141,000 59 239,000

Mesa,

Arizona 25,000 13 173,000 87 198,000

Upper Lake,

California 35,000 23 117,000 77 152,000

Salt Lake,

Utah 110,000 89 12,000 11 122,000

Subtotal 268,000 38 443,000 62 711,000

Total $574,000 33 $1,183,000 67 $1,757,000

As table 1 indicates, the federal contribution ranged from a low of

12 percent at the Barstow Resource Area—where California contributed

over $700,000, or about 40 percent of the total estimated funding for the

eight locations—to a high of 100 percent at the Stateline Resource

Area—where Nevada provided no funds for the OHV program. In dollar

terms, the federal contribution was as low as $25,000 at the Mesa Ranger

District in Arizona and as high as $110,000 at the Salt Lake Ranger District

in Utah.

More Staff Work Part-Time

Than Full-Time on OHV

Programs

At all eight locations, the majority of the staff working on OHV programs

devoted only part of their time to OHV activities. These individuals

generally had other responsibilities involving such activities as recreation,

maintenance, and/or law enforcement. At six of the eight locations,

between two and four staff were spending part of their time and between

none and two were working full-time on OHV activities. At the remaining

two locations, where the OHV programs were larger, more staff were

Page 6 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

devoted to OHV activities. At the Barstow Resource Area, 11 staff spent part

of their time and 13 staff worked full-time on the OHV program, and at the

Mt. Pinos Ranger District in California, 7 staff spent part of their time and

4 staff worked full-time on the OHV program. At all eight locations,

individual OHV users, OHV user groups, and local volunteers contributed

services and materials to the OHV programs.

Coalitions Can Supplement

Federal and State

Resources

At two locations—the Boise Front Special Recreation Management Area

within the Cascade Resource Area in Idaho and the Paiute ATV Trail in

Utah6

—coalitions with local governments and organizations have

supplemented the resources available for OHV programs.

The Boise Front is a 43,000-acre patchwork of public and private lands

that forms the primary watershed and a scenic backdrop for the city of

Boise. Historically, the Front has been one of the most popular recreation

areas in Idaho. Serious conflicts have arisen between OHV use and efforts

to prevent trespassing on private property, protect watersheds, and

control erosion. In 1988, the Boise Front Coalition was formed to deal with

these and other conflicts. The coalition, whose members include

representatives of city, county, state, and federal agencies as well as

private landowner and user groups, has organized volunteers to clean up

litter, install hay bales and water bars to control erosion, place route signs,

and maintain trails. This work has supplemented the efforts of BLM and of

the state, which, between 1990 and 1993, contributed over $120,000 to

reconstruct trails, enforce laws, and provide information and education for

visitors. Currently, the Front’s OHV roads and trails have signs, maps,

information boards, and rest rooms and are patrolled by the county

sheriff’s department. Although the coalition had not completely resolved

the Front’s conflicts at the time of our review, it was working to do so.

The Paiute ATV Trail is an approximately 200-mile-long loop route through

mountains and canyons in central Utah. The trail runs through BLM, Forest

Service, state, county/community, and private lands. It was opened in 1988

and is managed by the Paiute ATV Trail Committee, a coalition of federal,

state, and local interests under the Forest Service’s leadership. Through

1993, the state of Utah had provided over $80,000 in OHV matching grant

funds to post trail signs, relocate trails, and install bridges, sanitation

stations, and erosion control measures. Local communities have also

helped to maintain trails, prepare maps, post signs, and monitor the effects

6

Although this trail was not among the eight case-study locations, we obtained information about it

because it operates through a coalition of federal, state, and local interests.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

of OHV use. The trail is nationally recognized by the OHV recreation

community as a unique riding experience, and visitors come to it from all

parts of the country.

Agencies’ Compliance

With Executive

Orders Has Been

Mixed

BLM and the Forest Service have partially implemented the executive

orders’ requirements that they designate lands for OHV use, monitor OHV

use, and correct any adverse effects of OHV use. According to OHV program

managers and staff at the eight locations we visited, the higher priority

given to other programs and limits on the funding and staffing allocated

for OHV activities have prevented full implementation of the executive

orders’ requirements.

OHV Use Designations

Have Been Made but Not

Fully Communicated to the

Public

At the eight locations we visited, BLM and the Forest Service have

completed the initial designation of their lands for OHV use, basing these

designations largely on the existing uses of areas, roads, and trails for

activities such as recreation, mining, logging, and grazing. Subsequently, as

they have updated and amended their resource management plans, they

have revised their initial designations to better protect natural and cultural

resources and minimize conflicts among users of the lands. However, at

five of the eight locations we reviewed, the OHV program staff have not

finished inventorying their lands, mapping their designations, and posting

signs to inform the public of their designations.

Lands Are Open, Restricted, or

Closed to OHV Use

The BLM and Forest Service locations we visited have designated their

lands as open, open with restrictions, or closed to OHV use. BLM’s lands are

generally less hilly or mountainous and are located in more desertlike

environments than the Forest Service’s lands; hence, they provide more

open terrain for cross-country OHV use. The Forest Service’s lands

generally include more rugged, mountainous, and forested terrain, where

OHV use is typically restricted to roads and trails. As table 2 indicates,

about 39 percent of the lands in the four BLM resource areas were open to

unrestricted cross-country use, while none of the lands in the four Forest

Service ranger districts were open to such use. OHV use was restricted to

existing or designated7

 roads and trails on about 59 percent of the BLM

lands and on about 53 percent of the Forest Service lands. The resource

areas had closed about 2 percent of their lands to OHV use, while the ranger

districts had closed about 47 percent of their lands.

7

OHV use is restricted in many areas to existing roads and trails. When inventories, maps, and signs

have been completed for the OHV routes in a given area, the OHV restriction is generally shifted from

“existing” to “designated” roads and trails.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Table 2: OHV Use Designations at

Eight BLM and Forest Service

Locations

Percent designated

Location

Federal

acres Open Restricted Closed

BLM resource

area

Stateline,

Nevada 3,671,000 70a 30 <1

Barstow,

Californiab 3,200,000 9 90 1

San Rafael,

Utah 1,464,000 20 71 9

Cascade,

Idaho 487,000 50 49 <1

Total 8,822,000 39 59 2

Forest Service

ranger district

Mt. Pinos,

California 441,000 0 59 41

Mesa,

Arizona 440,000 0 56 44

Salt Lake,

Utah 253,000 0 6 94

Upper Lake,

California 249,000 0 83 17

Total 1,383,000 0 53 47

aA pending revision to Stateline’s resource management plan will move all but 9,180 acres

currently designated as open to the restricted category.

bAfter our field visit to the Barstow Resource Area, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994

(P.L. 103-433) was enacted. According to BLM, the act transferred 367,000 of Barstow’s acres to

the National Park Service and designated another 707,000 acres as wilderness areas, which are

closed to the recreational use of OHVs. The figures in this table for Barstow do not reflect these

changes.

Lands designated as open (without restrictions) include areas where

(1) OHVs have historically been used for recreation, (2) management and

resource information gathered to date has not supported designation as

closed or restricted, and/or (3) the land management planning process has

indicated that further OHV use would not have significant adverse effects

on natural or cultural resources.

Lands on which OHV use is restricted to existing or designated roads and

trails include natural or cultural resources that could be adversely affected

by unrestricted cross-country OHV use. For example, in the Barstow

Resource Area’s Afton Canyon Natural Area, vehicular access is limited to

Page 9 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

designated roads and trails to protect sensitive riparian habitat and scenic

beauty along one of the few places where the Mojave River flows above

ground.

Lands designated as closed to OHV use include wilderness areas, natural

areas where research is being conducted, some areas of critical

environmental concern, and other special management areas. For the most

part, lands closed to OHV use in the four ranger districts we visited were

located in watershed areas sensitive to erosion or in congressionally

designated wilderness areas. For example, at the Salt Lake Ranger District

in Utah, 64,000 acres were in four designated wilderness areas. At the time

of our review, the four resource areas we visited had no designated

wilderness areas, but they did have lands that had been studied and were

being considered for possible designation as wilderness areas by the

Congress. OHV use is generally allowed in such wilderness study areas so

long as it does not impair an area’s wilderness potential. However, we

found that OHV use in some wilderness study areas was either prohibited or

severely restricted. For example, in the San Rafael Resource Area in Utah,

about 253,000 acres in seven wilderness study areas were being

considered for possible designation as wilderness areas. OHV use was

prohibited in three of the areas and restricted to a few existing trails in the

other four.

Majority of Locations Have Had

Difficulty Communicating Their

Designations to the Public

As required under the executive orders, BLM and the Forest Service have

issued regulations requiring that their designations of lands for OHV use be

communicated to the public through maps and signs posted on areas and

routes. However, the staff at all four of the resource areas and one of the

ranger districts we visited have had difficulty complying with these

regulations. They have not completed inventories of their OHV areas, roads,

and trails, and they have not finished preparing maps and posting signs to

indicate where OHVs may or may not be used. Without such inventories,

maps, and signs, neither the public nor the staff can be certain whether

specific areas, roads, or trails are available for OHV use. For example, an

OHV user on an existing but unmarked trail may inadvertently ride off of

the trail, leaving new tracks. Later, other OHV users may follow the new

tracks, incorrectly assuming that they represent an existing trail available

for OHV use. At the Cascade Resource Area, agency staff accompanying us

to view a network of trails did not agree on which ones were existing and

therefore available for OHV use. Without maps and signs to identify OHV

routes, restricted-use areas are, in effect, used and managed as open-use

areas.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

OHV program managers and staff at the four resource areas and one ranger

district cited limits on funding and staffing and higher priorities for other

programs as the primary reasons for their inability to comply more fully

with the executive orders’ requirements. They also noted that they manage

vast land areas—from several hundred thousand acres to over 3 million

acres—and are responsible not only for posting new signs but also for

replacing signs that have deteriorated or have been vandalized.

Program managers at three of the five locations that have not fully

complied with the executive orders’ requirements for inventories, maps,

and signs—the Mesa Ranger District in Arizona, the Barstow Resource

Area in California, and the San Rafael Resource Area in Utah—told us that

they are currently compiling inventories of their OHV routes and will

eventually map these routes and post signs on them. Managers at the

Cascade Resource Area in Idaho told us that the low density and wide

distribution of OHV use in the area did not warrant the investment of

resources needed to complete the inventories, maps, and signs. The

Cascade Resource Area has, however, completed the maps and signs for

the very small portion (less than 3 percent) of its land that lies within the

Boise Front, where OHVs are most heavily used. Managers at the Stateline

Resource Area in Nevada told us that the resource area has not had the

funds or staff to complete the inventories, maps, and signs.

In responding to a draft of this report, BLM said that it is working with state

and local governments and interest groups to supplement federal and state

funds to complete inventories, maps, and signs for its roads and trails.

According to BLM, several offices are working innovatively with volunteers,

using a geographic positioning satellite system and a geographical

information system to inventory the roads and trails and produce maps for

the public’s and its own administrative use.

The three remaining ranger districts we visited—Mt. Pinos and Upper Lake

in California and Salt Lake in Utah—have extensive maps of OHV routes

that clearly identify the location and number of each road and trail and, in

the case of the Mt. Pinos maps, describe the routes and specify their level

of difficulty and length. These maps are available to the public at the

respective ranger districts. Informative signs were posted on the

designated roads and trails in these districts. According to OHV program

staff at these locations, the maps and signs help keep OHV users in

authorized areas.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Monitoring Has Not Been

Systematic, and Confusion

Has Hampered

Enforcement

As required under the executive orders and implementing regulations, BLM

and the Forest Service have prepared resource management and activity

plans that require systematic, documented monitoring to (1) identify any

adverse effects of OHV use on natural and cultural resources and any

needed corrective actions and (2) determine users’ compliance with OHV

regulations. Such monitoring includes measuring changes in vegetation,

soil, and wildlife habitat at key locations and regular intervals; recording

the data; evaluating and analyzing the results; and modifying the program’s

management as necessary in light of the results. Monitoring is particularly

important in unmapped, unmarked areas where OHVs may inadvertently be

intruding on restricted or closed areas.

None of the eight locations we visited was systematically monitoring and

documenting the adverse effects of OHV use and any needed corrective

actions except in areas where competitive events requiring permits are

held. Agency employees performing other duties and members of the

public—including both OHV users and members of environmental

groups—were periodically observing and reporting adverse effects of OHV

use, but such anecdotal evidence does not provide the comprehensive

documentation that is needed to fully characterize the resource damage

and set priorities for corrective action.

To partially offset the difficulty of monitoring vast tracts of land with

limited funds and staff, some locations we visited were concentrating their

monitoring on locations with heavy OHV use, sensitive soils, riparian areas,

or critical wildlife habitat. The Barstow Resource Area, for example, had

developed a listing of “hot spots” where management attention is most

needed. This listing provides the staff with a basis for setting priorities for

monitoring and taking corrective action.

The executive orders and implementing regulations also require BLM and

the Forest Service to enforce all rules and regulations governing OHV use

on their lands. These requirements are designed to, among other things,

protect public health and safety and minimize land-use conflicts. All eight

of the locations we visited were undertaking various enforcement

activities. However, such activities were sometimes hampered because

maps and signs were not available to communicate OHV designations, and

the number of law enforcement staff was limited at the various locations.

All eight locations were issuing citations for violations of OHV regulations,

primarily for licensing and equipment violations. Available

information—from estimates, partial computer records, and actual

Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

citations—indicates that the number of OHV citations varied from fewer

than 10 at one location to more than 200 at another during calendar year

1993. Such wide variation was due, in part, to differences in the size of the

agencies’ law enforcement staffs and in the use the locations were making

of cooperative agreements with local communities to provide

supplemental law enforcement support.

Many OHV program staff told us that they consider making one-to-one

contact with OHV users on the trail more effective as an approach to law

enforcement than issuing citations. According to staff at all of the sites we

visited, the presence of law enforcement staff helps to ensure compliance

with OHV use regulations. In addition, educational efforts and materials are

used to increase compliance with regulations, promote visitors’ safety, and

decrease the adverse effects of OHV use.

Some Actions Have Been

Taken, but Others Are

Needed to Correct Adverse

Effects

As required by the executive orders and implementing regulations, BLM and

the Forest Service were taking actions to correct the adverse effects of OHV

use at the eight locations we visited. However, because the agencies did

not have complete monitoring data, the full nature and extent of the

adverse effects and the actions needed to correct them are unknown.

All eight locations were taking actions, such as relocating trails,

maintaining trails, replanting vegetation, and closing affected areas. These

actions were designed to prevent further damage from OHV use, maintain

existing or provide additional opportunities for OHV recreation, or resolve

conflicts between OHV users and other users and residents. At the Barstow

Resource Area, a camping and OHV staging area was closed to protect the

habitat of the desert tortoise, and a new access road was graded to attract

OHVs to a nearby open-use area. At the Upper Lake Ranger District, erosion

control measures were installed on a system of OHV trails to minimize the

damage to soils and watersheds from OHV use and preserve opportunities

for OHV recreation. At the Mesa Ranger District, an area was partially

closed to OHVs to allay public concerns about health and safety problems

and the visual degradation of the area; the area was fenced; locked

entrance gates were installed; designated looped trails were numbered and

posted; closed routes were barricaded; and play areas,8

 including hill

climbs, were planted with vegetation.

8

Areas where OHVs are used heavily and their cross-country use is unrestricted are sometimes referred

to as “play” areas.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Staff at all eight locations identified adverse effects of OHV use that, at the

time of our visits, had not been corrected. At the Mesa Ranger District, for

example, extensive damage to resources caused by vehicles driving up and

down the banks of, and across, a dry streambed had not been corrected

because funding and staffing had been allocated to other areas with

greater OHV use. Similarly, at the Nellis Dunes OHV play area in the Stateline

Resource Area, health and safety problems—including high-speed,

uncontrolled, cross-country OHV riding; garbage dumping; auto stripping;

indiscriminate camping; partying; and firearms shooting—had not been

corrected because the limited resources were being used to manage

higher-priority OHV racing competitions generally held elsewhere.

Conclusions Although more than 20 years have passed since the issuance of the first

executive order calling for the management of OHV use on federal lands,

BLM’s and the Forest Service’s compliance with the provisions of the two

orders has been mixed. According to OHV program managers and staff at

the eight locations we visited, both agencies have given higher priority to

other activities and have allocated limited funding and staffing to their OHV

programs. Furthermore, both agencies have relied heavily on the states to

support their OHV programs so that, in an era of constrained federal

funding, the extent of their future compliance is likely to depend on the

level of support they receive from nonfederal sources. Should such

support waver or cease in the future for any reason, the agencies’ ability to

comply with the executive orders would be further hampered.

Some BLM and Forest Service locations have made more efficient use of

the resources available to them by targeting their monitoring and

enforcement to the most heavily used or the most environmentally

sensitive lands. Also, some have formed coalitions with state governments,

local communities, and private organizations (such as the Boise Front

Coalition and the Paiute ATV Trail Committee), to supplement their

resources for OHV programs. As the agencies continue to inventory, map,

and post signs to identify their OHV areas, roads, and trails, they should be

able to implement the executive orders’ provisions more fully.

Recommendations This report provides information on the use and impact of OHVs on public

lands. It makes no recommendations.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Departments of

the Interior and Agriculture. We met with and received comments from

agency officials, including the Deputy Director, Bureau of Land

Management, Department of the Interior, and the Acting Associate Deputy

Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. They generally

agreed with the information and conclusions in the report and offered

several technical clarifications, which we incorporated in the report where

appropriate. In addition, Interior and Agriculture provided the following

comments, which addressed broader issues than our work at the eight

case-study locations.

Interior stated that BLM is revising its OHV, trail, access, and transportation

manuals and handbooks to clarify its management goals and objectives

and to integrate these components into a holistic transportation access

network. The transportation access network will be planned, designed,

constructed, maintained, and monitored to meet the needs of

recreationists, authorized users, and BLM. BLM believes that this systematic

approach will prove more effective for managing OHV use than the

individual activity approach used in the past. In addition, BLM is hiring an

OHV/trail technical assistant to provide its resource areas with help and

training in ways to inventory, plan, develop, maintain, operate, and

monitor roads and trails. BLM is also revising its sign catalog and

procedures for ordering signs to improve the resource areas’ ability to

acquire and use consistent signage.

Interior also said that BLM is moving from an agency that manages specific

activities on federal lands to one that manages the condition of the lands’

resources according to consistent standards. The use of OHVs, along with

all other uses of the public lands, will be allowed in areas or along trails

where the use is compatible with the desired condition of the resources.

Staffing and funding will emphasize a holistic approach to managing a

specific piece of ground rather than individual activities. By enabling BLM

to apply consistent standards to all activities, this approach should

support the agency’s efforts to focus staff time and funding on problems in

“hot spots” or areas where the resources are not in the desired condition.

In its comments, Agriculture said that at current funding levels, the Forest

Service will continue to restrict its mapping, signing, and monitoring of

adverse effects to the areas that receive the heaviest OHV use and are the

most ecologically sensitive. Agriculture further said that efforts to more

fully implement the executive orders depend heavily on the availability of

funding, that the amounts available generally fall well below the amounts

Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
B-261498 

needed and requested, and that each ranger district has to make very

difficult choices about how to allocate its limited resources among its

various programs and activities.

We conducted our review between December 1993 and June 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional

committees and Members of Congress, the Secretaries of the Interior and

Agriculture, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Chief of

the Forest Service, and other interested parties. We will also send copies

to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-7756 if you or your staff

have any questions. Major contributors to the report are listed in appendix

X.

Sincerely yours,

James Duffus III

Director, Natural Resources

 Management Issues

Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

22

Selection of Locations 22

Sources of Information 24

Appendix II 

Barstow Resource

Area, California

26

Background 26

Funding and Staffing 26

Designation of Land for OHV Use 27

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 29

Corrective Actions 30

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 32

Appendix III 

Cascade Resource

Area, Idaho

34

Background 34

Funding and Staffing 34

Designation of Land for OHV Use 35

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 36

Corrective Actions 36

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 38

Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource

Area, Utah

40

Background 40

Funding and Staffing 40

Designation of Land for OHV Use 41

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 42

Corrective Actions 42

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 44

Appendix V 

Stateline Resource

Area, Nevada

46

Background 46

Funding and Staffing 46

Designation of Land for OHV Use 47

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 48

Corrective Actions 49

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 51

Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Contents

Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District,

Arizona

53

Background 53

Funding and Staffing 53

Designation of Land for OHV Use 54

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 55

Corrective Actions 55

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 58

Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger

District, California

59

Background 59

Funding and Staffing 59

Designation of Land for OHV Use 60

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 61

Corrective Actions 61

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 63

Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger

District, Utah

65

Background 65

Funding and Staffing 65

Designation of Land for OHV Use 66

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 67

Corrective Actions 67

Comments From User/Environmental Groups 69

Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger

District, California

71

Background 71

Funding and Staffing 71

Designation of Land for OHV Use 72

OHV Monitoring and Enforcement 73

Corrective Actions 73

User and Environmental Comments 76

Appendix X 

Major Contributors to

This Report

77

Tables Table 1: Fiscal Year 1993 OHV Program Funding at Eight BLM

and Forest Service Locations

6

Page 19 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Contents

Table 2: OHV Use Designations at Eight BLM and Forest Service

Locations

9

Table II.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Barstow Resource Area 28

Table III.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Cascade Resource Area 35

Table IV.1: OHV Use Statistics for the San Rafael Resource Area 41

Table V.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Stateline Resource Area 47

Table VI.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Mesa Ranger District 54

Table VII.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Mt. Pinos Ranger District 60

Table VIII.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Salt Lake Ranger District 66

Table IX.1: OHV Use Statistics for the Upper Lake Ranger District 72

Figures Figure II.1: Location of the Barstow Resource Area 26

Figure II.2: Metal Barrier at Competition Hill, Afton Canyon 31

Figure II.3: Hill Climb Area at Juniper Flats 32

Figure III.1: Location of the Cascade Resource Area 34

Figure III.2: Closed OHV Trail in the Boise Front 37

Figure III.3: Unmarked Trails in the Treasure Valley Corridor 38

Figure IV.1: Location of the San Rafael Resource Area 40

Figure IV.2: Metal Gate Barricade at Mexican Mountain 43

Figure IV.3: Unauthorized OHV Play Area, Justensen Flats 44

Figure V.1: Location of the Stateline Resource Area 46

Figure V.2: Desert Buggy Race and Marked Tortoise Burrows,

Ivanpah Valley

50

Figure V.3: Heavily Used OHV Play Area, Nellis Dunes 51

Fig. VI.1: Location of the Mesa Ranger District 53

Figure VI.2: Entrance to the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area 56

Figure VI.3: Aesthetic Damage From Unmanaged OHV Use in the

Lower Sycamore Creek Area

57

Figure VII.1: Location of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District 59

Figure VII.2: Information Signs in Ballinger Canyon 62

Figure VII.3: Lockwood Creek OHV Route 63

Figure VIII.1: Location of the Salt Lake Ranger District 65

Figure VIII.2: Blocked Access to Cross-Country Trespass Route in

Ward Canyon

68

Figure VIII.3: OHV Trespass Trails Along the Davis County Front 69

Figure IX.1: Location of the Upper Lake Ranger District 71

Figure IX.2: Armoring on Sled Ridge Trail 75

Page 20 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Contents

Abbreviations

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BLM Bureau of Land Management

GAO General Accounting Office

OHV off-highway vehicle

Page 21 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Representative Bruce F. Vento asked us to review the implementation of

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 by the Department of Interior’s Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Service. These orders were issued in the 1970s to establish policies and

provide for procedures to regulate the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV) on

federal lands. More specifically, our objectives were to obtain information

on (1) the funding and staffing for OHV programs and (2) the extent to

which the two agencies were complying with the executive orders’

requirements that they designate federal lands for OHV use, monitor OHV

use to identify adverse effects and any needed corrective actions and to

determine compliance with regulations, and address or correct any

adverse effects of OHV use.

To perform this review, we reviewed the executive orders and BLM’s and

the Forest Service’s implementing regulations. We spoke with and

obtained information from (1) BLM and Forest Service headquarters

officials; (2) BLM state, district, and resource area officials and OHV

program staff; (3) Forest Service regional, forest, and ranger district

officials and OHV program staff; (4) state government OHV program officials;

(5) representatives of OHV user groups, including the Blue Ribbon Coalition

and the Motorcycle Industry Council; and (6) representatives of

environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.

We learned that neither BLM nor the Forest Service had nationwide data on

its funding and staffing for OHV programs and neither had reliable data on

the extent or effects of OHV use on its lands. Hence, we agreed with the

requester’s office to obtain information illustrative of BLM’s and the Forest

Service’s OHV programs by reviewing the implementation of such programs

at four BLM resource areas and four Forest Service ranger districts where,

we were told, the use of OHVs was high. During our review, we visited

several other BLM and Forest Service locations to obtain additional

information about the agencies’ OHV programs.

Selection of Locations We selected the eight locations on the basis of (1) the number of acres

managed, (2) the estimated extent of OHV use, (3) the type of OHV use,

(4) and the type of terrain on which OHVs were used. We attempted to

obtain some diversity in our selection while concentrating on the areas

with the highest use that exhibited the types of problems OHV program

managers face at the local level. We limited our selection to the western

states because they have the most OHV activity and the most acres of land

managed by BLM and the Forest Service. We obtained concurrence from

Page 22 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

the requester’s office and from BLM and Forest Service headquarters and

state/regional officials that the locations selected would illustrate each

agency’s OHV program and the problems associated with OHV use. A brief

description of the eight locations and the basis for their selection follows.

BLM Locations Barstow Resource Area, California. California ranks first in OHV use on BLM

lands and fourth in the number of acres of BLM lands in the conterminous

United States. The OHV use reported by BLM for California is about double

that reported by BLM for the next 10 highest states. According to BLM’s

California state office, the Barstow Resource Area has the most OHV use of

any BLM location in the state. Four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles

are most commonly used for this largely desert terrain.

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada. Nevada ranks sixth in OHV use on BLM

lands and first in the number of acres of BLM lands in the conterminous

United States. The Stateline Resource Area receives substantially more

OHV use than any other BLM resource area in the state. Four-wheel drive

vehicles, motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) are preferred for this

mostly desert terrain.

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho. Idaho ranks eighth in OHV use on BLM lands

and eighth in the number of acres of BLM lands in the conterminous United

States. OHV use in the Cascade Resource Area is concentrated in an area

known as the Boise Front, which has the most intensive OHV use in the

state. The Boise Front encompasses BLM, Forest Service, state, and private

lands and has been managed cooperatively over the past 10 years.

Four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles are used most often for this

terrain consisting of mountain valleys and forested foothills.

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah. Utah ranks second to California in OHV

use on BLM lands and second to Nevada in the number of acres of BLM lands

in the conterminous United States. The San Rafael Resource Area,

according to BLM’s Utah state office, has some of the highest OHV use on

BLM lands in the state. Four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, and ATVs

are preferred for this semiarid terrain with some canyons.

Forest Service Locations Upper Lake Ranger District, California. California ranks first in OHV use on

Forest Service lands and first in the number of acres of Forest Service

lands in the conterminous United States. According to the Forest Service,

OHV use reported for California is more than double that reported for the

Page 23 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

next highest state, which is Arizona. OHVs, primarily motorcycles, are used

year round on terrain ranging from chaparral at lower elevations to conifer

forests at higher elevations.

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California. A second Forest Service location in

California was selected because the use of OHVs in the state is high. All

types of OHVs—including motorcycles, four-wheel drive vehicles, and

ATVs—are widely used in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District on terrain ranging

from chaparral at lower elevations to conifer forests at higher elevations.

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona. Arizona ranks second to California in OHV

use on Forest Service lands and sixth in the number of Forest Service

acres in the conterminous United States. The Mesa Ranger District has the

highest OHV use in the state. ATVs and four-wheel drive vehicles are used

most frequently for this arid terrain, which ranges from rolling hills to

mountains.

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah. Utah ranks fifth in OHV use on Forest

Service lands and 10th in the number of Forest Service acres in the

conterminous United States. The Salt Lake Ranger District has some of the

highest OHV use in the state. Motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles are

used most commonly for this terrain consisting of foothills and steep

canyons.

Sources of

Information

During our visits to each of the eight locations, we reviewed resource

management plans and activity plans that addressed OHV management.

Additionally, to obtain information on funding and staffing, we held

discussions with resource area and ranger district managers and their OHV

program staff and obtained available documentation on funding and

staffing. Precise funding and staffing information was not available

because none of the BLM and Forest Service locations accounted for the

OHV program separately from other recreation programs. OHV program staff

provided us, for fiscal year 1993, with estimates of the amount of federal

funding and the number of staff that were being devoted to OHV activities

at each of the eight locations and with the actual amount of state funding

provided through cooperative partnerships at all of the locations except

the one where state funding was not provided.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To obtain information on the designation of land for OHV use, we talked

with resource area and ranger district managers and OHV program staff and

reviewed regulations, resource management plans, activity plans, and

other documentation relevant to the determination of where OHVs are and

are not allowed. We also obtained information on how these

determinations were communicated to the public through such means as

maps and signs.

To obtain information on the monitoring of OHV use to identify its adverse

effects and to determine compliance with regulations for it, we spoke with

resource area and ranger district managers, OHV program staff, and law

enforcement staff. We also reviewed regulations, resource management

plans, activity plans, and other documentation to determine how and to

what extent monitoring—systematic, documented monitoring as well as

casual, sporadic monitoring—of OHV use was being done, how any adverse

effects of such use and any needed corrective actions were being

identified, and how regulations for OHV use were being enforced through

the issuance of citations and other means.

To obtain information on the corrective actions being taken to address the

adverse effects of OHV use, we spoke with resource area and ranger district

managers and OHV program staff and reviewed documentation on the types

of corrective actions needed, taken, and not taken. To develop more

specific information on corrective actions, we concentrated on two sites

within each resource area and ranger district—one site where corrective

actions had been taken and one site where corrective actions had not been

taken or additional actions remained to be taken. When needed corrective

actions had not been taken, we determined the reasons why.

We conducted our review of the eight case-study locations between

December 1993 and June 1995 in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

Background The Barstow Resource Area is part of BLM’s California Desert District. It

includes about 3.2 million acres of BLM land in southern California’s

Mojave Desert and is located 1 or 2 hours driving time northeast of the Los

Angeles metropolitan area, where 15 million people reside. The resource

area includes some of the most popular and intensively used OHV areas in

California. OHV use is highest at a number of designated open-use areas

near Los Angeles and several other rapidly growing communities; it

includes organized, competitive, high-speed racing events; hill climbing;

and sand dune, trail, and cross-country riding. (Fig. II.1 shows, among

other things, the location of the resource area and of Afton Canyon and

Juniper Flats—two sites we reviewed during our visit.)

Figure II.1: Location of the Barstow

Resource Area

Los Angeles

San Diego

Barstow


Resource Area

San Francisco

California

Juniper Flats

Afton


Canyon

Funding and Staffing Funding for the Barstow Resource Area’s OHV program comes from both

BLM and the state of California. During fiscal year 1993, for example, the

estimated funding for Barstow’s OHV program totaled about $805,000—of

Page 26 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

which $705,000, or 88 percent, was provided by the state and an estimated

$100,000, or 12 percent, was provided by BLM. About $550,000 of the state

funding was directed toward the El Mirage OHV Recreation Area, a

24,000-acre intensive-use OHV area, which is located 100 miles from Los

Angeles and is operated by BLM under a federal, state, and county

cooperative management plan. About $561,000 (or about 70 percent) of the

combined $805,000 in funding at Barstow was spent on staff salaries,

supporting 13 full-time OHV staff and 11 staff who devote part of their time

to OHV activities. Of the full-time OHV staff, 10 work at El Mirage—3 law

enforcement rangers, 1 recreation planner, 1 park ranger, 3 facility

maintenance staff, 1 site manager, and 1 administrative assistant. The

remaining three full-time staff—one recreation planner and two park

rangers—work at other locations. The 11 staff who devote part of their

time to OHV activities include 9 law enforcement rangers, 1 supervisory

recreation planner, and 1 equipment operator, all of whom work outside El

Mirage. The remaining $244,000 was spent on nonsalary items, including

contracted road construction, grading, equipment, and signs.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

Barstow’s OHV use designations were initially based on an environmental

analysis that was completed in the course of developing the 1980

California Desert Conservation Area Plan (the resource management plan

covering the Barstow Resource Area) and a 1982 amendment to the plan.

The plan’s objectives in designating lands for OHV use include minimizing

damage to natural, cultural, and aesthetic resources; providing a network

of routes for desert travel; reducing conflicts among desert users; and

providing for appropriate off-highway recreation. Traditional land uses

heavily influenced the designations. Table II.1 shows that, at the time of

our review, OHV use on 2.87 million acres, or 90 percent of the Barstow

Resource Area’s 3.2 million acres, was restricted to designated routes in

marked areas and existing routes in unmarked areas to (1) minimize harm

to resources by preventing the harassment of wildlife and protecting

threatened and endangered species, (2) prevent damage to land being

considered for designation as wilderness, and (3) minimize conflicts with

other users of the desert. Another 300,000 acres (9 percent) at five

locations1

 were designated as open to OHV use because of their

recreational importance. The remaining 30,000 acres (1 percent) were

closed to OHV use to protect certain sand dune systems, dry lakes, and

primitive areas.

1

The five locations designated as open to OHV use are Johnson Valley, Stoddard Valley, El Mirage,

Dumont Dunes, and Rasor.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

Table II.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Barstow Resource Area Total BLM acres in resource area 3,200,000a

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

9 percent (300,000 acres)

90 percent (2,870,000 acres)

1 percent (30,000 acres)

Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles/motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) 41

Trend in OHV use Static

Posting of OHV routes Incomplete

Mapping of OHV routes Complete

aAfter we visited the Barstow Resource Area, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L.

103-433) was enacted. According to BLM, the act transferred 367,000 acres from Barstow to the

National Park Service and designated another 707,000 acres as wilderness areas, which are

closed to OHV recreational use. The figures for Barstow in this table do not reflect these changes.

After developing the 1980 Desert Plan, Barstow allowed OHV use on all

existing routes unless they were posted as closed because it did not have

an inventory of existing routes open to OHV use. In 1989, BLM finished

publishing a series of desert-access maps showing existing routes, closed

routes, closed areas, and open cross-country use areas. Barstow is

currently developing an inventory of routes open to OHV use and is

changing its practice from allowing OHV use on all existing routes unless

posted as closed to allowing OHV use only on those routes posted as open.

About 2.3 million acres, or about 72 percent of Barstow’s lands, have been

inventoried and, according to Barstow recreation planners, the routes

being proposed as open to OHV use represent about 32 percent of the

existing routes shown on the 1989 desert-access maps.

On most Barstow Resource Area lands, posting for OHV use is either

incomplete or has not been done at all. Signs are, however, in place at the

five OHV open-use areas and at areas where site-specific plans have been

written, including the Rainbow Basin Natural Area, the Afton Canyon

Natural Area, and the Juniper Flats Cultural Area. Signs at the five OHV

open-use areas include perimeter boundary signs and visitor information

boards. At Rainbow Basin, Afton Canyon, and Juniper Flats, routes open

to OHV use have been posted. The other locations available for OHV use

within the resource area have generally not been posted because of

insufficient funds. Unauthorized OHV use in inadequately posted areas

sometimes damages resources, such as soils and plants, and creates

conflicts among users of the lands.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

OHV competitions occur frequently within the Barstow Resource Area; 41

events involving 10,000 participants and 35,000 spectators took place

during fiscal year 1993. The events require a BLM permit and primarily

occur on weekends in the designated open-use areas, especially Johnson

Valley, Stoddard Valley, and El Mirage. Events for all types of

OHVs—including motorcycles, ATVs, desert buggies, and four-wheel drive

vehicles—are held. While most of these events are timed, competitive

races, some nonspeed, nontimed events are held for vehicles registered for

street use. At El Mirage, all-out, high-speed time trials are held.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Barstow Resource Area has not implemented a systematic OHV

monitoring program to identify and document the adverse effects of OHV

use. Although the 1980 Desert Plan identified such monitoring as an

important component of the OHV program and included establishing a

desertwide monitoring program by the end of fiscal year 1987 as a program

goal, OHV monitoring has not been established at Barstow because of

constraints on staff resources and the higher priority of other work.

According to Barstow OHV program staff, the effects of OHV use are

primarily identified through the incidental, undocumented observations of

Barstow staff while they are in the field performing work for other

programs. The effects of OHV use have also been reported to BLM staff by

the public, including OHV users and environmental groups. Except for

monitoring permitted OHV competitions, we were told, Barstow’s OHV and

other recreation program staff do little of the systematic, documented

monitoring specified in the regulations, the Desert Plan, and site-specific

management plans.

Barstow has 13 authorized law enforcement ranger positions; however,

according to the chief ranger, only 7 positions were staffed in all of 1993

and about 40 percent of the rangers’ time was spent on enforcing the

regulations for OHV use. According to OHV program staff, public safety

receives a higher priority than resource protection. Barstow law

enforcement rangers issued 237 citations during 1993, most of which were

for vehicle registration and inspection violations. Fewer than 10 citations

were issued in 1993 for resource damage and OHV use in unauthorized

areas because, according to law enforcement staff, it is difficult to

establish intent when existing routes in most areas are not posted for OHV

use.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

Corrective Actions In January 1994, the Barstow Resource Area Manager developed a listing

of 12 locations that were most in need of corrective actions to address the

adverse effects of OHV use. The listing, referred to as the Barstow OHV

management’s “hot spots” listing, was based on the field observations of

law enforcement rangers and other Barstow staff. Among the adverse

effects listed were erosion, vandalism of signs, OHV use in unauthorized

areas, shooting, and garbage dumping. Actions needed to correct these

adverse effects included closing areas to OHV use, increasing law

enforcement ranger patrols, fencing, and increasing cooperative efforts

with local residents and interest groups.

OHV program staff identified two locations within the Barstow Resource

Area for us as examples of places where needed corrective actions have,

or have not, been taken. They pointed to the Afton Canyon Natural Area,

which includes 35,000 acres of resource area lands and 6,500 acres of

private lands, as a place where corrective actions have eliminated the

adverse effects of OHV use, including erosion, damage to riparian

vegetation, and aesthetic degradation. In 1980, BLM designated Afton

Canyon as an area of critical environmental concern to protect aesthetic

values and habitat for wildlife (bighorn sheep and birds of prey). Afton

Canyon is one of the few natural riparian areas in the Mojave Desert.

Before its designation, it was a popular free-play area for motorcycles: Hill

climbs took place at “Competition Hill,” and OHVs could be used in all

areas, including riparian ones. In 1989, BLM restricted OHV use in the Afton

Canyon area to routes designated by signs as open. The area has been

partially fenced, metal barriers have been placed on closed routes (see fig.

II.2), and local youth scouting groups are scheduled to assist with

rehabilitation work at Competition Hill. Signs posted at the primary

highway access to Afton Canyon inform the public that OHV use in the area

is restricted. The signs also inform the public about the location of a

nearby OHV open-use area. About $110,000 had been spent through fiscal

year 1993 at Afton Canyon under a site-specific management plan that

identified actions BLM believed were needed to address the adverse effects

of OHV use. According to Barstow OHV program staff, the actions taken thus

far have been successful, and OHV users interested in cross-country,

free-play activities have moved to the nearby OHV open-use areas.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

Figure II.2: Metal Barrier at

Competition Hill, Afton Canyon

Juniper Flats is the first location on Barstow’s list of OHV hot spots and was

identified by OHV program staff as a site where some corrective action has

been taken but much more is needed. Juniper Flats encompasses about

17,000 acres that are located in a critical watershed, provide important

wildlife habitat, and have high cultural sensitivity and shallow, fragile

soils. According to OHV program staff, heavy OHV use by residents of

communities adjacent to Juniper Flats has eroded soil, damaged

vegetation, degraded riparian areas, and destroyed fences and signs.

In 1993, BLM placed Juniper Flats under an emergency closure. Motorized

vehicle use in the area was restricted to posted routes, a condition that

was expected to last for 2 years pending completion of a more thorough

site-specific management plan. Posting of routes open to OHV use is

ongoing: About two-thirds of the signs have been installed. Vandalism of

signs and OHV use outside designated routes are continuing problems in

the area. Additional needed actions identified by OHV program staff include

installing the remaining signs, rehabilitating hill climb areas (see fig. II.3),

raking and seeding, installing barriers, planning cooperatively with local

citizens and interest groups, and establishing priority law enforcement

Page 31 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

surveillance. The Barstow Resource Area Manager told us that she had

requested funding for the rehabilitation work but that the other actions

will have to wait until additional staff and funds become available.

Figure II.3: Hill Climb Area at Juniper

Flats

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

At the Barstow Resource Area, we discussed BLM’s management of OHV use

with a representative of the American Motorcycle Association, who was

very familiar with the area. He said that he has motorcycled there about 25

weekends each year for the past 5 years. The representative is primarily

involved in organized motorcycle events. He told us that he accepts the

fact that BLM has designated five areas as open to cross-country OHV use

and has restricted OHV use elsewhere to posted routes. He identified desert

buggy racing in Stoddard Valley and casual OHV use in the Cinnamon Hills

desert tortoise habitat as negatively affecting these areas. He said that BLM

could strengthen Barstow’s OHV management by improving its oversight of

desert buggy racing, its handling of conflicts between OHV use and other

forms of recreation, its posting of the boundaries of the five areas

designated as open to OHV use, and its communications with the OHV

community.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix II 

Barstow Resource Area, California

We also discussed OHV use in the Barstow Resource Area with a

representative of the Sierra Club’s California Desert Committee, who has

resided in southern California for over 50 years and visits Barstow several

times a year. Overall, he characterized the Barstow Resource Area as

doing a good job of managing OHV use. However, he characterized

Cinnamon Hills as adversely affected by OHV use, primarily because

damage is being done to desert tortoise habitat. Among his other concerns

are the land scars caused by OHV hill climbs, such as those at Juniper Flats;

the spillover of OHV use into restricted areas from the five designated

open-use areas; and heavy OHV use near parking, camping, and picnic

areas. He is also concerned because several areas of critical environmental

concern are located within OHV open-use areas and are therefore

susceptible to damage. The representative would like to see OHV use

outside the open-use areas more strictly limited to routes that have been

posted as open to OHV use.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

Background The Cascade Resource Area is part of BLM’s Boise District. It is located in

southwest Idaho adjacent to Boise, the capital and largest city in Idaho,

and includes about 487,000 acres of BLM land. OHV activities in the resource

area are mainly concentrated in an area known as the Boise Front, which

is the most intensively used OHV area in Idaho. (Fig. III.1 shows the

location of the resource area and of the Boise Front and Treasure Valley

Corridor—two sites we reviewed during our visit.)

Figure III.1: Location of the Cascade

Resource Area

Treasure


Valley


Corridor

Idaho

Cascade Resource Area

Boise Front

Boise

Funding and Staffing The Cascade Resource Area’s OHV program is funded by BLM and the state

of Idaho. Cascade OHV program staff estimated that funding totaled about

$79,000 for fiscal year 1993, of which about $54,000 came from BLM and

$25,000 from the state Off-Road Motor Vehicle Gas Tax Fund. The funding

provided by BLM was spent on staff salaries, partially funding four

positions—two recreation specialists, one maintenance worker, and one

Page 34 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

law enforcement ranger, each of whom spent only part of his or her time

on OHV activities. The funding received from the state, which accounted for

almost one-third of the total amount of funds, was spent for maintenance

equipment and signs. In addition, the state provides its counties with funds

from the Off-Road Motor Vehicle Gas Tax Fund for law enforcement and

maintenance within BLM resource areas to support OHV program activities.

In fiscal year 1993, the state provided various Idaho counties with $20,000

for law enforcement patrols in the Boise Front and $17,500 for fencing and

maintenance in other Cascade OHV areas. The Cascade Resource Area’s

OHV program is also supported by volunteers working through the Boise

Front Coalition, a community service organization with representation

from city, county, state, and federal agencies; private landowners; and user

groups.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

The Cascade Resource Area’s OHV use designations, originally based on

historic use, were revised after an environmental analysis was completed

during the development of the 1988 Cascade Resource Management Plan.

As table III.1 shows, 244,118 acres, or approximately half of Cascade’s

lands, were designated as open to OHV use because no significant adverse

effects were identified in the analysis. OHV use on another 241,215 acres, or

just under half of Cascade’s lands, was restricted because the analysis

identified highly erodible soils, watershed values, and sensitive species

habitats as needing protection. The remaining 2,113 acres were closed to

OHV use because the analysis determined that OHV use would conflict with

other recreational activities, the survival of sensitive plant species, or

mining activities.

Table III.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Cascade Resource Area Total BLM acres in resource area 487,466

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

50.0 percent (244,118 acres)

49.5 percent (241,215 acres)

0.5 percent (2,113 acres)

Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles/motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) None

Trend in OHV use Up slightly

Posting of OHV routes Incomplete

Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete

OHV use in the 241,215 restricted acres is limited either to existing or

designated roads and trails. On 229,220 of these acres, OHV use is restricted

Page 35 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

to existing roads and trails; however, Cascade does not have an inventory,

maps, or signs to identify the number of miles or the location of the

existing roads and trails that are available. Hence, OHV users on these lands

have no way of knowing whether they are using an existing trail open to

OHV use or engaging in prohibited cross-country activities. The remaining

11,995 acres—about 3 percent of the land in the resource area—are

located within the Boise Front, where OHV use is restricted to 15 miles of

designated roads and trails that have been inventoried, mapped, and

posted to minimize resource damage. Outside the Boise Front OHV

area—about 97 percent of the land in the resource area—maps have not

been prepared and signs have not been posted, according to the OHV

program manager, because these areas are less intensively used, existing

use is dispersed, and available resources have been devoted to the

higher-priority Boise Front.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Cascade Resource Area does not systematically monitor OHV use and

document the adverse effects of such use, even though its Off-Road

Vehicle Management Plan—the OHV program activity plan for

implementing the Cascade Resource Management Plan—contains specific

guidance for formal monitoring. According to the Cascade OHV program

manager, some systematic monitoring of the effects of OHV use was done

in the early 1980s, but it was discontinued because of limits on staffing and

funding and other work priorities. Monitoring is currently limited to

casual, sporadic observations made by Cascade staff while out in the field

performing range, wildlife, road maintenance, and other program work.

Eventually, some more systematic monitoring is intended for the heavily

used Boise Front, but OHV monitoring in less intensively used areas will

continue to be handled in a cursory manner.

Enforcement problems include vandalism and OHV use off of roads and

trails, especially in the Boise Front. BLM has cooperative agreements with

state and county law enforcement agencies for the enforcement of OHV

regulations in the Boise Front. About 200 citations are issued annually by

BLM law enforcement rangers and county sheriffs who patrol the area.

Typically, citations are issued for vehicle licensing and equipment

violations, and warnings are usually given for OHV use off of designated

routes.

Corrective Actions Although the Cascade Resource Area maintains no official listing of areas

where corrective actions have been or need to be taken to address the

Page 36 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

adverse effects of OHV use, the Cascade OHV program manager identified

the (1) Boise Front as an area where corrective actions have been taken

and (2) Treasure Valley Corridor as an area where OHV use is a

management problem and such actions have not been taken. We visited

the two locations as a part of our review.

Because of its proximity to Boise, the Boise Front is a popular area where

(1) intensive OHV use has eroded soil in watershed areas and (2) vandalism

has damaged signs, gates, and sanitation facilities. As a result, OHV use on

the Boise Front has been restricted to designated roads and trails, which

have been mapped and posted to communicate their location to the public.

Other corrective actions taken in the Boise Front include closing roads

and trails to OHV use (see fig. III.2), planting vegetation on closed trails,

annually scheduling and performing road and trail maintenance, replacing

damaged route markers and signs, and increasing the presence of law

enforcement officers in the late afternoons and evenings. Since 1990, over

$100,000 in state funds has been spent for Boise Front projects.

Figure III.2: Closed OHV Trail in the

Boise Front

Page 37 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

The Treasure Valley Corridor is becoming problematic for the Cascade

Resource Area as the number of new roads and trails increases. Because

OHV use in this area is less intensive than in the Boise Front, the Corridor

has historically received less BLM management attention and fewer staffing

and funding resources. Although OHV use on federal lands in the Corridor

is restricted to existing roads and trails, few signs, maps, or trail markers

inform the public which roads and trails are open to OHV use. As new trails

appear from unauthorized cross-country OHV use and few signs identify the

existing trails, the public finds its increasingly difficult to distinguish

between the trails that are and are not available for OHV use. As figure III.3

shows, there is little perceptible difference between the two classes of

trails: The trail that runs horizontally across the picture is authorized for

use, while the two trails that appear to go uphill from this trail are not.

Figure III.3: Unmarked Trails in the

Treasure Valley Corridor

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

At the Cascade Resource Area, we discussed BLM’s management of OHV use

with members of the Idaho Trail Machine Association. The members told

us that they frequently ride their motorcycles in the Boise Front. Among

the OHV management problems they identified at this location were

vandalism and the need for more OHV trails. The members also mentioned

Page 38 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix III 

Cascade Resource Area, Idaho

the need for maps and other information on OHV opportunities in areas

other than the Boise Front. They would like to see BLM provide more

funding for OHV recreational opportunities on its lands.

We also discussed OHV use with a member of the Idaho Conservation

League who frequently rides horses and hikes in the Boise Front. This

individual identified vandalism; erosion from OHV use off of designated

trails; and OHV conflicts with other recreational activities such as

horseback riding, mountain biking, and hiking as continuing OHV

management problems in the Boise Front. He would like to see the Boise

Front closed to OHV use because of these problems.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

Background The San Rafael Resource Area is part of BLM’s Moab District. Located in

Emery County in south central Utah, it is about 2 hours driving time

southeast of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, which has a population

of about 1.1 million. The resource area includes about 1.5 million acres of

BLM land, which receive some of the highest OHV use in the state. (Fig. IV.1

shows, among other things, the location of the resource area and of

Justensen Flats and Mexican Mountain—two sites we reviewed during our

visit.)

Figure IV.1: Location of the San Rafael

Resource Area

San Rafael


Resource Area

Utah

Price

Salt Lake City

Moab

I-70 Mexican Mountain Justensen 


Flats

Funding and Staffing Funding for San Rafael’s OHV program comes from both BLM and the state.

OHV program staff estimated that funding for fiscal year 1993 totaled about

$60,000, of which $50,000, or 83 percent, was provided by BLM and $10,000,

or 17 percent, was provided by the state. The federal funding helped to pay

the salaries of two staff—a recreation planner and a law enforcement

ranger—who spent part of their time on OHV activities. The state funding

Page 40 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

was spent on sanitation facilities and other improvements at a resource

area campground that is used by OHV enthusiasts. In addition, in 1993,

Emery County supported San Rafael’s OHV program with an estimated

$32,000 worth of labor and equipment to construct access roads and paths

to this campground.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

San Rafael’s OHV use designations, initially based on historic use, were

revised after an environmental analysis was completed as part of the

development of the 1991 San Rafael Resource Management Plan. As

shown in table IV.1, OHV use on 1,035,895 acres, or about 71 percent of the

San Rafael Resource Area’s lands, is restricted to roads and trails;

cross-country OHV use is prohibited to protect areas of critical

environmental concern, developed recreation sites, critical soils, riparian

areas, and wildlife and plant habitats. Additionally, 293,233 acres, or about

20 percent of the lands, were designated as open to OHV use because no

significant adverse effects were identified during the environmental

analysis2

. The remaining 133,766 acres, or about 9 percent of the lands,

were closed to OHV use to protect undisturbed plant communities and

primitive scenic areas.

Table IV.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

San Rafael Resource Area Total BLM acres in resource area 1,463,894

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

20 percent (293,233 acres)

71 percent (1,035,895 acres)

9 percent (133,766 acres)

Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs,

and motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) None

Trend in OHV use Up slightly

Posting of OHV routes Incomplete

Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete

Although the San Rafael Resource Management Plan provides that OHV use

in restricted areas be limited to designated roads and trails, such roads

and trails have not been fully identified through an up-to-date inventory or

maps and signs. The San Rafael Resource Area inherited numerous roads

and trails dating from uranium exploration in the 1950s and 1960s and was

compiling an inventory of the existing roads and trails at the time of our

review. Also, the resource area was considering whether to continue

2

There are temporary seasonal closures on approximately 93,000 acres of these lands, which were

identified as critical winter range habitat for antelope, deer, and elk.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

posting only closed routes or to begin posting open routes instead. San

Rafael has placed signs at points of entry to some closed areas, including a

12,000-acre area where an emergency closure was invoked to protect a

threatened species of cactus and wildlife habitat. According to the San

Rafael Resource Area Manager, a low-keyed and cautious approach

towards identifying and publicizing OHV recreational opportunities exists

within the resource area because of an ongoing controversy over

right-of-way access across BLM lands.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

San Rafael does not systematically monitor OHV use to identify and

document the adverse effects of such use. Casual, sporadic monitoring,

which is often undocumented, is done incidentally when resource area

staff are in the field working on range, wildlife, cultural, and other BLM

programs. According to the OHV program manager, a schedule had been set

up to monitor intrusions into San Rafael wilderness study areas, including

those by OHVs. At the time of our review, however, this was the only

systematic monitoring of OHV use that was going on. Monitoring OHV use

has not been a priority, according to the OHV program manager, because

the resource area has had limited staff and funds.

San Rafael shares a law enforcement ranger with another resource area.

As a result, this one ranger has about 2.5 million acres of BLM lands to

patrol for all law enforcement purposes, including the enforcement of OHV

regulations. The ranger, assigned to San Rafael in May 1993, had issued

about 80 OHV citations through March 1994. Most of the citations,

according to the ranger, were written for using OHVs in closed

areas—including riding cross-country off of roads and trails.

Corrective Actions No studies, reports, or other official records were available at the San

Rafael Resource Area to identify either the corrective actions that have

been or need to be taken to address the adverse effects of OHV use. San

Rafael’s OHV program manager, however, identified (1) Mexican Mountain,

located north of the Interstate 70 highway corridor, as an area where

corrective actions have been taken to address the adverse effects of OHV

use and (2) Justensen Flats, which is also located in the Interstate 70

highway corridor, as an area where OHV use is a management problem and

corrective actions are needed. We visited the two locations.

Mexican Mountain is a 59,000-acre wilderness study area, half of which is

in the San Rafael Resource Area and the other half in another BLM resource

Page 42 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

area. Mexican Mountain was recently closed to OHV use because the 1991

San Rafael Resource Management Plan classified it as a highly scenic

primitive area. A 4-mile stretch of existing road extends into the closed

area, providing easy access from the adjacent Buckhorn Draw area, which

receives heavy OHV use. In the summer of 1993, the road was posted as

closed, and law enforcement patrols were increased on weekends. In

January 1994, a metal gate barricade and fencing were installed at a key

entry point in an effort to deny access to four-wheel drive vehicles and

ATVs (see fig. IV.2). San Rafael’s OHV program manager estimated that,

excluding the costs associated with ranger patrols, about $5,000 was spent

between May 1993 and May 1994 to control OHV intrusions into the

Mexican Mountain area. He believes that intrusions into the closed area

have since declined because the gate, signs, and patrols clearly indicate

that OHV use is prohibited at this location.

Figure IV.2: Metal Gate Barricade at

Mexican Mountain

San Rafael OHV program staff consider Justensen Flats problematic

because OHV use at this location spills over into adjacent lands that BLM has

closed to OHV use. Justensen Flats is part of the 9,610-acre Devil’s Canyon

wilderness study area and is a popular location for weekend camping and

Page 43 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

OHV use because it is easily accessible from the highway. Eight signs

prohibiting OHV use at various locations in and around Justensen Flats

have been strategically posted, but OHV use in the closed areas is

continuing, as shown in figure IV.3. Surveillance at Justensen Flats has

declined because fewer volunteers are helping to patrol the area. San

Rafael’s law enforcement ranger, who has patrol duties elsewhere, visits

the area only about once a month. San Rafael’s OHV program manager told

us that he intends to request $10,000 in funding next year for fences, gates,

and an information kiosk at Justensen Flats. According to him, erosion

control measures—such as installing rock barriers and raking and planting

vegetation on unauthorized trails—are also needed at this location.

Figure IV.3: Unauthorized OHV Play

Area, Justensen Flats

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

At the San Rafael Resource Area, we discussed BLM’s management of OHV

use with the president of the Utah Trail Machine Association, who told us

he had motorcycled in the area for the past 20 years. He characterized the

San Rafael Resource Area as one of BLM’s most restrictive areas in Utah in

terms of OHV use. In his view, San Rafael closes areas to OHVs too quickly in

its efforts to confine their use. He expressed concern because San Rafael

does not have an inventory of roads and trails or maps for identifying

Page 44 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IV 

San Rafael Resource Area, Utah

available OHV routes. He was also concerned that state OHV funds were

being spent on campgrounds within the resource area rather than on roads

and trails.

We also discussed OHV use in the San Rafael Resource Area with a

representative of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. He, too,

expressed concern that the San Rafael Resource Area does not have maps

showing the location of designated OHV trails. He noted other OHV

management problems, including unposted closed areas, damage to

riparian areas and sensitive soils, and conflicts with other recreational

activities, such as mountain biking and hiking. Overall, however, he

considered the San Rafael Resource Area’s OHV program to be the best of

all such programs in Utah’s BLM resource areas.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

Background The Stateline Resource Area is part of BLM’s Las Vegas District. It includes

3.7 million acres of BLM land in Nevada located adjacent to Las Vegas, a

rapidly growing metropolitan area with a population of 850,000. The

resource area offers a variety of recreational opportunities for OHV users.

Casual OHV use of four-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, and motorcycles on

Stateline lands is increasing as the Las Vegas population continues to

grow. Also, organized OHV competitions are frequently held within the

resource area. (Fig. V.1 shows, among other things, the location of the

Stateline Resource Area and of Nellis Dunes and Ivanpah Valley—two sites

we reviewed during our visit.)

Figure V.1: Location of the Stateline

Resource Area

Stateline Resource Area

Ivanpah Valley

Nevada

Nellis 


Dunes

Las Vegas

Reno

Funding and Staffing At the Stateline Resource Area, funding for the recreation program is

synonymous with funding for the OHV program because the recreation

program staff work almost entirely on administering organized OHV

Page 46 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

competitions. For fiscal year 1993, BLM provided about $102,000 for

Stateline’s OHV program—an amount that fully funded two recreation

planners and partially funded one law enforcement ranger. According to

Stateline budget staff, virtually no BLM funding was available for signs,

maps, or road maintenance. We were also told that the state of Nevada

does not provide funding for Stateline’s OHV program. However, Clark

County—which is located within the Stateline Resource Area—provides

about $75,000 annually to the program for signs to restrict OHV use and a

BLM law enforcement ranger to patrol designated critical desert tortoise

habitat.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

Although Stateline’s OHV use designations were initially based on historic

use, they were—at the time of our review—being revised as part of the

development of a Stateline Resource Management Plan. The designations

shown in table V.1 below were those in effect at the time of our review.

OHV use was then restricted on 1,104,166 acres, or about 30 percent of

Stateline’s lands, to either existing routes in unposted areas or designated

routes in posted areas in an effort to protect (1) primitive lands in

wilderness study areas, (2) soils in fragile watershed areas, (3) scenic

lands, and (4) the desert tortoise and its habitat. Some 2,563,862 acres, or

almost 70 percent of the lands, were designated as open to OHV use. The

remaining 3,313 acres, or less than 1 percent of the lands, were closed to

OHV use in an effort to protect significant archeological resources.

Table V.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Stateline Resource Area Total BLM acres in resource area 3,671,341

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

70 percent (2,563,862 acres)

30 percent (1,104,166 acres)a

<1 percent (3,313 acres)

Types of OHVs used 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, and

motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) 27

Trend in OHV use Up

Posting of OHV routes Incomplete

Mapping of OHV routes Incomplete

aIncludes 320,000 acres covered by an interim closure notice limiting the use of motorized

vehicles to posted, designated routes to protect the desert tortoise and its habitat.

A recent draft of the Stateline Resource Management Plan proposed

considerable changes in the designation of lands available for OHV use to

Page 47 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

increase protection for wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and soils, as

well as improve nonmotorized recreational opportunities. Among the

proposed changes was a reduction in the number of acres designated as

open to OHV use from 2,563,862 (70 percent) to only 9,180 (less than

1 percent). Conversely, under the plan, the number of acres designated as

restricted would increase from 1,104,166 (30 percent) to 3,649,757

(99 percent).

The Stateline Resource Area has not provided an inventory, maps, or signs

to identify the total number of miles, or the location, of the routes

available for OHV use. According to OHV program staff, it has not done so

because the OHV program has relatively low priority and receives limited

resources. They told us that the only routes posted for OHV use are those

located in a 135,000-acre critical desert tortoise habitat area. The staff

intends to inventory some OHV routes in other areas in the near future if

funding becomes available.

Although OHV competitions requiring permits occur frequently within the

Stateline Resource Area, the draft management plan proposed reducing

the number of acres where competitive OHV racing is allowed from

2,655,278 to 238,162. During fiscal year 1993, 27 OHV events were held

within the resource area. Some of the races were over 200 miles long, and

the events involved over 200 participants and over 500 spectators and

members of support crews. Different events were held for different types

of OHVs, including motorcycles, ATVs, desert buggies, and four-wheel drive

vehicles. Although most of the events are timed, competitive races, some

are untimed events for vehicles registered for street use.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

According to Stateline’s OHV program staff, no systematic monitoring is

done to identify and document the adverse effects of casual OHV use. The

monitoring of casual OHV use, according to the staff, consists of incidental,

undocumented observations made by resource area staff working in the

field on other recreational, range, wildlife, and cultural programs. The OHV

program staff stated that, in their opinion, casual OHV use has not had a

significant adverse effect within the Stateline Resource Area because such

use is so dispersed and because the area’s terrain is rough.

The Stateline Resource Area does systematically monitor OHV competitions

for which a BLM permit must be obtained. In addition to issuing permits for

such events, this monitoring includes documenting conditions before and

after the event, particularly those that have an effect on the desert tortoise.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

Such OHV events are generally limited to sand washes, powerline roads,

trails for four-wheel drive vehicles, and other courses used in past events

that have received biological and archeological clearances.

Stateline shares two law enforcement rangers with another resource area;

each ranger has about 3.5 million acres of BLM lands to patrol. While on

patrol, the rangers say, they perform multiple duties, including monitoring

OHV use; checking for mining infractions, tortoise habitat violations, cactus

thefts, drug problems, and hazardous materials dumping; and responding

to complaints. Fewer than 10 OHV-related citations were written during

1993, according to the rangers, and these were for cross-country OHV use in

areas where OHVs are restricted to designated and posted routes. The

rangers stated that relatively few citations were issued because Stateline

had only recently posted some of the designated routes.

Corrective Actions No studies, reports, or other official records were available at Stateline to

identify the corrective actions that either have been taken or need to be

taken to address the adverse effects of OHV use. Stateline OHV program

staff, however, did identify for us the Ivanpah Valley as an area where

management actions have been taken to address the effects of competitive

OHV racing and the Nellis Dunes as an area where OHV use is a management

problem and corrective actions are needed. We visited the two locations

during our review.

Ivanpah Valley, located about 20 miles southwest of Las Vegas,

encompasses approximately 315,000 acres, of which 224,000 are available

for OHV use. Because of its proximity to Las Vegas and accessibility from

an adjacent four-lane highway, Ivanpah Valley is used extensively for OHV

competitions of all types, as well as for casual OHV use. Management

actions taken to minimize the adverse effects of OHV competitions include

limiting OHV events to 10 annually and allowing no more than 250

participants per event; confining the events to existing routes; monitoring

both before and after the events to identify any adverse effects on the

desert tortoise; monitoring by OHV and law enforcement staff on the day of

the event; requiring sponsors of the event to remove food and garbage; and

confining spectators and work crews to designated, previously disturbed

areas. Figure V.2 shows desert buggy racing and signs that were posted by

Stateline staff to protect a desert tortoise burrow. The adverse effects of

OHV competitions at this location are now under control, according to OHV

program staff, and any OHV impact off of existing roads and trails in the

vicinity is the result of casual use.

Page 49 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

Figure V.2: Desert Buggy Race and

Marked Tortoise Burrows, Ivanpah

Valley

According to OHV program staff, the Nellis Dunes, a 9,180-acre designated

OHV play area located about 15 miles northeast of Las Vegas, has Stateline’s

highest OHV use. No management attention is directed to the Nellis area,

Page 50 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

however, because Stateline’s limited OHV program funds and staff are being

used to manage OHV competitions that are generally conducted elsewhere

in the resource area. No signs, maps, sanitation facilities, trash cans, or

other improvements exist at the Nellis Dunes. Increasingly, the area is

being used for garbage dumping, auto stripping, indiscriminate camping,

drinking and partying, and shooting. Stateline staff also cited

cross-country OHV driving at unsafe speeds and the dumping and burning

of stolen autos as problems at Nellis. According to the staff, they may visit

Nellis about once a month, generally in connection with a nearby OHV

competition. In addition, a local user group occasionally assists the

resource area in providing visitor services and monitoring OHV use in the

Nellis Dunes area.

Figure V.3: Heavily Used OHV Play

Area, Nellis Dunes

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

At the Stateline Resource Area, we discussed BLM’s OHV program with a

representative of the Southern Nevada Off-Road Enthusiasts, who is also

an active desert buggy racer on Stateline lands. He characterized

Stateline’s OHV program as underfunded and understaffed. His primary

concern with Stateline’s OHV management, as a racer, is the restriction of

OHV races to previously used routes. He maintained that this practice

Page 51 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix V 

Stateline Resource Area, Nevada

concentrates the effects of OHV use on the same roads and trails, giving the

resources no time to recover. Despite this concern, the representative

would like to see more maps, signs, and route markers within the resource

area to slow the increase in the creation of unauthorized trails through

uncontrolled, casual OHV use.

We also discussed OHV use with a representative of the Red Rock Audubon

Society. He characterized Stateline’s management of OHV competitions as

good, but of casual OHV use as not so good. He expressed concern that

casual OHV use receives little management attention and that the number

of new unauthorized trails is increasing, especially in the Ivanpah Valley.

This representative would like to see more maps, trail signs, efforts to

teach responsible OHV use, and enforcement of OHV rules.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

Background The Mesa Ranger District is part of the Tonto National Forest, within the

Forest Service’s Southwestern Region. It is located in the south-central

part of Arizona, less than half an hour’s drive east of Phoenix. It provides

OHV recreational opportunities to the 2.2 million residents of the greater

Phoenix metropolitan area. The ranger district’s 440,327 acres range from

low hills to mountains, with numerous streams, washes, mesas, and

plateaus throughout. The vegetation is highly diverse because of wide

variations in the soil, elevation, and climate. (Fig. VI.1 shows, among other

things, the location of the Mesa Ranger District and of the Bulldog Canyon

and Lower Sycamore Creek OHV areas—two sites we reviewed during our

visit).

Fig. VI.1: Location of the Mesa Ranger

District

Mesa Ranger District

Arizona

Phoenix

Tucson

Bulldog Canyon Sycamore Creek

Funding and Staffing During fiscal year 1993, the Mesa Ranger District’s OHV program manager

estimated that about $198,000 was available for OHV activities. About

Page 53 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

$25,000, or 13 percent of this amount, represented federal funds, and

$173,000, or 87 percent, represented state funds. Of the federal funds,

about $24,000, or 96 percent, was spent on salaries; the remaining $1,000

was spent on purchasing signs. All of the state funding was earmarked for

restoring OHV trails.

The OHV program manager told us that there are no full-time OHV staff at

Mesa. He said that he is responsible for the ranger district’s OHV activities

and recreational, range, wildlife, and cultural resource programs. Thus, he

is able to spend only about 10 percent of his time on the OHV program. In

addition, a law enforcement ranger spends about 10 percent of his time on

OHV enforcement activities within the Mesa Ranger District.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

According to the program manager, OHV use designations within the Mesa

Ranger District have generally been made through the ranger district’s

planning process, although historical uses of the land have influenced

some of the designations. As table VI.1 shows, there were no OHV open-use

areas at Mesa at the time of our review. Instead, OHV use was restricted to

designated roads and trails on about 247,827 acres; the remaining 192,500

acres were closed to OHV use. The closed areas included wilderness areas,

areas reserved for research, and a desert botanical garden.

Table VI.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Mesa Ranger District Total acres in ranger district 440,327

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

0

56 percent (247,827 acres)

44 percent (192,500 acres)

Types of OHVs used ATVs, 4-wheel drive vehicles,

and motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) None

Trend in use Up slightly

Posting of routes 75 percent completea

Mapping of routes Two OHV areas

aAlthough 75 percent of the OHV roads and trails have been marked with a numbered sign,

nothing tells the OHV user that this posted, numbered sign designates an OHV route. According

to the OHV program manager, this information will be conveyed to the public when mapping is

done.

As table VI.1 shows, OHV use in the Mesa Ranger District is generally

limited to designated roads and trails. In practice, however, it is limited to

existing roads and trails because restricted-use information has not been

Page 54 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

communicated to the OHV users. The Mesa Ranger District does not have

an inventory of its existing roads and trails. Signs and maps identifying the

location of roads and trails that are available for OHV use are complete for

two areas, the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area and the Lower Salt River

Recreation Area. For the remainder of the lands in the Mesa Ranger

District where restricted OHV use is allowed, mapping has not been done

because staff and funds have been limited.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Mesa Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV use to

identify and document its adverse effects. Its staff do, however, make

casual, undocumented observations when they are in the field working on

range, wildlife, and other programs. According to Mesa’s OHV program

manager, the ranger district’s limited resources and other higher-priority

work have precluded formal studies or evaluations of the adverse effects

of OHV use. The ranger district has used the staff’s casual observations of

OHV degradation to prioritize some of the corrective actions that are

needed if and when funds become available.

Restrictions on OHV use are enforced in the Bull Dog Canyon OHV Area and

the Lower Salt River Recreation Area where OHV management has been

implemented and where Mesa’s law enforcement staff estimated that he

issues 10 or fewer citations per year. Outside these two areas, the ranger

told us, citations are generally issued for damage to resources, not for

riding off the trail, because no signs or maps tell OHV users where they can

or cannot go. According to the law enforcement staff, it is difficult to

prove that resources have been damaged by an OHV user’s straying off an

existing road unless the damage is witnessed.

Corrective Actions An increase in the number of unauthorized trails—disturbing soil in

previously undisturbed areas—is Mesa’s most significant OHV problem.

According to Mesa’s OHV program manager, actions have been taken to

correct this problem at the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area. At the Lower

Sycamore Creek OHV Area, however, inappropriate OHV use is causing

adverse effects, and corrective action is needed.

According to the program manager, the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area

encompasses about 20,500 acres and contains about 8 miles of OHV roads

and trails traveled primarily by four-wheel drive vehicles and ATVs. Past

Page 55 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

OHV damage has been rectified by fencing the entire area11 and closing it to

motorized vehicles except on designated routes. Before OHV use was

restricted in the area, it degraded soils and vegetation, detrimentally

affecting wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and water quality. In addition,

uncontrolled access to the area had led to indiscriminate shooting, trash

dumping, and partying. Corrective actions included not only fencing

strategic parts of the area but also installing gates and combination locks

at the two access points (see fig. VI.2). To gain access to the area, OHV

users now have to obtain a use permit and the lock combination (which is

changed periodically) from staff at the Mesa Ranger District.

Figure VI.2: Entrance to the Bulldog

Canyon OHV Area

Corrective actions in the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area have also included

blocking some roads and trails with boulders and signs and obliterating

some trails and then replanting vegetation. Because of this work, off-road

traffic and partying have decreased; however, the program manager said

that routine law enforcement staff patrols, trash removal, and sign and

fence maintenance are necessary for continued success.

11As a corrective action, fencing was installed for about 5 miles along the western and northern

boundaries of the Bulldog Canyon OHV Area. This work was done primarily by the Arizona Boys

Ranch. The southern boundary had already been fenced, and the steep, rugged mountains along the

eastern boundary are inaccessible to OHVs.

Page 56 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

The Lower Sycamore Creek OHV area, part of the 27,000-acre Sycamore

Creek Management Area, consists of a sandy streambed with low hills to

the east and a wide, open flood plain to the west. Within this area,

Sycamore Creek often travels underground. The OHV program manager

said that he does not know how many acres are in the Lower Sycamore

Creek OHV Area because exact boundaries have not been defined. Although

OHV use in the area is restricted, no maps have been prepared, and no

roads or trails have been posted for OHV use except a 1-mile road leading

into the area. Because of limited staffing and funding, the area was not

being managed as a restricted area, and the limits on OHV use were not

being enforced at the time of our visit.

OHV use has degraded the Lower Sycamore Creek area. Vehicles driving

back and forth across the streambed and up and down the stream banks

have eroded the soil and trampled the riparian vegetation. (See fig. VI.3.)

Figure VI.3: Aesthetic Damage From

Unmanaged OHV Use in the Lower

Sycamore Creek Area

No effort has been made to minimize the impact of OHV use on the Lower

Sycamore Creek area. Both OHV use and its adverse effects increased in

Page 57 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VI 

Mesa Ranger District, Arizona

this area about the time that OHV use was curtailed in the Bulldog Canyon

area and many users shifted to the Lower Sycamore Creek area, according

to Mesa’s OHV program manager. The manager also said that the ranger

district’s available OHV resources have thus far been used to improve areas

that have greater conflicts among OHV users or more intensive OHV use than

Lower Sycamore Creek. He said, however, that the Lower Sycamore Creek

area is next in line for corrective action once resources become available.

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

We discussed the Mesa Ranger District’s management of OHV use with a

member of the Arizona Governor’s OHV Advisory Group; he is also active in

the Arizona State Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs and comes from four

generations of OHV users. He characterized Mesa’s OHV program as lacking

maps, signs, law enforcement staff, funds for road and trail repairs, and

funds in general. He pointed out that the ranger district has almost nothing

that an OHV user can take or view on an outing, such as a map, instructions,

or signs, that would help the user stay on designated roads and trails and

adhere to whatever rules might apply.

We also discussed the Mesa Ranger District’s management of OHV use with

a member of three environmental organizations—the National Audubon

Society’s Arizona Conservation Committee, a Maricopa County hikers’

group, and the Sierra Club. He is involved in and informed about

environmental issues and concerns in and around the ranger district. He is

primarily concerned about the adverse effects of OHV use on riparian areas,

such as in the Lower Sycamore Creek area. He expressed concern about

conflicts between OHV users and other recreationists, noting that birds and

wildlife are impossible to observe when OHVs are in an area because the

vehicles make so much noise. The lack of OHV maps and signs and the lack

of law enforcement presence within the Mesa Ranger District also concern

him.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

Background The Mt. Pinos Ranger District is part of the Los Padres National Forest,

within the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region. It encompasses

about 441,000 acres located about 60 miles north of the Los Angeles,

California, metropolitan area, where 15 million people reside. The ranger

district, which provides a variety of OHV opportunities, has been used by

OHV enthusiasts since the late 1950s. OHV use is particularly heavy in two

areas—(1) Ballinger Canyon on the western side of the ranger district and

(2) a series of trails connecting the ranger district with a state recreational

area on the eastern side. (Fig. VII.1 shows, among other things, the

location of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District and of Ballinger Canyon and

Lockwood Creek—two sites we reviewed during our visit.)

Figure VII.1: Location of the Mt. Pinos

Ranger District

Ballinger Canyon

Los Angeles

Lockwood Creek

San Diego

Mt. Pinos


Ranger District

San Francisco

California

Funding and Staffing During fiscal year 1993, an estimated $239,000 was available for OHV

activities in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District. About $98,000, or 41 percent of

this amount, was provided by the Forest Service and about $141,000, or

Page 59 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

59 percent, was provided by the state. Of the federal funds, approximately

$96,000 was spent on maintenance and salaries; the remaining $2,000 was

available for the planning and analysis required for rerouting OHV

trails—the major problem at Mt. Pinos. The state funds were generally

spent to maintain and restore trails and pay the salaries of OHV program

personnel, including law enforcement officers.

The Mt. Pinos OHV staff includes four full-time OHV patrol officers and

seven staff who spend varying proportions of their time on OHV

activities—five recreation staff (25 percent), one recreation officer

(30 percent), and one administrative officer (10 percent).

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

The Mt. Pinos Ranger District’s OHV use designations, originally based on

historic use, were revised after an environmental analysis was completed

during the development of the 1976 Los Padres National Forest OHV

Management Plan. As table VII.1 shows, no OHV open-use areas existed in

the Mt. Pinos Ranger District at the time of our review except for a

300-acre parcel of land adjacent to and managed by a state recreation area

on the eastern side of the ranger district. OHV use within the ranger district

was restricted to designated roads and trails on about 260,000 acres. The

remaining 181,000 acres, which include wilderness, natural, and other

special interest areas, were closed to OHV use.

Table VII.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Mt. Pinos Ranger District Total acres in ranger district 441,000

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

0

59 percent (260,000)

41 percent (181,000)

Types of OHVs used Motorcycles/4-wheel drive vehicles

Special OHV events (annually) 2

Trend in use Up slightly

Posting of routes 100 percent complete

Mapping of routes 100 percent complete

A detailed map of all the roads and trails available for OHV use in the ranger

district has been published, and the posting of signs on roads and trails

has been completed. The Mt. Pinos OHV program manager estimated that,

within the ranger district, OHV users can explore more than 350 miles of

roads and trails.

Page 60 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

The Mt. Pinos Ranger District issues permits for two speed-controlled

timed races that are held each year in the Ballinger Canyon area. The race

route covers about 75 miles, and each event has about 250 participants.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Mt. Pinos Ranger District has no systematic monitoring program to

identify and document the adverse effects of OHV use. Although a general

OHV monitoring plan exists as an attachment to the 1976 OHV management

plan, it does not include needed standards for measuring changes to

resources caused by OHV use. At the time of our review, a task force was

working to establish these standards. Monitoring is currently limited to

day-to-day, casual observations made when ranger district staff are in the

field performing other routine duties. Monitoring for specific purposes,

such as the two races or environmental assessments, has been conducted

on various OHV routes to identify damage to resources, trails needing

rerouting, or actions required to bring trails up to certain standards.

For the two races each year, the Mt. Pinos OHV program manager told us

that staff monitor conditions before and after the event, conduct technical

inspections, and check for vehicle licenses and safety equipment. As a part

of these activities, they inspect the race route for adequate trail markings,

such as flags and signs, before the race, and for damage and trash after the

race.

The Mt. Pinos law enforcement staff do not consider illegal OHV activities

to be a significant problem within their ranger district. The staff, however,

issued about 115 citations during fiscal year 1993. Typically, citations were

issued for license or equipment violations, and warnings were given to OHV

users found riding off of designated routes. The Mt. Pinos law enforcement

staff have no cooperative agreements with local law enforcement

agencies.

Corrective Actions Although the Mt. Pinos Ranger District maintains no official listing of areas

where corrective actions have been or need to be taken to address the

adverse effects of OHV use, the Mt. Pinos OHV program manager identified

(1) Ballinger Canyon as an area where corrective actions have been taken

to address such adverse effects and (2) Lockwood Creek as an area where

OHV use is a management problem and corrective actions have not been

taken.

Page 61 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

Ballinger Canyon encompasses about 7,000 acres and contains about 50

miles of trails used annually by an estimated 5,000 OHV enthusiasts,

according to the Mt. Pinos District Ranger. Unauthorized OHV use caused

erosion and visual scarring in the canyon, decreasing water quality and

disturbing wildlife. Corrective actions that have been taken by the Mt.

Pinos Ranger District include repairing trails, rerouting a trail, fencing the

access to routes where trespassing occurred, frequently patrolling the area

by rangers, and, as shown in figure VII.2, posting signs and trail markers.

Figure VII.2: Information Signs in

Ballinger Canyon

OHV use in the Lockwood Creek area is a problem, according to Mt. Pinos

OHV staff, yet because of limited resources, corrective actions remain to be

taken. The problem centers on an OHV route that follows a narrow, rocky

creek bed, which is bound on both sides, at least for part of the route, by

canyon walls (see fig. VII.3). The OHV route crosses the creek in 23 places,

and OHVs using it have damaged the streamside environment and disturbed

wildlife. According to OHV staff, this bank-to-bank riding increases

sedimentation, destroys vegetation, and threatens the creek’s waters and

vegetation with pollution from potential oil and gas leaks. The ranger

Page 62 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

district’s wildlife biologist told us that habitat for sensitive species, such as

the California Red Legged Frog and the Western Pond Turtle, exists along

the OHV route that runs through Lockwood Creek.

At the time of our review, an environmental analysis was being done that

included Lockwood Creek. According to the OHV program manager, the

plan—when completed—will reroute OHV use away from the creek.

Figure VII.3: Lockwood Creek OHV

Route

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

During our visit to the Mt. Pinos Ranger District, we interviewed a lifelong

OHV enthusiast who is familiar with the ranger district’s OHV roads and

trails and holds membership in several OHV groups. He and his family use

both four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles for their OHV activities.

According to the enthusiast, many OHV users in the Mt. Pinos Ranger

District are primarily concerned about land management decisions made

by the Forest Service that further restrict OHV use in particular areas. He

stated, for example, that an OHV trail was recently closed after the area

through which it passed was designated as a wilderness. He also said that

temporary route closures would not be necessary if the Forest Service did

Page 63 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VII 

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, California

not drag its feet in identifying and correcting problems before the need for

closure arose.

We also interviewed a member of the Sierra Club who campaigned for the

legislation that established three wilderness areas in the Los Padres

National Forest in California and who is very familiar with the Mt. Pinos

Ranger District. In her opinion, OHV use in the ranger district, particularly

motorcycle use, causes unwanted noise; resource damage in the form of

erosion, devegetation, habitat disruption and destruction, and stream

siltation; and aesthetic degradation.

Page 64 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

Background The Salt Lake Ranger District is part of the Wasatch-Cache National

Forest, within the Forest Service’s Intermountain Region. It is located in

northern Utah and includes the Stansbury Mountain Range to the west and

the Wasatch Mountain Range to the east of Salt Lake City, a metropolitan

area with a population of about 1.1 million. OHV activities within the

253,000-acre ranger district are concentrated along the western slope of

the Wasatch Mountain Range in an area known as the Wasatch Front.4

(Fig. VIII.1 shows, among other things, the location of the Salt Lake Ranger

District and of Ward Canyon and the Davis County Front—two sites we

reviewed during our visit.)

Figure VIII.1: Location of the Salt Lake

Ranger District

Salt Lake Ranger District

Utah

Provo

Salt Lake City

Ogden

Ward Canyon Davis County Front

Funding and Staffing During fiscal year 1993, an estimated $122,000 was available for OHV

activities in the Salt Lake Ranger District. Of this amount, about $110,000,

4

The Wasatch Front is located east of Salt Lake City and extends through three Utah ranger districts,

including Salt Lake, Ogden, and Logan.

Page 65 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

or 90 percent, was provided by the Forest Service, and about $12,000, or

10 percent, was provided by the state. According to Salt Lake’s OHV

program manager, about $41,000 of the Forest Service funds was spent on

recurring items, such as maintenance and salaries, while the remainder

was spent on an OHV restoration project in Ward Canyon. All of the state

funds were spent on OHV restoration projects.

There are no full-time OHV staff in the Salt Lake Ranger District. The OHV

program manager said that he and a recreation staff member, however,

each spend about 15 percent of their time on OHV activities. In addition,

two law enforcement staff spend part of their time on OHV activities.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

The Salt Lake Ranger District’s OHV use designations were initially based

on historic OHV use, according to the OHV program manager. These

designations were revised, however, in 1985 after the ranger district’s

roads and trails were assessed in the course of developing the

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Subsequently, a number of routes were closed. As table VIII.1 shows,

238,000 acres, or 94 percent of the ranger district’s land, is closed to OHV

use. Much of this closed land is being protected as wilderness areas or

watersheds. OHV use on the remaining 15,000 acres, or 6 percent of the

ranger district’s land, is restricted to designated roads and trails.

According to Salt Lake’s OHV program manager, the ranger district has no

open areas for cross-country OHV travel and allows no special OHV events.

All roads and trails within the ranger district are considered closed unless

posted as open.

Table VIII.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Salt Lake Ranger District Total acres in ranger district 253,000

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV Use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

0

6 percent (15,000 acres)

94 percent (238,000 acres)

Types of OHVs used Motorcycles/4-wheel drive vehicles

Special OHV events (annually) None

Trend in use Up

Posting of routes 80 percent complete

Mapping of routes 100 percent complete

Although the ranger district has no accurate inventory of its roads and

trails, the OHV program manager estimated that about 11 percent are

Page 66 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

available for OHV use. The manager also told us that posting of the ranger

district’s OHV travel routes was about 80 percent complete at the time of

our review and that an OHV travel map, called for in the 1985

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, was

completed and issued in 1994.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Salt Lake Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV use to

identify and document its adverse effects. According to the OHV program

manager, the ranger district does not have the staff and funding needed to

do systematic monitoring. Casual, undocumented observations, however,

are made on an ad hoc basis when staff are in the field. The frequency of

field visits to a particular location varies greatly, from weekly visits when a

project or activity is under way to monthly visits after it has been

completed.

Two Salt Lake Ranger District staff are engaged in OHV law enforcement

activities, including issuing citations. Together, they issued about 100 OHV

citations in fiscal year 1993. Most of the citations were written for vehicles

trespassing off of designated routes. In addition to these enforcement

activities, the ranger district maintains agreements with local law

enforcement agencies for cooperative law enforcement on Forest Service

lands.

Corrective Actions Despite the lack of systematic, documented OHV monitoring in the Salt

Lake Ranger District, the OHV program manager identified several adverse

effects of OHV use on resources. Problems considered significant were

(1) trespassing by OHV users who travel off of designated roads or trails

and (2) vandalism of signs, gates, and other facilities by OHV users. A

variety of actions have been taken within the Salt Lake Ranger District to

correct the damage that has been done, including blocking access to trails

with boulders and signs and obliterating, restoring, or closing trails. The

Salt Lake OHV program manager identified Ward Canyon for us as an area

where corrective actions have been taken to address the adverse effects of

OHV use. This particular area encompasses about 5,000 acres and contains

about 18 miles of OHV roads and trails used annually by an estimated 15,000

to 20,000 OHV enthusiasts, according to the manager. Trespassing by

numerous OHVs had displaced and subsequently eroded soil, causing visual

scarring and rutting. A major effort was undertaken in 1993 to restore the

area by posting signs, closing routes with boulders, and replanting

vegetation (see fig. VIII.2). At the time of our review, about $60,000 had

Page 67 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

been spent to mitigate the adverse effects of OHV use in this area. The work

was about 75 percent complete.

Figure VIII.2: Blocked Access to

Cross-Country Trespass Route in

Ward Canyon

The Davis County Front, covering about 3,200 acres in the Salt Lake

Ranger District, is considered to be a problem, yet because of limited

resources within the ranger district, according to the OHV program

manager, corrective actions remain to be taken. Although no routes have

been designated on the Front, trespassing is occurring because OHV users

are able to gain access to the area through an old fire-line road that

traverses almost the entire length of the Front. Although the fire-line road

itself is not open to OHV use, it does, in fact, provide easy access to the

entire Davis County Front area. As figure VIII.3 shows, numerous trails

and tracks, created by trespassing vehicles, have caused devegetation,

erosion, and aesthetic damage. In addition, local teenagers use the area for

partying.

Page 68 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

Figure VIII.3: OHV Trespass Trails

Along the Davis County Front

According to the Salt Lake Ranger District’s OHV program manager, the

problems occurring along the Davis County Front are intensifying because

more OHV users are coming to the ranger district from nearby, rapidly

growing urban communities. According to the program manager, some

monitoring in this area was begun in the summer of 1994 and some

corrective actions have also recently begun. The manager told us that

corrective actions in this area had not been taken earlier because the

ranger district’s limited staff and funds were initially directed toward the

Ward Canyon area—a more heavily used OHV area.

Comments From

User/Environmental

Groups

At the Salt Lake Ranger District, we interviewed an OHV enthusiast who is a

member of both the Utah All-Terrain Vehicle Association and the Utah

State OHV Advisory Council and is very familiar with OHV activities in the

ranger district. When we discussed OHV use in this ranger district with him,

he expressed concern that, until recently, there was no mapping of, and

little posting of signs on, OHV trails. He told us that it was very difficult for

OHV users to know which roads and trails were available to them and, as a

result, they did not always travel on designated OHV routes. He noted,

Page 69 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix VIII 

Salt Lake Ranger District, Utah

however, that the ranger district’s efforts to map routes and post signs, as

well as rehabilitate trails, had improved recently.

We also interviewed a member of a large environmental organization and

who is familiar with OHV use in the Salt Lake Ranger District. He expressed

concern that the ranger district is planning to restore an OHV trail that runs

parallel to the Deseret Peak Wilderness Area, which is within the ranger

district. Although several places along the trail are currently in need of

repair, the environmentalist objects to the restoration because he believes

that it will attract OHV enthusiasts who may stray off the trail into the

adjacent wilderness area.

Page 70 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

Background The Upper Lake Ranger District is part of the Mendocino National Forest,

within the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region. It consists of about

250,000 acres and is located about a 2-hour drive north of the San

Francisco metropolitan area and its population of 6 million. The Upper

Lake OHV program manager estimated that about 80,000 OHV enthusiasts

use the ranger district’s roads and trails annually. OHV activities are among

the ranger district’s most popular recreational activities, which also

include camping, backpacking, and fishing. (Fig. IX.1 shows, among other

things, the location of the Upper Lake Ranger District and of Sled Ridge

Trail and Streeter Ridge Trail—two sites we reviewed during our visit.)

Figure IX.1: Location of the Upper Lake

Ranger District

Los Angeles

Upper Lake


Ranger District

Sacramento

California

San Francisco

Sled Ridge

Streeter Ridge

Funding and Staffing During fiscal year 1993, the Upper Lake Ranger District had an estimated

$152,000 available for its OHV program. According to Upper Lake’s OHV

program staff, an estimated $35,000, or 23 percent of the total, was

Page 71 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

provided by the Forest Service and about $117,000, or 77 percent, was

provided by the state. The OHV program staff told us that all of the Forest

Service funds were spent on salaries, while state funds were spent on

salaries and maintenance and construction. The OHV program staff consists

of (1) one full-time OHV specialist who spends her time in resource

protection, law enforcement, and other OHV program activities and

(2) three other staff who spend about 10 to 15 percent of their time on OHV

program activities—an OHV program manager, a recreation staff person,

and a law enforcement staff.

Designation of Land

for OHV Use

All lands in the Upper Lake Ranger District have been designated as either

closed to OHV use (41,327 acres) or restricted to designated roads and trails

(208,000 acres). See table IX.1. The ranger district’s OHV designations were

originally based on historic use. They were recently reviewed during the

development of the Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan, which was in draft form at the time of our review. The

draft plan confirmed the need to prohibit cross-country OHV use within the

ranger district and called for an ongoing analysis of the existing OHV trail

system and the closing of OHV trails that adversely affect the sensitive

Northern Spotted Owl or other wildlife.

Table IX.1: OHV Use Statistics for the

Upper Lake Ranger District Total acres in ranger district 249,327

Acres designated as—

Open to OHV use

Restricted to certain areas

Closed to OHV use

0

83 percent (208,000 acres)

17 percent (41,327 acres)

Types of OHVs used Motorcycles

Special OHV events (annually) 4

Trend in use Static

Posting of routes 100 percent complete

Mapping of routes 100 percent complete

According to OHV program staff, an official inventory of OHV roads and

trails had not been prepared because of the ranger district’s limited

resources and other work priorities. The ranger district had, however,

developed a map of its roads and trails that is available for OHV use, and we

were told that signs had been posted for all of the OHV roads and trails

listed on the map. We were further told that OHV users can explore about

420 miles of roads and trails in the ranger district. Four special events for

Page 72 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

motorcycles are allowed each year in this ranger district, for which a

Forest Service permit is required.

OHV Monitoring and

Enforcement

The Upper Lake Ranger District does not systematically monitor OHV use

to identify and document its adverse effects except for four special

motorcycle events that take place each year. These events use about 120

miles of the roads and trails within the ranger district. The monitoring of

these special events is documented and includes (1) riding the route

beforehand to determine its condition and ensure that it is correctly

marked and (2) riding the route afterwards to check for damage to

resources. In addition, two special studies have been conducted to assess

the impact of OHV use on water quality and noise level.

Monitoring to identify and document the adverse effects of general OHV use

is not done, primarily because the ranger district has limited staffing and

funding and other higher-priority work. However, according to the Upper

Lake OHV specialist, the effects of OHV use are observed casually during a

normal work day. She and other ranger district staff then attempt to

correct problems on the spot or have them corrected within a few days.

The OHV specialist said, for example, that she rides all OHV roads and trails

at least once every 6 weeks, heavy-use trails about two to three times each

week, and private property trails once a week, to observe OHV use and

identify its impact on resources. Comments from the public also help the

ranger district identify problems.

Enforcement is a part of the OHV specialist’s responsibilities. She said that

she issues between 10 and 25 citations each year for such things as vehicle

license or equipment violations. In addition, she can request assistance

from the ranger district’s law enforcement staff or the county sheriff’s

department, with which the ranger district has a cooperative agreement.

The specialist said that, in her opinion, enforcement is not a big problem in

the Upper Lake Ranger District. She said that some users may be a bit

careless, while others may be confused about where they can ride.

Corrective Actions Although the Upper Lake Ranger District maintains no official listing of

the areas where corrective actions have been or need to be taken to

address the adverse effects of OHV use, the OHV program specialist

identified (1) Sled Ridge Trail as an area where corrective actions have

been taken to address such effects and (2) Streeter Ridge Trail as an area

Page 73 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

where, although corrective actions have been taken, the potential for

problems from OHV use still exists.

Sled Ridge Trail provides the only access for OHVs from one of the busiest

campgrounds in the Upper Lake Ranger District, up and over Elk

Mountain, to the heart of the ranger district’s designated OHV trail system.

Sled Ridge Trail had become known as an OHV users’ playground, where a

growing number of unauthorized trails and other effects of OHV use, such

as erosion and stripped vegetation, were occurring, particularly around the

campground and on Elk Mountain (a sensitive watershed area). As a result

of the erosion and subsequent rutting from constant OHV use, Sled Ridge

Trail had become impossible to negotiate for all but the most experienced

riders; thus, less experienced riders were being restricted to the area

immediately adjacent to the campground.

Since 1987, the Upper Lake Ranger District has spent over $156,000 to

correct the adverse effects of OHV use on Sled Ridge Trail and in the

campground area, and OHV users can now travel from the campground,

over Elk Mountain, to other OHV trails in the ranger district. Corrective

activities included posting routes, barricading unauthorized routes,

looping the remaining trails to deter trespassing when riders reach a dead

end, and constructing barricades and a fence in strategic places to ensure

that riders stay on the trail. About 100 erosion control devices, including

water bars, catch ponds to retain water and trap moving soils, rolling dips,

drains, and banked elevated turns were installed throughout the trail. In

addition, on a steep part of the trail where severe erosion had occurred,

the trail’s surface was hardened, through a process called armoring, by

installing interlocking concrete bricks (see fig. IX.2).

Page 74 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

Figure IX.2: Armoring on Sled Ridge

Trail

Streeter Ridge Trail, located within critical habitat for the sensitive

Northern Spotted Owl, crosses Bucknell Creek, a tributary to the Eel River

and a spawning area for anadromous salmon. On the section of trail that

crosses the creek, some corrective actions have been taken, but the

potential for problems still exists. Because this section of the trail is

extremely steep, attempts by many OHV users to negotiate the 25 to

40 percent grade have caused deep ruts and other damage to the trail and

negatively affected both the creek and the recreational experience at this

location.

The Upper Lake Ranger District monitored the creek’s water quality

during the winters of 1991 and 1992 and found sedimentation levels to be

within state limits. Nevertheless, the ranger district staff decided to reduce

sedimentation by adding water bars to slow and divert the flow of water

and by rerouting a steep section of the trail. These actions have reduced

both sedimentation and trail proliferation and damage. Ultimately,

however, OHV program staff said that further relocation of the trail is the

best solution to the problem. The staff said that about $15,000 has been

Page 75 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix IX 

Upper Lake Ranger District, California

made available for this purpose and that work is scheduled to begin in

August 1995.

User and

Environmental

Comments

At the Upper Lake Ranger District, we interviewed an OHV enthusiast who

is active in several local user groups and participates in meetings

sponsored by the Forest Service for users twice each year. He told us that

he has ridden all of the trails in the Upper Lake Ranger District and

considers himself knowledgeable about OHV use in this area. A motorcycle

club to which he belongs sponsors one special event each year, using trails

in the Pine Mountain area of the ranger district. This event regularly draws

300 to 400 participants. Together with the Upper Lake OHV specialist, he

and other club members monitor the race route before and after the event

and agree on any damage caused by the event that the club needs to

correct. The OHV enthusiast believes that even though OHV users cannot do

everything they want to do in the Upper Lake Ranger District and the

ranger district has limited funds to work with, the ranger district is well

posted, has good maps, and is well managed.

We also interviewed a member of a wildlife coalition who grew up in the

area and hikes the trails of Upper Lake. Although this environmentalist has

family members who are OHV enthusiasts, he said that he would like to see

all OHV use prohibited in national forests. He realizes, however, that this is

not a realistic approach. In his opinion, an increase in the number of

unauthorized trails and the resulting resource degradation are the most

significant problems in the Upper Lake Ranger District. He identified a

sensitive watershed area, which includes Streeter Ridge Trail, as an area

that he believes should be closed to OHV activity.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Appendix X 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Larry D. Hamner

Ralph W. Lamoreaux

San Francisco

Regional Office

David A. Arseneau

Sharon K. Caporale

Denis P. Dunphy

Anndrea H. Ewertsen

Richard J. Griffone

Judy K. Hoovler

Steven G. Reed

Office of General

Counsel

Stanley G. Feinstein

(140693) Page 77 GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/RCED-95-209 Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Federal Lands